|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Mr Opinions
   |
Posted - 2009.09.30 17:48:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Seishi Maru
The firign start at time ZERO. giving the A ship a 3k damage advantage that must be recovered by the larger ROF of the other ship. Ship B will take 100 SECONDS to move its damage curve completely ahead of ship B.
That is the time you have advantage.. 100 seconds not 8-9 seconds....
THIS IS NOT TRUE. The alpha ship starts off with a large advantage consisting of (usually) two volleys of the higher ROF ship. Then from that time until the next volley from the alpha ship, the high DPS ship actually has the advantage.
THE ALPHA SHIP DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE ADVANTAGE FOR 100 SECONDS.
-Liang
This.
Projectiles need to be able to contribute comparable dps, within certain range windows, to other weapon types for the duration of the engagement. Failure to do this makes them non-viable.
Alpha never has been, nor should it ever be, considered a substitute for comparable dps.
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 14:36:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 02/10/2009 14:42:06
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 02/10/2009 14:41:30
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 02/10/2009 14:38:16
Originally by: Volir
Edited by: Volir on 29/09/2009 20:51:37
Edited by: Volir on 29/09/2009 20:49:44
What if CCP changed the damage formula in falloff?
optimal 100% damage
1 falloff 75% damage
2 falloff 0% damage
A formula that is similar to this is.
1- 1/8 * (x^2) - 1/16 * (x^3)
where x is the number of fall-offs. I mean, you don't want to put that formula straight into Eve obviously, but for the point of discussion, look at the graph I will link. It hits ~80% at 1 falloff and 0% at 2.
Linked graph from wolfram alpha
This makes fighting in fall-off a lot more attractive.
I would even make it plateau more up and only drop to about 80% at 1.5*falloff.
Perhaps something like this
Prob to hit vs falloff on wolframdata
Yes it's definitely a change from what you have now; it makes falloff, which is important for minmatar a lot more competitive.
edit: url link issues
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 17:27:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Mr Opinions
Perhaps something like this
Prob to hit vs falloff on wolframdata
Yes it's definitely a change from what you have now; it makes falloff, which is important for minmatar a lot more competitive.
Is it possible for you to plot the current falloff formula against your proposal? It might make for an easier comparision. I mean no offense, but based on what you're suggesting, CCP might as well boost optimal by a large amount and leave falloff alone. 
I can't quite figure out how to get that site to superimpose two plots, so I'll just explain. afaik, the current (live) fallout formula is just a straight line from (0,1) to (2,0). And yes, that suggestion would be very similar to increasing optimal. But part of the favor of artys, to me at least, is that "it doesn't always work perfectly" effect.  By making the falloff curve slope off very gradually af first, you still have a small chance of missing at anything over optimal, whereas if you just increased optimal you'd have a 100% chance to hit assuming that you were within tracking limits. I admit the difference from perfect is small at less than 0.5 * falloff.
And, of course, none of this addresses the issue of dps at or below optimal which would be unaffected by such a change and which is still subpar compared to other systems, be it by adjusting ammo or whatever.
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 15:31:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 08/10/2009 15:34:43
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 08/10/2009 15:32:49
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 08/10/2009 15:32:18
Let's try to think like a CCP developer for a moment. I bet this whole thing started like this:
CCP "ScrumMaster" -> CCP Nozh: Hmmm... large projectiles and ships that use them aren't popular and we don't see so many of them in fleet engagements. Find out what it takes to fix the situation. If certain races ships are just plain missing from fleet engagements then something is wrong.
Now FCs have a lot to say about what ships get brought to large engagements and they apparently stay away from larger projectiles. Some of the reasons mentioned are e.g.:
Originally by: "mazzilliu"
what about range? the tempest and maelstrom are the worst ranged fleet snipers compared to all other races.
in fleet fights you hardly ever see minmatar ships. because even with maxed out range they cant touch what the other races can bring.
(emphasis added)
So maybe we can put the question to any medium to large fleet FCs out there:
List, briefly, the reasons you bring so few large projectile ships to fleet engagements and what would have to change to projectiles before you would consider them worth bringing?
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.10.16 11:03:00 -
[5]
We could start a "Where is CCP Nozh?" thread.
It would probably end up with some other dev pointing him to the thread.
Anyway, let's hope something gets enacted. One thing everyone agrees on is that the status quo is no good.
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 14:39:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 26/10/2009 14:41:25
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 26/10/2009 14:40:22
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 26/10/2009 14:39:08
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
Also confirming that artybaddon is the best alpha platform.
This is indeed the case.
The irony of Amarr BS being the best ships on which to profit from the artillery changes is quite astounding.
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 16:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
Originally by: Kaileen Starsong
I'd honestly prefer if Pest retained its bonuses, but gotten larger dronebay and got turned in passive(as in, buffer) shieldtank-geared ship. Like 8/7/4 and 125 mbit.
Pretty much something like this.
This
Do the above and fix the Muninn too and then we are around where we need to be.
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 13:37:00 -
[8]
The latest updates and ammo changes are now live on Sisi btw. (new patch)
Imho, one of the good things about the ammo changes is that all ammo types have a clear purpose now, whereas the old system was a rather random mix of range and damage types which made some ammo types redundant or useless.
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 11:32:00 -
[9]
Hmmm. Here's a somewhat radical idea... why not change TE/TC so they have no effect on lasers? At least then the TE/TC change won't unintentionally buff the already overpowered amarr ships. I seriously doubt they are used much on current amarr ship fits so it's not like they would miss them.
Ofc that still means that projectiles are balanced around a module tho without any additional low slots to fit them, unless you count the tempest change.
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 02:00:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 27/11/2009 02:02:18
Originally by: Bomberlocks
Originally by: Ravcharas
I couldn't find any mention of these changes in the patch notes. Am I blind? Are they no longer considered for deployment? Still going through?
CCP didn't publish them because they didn't think it was important enough. And that alone speaks volumes about where we as Minnies stand in CCP's eyes.
(tl;dr: watch the dominion video and look at the ratio of amarr to mini ships)
While the changes being made are interesting, and some issues have been fixed like the typhoon and the reintroduction of more alpha for artillery (which is of limited utility and would still work best on amarr ships for other reasons) and some nice projectile ammo tweaks, they don't address the general projectile (or minmatar) problems in pvp, which is also quite likely why they aren't listed as a feature for dominion.
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.
Whether or not that was an intentional aspect of the video, it unfortunately reflects the reality that the four main races' larger ships aren't anywhere near balanced in terms of usefulness in large scale fleet fights and that the designers do not appear to have any serious intentions of having that change, especially the discrepency between amarr being so OP, and minmatar so underpowered in such encounters.
So those in large fleets will just have to get used to the FCs saying "Take that crap back and bring an apoc!"
On the other hand, part of me wants to be an optimist and hope that these changes to projectiles and a couple of minmatar ships will just be the start of the coming fixes.
|
|
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 20:29:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 27/11/2009 20:29:55
Originally by: Bitty Bit
Oh well, Time to train Amarr I guess. Wasted time and SP hoping this patch would help.. don't feel like waiting 2 more years b4 the get back to Matar
Well, in all seriousness, if more significant changes don't come, then the best choice will be to request that the NPE tutorial agents tell new minmatar players, after they have gotten past the reaper rookie ship, to focus on training for Amarr ships, otherwise they will come to regret it later in their careers; offer all new minmatar pilots a free Amarr frigate skillbook at the end of the tutorials or something to get them started.
I mean why not be honest about it?
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 21:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Insa Rexion
EDIT ... I see this thread is just turning into a minmatar is hard mode/crap/underpowered etc etc thread rather than projectiles. Sorry for adding to that, I'll stop =/
Yeah that's true, and I think most here would like to keep it positive and focused on projectiles. It's just hard to fix projectiles without looking at the related issues of the ships that are likely to use them.
What's also happened is that the change iterations seem to have stopped and that usually means that the fat lady has sung and nothing else will change for a long time now. Let's hope that's not the case and more changes are coming; if not for Dominion, then soon after.
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 15:10:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Mr Opinions on 28/11/2009 15:11:03
The best projectile-related changes in this patch from what I can see are
- short range ammo buffs
- clip size changes (less time reloading = more damage in longer fights)
- reorganization of damage types on T1 ammo
- TE/TC improvements (at least it will still be 30% falloff and 15% optimal on T2 TEs)
- alpha, even if it's not that useful in most situations
What is missing:
- there needs to be at least some BS-level fleet PVP situations where large projectiles are the best weapon for the job. Right now it's unquestionably lasers at all ranges except perhaps blasters at point-blank range. (Artillery alpha strikes don't really provide this.)
- tempest/mael redesign to give better projectile + minmatar bs synergy so as to be competitive choices in fleet engagements
What wasn't necessary:
- nerfing long range ammo damage (long range ammo already had awful damage anyway, most would rather have the dmg back than the tracking)
- the naglfar reversion to split weapon bonuses
Anyway, it will be interesting to see all the feedback when the Sisi updates go live on TQ where there will be 100 times as many people trying them. Remember popcorn.
|
|
|
| |
|