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 | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:11:00 -
[211] - Quote
Seeing a lot of '+1's' for the first page suggestion but; Why expend effort on a 'XL turret only' fix?
The tracking formula as a whole doesn't take into account 'signature' too well - I've been banging on about it for years - why is 'sig radius' a constant? It should be a variable that decreases with increasing gun-target distance ("Really far away = really small"), and conversely increases as you get to point blank rages ("km long Battleship blotting out the sun = really big).
So the question would be; why limit any fix to a 'special case' for XL turrets? If you're going to expend the effort, why not fix the job lot?...
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:19:00 -
[212] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:pmchem wrote:Greyscale, Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours. Yeah, fair enough. We'll have another look into this, although I'm concerned that the amount we'd have to add to sig radii (and not just all caps, but all starbase mods as well) to put XL turrets safely north of TP-stacking limits might end up being problematic. If you do end up going this route, and straight damage reduction sounds like a better solution more in-line with missiles tbh, please apply this to ALL turret sizes. There are a lot of us who would like to sig-tank against BS guns too. |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:22:00 -
[213] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:pmchem wrote:Greyscale, Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours. Yeah, fair enough. We'll have another look into this, although I'm concerned that the amount we'd have to add to sig radii (and not just all caps, but all starbase mods as well) to put XL turrets safely north of TP-stacking limits might end up being problematic. If you do end up going this route, please apply this to ALL turret sizes. There are a lot of us who would like to sig-tank against BS guns too.
sig damage falloff is horrible, make it based on sig vs range ffs... see above |
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:24:00 -
[214] - Quote
Either way is fine. I just don't want it to be a special case since it makes just as little sense that a BS can blap a frig. |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
703
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:24:00 -
[215] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Seeing a lot of '+1's' for the first page suggestion but; Why expend effort on a 'XL turret only' fix?
The tracking formula as a whole doesn't take into account 'signature' too well - I've been banging on about it for years - why is 'sig radius' a constant? It should be a variable that decreases with increasing gun-target distance ("Really far away = really small"), and conversely increases as you get to point blank rages ("km long Battleship blotting out the sun = really big).
So the question would be; why limit any fix to a 'special case' for XL turrets? If you're going to expend the effort, why not fix the job lot?...
Agreed. The tracking formula is a big culprit in a lot of fleet doctrines, including the CFC's own Alpha Fleet, being so successful. I'm not saying that it'd completely nerf Turret ships but it'd certainly balance them better compared to missiles.
Also, I'm Down, thank you for that wall of text since you're, once again, completely spot on. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:37:00 -
[216] - Quote
Just seen that I'm Down beat me to itGǪ
Anyhow, basically I think this plot (~2008 when this was first discussed):
...is reasonably succinct on how turret accuracy should be affected by range.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:57:00 -
[217] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Just seen that I'm Down beat me to itGǪ Anyhow, basically I think this plot (~2008 when this was first discussed): ...is reasonably succinct on how turret accuracy should be affected by range.
If you don't understand what he linked... it's the dilated effect of an object relative to distance.... IE why a penny can cover the sun in the sky if you hold it close to your eye. I think or hope we all know a penny is not actually larger than the sun, but range has an affect on size in all places but eve. |
Dalton Russel
League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:01:00 -
[218] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:... The problem is that tracking gets better over range because of your formula. There is no penalty for a ship being further away and thus appearing smaller in reality. ...
QFT |
Headerman
Quovis CORE Alliance
766
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:09:00 -
[219] - Quote
Kyle Myr wrote:Honestly, Shadoo's post in the previous thread said it best. Give Titans a role that doesn't involve rapidly killing sub caps, which would be useful in a capital fleet, or mixed sub capital fleet. Removing the scan resolution change but keeping the maximum targets and tracking changes seems like a reasonable start for making Titans something that can be used mostly against large single targets. However, people better at gameplay mathematics have put forth a good conceptual solution that would complement those changes: pmchem wrote:Greyscale, Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours. This seems like a reasonable way of handling XL turrets on Dreadnoughts and Titans.
Yeah he did post some good ideas. This idea though is far less arbitrary than a flat tracking nerf, and goes part of the way to re-ballance titans The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Le Thanh Ton
Kick B0rt Test Alliance Please Ignore
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:14:00 -
[220] - Quote
The problem seems to be that XL guns on a titan are simply overpowered.
No one seems to have a problem with Citadel Cruise missiles (as they properly do little damage against subcaps).
Easy fix - make all Titans missile boats. Make XL turrets Dread only weapons - which is really in keeping with what a Dread should be a - a massive boat covered in massive guns.
No need to change any formulas, no need to do any balancing, no need to do any special case code (with the inherent chance of screwing up). |
|
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:19:00 -
[221] - Quote
Le Thanh Ton wrote:The problem seems to be that XL guns on a titan are simply overpowered.
No one seems to have a problem with Citadel Cruise missiles (as they properly do little damage against subcaps).
Easy fix - make all Titans missile boats. Make XL turrets Dread only weapons - which is really in keeping with what a Dread should be a - a massive boat covered in massive guns.
No need to change any formulas, no need to do any balancing, no need to do any special case code (with the inherent chance of screwing up).
yes, make every ship in game a missile boat... that's really interesting. Stop with this lazy bullshit type suggestions and fix the game right. |
Le Thanh Ton
Kick B0rt Test Alliance Please Ignore
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:27:00 -
[222] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Le Thanh Ton wrote:The problem seems to be that XL guns on a titan are simply overpowered.
No one seems to have a problem with Citadel Cruise missiles (as they properly do little damage against subcaps).
Easy fix - make all Titans missile boats. Make XL turrets Dread only weapons - which is really in keeping with what a Dread should be a - a massive boat covered in massive guns.
No need to change any formulas, no need to do any balancing, no need to do any special case code (with the inherent chance of screwing up). yes, make every ship in game a missile boat... that's really interesting. Stop with this lazy bullshit type suggestions and fix the game right.
Where does it say every ship? - there are 4 titans, making them all missile boats will solve the issue in the short term while a true role is defined for them.
Screwing around with tracking, sig rad, etc has consequences *beyond* the ships in question and is much more likely to lead to an unwanted nerf of dreads.
I'm suggesting a quick fix for now which minimizes the risks of trying to add special case code (always bad) and messing with core formulae that have been in play for ages.
If people agree that Titans should not be able to blap supcaps, remove the weapon that causes the blapping - every other solution is based on small tweaks which will be orders of magnitude harder to balance. |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:30:00 -
[223] - Quote
Le Thanh Ton wrote:I'm Down wrote:Le Thanh Ton wrote:The problem seems to be that XL guns on a titan are simply overpowered.
No one seems to have a problem with Citadel Cruise missiles (as they properly do little damage against subcaps).
Easy fix - make all Titans missile boats. Make XL turrets Dread only weapons - which is really in keeping with what a Dread should be a - a massive boat covered in massive guns.
No need to change any formulas, no need to do any balancing, no need to do any special case code (with the inherent chance of screwing up). yes, make every ship in game a missile boat... that's really interesting. Stop with this lazy bullshit type suggestions and fix the game right. Where does it say every ship? - there are 4 titans, making them all missile boats will solve the issue in the short term while a true role is defined for them. Screwing around with tracking, sig rad, etc has consequences *beyond* the ships in question and is much more likely to lead to an unwanted nerf of dreads. I'm suggesting a quick fix for now which minimizes the risks of trying to add special case code (always bad) and messing with core formulae that have been in play for ages. If people agree that Titans should not be able to blap supcaps, remove the weapon that causes the blapping - every other solution is based on small tweaks which will be orders of magnitude harder to balance.
First of all, learn sarcasm.
Secondly, there is no nerf possible to dreads. Dreads have 1 intended role, hit huge slow/stationary objects. The suggested changes cannot nerf that... it's just not possible.
|
Le Thanh Ton
Kick B0rt Test Alliance Please Ignore
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:41:00 -
[224] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Le Thanh Ton wrote:I'm Down wrote:Le Thanh Ton wrote:The problem seems to be that XL guns on a titan are simply overpowered.
No one seems to have a problem with Citadel Cruise missiles (as they properly do little damage against subcaps).
Easy fix - make all Titans missile boats. Make XL turrets Dread only weapons - which is really in keeping with what a Dread should be a - a massive boat covered in massive guns.
No need to change any formulas, no need to do any balancing, no need to do any special case code (with the inherent chance of screwing up). yes, make every ship in game a missile boat... that's really interesting. Stop with this lazy bullshit type suggestions and fix the game right. Where does it say every ship? - there are 4 titans, making them all missile boats will solve the issue in the short term while a true role is defined for them. Screwing around with tracking, sig rad, etc has consequences *beyond* the ships in question and is much more likely to lead to an unwanted nerf of dreads. I'm suggesting a quick fix for now which minimizes the risks of trying to add special case code (always bad) and messing with core formulae that have been in play for ages. If people agree that Titans should not be able to blap supcaps, remove the weapon that causes the blapping - every other solution is based on small tweaks which will be orders of magnitude harder to balance. First of all, learn sarcasm. Secondly, there is no nerf possible to dreads. Dreads have 1 intended role, hit huge slow/stationary objects. The suggested changes cannot nerf that... it's just not possible. Third, the suggested fix to sig over range properly adds back roles to ship classes beyond the dominant mechanic today of BS/BC > virtually any smaller ship classes 9/10 times. Just like titan fleet > all. Frigs have virtually no role in game today compared to 8 years ago. Destoryers gain a role because if they're a ranged frigate damage platform with high range projected damage for a small ship, then the small sig at range is a buff to them. Cruisers are sort of the middle ground as almost none of the tech ones have range, and HACs have **** dps beyond 50km, which would also get impacted by the sig penalties. Not to mention sniper HACs have a new natural counter in game with dual prop assault frig platforms. Once you get to BC/BS levels, the sig is so high, it's hard to suggest that BCs or BS get a huge advantage over each other. Plus no Cruiser weapon BC in game does any good damage projection over 90km well, and the BS weapon BC platforms would have the same weaknesses as their BS counterparts as range progressed. So to me, it not only sounds like a viable solution to fix titans, but to fix a huge issue in Eve combat that's gotten worse every patch throughout the years where almost all 0.0 combat has been BS or BC and at that mid range 50-110 km range. It's stale, and boring, and needs to be looked at. Fix the guns, and fix probing and this cookie cutter bullshit we have seen the past 8 years might go away and much more diverse fleet warfare might come about.
|
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:53:00 -
[225] - Quote
Until th-¦ devs realize that their f-+rmula -ûs **** -¦nd that all turrets need to be balan-üed based on a gun signature to range comparisonGÇÜ combat in -¦ve will c-+nt-ûnue to be broken. It just m-¦kes 0 sense that the frigate that is 100km distan-üe away looks exactly the same size to my guns as he does at 1km range, while my tracking is literally 100x better at 100km range.
Literally, if you didn't know this, tracking is a linear relationship where I gain 100% of my base tracking every km..... so I literally track 100x better at 100km range than I do at 1km range, or 10x better when I compare 10km base range to 100km range.
This is the equivalent to a 10,000% tracking boost from 1km to 100km range
This is the equivalent to a 1,000% tracking boost from 10km range to 100km range
MEANWHILE MY SIG HAS NOT REDUCED 1 POINT.
Do you see the problem yet?
50% of my formula has not changed one bit, and the other 50% has just improved an obsurd amount. |
|
ISD Grossvogel
Community Communications Liaisons
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:58:00 -
[226] - Quote
Thread cleaned up -- please stay on topic. ISD Grossvogel (ISD -ô-Ç-+-ü-ü-ä-+-¦-¦-+-î) Captain, Community Communication Liaisons (CCL) -Æ-+-+-+-+-é-æ-Ç -¦-Ç-â-+-+-ï -+-+ -¦-+-¦-+-+-+-¦-¦-¦-ü-é-¦-+-Ä -ü -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-¦-+-+ Interstellar Services Department |
|
Woo Glin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:10:00 -
[227] - Quote
ISD Grossvogel wrote:Thread cleaned up -- please stay on topic.
imma make it dirty again ooooohhh yeah |
Woo Glin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:10:00 -
[228] - Quote
dirty boy sniper check me out boys |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
704
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:21:00 -
[229] - Quote
I'm sad that Greyscale left after the derail that he started. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
470
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:43:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote: b) Reduce the number of XL turret/launcher slots on all titans to 4. c) Reduce Doomsday base damage to 1 million, reduce fuel use by 75%, reduce cap use by 75%. d) Change Doomsday Operation to reduce DD cooldown by 5% per level (to 7.5 mins at level V). e) Allow the racial Titan skill to online 1 additional Doomsday module per level.
This has a decent chance of being a good long-term fix (we'd have to think about it some more), but it's too large in scope for this release, unfortunately.
This is brilliant.
It turns Titans into anti capital ships. Doesn't completely neuter them and isn't overly ridiculous. It actually puts titans into what everyone has argued their intended purpose is. This isn't taking too much away from them. It seems like a step in the right direction.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
|
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
78
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:46:00 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Kyle Myr wrote:Ok, I understand the context of your post, but warping in and out isn't necessary mechanically against Titan missiles currently. The damage formula alone means that small, fast ships with low signature radii are able to speed tank their weaponry. Yup. However, it is likely to be a primary reason why nobody's bothered to set up blapleviathans with TP/web support (aside from the fact that you'd need either lots of officer webs or a paper-thin recon to actually pull it off, rather than just slapping a TPII in a mid), which was the discussion we were having. Again, yay for context.
No. The reason Leviathans aren't used against subcaps is not because subcaps warp out because the missiles are too slow (Missile Velocity). Warp Disruptors and Warp Disruption Bubbles hold down targets quite long enough, thank you.
The reason is that Missile Explosion Velocity when compared to Target Velocity, AND Missile Explosion Radius compared to Target Radius BOTH affect the damage of missiles. Even MWDing Drakes are barely touched by Capital Cruise Missiles, not because they warp out, but because Capital Cruise Missiles due **** damage to such small targets.
The issue with TItan guns is not tracking, and it's not lock time: it's the fact that they get maximum damage against anything on the field. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
471
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:46:00 -
[232] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
It seems like it'd be just as easy just to introduce a sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets, which takes you to approximately the same expected DPS in most situations but in a more consistent (ie, less burst-prone) manner, and with the advantage that we can use much simpler math (linear/quadratic scaling) so the average user has a better chance of being able to estimate the likely outcomes. In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.
dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested. The problem is that tracking gets better over range because of your formula. There is no penalty for a ship being further away and thus appearing smaller in reality. So while I can always choose a smaller ship to counter sig, I cannot choose a smaller ship to counter tracking. There's only 2 ways to counter tracking, get closer, or get faster. The issue is this. If I pull out my gun and try to hit a pumpkin from 2 feet away, I'm probably going to hit it because it's very large in my view. But if that same pumpkin is 100 yards away, it should appear a hell of a lot smaller. This does not happen in eve. The sig size always stays consistent. So there is no penalty for sig according to range, and tracking gets progressively better at range. For a huge ship like a titan, this means that if you have 10+ on the field, their shear size (30km+ across each) is going to spread them and the enemy fleet out more... meaning more range and greater tracking. Sig matters a hell of a lot less in this case. And in addition, you can add webs to targets in addition to that range factor benefiting the titans and you get very high results. The solution is to inflate weapon signiture over range for all ships. You should not decrease damage directly like falloff... that's a horrible solution. If you just inflate the signiture according to range for the weapons, this means that smaller targets get progressively harder to hit. My solution in another thread a while back is to give every gun a base range for their signiture to apply at. So a 425 railgun might have a 50km signiture range where it's signiture is 400 like current. But for every % further from that 50km base, the signiture of the gun should increase.... IE at 100 km range, the sig of the gun is 800. This means it's harder for the gun to hit smaller ships as range increases. This would not hurt titan v capital, but would likely affect titan vs anything else and reduce the effects of that 60-100km zone of combat where webs can't reach, and titans still struggle to track. In particular, it would hurt the close range high tracking titans because if their base sig range was low... (IE 15-20km for Giga Pulse as an example), at 60km range, they would have 3x the sig or 3000 sig compared to the BS they are trying to hit.... This makes sense because distant objects are supposed to be harder to hit. So please implement a mechanic that makes sense not just for titans, but for all ship class warfare. Because quite honestly, frigates should have a lot better survival rate vs bs according to their sig/speed advantage...and you just don't see it currently. I mean, smaller ships are already penalized enough for small defense and smaller offense and range. ***** As a side note, the above suggestion adds a huge new feature for gun balance where you can make proper mid range weapons, close range weapons, and long range weapon. This means that every solution to the artillery vs rail vs beam or the blaster vs auto vs pulse doesn't have to come down to direct damage and tracking... you actually have a mechanic to make each range and gun type specialize with it's signature in a certain zone.... So rails might have 3x further range than pulse for their signiture to remain normal, thus boosting their efficiency with mid range ammos and not forcing you to apply a **** patch where damage is boosted like the last one. Artilleries might have huge alpha, but a pretty small window for sig (30-40km), meaning more struggles hitting moving ships due to the sig inflation of the guns(which they need btw).
By god, you fixed rails.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:54:00 -
[233] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote: b) Reduce the number of XL turret/launcher slots on all titans to 4. c) Reduce Doomsday base damage to 1 million, reduce fuel use by 75%, reduce cap use by 75%. d) Change Doomsday Operation to reduce DD cooldown by 5% per level (to 7.5 mins at level V). e) Allow the racial Titan skill to online 1 additional Doomsday module per level.
This has a decent chance of being a good long-term fix (we'd have to think about it some more), but it's too large in scope for this release, unfortunately. This is brilliant. It turns Titans into anti capital ships. Doesn't completely neuter them and isn't overly ridiculous. It actually puts titans into what everyone has argued their intended purpose is. This isn't taking too much away from them. It seems like a step in the right direction.
Problems with this concept:
Block 1 problems (capitals)
Titans have more overall DD damage.
Still a 1 shot killer of any dread or carrier thus taking out any chance of dreads or carriers being useful vs supers... and what other true counter is there besides massive blobs vs titans in bulk?
Faster capital killer.
Able to spread damage around to be more efficient with use versus capitals.
Block 2 problems (anti support)
Titan guns are still effective in a variety of manners because the tracking formula doesn't get fixed (PRIMARY PROBLEM IN EVE WARFARE OVERALL)
Titans only lose 33% of their blap damage, so they go from insta-pwn on steroids to slightly less instapwn on steriods which gets fixed by larger numbers... does not address the continued increase in titans in game as endgame pwn.
========
So in the end, this fix does nothing to address any of the issues while making titans more efficient vs the one good possible counter in game. Again, DD is supreme because any 1 shot kill weapon that counters your one natural counter that can be massed in bulk while also performing other anti support fleet duties means it's going to be a high demand, high utility combat ship.
This took me longer to type than it did to see.... it's scary that our own game designers couldn't see the flaw in the plan immediately since by default they should be experts in their field.
|
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 02:02:00 -
[234] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:
By god, you fixed rails.
I know right, fixes blasters too.
Amazing how something that fixes titans also fixes every god damn problem with combat and ship class warfare in game.... then all ya gotta do is nerf probes to hell and you got interesting combat again.
But damn, why should a dev listen to the idea that takes effort when we can do half arsed ineffective fixes just to tell the player base, "hey, at least we're doing something... amirite?" |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
473
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 02:26:00 -
[235] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Zagdul wrote:
By god, you fixed rails.
I know right, fixes blasters too. Amazing how something that fixes titans also fixes every god damn problem with combat and ship class warfare in game.... then all ya gotta do is nerf probes to hell and you got interesting combat again. But damn, why should a dev listen to the idea that takes effort when we can do half arsed ineffective fixes just to tell the player base, "hey, at least we're doing something... amirite?"
yeah, the concept is brilliant.
I think your concept mixed with CynoNet's would actually give titans a role. I'd even consider putting a siege module on them so their 4 turrets can do good damage to towers.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1100
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 02:41:00 -
[236] - Quote
What about increasing the XL turret sig resolution by a factor of two or three? This will impact to-hit for everything that isn't standing still, and reduce the actual damage dealt based on the damage scaling (you scale damage based on turret res versus sig radius, don't you?). Then incorporate the tracking nerf, remove ECM immunity from the game, allow siege mode dreads to have double tracking, reduced sig radius, and have a use (blapping subcaps).
Titans will still deal huge damage to stationary fat things, dreads have a role, no one gets blipped by titans because you have tracking disruptors on the field. Who cares how many tracking computers they have? And there is a good reason to field non-ECM EWAR, |
Christopher Crusman
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 02:57:00 -
[237] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The issue is this. If I pull out my gun and try to hit a pumpkin from 2 feet away, I'm probably going to hit it because it's very large in my view. But if that same pumpkin is 100 yards away, it should appear a hell of a lot smaller. This does not happen in eve. The sig size always stays consistent. So there is no penalty for sig according to range, and tracking gets progressively better at range...
The solution is to inflate weapon signiture over range for all ships. You should not decrease damage directly like falloff... that's a horrible solution. If you just inflate the signiture according to range for the weapons, this means that smaller targets get progressively harder to hit.
In other words:
Would it make sense, or be remotely feasible, for the signature resolution of a gun to be changed to an *angular* resolution, and then apply this as a scaling factor directly onto the hit-chance formula rather than as a modifier to tracking?
So, instead of a gun having a signature resolution of "40m", it might have one of "5 minutes of arc"/"0.0015 radians" (numbers pulled firmly from my rear end); it would start to miss a 40m-sig target at a distance where that 40m constitutes no more than 5 minutes of arc from the gun's POV, i.e. at about 26.7km. (I should really be using diameter for this, but I'm using radius instead since sig's an arbitrary construct anyway, ~dealwithit~)
A 400m-sig gun would have a resolution of 50 minutes of arc/0.015 radians, and would start to miss a 400m-sig target at a distance where that 400m constitutes no more than 50 minutes of arc from the gun's POV - again, at about 26.7km.
However, the small gun wouldn't start to see sig-based misses against a 400m target until past max lock range, whereas the large gun would start to see sig-based misses against the 40m target at 2.7km - at which point, the small target should probably have enough transversal tracking would take over.
I'm not sure if this would cause issues by having two separate limiting factors on range (raw range limit, i.e. projectile just petering out/laser diffusing, plus sig-res based misses), but seems to solve the zero-transversal problem while not causing the "hit a mosquito with a sledgehammer and it survived, wtf" problem. Would probably require substantial balancing to see how it impacts subcap play (in particular, it seems like it would be a blaster buff, since at blaster ranges everything would be such a "big" target as to render the extra miss chance irrelevant).
tl;dr Changing gun sig res to "angular" resolution rather than a flat radius decouples sigres from tracking without causing "hit that rifter in the face with 4000mm artillery and he survived, wtf" issues, and also makes physical sense. |
dontmindmeloltwo
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 03:10:00 -
[238] - Quote
Just coincidence that shortly after fanfest/pl get 2 seats on csm, part of the titan nerf is removed? interesting indeed :CCP:
I havent done the math, but from what i see large blobs of titans will still be pretty effective against subcaps so meh kinda dissapointed about this. |
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 03:16:00 -
[239] - Quote
Is this part of Mittani's punishment for his hate crimes?? |
Zxmagus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 03:20:00 -
[240] - Quote
Common Grayscale your a cool guy I've met you in person your eve's great white hope we asked you to fix titans get down to it and do it like it should have been done in early 2010. |
|
|
|
|
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 |