Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page 

Author 
Thread Statistics  Reply to Topic  Show CCP posts  69 post(s) 
NeVeH
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0

Posted  2012.04.21 15:42:00 
[1081]  Quote
I'm Down wrote:Actually Raivi, when it comes to super capital experience, not only do I have have the same anti fleet experience as both of them, I've also got quit a bit more super on super and super on capital experience than either. I mean honestly, they've been involved in 12 major super fights between them, not counting the fountain black screen. I've got 45, all historically the largest in game to date, with the one exception of the WN massacre in Venal, which was also a blackscreen of death fight if I'm not mistaken.
lmao... get out of my corp. 
Bouh Revetoile
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
13

Posted  2012.04.21 19:57:00 
[1082]  Quote
Tracking formula discussion already happened 20 pages ago. Please, read. 
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
322

Posted  2012.04.21 20:43:00 
[1083]  Quote
I'm Down wrote: The other thing your PHD wizz didn't account for is that tracking grows with range and therefore is not a static variable. While signature is a static variable that never changes over the course of range. What this means is that the part of the formula that accounts for tracking varies and has more weight over range than the part that accounts for signature and remains static.
Tracking can in fact grow by as much 25000% in that multiplier from 1km range to 250 km range. Over the same course of range, signature will not change.
When you introduce webs in at close range, the same effect occurs as they essentially create an artificial range dilation on angular velocity.
And to throw a PHD in my face like it means something is total rubbish. It's like saying George Bush went to Yale and therefore he's not an idiot. Your PHD only know's as much information as you feed him you clueless git, which is why I say to either listen to someone who's actually studied the eve mechanics and has somewhat of a grasp, or GTFO of the way so someone better can handle it.
Next time you throw a PHD in my face, you better ******* have a grasp on the content knowledge first bro.
I'm Down wrote: Do you even know why the wormhole exploit worked for perfect hits before it was removed? The formula as currently coded has a variable in it that can sink to 0 creating an undefined slope on chance. This was recognized by the client and allowed infinite range, and perfect damage. The patch to get it out of game had to adjust the wormhole effect that created the undefined slope. This in fact had 0 to do with signature of ships. The way it was exploited was to **** with the tracking variables on ships. ... The only way for both probabilities to have equal effect is to separate the terms. The only way to separate the terms in mathematics is through addition or subtraction. You can ask any 6th grader that question as it's in their current curriculum.
Just, wow. Your previous posts about signature not being realistically handled at range were kinda nice, but you've went off the deep end in these posts and your replies to Kadesh. First, you totally misuse the term 'tracking' in the ChanceToHit formula: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage You use 'tracking' to describe the entire transversal/(rangetotarget*tracking) term instead of specifically limiting your rant to tracking speed. 'Tracking' doesn't grow with range. All other things being equal, when you increase range between you and the target, ONLY rangetotarget increases, which means that the exponent for ChanceToHit decreases, which means you have a greater chance to hit. Yes, if you just teleported a ship away from you its transversal could be the same (but _angular_ velocity would decrease).
Why is that error important? Because your sperging about the wormhole exploit can only be described as wishful and nonsensical. If 'tracking' sunk to near zero, ChanceToHit would be near zero as well. This is true even if this nearzero value for tracking was negative, because the term is squared! A very large exponent in the ChanceToHit formula gives virtually zero ChanceToHit, full stop. If the value for tracking was exactly zero you'd get a NaN, exception, or garbage but fortunately this is very rare in floating point math... and the exploit, of course, did NOT produce garbage. It gave seemingly infinite tracking. This is because the value for tracking was almost certainly represented serverside as an unsigned variable, and when > 100% TD was applied the value underflowed and became a VERY LARGE positive value. Ubertracking. It had nothing to do with something trying to 'sink to 0' or an 'undefined slope'. Seriously, 'undefined slope' to give infinite tracking? heh.
There's a wealth of literature on binary representation, unsigned vars, and over/underflows so here's a few links: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~smoler/x86text/lect.notes/represent.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_overflow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_number_format
p.s. I also have a Ph.D. and am pretty sure Greyscale's guy is better at math than you, wassssup p.p.s. once you get past 6th grade math (way to put 6th graders on the spot there bro) you discover there are ways to separate terms in mathematics other than addition and subtraction. Operators, anyone? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+x+times+derivative+of+x http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+%28x+squared%29
bored at a coffee shop on Saturday~~ 
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
59

Posted  2012.04.21 21:09:00 
[1084]  Quote
pmchem wrote:[quote=I'm Down] all that stuff

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
182

Posted  2012.04.21 21:31:00 
[1085]  Quote
pmchem wrote:This is because the value for tracking was almost certainly represented serverside as an unsigned variable, and when > 100% TD was applied the value underflowed and became a VERY LARGE positive value. It had nothing to do with any value of tracking imo, and your thoughts seem to be wrong  because aharm didn't get just infinite tracking, they also got infinite range (like medium acs hitting at 200 km). Most likely it was caused by some error raised in formula code + CtH code itself being wrapped into tryexcept block which caught all possible errors, provinding 'safe' fallback (if any occurs) of CtH = 1.
Without knowing exact CtH calculation code, it's really hard to say what kind of error it was and where it could occur. 
Tehg Rhind
Atlantic Innovations
5

Posted  2012.04.21 22:09:00 
[1086]  Quote
ok I don't get teh argument against Grayscale on the signature resolution vs turret tracking thing. The formula is pretty straightforward. If the formula is actually correct, he's right, since the tracking term is in radians and every term is independent. This isn't "PhD" level math. This is basic ******* algebra. Doubling the top of a fraction is the same as halving the bottom. 
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
323

Posted  2012.04.21 22:30:00 
[1087]  Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Plus it's unlikely to be caused by under/overflows, as afaik ccp uses floats for attribute values (python floats are c doubleprecision floats).
True, the result would depend on the way attributes are stored serverside. The behavior looks a hell of a lot like an underflow, although it could also be the result of a try & except with a poorly handled exception. As you say, it's impossible to tell for sure without the actual code. If anyone's gonna complain that python doesn't have unsigned variables which can overflow, I will simply point them at the ctypes module, which I know CCP uses in other parts of their codebase. 
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
59

Posted  2012.04.22 00:08:00 
[1088]  Quote
Tehg Rhind wrote:ok I don't get teh argument against Grayscale on the signature resolution vs turret tracking thing. The formula is pretty straightforward. If the formula is actually correct, he's right, since the tracking term is in radians and every term is independent. This isn't "PhD" level math. This is basic ******* algebra. Doubling the top of a fraction is the same as halving the bottom. Quote:tracking grows with range and therefore is not a static variable This is wrong and is the entire source of your problem. In the formula tracking is in radians, and is a static variable. Maybe you should...I dunno....spend 30 seconds actually looking at the formula before you take a dump on yourself in public next time.
Radians are used so that tracking is not static. If tracking were static such as I can track 500 m/s always, then your arguement would be correct.
But when you use radians, It means that a ships velocity has to increase for the tracking to have the same effect. For a ship that has 0.02 tracking, this means at 10km of range, he can track 200 m/s of speed. But at 20km range, he can track 400 m/s of speed. Therefore, it's not a static number.
It's been tested and proven time and again on both the live and test server.
As for the denominator being 0, there's a huge difference in a calculation between a denominator being close to 0, and a denominator being 0. When a denominator is 0, the computer can't physically compute the number as there is no limit on infinity.
And yes, it was 100% that made the difference:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/29/evewormholeexploitisfixed/ 
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
19

Posted  2012.04.22 02:59:00 
[1089]  Quote
Because of the Titan/super balance issues, as a capital pilot, the only way that I would fly a nonsuper capital ship in kspace null or low sec is either with the threat of titan/MOM hot drop at zero, or with alliance paying for my nonsuper capital AND a very good chance of winning. Otherwise, the only real capital ship choice is a super, hence the current capital fleet comps. Can CCP point to one change scheduled for the next update that would allow nonsuper choices to be viable as well? Or are you content with everyone being forced to fly a super or no cap at all, unless they feel like burning ISK? The presence of an anticap role, as the Titan has been dubbed, has turned into the massive "I win" button of destroying most interest in caps and even kspace null and low sec. Do a survey of the number of players who would say "I am not at all interested in caps." I personally know hundreds of people who have said that very statement. In Titan territory, expect to lose everything unless you are a super yourself. Is that how CCP wants Eve to develop or do we want real changes to the Titan? 
Tehg Rhind
Atlantic Innovations
5

Posted  2012.04.22 03:43:00 
[1090]  Quote
I'm Down wrote:Tehg Rhind wrote:ok I don't get teh argument against Grayscale on the signature resolution vs turret tracking thing. The formula is pretty straightforward. If the formula is actually correct, he's right, since the tracking term is in radians and every term is independent. This isn't "PhD" level math. This is basic ******* algebra. Doubling the top of a fraction is the same as halving the bottom. Quote:tracking grows with range and therefore is not a static variable This is wrong and is the entire source of your problem. In the formula tracking is in radians, and is a static variable. Maybe you should...I dunno....spend 30 seconds actually looking at the formula before you take a dump on yourself in public next time. Radians are used so that tracking is not static. If tracking were static such as I can track 500 m/s always, then your arguement would be correct. But when you use radians, It means that a ships velocity has to increase for the tracking to have the same effect. For a ship that has 0.02 tracking, this means at 10km of range, he can track 200 m/s of speed. But at 20km range, he can track 400 m/s of speed. Therefore, it's not a static number. It's been tested and proven time and again on both the live and test server. As for the denominator being 0, there's a huge difference in a calculation between a denominator being close to 0, and a denominator being 0. When a denominator is 0, the computer can't physically compute the number as there is no limit on infinity. And yes, it was 100% that made the difference: http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/29/evewormholeexploitisfixed/
Ok. Tracking, as represented in the equation, is in terms of radians. It is independant of range. Hence why range is a seperate variable.
All your evidence to the contrary is meaningless, as you are trying to refute deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning. The failure of inductive reasoning, and your argument, is that there are other possible explanations for the results. The discovery of quantum mechanics was not used to refute calculus, it wad used to refute classical dynamics.
If you cannot accept that there is a fundamental equation behind this, I don't know what to tell you. Honestly I don't know how someone as thick headed as yourself was able to lead the NC to victory. Oh. Wait. 

I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
59

Posted  2012.04.22 05:44:00 
[1091]  Quote
Tehg Rhind wrote:I'm Down wrote:Tehg Rhind wrote:ok I don't get teh argument against Grayscale on the signature resolution vs turret tracking thing. The formula is pretty straightforward. If the formula is actually correct, he's right, since the tracking term is in radians and every term is independent. This isn't "PhD" level math. This is basic ******* algebra. Doubling the top of a fraction is the same as halving the bottom. Quote:tracking grows with range and therefore is not a static variable This is wrong and is the entire source of your problem. In the formula tracking is in radians, and is a static variable. Maybe you should...I dunno....spend 30 seconds actually looking at the formula before you take a dump on yourself in public next time. Radians are used so that tracking is not static. If tracking were static such as I can track 500 m/s always, then your arguement would be correct. But when you use radians, It means that a ships velocity has to increase for the tracking to have the same effect. For a ship that has 0.02 tracking, this means at 10km of range, he can track 200 m/s of speed. But at 20km range, he can track 400 m/s of speed. Therefore, it's not a static number. It's been tested and proven time and again on both the live and test server. As for the denominator being 0, there's a huge difference in a calculation between a denominator being close to 0, and a denominator being 0. When a denominator is 0, the computer can't physically compute the number as there is no limit on infinity. And yes, it was 100% that made the difference: http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/29/evewormholeexploitisfixed/ Ok. Tracking, as represented in the equation, is in terms of radians. It is independant of range. Hence why range is a seperate variable. All your evidence to the contrary is meaningless, as you are trying to refute deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning. The failure of inductive reasoning, and your argument, is that there are other possible explanations for the results. The discovery of quantum mechanics was not used to refute calculus, it wad used to refute classical dynamics. If you cannot accept that there is a fundamental equation behind this, I don't know what to tell you. Honestly I don't know how someone as thick headed as yourself was able to lead the NC to victory. Oh. Wait.
Playing the game tells the story bro. Apparently you don't play the game.

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
182

Posted  2012.04.22 09:11:00 
[1092]  Quote
Quote: This prevented players from pushing the effectiveness of tracking disruptors over the magic 100% mark that caused the bug. Quote:over the magic 100% mark Dude, you're so fat. Stop poasting pls. Or show me how balmer TD can have exactly 50% tracking speed modifier :) 
Bouh Revetoile
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
13

Posted  2012.04.22 10:07:00 
[1093]  Quote
[quote=I'm Down Playing the game tells the story bro. Apparently you don't play the game [/quote Look ! This is the tracking formula Tracking part is : (transversalSpeed / (rangeToTarget * trackingSpeed)) * (turretSigRes / targetSigRad
Range to target mitigate tracking speed because you can see it in the formula next to eachother So, mathematically, doubling turretSigRes or halving trackingSpeed is exactly the same
If you want to say that caping damages is odd for turret, you're absolutely right, but you *really* should read about 30 pages ago, because this has already been said. We also already showed some modifications of the formula which would make the signature to be significant whatever the rangeToTarget, and we did it in an elegant way
If you think tracking speed should have been halved instead of turret sig res doubled, you should just go back to school learn some mathematics
FYI, transversal speed in m/s is equivalent to range (m) * angular velocity (rad/s) ; maybe that is the point you missed ?
Thread is gingo round in circles though... 
Vheroki
FinFleet Raiden.
1

Posted  2012.04.22 14:32:00 
[1094]  Quote
Can somebody from the mighty CCP team explain why a DD lvl 3 does more dmg then a DD lvl 5 ?
This test was done on 2 indentical titans identical fitts the only thing that differed was the lvl of the skill, the dmg was like this.
12:48:34 Combat Your Judgement hits X (Avatar), doing 821762.3 damage. with lvl 3 12:48:30 Combat Your Judgement hits Y (Avatar), doing 770241.7 damage. with lvl 5
If you do not believe me run the tests yourself.
And why a raven with 7k sig radius gets less dmg then a carrier with 2k sig radius ?
The test were done with in optimal range and 0 transversal , stationary.
Can you stop screwing this game up ? And do some solid and good stuff ? Cause when titan pilots will see this if they didn't allready is gonna be bad. 
ilammy
Red Alliance
0

Posted  2012.04.22 15:54:00 
[1095]  Quote
Can somebody who tested this check the fittings, the resists, the skills, confim the stationariness and that the shield/armor/structure were full and equal before the shots? I can troll with random numbers too.
I can't suggest anything about the raven GGt this definitely could be borked with new formula. But with the titans check that they had exact same resists and exact same amount of shield before they hit each other. The second one could hit another one for less damage because the first one had less shield and more raw damage went to armor. 
Vheroki
FinFleet Raiden.
3

Posted  2012.04.22 17:21:00 
[1096]  Quote
ilammy wrote:Can somebody who tested this check the fittings, the resists, the skills, confim the stationariness and that the shield/armor/structure were full and equal before the shots? I can troll with random numbers too. I can't suggest anything about the raven GGt this definitely could be borked with new formula. But with the titans check that they had exact same resists and exact same amount of shield before they hit each other. The second one could hit another one for less damage because the first one had less shield and more raw damage went to armor. However, concerning the numbers, you used shieldtanked avatars. Then still check the resists, the fleetbonuses, everything.
About the Raven the raven fit was 2 lse 2 invulns and 1 em hardner , stationary with in optimal , 0 transversal and 3 target painters on it from a rapier. No fleets, no boosts, no nothing, individual players. The titan used was an avatar tests were done with both hardness and without them active  anyways the sig radius was around 7k dmg with hardners around 14k dmg without 18k. Then we did the tests on an thanatos same condition except no target painters , and is had 2k sig radius the hits on 0 rezist were of 50k. How can CCP explain me their ******* formula is so good , is this the way it should be working ? SO if it is a sub give it a brake but if it is a supercap breake it in 2 ? This is stupid and this will backfire. 
ilammy
Red Alliance
0

Posted  2012.04.22 17:44:00 
[1097]  Quote
Vheroki wrote:the raven fit was 2 lse 2 invulns and 1 em hardner
dmg with hardners around 14k dmg without 18k
tests on an thanatos
the hits on 0 rezist were of 50k. Well... alphastrike of an avatar with 3 x heat sinks is about 37.9k of EM + 27.1k of thermal damage.
A naked thanatos has 0% EM resist and 20% thermal resists. This brings expected 37.9 + 27.1 * (1 GGt 0.2) = 59.58k damage maxinum.
A raven with 2 x Invulnerability field and 1 x EM ward has 72.4% EM resist and 58.6% thermal resist (and still 32.4% EM, 40.9% thermal with inactive hardeners due to compensations bonuses). That gives maximum damage of 37.9 * (1 GGt 0.724) + 27.1 * (1 GGt 0.586) = 21.68k. Titan just can't hit that raven with active resists for more even with omfgpainting.
Do Raiden. pilots suck at resists or are just so fat? 
Tehg Rhind
Atlantic Innovations
5

Posted  2012.04.22 21:13:00 
[1098]  Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Thread is gingo round in circles though...
Yes but the question is CAN WE TRACK IT. 
BrownBattleship
FinFleet Raiden.
0

Posted  2012.04.23 06:11:00 
[1099]  Quote
Tracking/Sig Radius/formulas...its all maths and missing the simple point, at the end of the day all i know is this will not end well. From what I've seen and heard, the changes are way too radical. A titan will be dead in the water against anything smaller than a planet. Titans can now only be used if supported by a large support fleet and some corps/alliances will struggle to come up with the numbers to do this. Effectively this will now almost completely discount titans being used at all. The conern with that is that the majority of titans are flown by older players who have been loyal to the game from the beginning and owning and flying a titan is their end game. These players and the knowledge that comes with them will fade into the background and find something else to do.
I completely get the changes and why they are needed but not to this extent. The carrier/falcon thing is very concerning and all I hope is that numbers are looked at before this is all put in place. All the training and isk used to get us to this level will amount to a complete waste of time as titans will now be restricted to expensive taxis staying safely in a pos.
Right off to the 'For Sale' Ads...Anyone want a Maxed Skill Titan Pilot (2 years training) and an Avatar? 
Max Teranous
Red Federation RvB  RED Federation
16

Posted  2012.04.23 08:28:00 
[1100]  Quote
I'm Down wrote:Tehg Rhind wrote:ok I don't get teh argument against Grayscale on the signature resolution vs turret tracking thing. The formula is pretty straightforward. If the formula is actually correct, he's right, since the tracking term is in radians and every term is independent. This isn't "PhD" level math. This is basic ******* algebra. Doubling the top of a fraction is the same as halving the bottom. Quote:tracking grows with range and therefore is not a static variable This is wrong and is the entire source of your problem. In the formula tracking is in radians, and is a static variable. Maybe you should...I dunno....spend 30 seconds actually looking at the formula before you take a dump on yourself in public next time. Radians are used so that tracking is not static. If tracking were static such as I can track 500 m/s always, then your arguement would be correct. But when you use radians, It means that a ships velocity has to increase for the tracking to have the same effect. For a ship that has 0.02 tracking, this means at 10km of range, he can track 200 m/s of speed. But at 20km range, he can track 400 m/s of speed. Therefore, it's not a static number. It's been tested and proven time and again on both the live and test server. As for the denominator being 0, there's a huge difference in a calculation between a denominator being close to 0, and a denominator being 0. When a denominator is 0, the computer can't physically compute the number as there is no limit on infinity. And yes, it was 100% that made the difference: http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/29/evewormholeexploitisfixed/
Yaay, your issue here is that what you consider "tracking" and what the formula (and most other posters) consider tracking are 2 different things.
The formula is here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage but the important bit for this point is this bit:
(TransversalSpeed x TurretSigResolution) divided by (RangeToTarget x TrackingSpeed x TargetSigRadius)
When this bit of the formula trends to zero, hit chance trends to 1, or always hitting.
You keep talking like TransversalSpeed/RangeToTarget is tracking, when it's not, it's the angular velocity part. "TrackingSpeed" is the value on the gun.
TurretSigResolution, TrackingSpeed and TargetSigRadius are all "static", as they are parameters of the gun or the target. They do change due to skills, bonuses, modules, etc, but they are all levers that game design can fiddle with to achieve what they want. This is what Grayscale (and his phd buddy) is saying, it doesn't matter if you double a value (TurretSigResolution) on the top of this bit of the formula or half a value on the bottom (TrackingSpeed), the overall effect is identical.
That leaves TransversalSpeed and RangeToTarget as dynamic variables. This is where you are correct, when TransversalSpeed trends to zero, that sends this entire bit of the formula to zero, and hence to always hitting. In the past (3+ years ago now) if you remember when RangeToTarget went to zero (like shooting a station very close) your shots always missed. That was because it sent this part of the formule to infinity, and thus hit chance to zero. They fixed that particular bug years ago somehow in the code, but in the raw formula you can see how it happened. But that is not an issue with the tracking of the gun itself, it's the way the formula is put together that does it. The only way to stop this is to rewrite the formula, which is fine, and something that CCP are gonig to look at in the future, but Greyscale took this off the table right now due to time constraints.
The upshot of this? Currently, halving TrackingSpeed (by changing the gun parameter, or by a 50% bonus on the ship) has the exact same effect as doubling TurretSigResolution, it just does not matter which you do.
And don't even bother bringing the wormhole bug into it. What happens in code when you take things outside their expected ranges has no relevence to anything, as we don't have access to the actual code, we can only guess what happens.
Max 


CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1222

Posted  2012.04.23 10:19:00 
[1101]  Quote
Tehg Rhind wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Thread is gingo round in circles though... Yes but the question is CAN WE TRACK IT.
I have to admit, I laughed pretty hard at this. 

Didona Carpenito
Akimamur Industries
22

Posted  2012.04.23 11:41:00 
[1102]  Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Tehg Rhind wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Thread is gingo round in circles though... Yes but the question is CAN WE TRACK IT. I have to admit, I laughed pretty hard at this.
I am not tracking, thank goodness my rifter always hits in my lvl 1 missions. 
Tobiaz
Spacerats
296

Posted  2012.04.23 12:01:00 
[1103]  Quote
Small Idea, I don't know if has come up yet, but instead of just trying to balance all the stats of the guns themselves, how about modifying the tracking formula instead? Else you just keep coming back to the same balancing issues over and over again.
Simplified: Chance to hit = (shipsig / turretsig)^2 * (transversal / tracking)
I'm not sure the the exponential factor is already in the current formula or not (tornado's instapopping frigates suggest it's not), but if it isn't, I think it would completely fix the problem of big ships using big guns to blap much smaller ships. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!a Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! 
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc WSpace
7

Posted  2012.04.23 16:13:00 
[1104]  Quote
Quote:Ships
Titans can now lock a maximum of three targets. XL turrets have had their signature resolution set to 2000m. Capital Turrets that are fitted to titans now have a new damagescaling attribute; targets with a signature radius smaller than this size will take reduced damage from these turrets. This does not apply to dreadnaughts. Siege modules have had their tracking penalty removed. So, what are the effects for dreads? Increased tracking in siege (it is not written, that XL turrets get their tracking nerfed) but on the other hand  lesser chance to hit due to sig.res. ? Anyone calculated how will it change the sutuation? 

CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1225

Posted  2012.04.23 16:47:00 
[1105]  Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:Quote:Ships
Titans can now lock a maximum of three targets. XL turrets have had their signature resolution set to 2000m. Capital Turrets that are fitted to titans now have a new damagescaling attribute; targets with a signature radius smaller than this size will take reduced damage from these turrets. This does not apply to dreadnaughts. Siege modules have had their tracking penalty removed. So, what are the effects for dreads? Increased tracking in siege (it is not written, that XL turrets get their tracking nerfed) but on the other hand  lesser chance to hit due to sig.res. ? Anyone calculated how will it change the sutuation? Or CCP again forgot to write some things into patchnotes? OK. Seems like soe clever guy wrote it right: [16:35:06] Fatyn > dreads out of siege nerfed but who cares [16:35:13] Fatyn > the patch notes say [16:35:16] Fatyn > in siege [16:35:27] Fatyn > tracking doubled, Turret Sig Res doubled [16:35:45] Fatyn > these two effects cancel each other out in the tracking formula
Yup. Consequences are halved tracking out of siege and identical tracking in siege. We could've just gone with a tracking nerf, but kicking the sig res up to a more capitalnormal range seemed like a more intuitively acceptable adjustment, and gives the advantage that for titans both values (sig res and damage reduction) sit at 2k, reinforcing their role as anticapital ships. 

I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
60

Posted  2012.04.23 18:34:00 
[1106]  Quote
Quote: The sig/sig ratio is multiplied by the transversal/tracking*range ratio.
Per Greyscale, this would mean that when tracking hits 0, the ratio becomes undefined. K, thx, cya.
Dreads got boosted vs sub caps, Titans have virtually no nerf, just slightly more effort required from fleets, This really is the most idiot change in the history of CCP.
PS, this formula would mean that tracking is modified by range exactly as I stated before. It's not static, it's multiplied over range. 
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
63

Posted  2012.04.23 20:24:00 
[1107]  Quote
I'm Down wrote:Quote: The sig/sig ratio is multiplied by the transversal/tracking*range ratio.
Per Greyscale, this would mean that when tracking hits 0, the ratio becomes undefined. K, thx, cya. Dreads got boosted vs sub caps, Titans have virtually no nerf, just slightly more effort required from fleets, This really is the most idiot change in the history of CCP. PS, this formula would mean that tracking is modified by range exactly as I stated before. It's not static, it's multiplied over range. Tracking can never reach 0 within normal game mechanics, tracking is the tracking stat of your guns. 
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
61

Posted  2012.04.23 20:49:00 
[1108]  Quote
steave435 wrote:I'm Down wrote:Quote: The sig/sig ratio is multiplied by the transversal/tracking*range ratio.
Per Greyscale, this would mean that when tracking hits 0, the ratio becomes undefined. K, thx, cya. Dreads got boosted vs sub caps, Titans have virtually no nerf, just slightly more effort required from fleets, This really is the most idiot change in the history of CCP. PS, this formula would mean that tracking is modified by range exactly as I stated before. It's not static, it's multiplied over range. Tracking can never reach 0 within normal game mechanics, tracking is the tracking stat of your guns.
It could in wormholes a while back, which is what that was addresing 
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
63

Posted  2012.04.23 21:05:00 
[1109]  Quote
I'm Down wrote:steave435 wrote:I'm Down wrote:Quote: The sig/sig ratio is multiplied by the transversal/tracking*range ratio.
Per Greyscale, this would mean that when tracking hits 0, the ratio becomes undefined. K, thx, cya. Dreads got boosted vs sub caps, Titans have virtually no nerf, just slightly more effort required from fleets, This really is the most idiot change in the history of CCP. PS, this formula would mean that tracking is modified by range exactly as I stated before. It's not static, it's multiplied over range. Tracking can never reach 0 within normal game mechanics, tracking is the tracking stat of your guns. It could in wormholes a while back, which is what that was addresing "within normal game mechanics" As has been discussed, different failsafes and error check things can start to kick in if it goes outside normal values, so you can't draw any conclusions from it. Greyscale has the exact formula, you don't. Now stop making yourself look like even more of an idiot. 
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
20

Posted  2012.04.24 05:21:00 
[1110]  Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:MisterAl tt1 wrote:Quote:Ships
Titans can now lock a maximum of three targets. XL turrets have had their signature resolution set to 2000m. Capital Turrets that are fitted to titans now have a new damagescaling attribute; targets with a signature radius smaller than this size will take reduced damage from these turrets. This does not apply to dreadnaughts. Siege modules have had their tracking penalty removed. So, what are the effects for dreads? Increased tracking in siege (it is not written, that XL turrets get their tracking nerfed) but on the other hand  lesser chance to hit due to sig.res. ? Anyone calculated how will it change the sutuation? Or CCP again forgot to write some things into patchnotes? OK. Seems like soe clever guy wrote it right: [16:35:06] Fatyn > dreads out of siege nerfed but who cares [16:35:13] Fatyn > the patch notes say [16:35:16] Fatyn > in siege [16:35:27] Fatyn > tracking doubled, Turret Sig Res doubled [16:35:45] Fatyn > these two effects cancel each other out in the tracking formula Yup. Consequences are halved tracking out of siege and identical tracking in siege. We could've just gone with a tracking nerf, but kicking the sig res up to a more capitalnormal range seemed like a more intuitively acceptable adjustment, and gives the advantage that for titans both values (sig res and damage reduction) sit at 2k, reinforcing their role as anticapital ships.
Well, you guys really seem stuck on this approach. Supers have not been balanced in the last several years, and they will never be balanced with this way of thinking.
Some predictions: Cap fleets will continue to be 95% supers. Fewer people will maintain interest in regular caps. Everyone will continue to blame you for supers being unbalanced. Your "I win" Titan button will continue to fly in the face of the traditional Eve "every strategy has a counter" philosophy. How to win strategy: Bring more Titans than the other side. I am a Thanatos pilot, but I do not risk it in fights where Titans may become involved because it has zero chance of survival. What exactly does CCP hope to see in 0.0 cap battles? Strategy or 95% Titan blob cyno drops? 



Reply to Topic 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page 
First page  Previous page  Next page  Last page 