EVE Search - Projectile Weapons

Check My IP Information

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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 90 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Tyler Lowe DROW Org Brotherhood of the Spider	Posted - 2009.10.21 15:46:00 - [1231] Originally by: ijustwannatalk The fact that nozh isn't replying means one of three things: 1. he's been fired (we can wish, but it if hasn't happened yet, its probably not going to :( ) 2. he doesn't like the feedback from this thread so he's going to ignore it and let it die like the other two mentioned earlier 3. he's already decided what the fix is going to be and is going to ignore all feedback, kind of like what he did with carriers and speed. There's a reason he's the only dev that's ever had the honor of his own thread requesting he be dismissed from his post, and its not because he's good at it. 4. The devs have been keeping tabs on this discussion and are still having their own internal discusion on how any changes they may be considering would affect play balance. They may be gauging what the general feeling is among players through this thread, which, I may add, despite having now become somewhat less than focused has been a source of some good debate on a variety of Matar issues, and even a few good ideas here and there. If the devs are still undecided as to the exact nature of further change, or are still in the process of doing internal testing of that change, it doesn't make much sense to announce things that may never come to pass and ignite a firestorm on the forums either for or against something they are still merely considering. I think the baseline assumption in that list above that they don't care is deeply flawed. I prefer to assume that they do care, that they do have their own vision, whether we like it or not, and that the appearance of this thread and at least the start of some changes on Sisi for us to test shows that they are also open to suggestion as to how they should better fill their vision for Matar. The moment this thread stops serving a purpose for them, it'll get unstickied IMO. Not because they are running away from anything, or ignoring anything, but because it no longer does what they needed it to do, or because they got what they needed from it.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 16:01:00 - [1232] Originally by: Seishi Maru I can counter all your arguments with same level of logic as yours: 1) You can say the same about maelstrom being shot at its lowest ressit by ammar ship and dealing EM heavy damage on an ammar ship. Doe snto change fact that races shoudl be biased towards their FAVORED damage type. 2 different things. I am not promoting here a change to make lasers more affective against minmatar ships same way as you do with minmatar. No matter of your reasoning, your proposed changes would make the life very tedious for Amarr boats. Mealestrom is a shield tanker, that is why it has lowest resists, not because it is Minmatar being shot by Amarr. Originally by: Seishi Maru 2)Boot to lasers? Lasers have such small falloff that is meaningless 25% extra base falloff (from cyhanging the skills) and you get whooping 2 km on a mega PUlse.. OMG how ULTRAGIOUS! You might not know but Beams also have fall-off. While you generaly don't snipe in fall-off range, I still don't like to see the changes made to the skill, thus boosting all turret platforms and make the intention of changes less effective. Same applies for range affecting modules. Originally by: Seishi Maru 3)Does not change the fact that the ONLY vision that matters is from the game design team,if we don 't understand what they want we can never help sufggest a balanced decision. Just screaming what YOU want is what is called poor negotiation skills. I have no vision. I am a consumer, not a developer. All I do is to provide feedback. Can you point out where I was 'screaming' about what I want? As far as I know I didn't post any ideas, solutions or I proposed any changes. All I did was to rise some objections and concerns. Originally by: Seishi Maru 4)That is hwo it is, does not change fact that isa fugly situation where the most tank focsed battleship in game is the sniper and the least tanked battleship is a close combat one... with LESS damage... LOL Tempest completely overhelpemd by typhoon and maesltrom on any NON solo environment. Jsut wnat to know if CCP vision of tempest is that.. SOLO! I am not really sure what you are trying to say here... Originally by: Seishi Maru 5)The fact that I am happy is as relevant as the fact that yOU are not happy. Also there are already incredble weapons for 0.0 fleet fights, called tachyons on apocalypses. We in low sec have the same rights to have weapons that fill our scale of engagements. You cannot give massive alpha on guns with very high tracking. THAT woudl be silly. That would be same as making torpedos do full damage to cruisers. The point is, I am not using my affection to the game changes as an argumnet... No, giving citadel launcher to battleships would be the same as adding aplha to arties. Usefull in situations where you are able to apply their damage, under other circumstances not that great.
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.21 16:16:00 - [1233] Originally by: Tyler Lowe Logic and common sense. Fantastic Tyler. This thread could do with a bit more reason and a lot less flaming.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:36:00 - [1234] Originally by: Caldor Mansi No, giving citadel launcher to battleships would be the same as adding aplha to arties. Usefull in situations where you are able to apply their damage, under other circumstances not that great. And HOW would that be bad? That woudlbe awesome. Would make game more interesting and fun.. and we play games because of that!
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:47:00 - [1235] Originally by: Seishi Maru And HOW would that be bad? That woudlbe awesome. Would make game more interesting and fun.. and we play games because of that! Because citadels can shoot only very big and very not moving targets. For anything else it is just not any good. The key is to add more options, not just replace one option by another.
Uncle Smokey	Posted - 2009.10.21 18:57:00 - [1236] is there a chart for real damage in falloff, hit quality included? just thought i'd like to see one.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:05:00 - [1237] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 21/10/2009 19:06:10 Originally by: Uncle Smokey is there a chart for real damage in falloff, hit quality included? just thought i'd like to see one. Since Hit Quality is chance based, it would be very difficult to include it in DPS numbers and if so, such DPS would have very little information value.
Crackpipe2000	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:12:00 - [1238] Edited by: Crackpipe2000 on 21/10/2009 19:12:41 how did anyone come up with the actual damage at falloff, and how the degradation works at other ranges, then?
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:26:00 - [1239] Originally by: Crackpipe2000 Edited by: Crackpipe2000 on 21/10/2009 19:12:41 how did anyone come up with the actual damage at falloff, and how the degradation works at other ranges, then? This might help you: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Turret_damage
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:09:00 - [1240] 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.

Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 20:46:00 - [1241] Originally by: Elaron 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. The 'problem' is that hit quality is chance based and those results are statistical data. 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.
Uncle Smokey	Posted - 2009.10.21 21:17:00 - [1242] 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.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.21 22:02:00 - [1243] 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 - [1244] 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.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 23:05:00 - [1245] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 21/10/2009 23:06:08 Originally by: Elaron And? Are you trying to suggest that in-game combat doesn't adhere to the statistical model that has been worked out? 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. 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.
Gamrikis	Posted - 2009.10.21 23:51:00 - [1246] WOW really you compared EVE guns to six sided die??? Since you found the mean of a six sided die maybe you can show me the damage from 1000 shots of every gun type at 100m/s speed at the intended fall off distance. Oh and put it in a frequency chart, find me standard deviation so I can plunk in a number and figure out it Z score. Thanks in advance for your stellar service to EVE, Gam
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 00:19:00 - [1247] Originally by: Gamrikis WOW really you compared EVE guns to six sided die??? Since you found the mean of a six sided die maybe you can show me the damage from 1000 shots of every gun type at 100m/s speed at the intended fall off distance. Oh and put it in a frequency chart, find me standard deviation so I can plunk in a number and figure out it Z score. Thanks in advance for your stellar service to EVE, Gam I didn't run the hit quality tests since I don't care about it. You will have to dig it out yourself, I am quite sure it can be found somewhere around. However z-score would be as practical as the graph presented here. 1) I don't see a reason why anyone should do the work but you since you seem to be so much interested 2) Quality hit is decided by randomly generated number. So yeah, a dice roll. I hope it didn't hurt you much to write your worthless post...
Gamrikis	Posted - 2009.10.22 00:35:00 - [1248] Who said anything about a random hit? What I think is that this is as useless a argument as they get. The point is simple, The only way to get anything remotely close to a proper curve is to have the date CCP has on file, OR go to the test server and do a sample of 200 + hits with every gun on every ship type at every distance at different traversals. Only then will you have proper data to make a probability chart. Only then will you have even close to a believable unbiased info. Stop making charts they show nothing but unrecorded data.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.10.22 01:10:00 - [1249] 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.
Gamrikis	Posted - 2009.10.22 01:19:00 - [1250] Edited by: Gamrikis on 22/10/2009 01:19:40 Where was optimal on this Theory-craft gun? I am guessing 13?

Liang Nuren No Salvation War.Pigs.	Posted - 2009.10.22 03:50:00 - [1251] Originally by: Gamrikis Edited by: Gamrikis on 22/10/2009 01:40:17 If it not to much to ask, Can I get the equations used plus the accuracy falloff and optimal? Would like to play with this a bit. Original Formula by Naughty Boy chance to hit = ((1.0/2.0) ** ((((Transv/(RangeTracking))(Sig_Res/Sig_Rad)) 2) +((max(0,Range-Optimal))/Falloff) 2)) Original hit quality formula by KzIg (http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?p=114333#114333) Expected damage per shot = normal damage * [min(chance to hit, 1%)3 + max(0,chance to hit - 1%)(0.99+chance to hit)/2] -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.10.22 04:58:00 - [1252] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Caldor Mansi No, giving citadel launcher to battleships would be the same as adding aplha to arties. Usefull in situations where you are able to apply their damage, under other circumstances not that great. And HOW would that be bad? That woudlbe awesome. Would make game more interesting and fun.. and we play games because of that! Side note: you can actually fit a citadel torp launcher to an Abbadon if you stack it with RCU 2s and Ancillary Current rigs. Then, fit 3x target painters in the lows and rely on your gang to web the target battleship, and you can actually get your 1900 damage alpha off on it! Not terribly useful, kinda expensive, but I'm sure someone has all ready done it. --Krum --Krum
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 08:28:00 - [1253] Originally by: Elaron 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. There is not much I can add to what I have already said. As I pointed out to you with 3.5 roll dice, there is no such thing as 3.5 for 6 sided dice roll. It is always 6:1 no matter how many times you roll it. Statistics or probability prediction in general is used to describe an ocurance of phenomenon and generalize the observation. But what you do here is the exact opposite and incorrect - the results of large sample test are applied to smaller samples. The graph or any other expression only describes the behavior of quaility hits but in no way those results are applicapable for DPS in particular rounds fired - a real engagement.
Nuts Nougat Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.10.22 09:57:00 - [1254] Originally by: Caldor Mansi Originally by: Elaron 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. There is not much I can add to what I have already said. As I pointed out to you with 3.5 roll dice, there is no such thing as 3.5 for 6 sided dice roll. It is always 6:1 no matter how many times you roll it. Statistics or probability prediction in general is used to describe an ocurance of phenomenon and generalize the observation. But what you do here is the exact opposite and incorrect - the results of large sample test are applied to smaller samples. The graph or any other expression only describes the behavior of quaility hits but in no way those results are applicapable for DPS in particular rounds fired - a real engagement. You, sir, are dumb. He said the average you get from rolling the die is 3.5. Which means if you roll a 6 sided die 960 times (this is the amount of ammo a mael holds in it's autocannons in dominion, and plenty large enough number that the statistics will already apply) the average of all the rolls will be roughly 3.5. Thus if an autocannon would do 1-6 damage every second, that is exactly 3.5 dps. Yes, you can't roll a 3.5, but the average roll on a 6 sided die is 3.5. Your "but my sample count is small" doesn't matter as there is exactly 50:50 chance to throw higher or lower than 3.5. If you're thinking single shots, yes you will sometimes hit for 6 damage (lucky) or 1 damage (unlucky). But the average of that is still 3.5 damage, so I don't get what exactly you're trying to say... And as the number of these single shots increases, the damage per shot you did approaches 3.5. Originally by: Yon Krum Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Caldor Mansi No, giving citadel launcher to battleships would be the same as adding aplha to arties. Usefull in situations where you are able to apply their damage, under other circumstances not that great. And HOW would that be bad? That woudlbe awesome. Would make game more interesting and fun.. and we play games because of that! Side note: you can actually fit a citadel torp launcher to an Abbadon if you stack it with RCU 2s and Ancillary Current rigs. Then, fit 3x target painters in the lows and rely on your gang to web the target battleship, and you can actually get your 1900 damage alpha off on it! Not terribly useful, kinda expensive, but I'm sure someone has all ready done it. --Krum Afaik this is no longer possible. ---
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 10:27:00 - [1255] Originally by: Nuts Nougat You, sir, are dumb. He said the average you get from rolling the die is 3.5. Which means if you roll a 6 sided die 960 times (this is the amount of ammo a mael holds in it's autocannons in dominion, and plenty large enough number that the statistics will already apply) the average of all the rolls will be roughly 3.5. Thus if an autocannon would do 1-6 damage every second, that is exactly 3.5 dps. Yes, you can't roll a 3.5, but the average roll on a 6 sided die is 3.5. Your "but my sample count is small" doesn't matter as there is exactly 50:50 chance to throw higher or lower than 3.5. If you're thinking single shots, yes you will sometimes hit for 6 damage (lucky) or 1 damage (unlucky). But the average of that is still 3.5 damage, so I don't get what exactly you're trying to say... And as the number of these single shots increases, the damage per shot you did approaches 3.5. You are mistaken average for probability and mixing them up... Wheter there is an average of 3.5 value roll on 6 sided dice is purely depending on number of rolls. If you don't understand this, you should stop calling people dumb.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 10:46:00 - [1256] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Caldor Mansi Mission runners will be incredibely cripled since this will be quite a drop in their damage over time making their life tedious. THIS IS WRONG. Their damage over time is the same... the only concern is how fast they can apply it, and how much they "overstrike" each target by. All things considered, missioning with artillery will not be impossible... just different. It's a change, and I consider it a boost. It's not terribly minor (as the change to medium artillery is), and it's not terribly major (as the change to the Apoc was). I might go so far as to say that the ammo + TC/TE falloff changes are the real minmatar boosts. -Liang Um... If applying damage is a concern, it is directly affecting 'damage over time'. And that is exactly my concern here. ie. think about new players with lower skills. You will 'miss' a lot of shots due various reasons(lag, bad target calling, targets dying too fast, w/e) or simply overstrike. As for TE I disagree. It will boost other weapon platforms which I believe is one of the main Matar pilots concerns because they don't feel competitive. There is a really need to have separate Fall-off affecting modules.
Nuts Nougat Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.10.22 11:04:00 - [1257] Originally by: Caldor Mansi You are mistaken average for probability and mixing them up... Wheter there is an average of 3.5 value roll on 6 sided dice is purely depending on number of rolls. If you don't understand this, you should stop calling people dumb. You're not making any sense. The average roll on a 6 sided die is 3.5. This is a fact. There is no "depending on number of rolls". ---
Mindo Junde	Posted - 2009.10.22 11:36:00 - [1258] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Edit2: What's with all the people going "target dies too fast"? If it's dead, guns don't even activate, and if they were active they deactivate, and never enter a cycle. So how is this bad for artillery? I don't get it. (unless you grouped your guns, but even now grouping artillery is just dumb, it'll just be dumber after patch) Why is grouping arty Dumb? Be nice to the noob
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.10.22 12:19:00 - [1259] Originally by: Mindo Junde Why is grouping arty Dumb? Be nice to the noob You avoid overkill (wasted dps) with ungrouped guns, especially now with +/-10k alpha 1400mm's. This allows you to put dps onto the secondary target within the first volley from the turrets that didn't activate (because the primary target no longer exists). Also guys, stop feeding trolls. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.10.22 13:13:00 - [1260] Originally by: Pattern Clarc You avoid overkill (wasted dps) with ungrouped guns, especially now with +/-10k alpha 1400mm's. This allows you to put dps onto the secondary target within the first volley from the turrets that didn't activate (because the primary target no longer exists). hmmm... how practical is that with large arties, especially in large(er) fleets? my thought being: if you activate 7 guns successively, you loose your alpha-advantage due to lag and communication delay. your fleet primaries+one-volleys the target intentionally, so it seems moot not to group. it would make more sense to let everyone with a large alpha hit the primary and most of the rest to go after secondary. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 90 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.