EVE Search - Projectile Weapons

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Projectile Weapons - Balancing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.09.28 18:37:00 - [1] Originally by: AstroPhobic Oh, and I will never use a tracking computer for an AC boat if the falloff gain is the same as optimal. That's absurd. Optimal as a mechanic is over 2x as strong as falloff, the returns diminish almost immediately for such a small percent of falloff added. There's no way I'm sacrificing a midslot for +10% falloff. Even a target painter would be more useful, and that's saying something. I have a feeling that the falloff modifier on tracking computers is meant to help with the range issues on artillery, not autocannons. That is, CCP wants projectile sniping to be in deep falloff if attempting to match ranges with railguns and tachyons.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.09.28 19:27:00 - [2] Edited by: Elaron on 28/09/2009 19:28:03 Originally by: Liang Nuren So what I'm seeing here is that you're leaving EMP 4.5 points behind the other racial ammos? /facepalm Until we see it on SiSi, I assume that this is for small ammo and the amount will scale through the size classes. I find the 75% boost in volley size for large artillery to be hilarious, as it directly contradicts one of the design goals for the hit point boosts.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.09.28 20:33:00 - [3] Edited by: Elaron on 28/09/2009 20:34:05 Originally by: Etho Demerzel The design goal itself directly contradicts the idea of alpha davantage. So either the design goal was badly thought and need to be abandoned OR alpha-strike as an advantage must be abandoned and something else must be given to artillery (as the same dps potential of lasers for example at the same ranges). I've expressed elsewhere my opinion that boosting alpha strike for artillery without addressing the other shortcomings of the weapon system feels like a placebo; something to make Minmatar pilots think that there's been an improvement in usability without actually giving anything substantial to it. In hindsight, Nozh's statements support that hypothesis as the alpha change seems to be blinding people with the promise of big alpha strike numbers.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.09.28 21:04:00 - [4] Originally by: Seishi Maru And there has been an improvement. Now a tempest is the best large scale gate camper in game. You put 3 SB with locking speed and 5 tempest can insta pop some BC. And then the pilots all scream with rage when your minimum 17 second RoF means you can't get another shot off before the rest of the target gang warps off.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.09.30 13:28:00 - [5] Originally by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt Quote: that means Minnie ships must use different tactics from other races. Like what? Spinning in a hanger while the pilot flies a ship that can be used in a sniper fleet, of course!
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.01 19:30:00 - [6] Originally by: Naomi Knight I told you guys , matar whine squad won't stop until matar bses + projectiles will be super overpowered. It worked for Amarr. Originally by: Naomi Knight Now they say alpha strike sux The debate on the quality of the volley size boost is occluding what I think is the real issue - is it the direction that's best when it comes to balancing artillery? I don't think it is for the best, which is why I don't agree with it. So what would I prefer to see? Simple, changes that would get fleet commanders to think about how artillery ships can be integrated into their tactics, rather than encourage Minmatar pilots to cross train to Caldari or Amarr. Oh, one final thing. If it would mean that certain elements would shut up about capless weapons in the balance discussion then I would gladly see reinstated the modest cap requirement projectiles had in earlier days.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.11 17:08:00 - [7] Originally by: Seriously Bored Originally by: Pattern Clarc Without a comment from CCP any time recently, it certainly feels that way. Maybe (hopefully) we all got sick of arguing ourselves in circles without any official comment. I expect we won't see anything until the next scrum iteration - unless Nozh is calling it done and has moved on to other projects.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.14 17:34:00 - [8] Edited by: Elaron on 14/10/2009 17:42:25 Originally by: Etho Demerzel That is the only flaw of the Maelstrom, and the perverse way the devs found to screw the minnies once more It's even more frustrating considering Tuxford himself considered it a poor bonus when the Tier 3 battleships were in initial testing. Edit: Then again, Oveur is on record as saying that the hitpoint boosts were specifically to degrade the value of alpha strike in engagements, so I can't really be surprised at CCP contradicting themselves on occasion.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.14 19:33:00 - [9] Originally by: Secluse Once again, a projectile discussion becomes a battleship whine. Focusing on minnie's need for a sniper and fixing hulls is a separate but linked issue. It's difficult to not look at platforms at the same time as weapons in this game, as the performance connection between the two is very deep. Originally by: Secluse And it would be great if CCP responded to provide some update on what is happening, or if this 'balancing' was nothing more than a smoke and mirrors exercise. Unless there are changes now on SiSi that haven't been reported, I think that projectiles were not worked on during the most recent Scrum sprint (the results of which I believe is the current Dominion build on the test server) which is why we've had no response to our feedback. Additionally, unless Nozh's latest sprint task is to evaluate the projectile feedback with a view to iterating the design, I don't expect to see anything before the 29th.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.15 20:05:00 - [10] Originally by: RedSplat 1KM FALLOFF IS NOT EQUAL IN USEFULNESS TO 1KM OPTIMAL Some people don't seem to get that. Perhaps they'll agree changing the bonus of Scorch ammo from being +50% optimal to +150% falloff. This will change Megapulse from having a 45km + 10km optimal + falloff to 30km + 25km. Exactly the same as before, right?
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.16 19:33:00 - [11] Originally by: Roland Thorne Minmatar has always been about the falloff. CCP starts balancing optimal and a I guarantee you that instead of blasters, projectiles and lasers, we will have 3 versions of the same thing. Minmatar was always about having the lightest, nimblest, fastest ships as well. That concept was swept aside during the speed revamp. There'd be nothing wrong with admitting that something (ie, falloff) is a crap mechanic to rely on. Especially when the negative impact it has is worse than a superficial look implies it is.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.18 00:33:00 - [12] Originally by: Roland Thorne Minmatar did not have the fastest ships even before the speed nerf. True, CCP has been degrading that Minmatar advantage since Interceptors were introduced. The speed revamp just sealed that deal. Originally by: Roland Thorne I like falloff. It is not a crap mechanic. I like being able to hit SB at 30 km with mid autos. Referring to perhaps trying to kill a stealth bomber before it deploys bombs? A situation in which a Vagabond will do around 100DPS, hitting only 37% of the time, taking an average of 10 seconds to kill one, while a Zealot will do four times your DPS as it's firing at optimal? Yeah, falloff feels like it's a great boon to Minmatar in such a circumstance. Originally by: Roland Thorne I'm not emo-quiting, but I don't think you understand how useful falloff is. Trust me, I know exactly how useful it is, thank you.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.18 18:41:00 - [13] Originally by: Roland Thorne If one is flying a vagabond with autos, sure it will be good. Otherwise, if someone has the skills to fly a zealot, they will fly one. That is exactly what is happening now with matar pilots changing to amarr. So ... on the one hand, you're saying that falloff is great, and on the other hand you're saying that Matari pilots are swapping to Amarr because they're weapons are better.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.18 21:50:00 - [14] Originally by: Roland Thorne No. I'm saying indirectly that guys who are trained for blasters would loooove to be able to use falloff on someone who is out of optimal. Projectiles already do that. There is nothing at all that says that blasters have to be used within optimal. And, as Pattern has said, range is not what blaster users are complaining about.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.20 13:43:00 - [15] Originally by: Caldor Mansi I have my own charts and they can only confirm your/mine experience. Publish them, along with explanations of the formulas you use and the assumptions you made when composing them. If they're as persuasive as you say, you might actually convince someone.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:09:00 - [16] Originally by: Uncle Smokey is there a chart for real damage in falloff, hit quality included? just thought i'd like to see one. I don't have a chart specific a specific circumstance, but the following chart shows how falloff affects a theoretical gun that does a nominal 100dps. The highlighted point at the edge of the graph is at the theoretical guns optimal + falloff range of 25km. Only falloff is affecting the hit chance; tracking is assumed to be perfect for the purposes of this graph. As you can see, in optimal range the actual expected damage is greater than the nominal DPS due to the 1% chance of wrecking hits, but because a reduction in the chance to hit reduces the maximum damage that can be inflicted on any single hit, the average DPS drops to significantly less than 50% of the nominal DPS. Far more patient players than I have confirmed the veracity of the formulas used, conducting tests containing up to 100,000 samples, although even my own limited testing with a mere couple of thousand samples shows a very very strong correlation with the theory.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.21 22:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Caldor Mansi The 'problem' is that hit quality is chance based and those results are statistical data. And? Are you trying to suggest that in-game combat doesn't adhere to the statistical model that has been worked out? Originally by: Caldor Mansi In other words: When you throw a dice, the chance to throw any number is 6:1. That does not however mean that in 6 throws you will get number 3 at least once. But there is a good chance that the average of those six throws will approximate 3.5, and will get closer to 3.5 the more times you throw the die. And that is what the graph represents: the average DPS you'll get. And even with fairly short fights, you'll get empirical data that'll approximate the model quite well, as you get a fair number of samples firing 4 - 8 guns at a time.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.21 22:22:00 - [18] Originally by: Uncle Smokey Aight, guess I was doin too much thinking, thought there was some kind of line for that hit quality limit too, for someone to sketch. Oh well, I should just concentrate on rolling me another blunt. The easiest way to remember it is: when fighting in falloff, you hit less frequently, and generally each hit will be less damaging than a hit within optimal range.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.22 01:10:00 - [19] Originally by: Caldor Mansi Eww... 3.5 only stands for the chance of occurence, not it's occurence over time - there is no such thing as 3.5 on 6 sided dice :) The same goes with quality hits. The damage including hit quality is not applicapable in DPS terms since such damage is solely based on number of rounds fired. This post tells me that either 1) There is a language barrier; 2) You're ignorant or 3) You're trolling. What's the probability of each one? First, I didn't say that 3.5 is a possible result from throwing a die, I said that it is the value you get when you average a large sample of results. In the case of the quality of hit drop due to falloff, this is implicit in the way damage is calculated. Only one random number is generated per shot, and that number is used to decide whether the shot hits or not and the amount of damage. And the formula that was derived by people analyzing large sample sets showed that the upper limit of damage dealt per shot is linearly dependant on the chance to hit, making the average effect on DPS calculable and predictable. Hence the graph.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.09 19:53:00 - [20] Originally by: Etho Demerzel ambits, which are not stack penalized Ambits look like they are stack penalized currently on SiSi (tested it over the weekend; I can get screenshots this evening if you want proof). Originally by: To mare the issue with barrage is pretty solid the combiantion of base damage boost on T1 ammo and the 30% of falloff on TE make barrage less useful depending on setups Surely it would be a tactical decision about whether to use Barrage in a given situation, depending on operating range and other moment-to-moment factors, and not completely dependent on the actual fit? And if, for some reason, it does lead to a reduction in the use of Barrage, how is that exclusively a bad thing, unless you have a BPO?
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.12 15:23:00 - [21] We might see one more iteration of changes before the expansion's deployment but, considering that it appears to have been a low priority assignment for Nozh, I wouldn't be surprised to see it held back from Dominion if CCP decides that further refinement is needed, similar to what happened with assault frigates and rockets.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.16 18:22:00 - [22] Originally by: Linas IV Quote: Is anyone of the Devs still reading this thread, or is the Projectile-Topic considered as "Finished" in its current form, for dominion? Any answer? Maybe? Please? It took Nozh a month to respond to our feedback from the first round of changes. It's been less than two weeks since the second iteration hit SiSi, so I doubt we'll hear back from him until we see the final patch notes just before Dominion hits.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.25 04:54:00 - [23] Originally by: Bunzan Cardinal all i want for christmas is the base shield and armor amounts on the typhoon swapped.... Last I knew, that's happening!
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.26 04:15:00 - [24] Originally by: Bunzan Cardinal Dreams do come true! I am mildly surprised that the changes to the Typhoon haven't been reversed because it would make the Typhoon "a complete monster in Dominion"! And yeah, unless there's something new on SiSi then this will be how Projectiles look when TQ reopens after the Dominion patch. The artillery direction isn't what I hoped for, and the way range has been handled isn't totally satisfactory either, but I think that overall we've got more than I was expecting. I'm not going to be giving up my almost pure Minmatar focus just yet, and have been actively thinking of the best ways to make use of them.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.27 02:55:00 - [25] Edited by: Elaron on 27/11/2009 02:58:43 Originally by: Mr Opinions The sad state of things was actually reflected in the otherwise well-made Dominion video. It was basically Amarr-online. Huge fleets of amarr ships all over the place. There were also a significant number of gallente and a token amount of caldari ships too. I watched that trailer a few times and I only spotted 2 hurricanes at a gate in one of the minor support groups as the sole minmatar ships present out of all the zillions of others. There was a Cyclone (0:33), Rupture, (0:33), Rifter (2:42 shooting stuff), a Maelstrom (2:19 near middle of screen), and some Tempests (2:42 clearest) all in space. But yes, Minmatar ships were but rarely spotted (having to replay at half speed to identify most of those sightings). The only Naglfars that were present were broken ones (ohh, the irony).
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.11.28 08:02:00 - [26] Nian, I can't really see what you could do to "make CCP regret" the way projectiles have been changed, short of cancelling your account(s) and putting your dissatisfaction with the changes as the reason why. I've resigned myself to this being how projectiles will be for at least 18 months, even if we could prove from December 2nd that projectiles were still crap.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.12.10 18:24:00 - [27] From Nozh's earlier comments, he was very loathe to touch top-tier artillery range and tracking because of 1-shots; see post 336 (page 12). My guess is that your experience is exactly as he intends.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.12.11 16:55:00 - [28] I think we'll be waiting a long, long time for any changes to the Apocalypse. The two things that irk me most about this round of changes, and which worry me as being the way CCP is approaching rebalancing these days, is that first it appears to have been done without referencing other weapon systems and second it was given a very low development priority.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.