Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 20:34:00 -
[31]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis missiles always hit
Not quite true. Even less so for rockets. Short range (under 10km) and low flight time means they are easily outrun in the upper quarter, or even deeper in engagement range is your opponent have enough of a transversal, so that your warheads have to maneuver much to catch up. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 22:33:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: CCP Chronotis missiles always hit
Not quite true.
Don't be _that_ guy who forces me to add multiple caveats to every statement . I am fairly certain you knew what I meant when I referred to missiles always hitting in context of hit rolls vs turrets. If I have to word every reply to prevent nitpicking it will take longer to get round to everyone and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes!
Thanks for the feedback so far everyone. The main thing to do for now is fire up sisi when the changes are applied for the rocket changes and have at it on sisi in the test sites, though EFT warriors are fine for feedback on the hawk as its mostly fitting for scenario A,B,C etc. We will look to reply in more detail to your specific feedback tomorrow. Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula, if my eve-search foo has worked, the one you are using is fairly different which explains your focus on DRF.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 23:19:00 -
[33]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes!
Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula, if my eve-search foo has worked, the one you are using is fairly different which explains your focus on DRF.
Hello, Scorch L...?
Er, yeah, current comments on DRF are based on Stafen's missile damage formula. From my experience it's accurate enough, but it's very hard to tell in general combat because of all the variables. Certainly if we're all speaking nonsense because the formula is off then it would be useful to have the real one...
|
Stafen
Killer Koalas
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 23:24:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Thanks for the feedback so far everyone. The main thing to do for now is fire up sisi when the changes are applied for the rocket changes and have at it on sisi in the test sites, though EFT warriors are fine for feedback on the hawk as its mostly fitting for scenario A,B,C etc. We will look to reply in more detail to your specific feedback tomorrow. Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula, if my eve-search foo has worked, the one you are using is fairly different which explains your focus on DRF.
Oh no, I cannot be wrong! Well if it does get released, I look forward to seeing how it matches up with what I tried to deduce. The role DRF plays in my formula seemed to fit with my measurements and even matched up with the hidden attribute oaeDamageReductionSensitivity, but I only had 5 data points for different DRF values. (see DRF_graph ) Probably what is happening is that I have an approximation to the real formula. The real formula would be something which a CPU could calculate quicker as it does not involve logarithms or powers. (/me now tries to guess what it is approximating)
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 23:29:00 -
[35]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula, if my eve-search foo has worked, the one you are using is fairly different which explains your focus on DRF.
Please do, Stafens formula gives this kind of result so increasing Ev looks like madness if you're trying to prevent "having a constant 70+ DPS beating down on a ship".
So far Stafen's formula has very accurately predicted the results of play testing on TQ, though I did make a slight alteration to his modifier. It would be very interesting to see the real missile formula however _______
Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 23:55:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Tonto Auri on 28/09/2010 23:59:07
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: CCP Chronotis missiles always hit
Not quite true.
Don't be _that_ guy who forces me to add multiple caveats to every statement .
You know it wasn't mean to be that bad. The real issue was been pointed already, the range of rockets is pretty short. If we talk about effective range, of course. My personal formula I use for calculating missile range including a coefficient of 0.9 for relatively slow targets and 0.8 for fast moving targets. If we get it to the slippery ground of comparisons, you can think about it in the same terms as with turrets. Maximum distance you can hit anything at all = Optimal+2xFallOff. But behind Optimal+Falloff your chances to hit anything is pretty slim. I can recall the encounter I had in my Vengeance against a buffer Zealot. I've almost killed him two times in a row, but I haven't had a point, so he escaped each time. Being the chances on the other side if he wouldn't warp directly to me, I'd be toast long before I can dive in my rockets range, without even a hope of scratching him. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 00:49:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Gypsio III Increasing the explosion velocity to 150 m/s gives 225 m/s after TNP V. The explosion radius of 20 m means that a 40-m-sig frigate such as a Jaguar would have to travel at 450 m/s to receive damage mitigation. In comparison, a Jag with an overheated AB and an ODI II can do ~600 m/s webbed, receiving ~85% damage (without the web, ~46%). In comparison, with the current TQ rockets, these numbers are 58% and 32% (lol).
Raw damage has only increased by ~5.6%, but it's MUCH easier to apply it to an ABing target - which is where the main problem was. I am, however, kinda disappointed that the DRF has not been changed. As seen with the percentages of damage mitigation above, a web is absolutely essential on a rocket ship, both for keeping your target out of its turret optimal and for actually applying your damage. This not only leads to predictable fits and tactics, but excludes two-medslot frigates such as the Inquisitor and Condor from being usable rocket platforms.
Pretty much this. Easier to hit AB frigs when you have web (good) but still practically useless without web. Inq and condor really need tier system dropped to be effective i guess but it also hits my beloved Heretic (mwd+mse+scram). Yeh yeh i know i can put plate there but in longer run plated dictor is dead dictor (hint at some dictor sig/rebalances). Also heretic damage is **** poor compared to recently boosted (ammo changes) sabre.
Damagewise looks ok (still laughable but at least can damage webbed ABing targets) but one question... any changes to rage rockets? Ev?
Also, Chronotis, you were hinting at missile system changes at some point (yes i know not now, just general idea). Is that about moving away from physical engine? Or maybe something else?
|
Zach Donnell
Ghost-Busters
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 01:39:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Zach Donnell on 29/09/2010 01:41:11
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: CCP Chronotis missiles always hit
Not quite true.
Don't be _that_ guy who forces me to add multiple caveats to every statement . I am fairly certain you knew what I meant when I referred to missiles always hitting in context of hit rolls vs turrets. If I have to word every reply to prevent nitpicking it will take longer to get round to everyone and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes!
Thanks for the feedback so far everyone. The main thing to do for now is fire up sisi when the changes are applied for the rocket changes and have at it on sisi in the test sites, though EFT warriors are fine for feedback on the hawk as its mostly fitting for scenario A,B,C etc. We will look to reply in more detail to your specific feedback tomorrow. Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula, if my eve-search foo has worked, the one you are using is fairly different which explains your focus on DRF.
Will definitely be on SiSi messing with it these next few days. But if the DRF has less of an effect (as you implied) than it does in the now determined incorrect formula, these changes may go further than we expected. Which is certainly welcomed :)
Edit: Proper phrasing -------------------------------------------------
"Bustin' makes me feel good!" |
Bryant21
Inherently Risky Schemes
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 04:01:00 -
[39]
I am extremely happy you guys are looking at the Hawk.
There is ONE main problem with the Hawk:
A Kestrel can out DPS it. (Using a near identical fit)
The proposed damage increase will make the Hawk EVEN with the kestrel in terms of DPS.
My suggestions:
Heavy Tanker: Another mid slot along with some more CPU and Powergrid will allow the hawk to be a very effective tanker. As stated before compared to other frigates its DPS is laughable, but that is fine if its role is tackle
OR
Damage Dealer:
Give us another launcher slot. The 5 launcher slot will greatly help in terms of DPS. Additionally being able to fit two ballistic control units would be nice. Currently the hawk is a "hybrid" but it is really only used as a missile platform. Get rid of the hybrid slot and give us the missiles we need. ---------
|
Mona X
Caldari C0VEN
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 11:39:00 -
[40]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis longer to get round to everyone and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes!
You're nerfing Scorch or fixing short range versions?
Join Eve-Online, meet interesting people, grief them. |
|
Helicity Boson
Amarr The Python Cartel. The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 11:51:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Gypsio III Edited by: Gypsio III on 29/09/2010 07:37:08
Originally by: CCP Chronotis and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes!
Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula, if my eve-search foo has worked, the one you are using is fairly different which explains your focus on DRF.
Hello, Scorch L... Or is that just a reference to the T2 rockets?
Er, yeah, current comments on DRF are based on Stafen's missile damage formula. From my experience it's accurate enough, but it's very hard to tell in general combat because of all the variables. Certainly if we're all speaking nonsense because the formula is off then it would be useful to have the real one...
Yeah... if only we had a sort of website where our lazy developers could document their convoluted mechanics so we wouldn't have to guesstimate. You know a site where people could post information, and update it along with patch notes... oh, wait...
(yes chronotis, this is me taking a stab at how eve is the most poorly documented mmo in existance, QQ more)
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 12:35:00 -
[42]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula
Yes please! Would be great to test with the light on, rather than stumbling around in the dark.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 13:02:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 29/09/2010 13:05:11 So raw dps stays the same (actually, a bit lower than original), now rockets just deliver it better within the same range and have better ammo consumption/clip size...
With hopes for rocket platforms revision :3
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente Luxury Exports The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 13:47:00 -
[44]
So what's being fixed, rockets or Hawks?
I want rockets to be fixed so I can throw them as a utility damage slot on ships that can use missiles like Enyos, etc. After all, the only tech 2 missile skill I have is Rockets.
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 14:22:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa So what's being fixed, rockets or Hawks?
I want rockets to be fixed so I can throw them as a utility damage slot on ships that can use missiles like Enyos, etc. After all, the only tech 2 missile skill I have is Rockets.
I think it's quite obvious. They are looking if the overall trend is satisfying. If yes, the changes to other rocket boats will follow. (Or, well, I hope so...) -- Thanks CCP for cu |
yani dumyat
Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 14:41:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
So raw dps stays the same (actually, a bit lower than original)
Huh? If you increase damage by ~32% then reduce ROF by 25% surely you get a net gain of 7% dps?
_______
Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel. |
Artemis Ahab
Caldari The Inf1dels En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 15:07:00 -
[47]
Originally by: yani dumyat
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
So raw dps stays the same (actually, a bit lower than original)
Huh? If you increase damage by ~32% then reduce ROF by 25% surely you get a net gain of 7% dps?
I was under the impression that ROF had a higher impact on dps than pure damage modifiers. I.e. a ROF bonus will give you slightly more dps than a pure damage bonus. I may be mistaken though, I'm no pvp god
|
Shadowy Assistant
Darkrime Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 15:36:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Shadowy Assistant on 29/09/2010 15:36:40 It's a net 5.6% DPS increase.
|
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 15:42:00 -
[49]
Possibly even more due to longer time between reloads.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 15:47:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Shadowy Assistant Edited by: Shadowy Assistant on 29/09/2010 15:36:40 It's a net 5.6% DPS increase.
Do you count reloads in?
|
|
Artemis Ahab
Caldari The Inf1dels En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 15:52:00 -
[51]
including the increase in clip size or no?
|
Grimpak
Gallente The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 15:54:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Grimpak on 29/09/2010 15:55:04
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Possibly even more due to longer time between reloads.
yeah but like, isn't a 25% RoF bonus equivalent to a 33% damage bonus? I must be thinking about the good old barely relevant DoT however, and not DpS. ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 15:58:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 29/09/2010 16:03:44
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Possibly even more due to longer time between reloads.
yeah but like, isn't a 25% RoF bonus equivalent to a 33% damage bonus?
If its positive yes:
100dps * 1,33 damage = 133dps 100dps / 0,75 (base 1 but 25% "boost" thus 0,75) = 133,(3)dps 100dps * 1,32 (damage) / 1.25 (base 1 PLUS 25%) = 105,6dps --> thus 5,6% boost.
And reload time (25% rof increase = 25% longer time till reload, also 25% more ammo = another 25% longer time) = 56% longer time between reloads. Add ROF and count how much you gain (cba atm ;p).
EDIT: actually (maxskill, t2 launcher): 2,2s rof / 40 ammo (current) = 88seconds to empty clip, 10 second reload. Reload takes 10,2% of whole "empty clip+reload" cycle. 2,75s rof / 50 ammo (new) = 137,5s, 10s reload. Reload takes 6,8% of the cycle. So another 3ish% improvement on DPS IF you factor in reload.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 16:04:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Shadowy Assistant Edited by: Shadowy Assistant on 29/09/2010 15:36:40 It's a net 5.6% DPS increase.
Yeah, It's a 5.6% increase. I just noobed cos it was too early in the day for numbers _______
Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 16:12:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 29/09/2010 16:14:58
The extra clip size will certainly be useful. I killed a couple of blaster-Taranisii on Sisi with a rocket Crow a few days ago, and in both fights I had to reload...
Even though I think I first calculated the 5.6% increase, and you're all now agreeing with me, I can't now figure out how I did it - instead I'm getting a 1% decrease, but I know that that's wrong, because Chron said the raw DPS would go up a bit...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 16:28:00 -
[56]
Ah, I've got it. If we start with 10 DPS, with 100 damage every 10 seconds, then the current ROF is 10 seconds/shot, with 25% slower shooting giving 12.5 seconds/shot, which combined with 132 damage (32% increase from 100) gives 10.56 DPS, compared to the original 10 DPS - the 5.6% increase.
But CCP measures ROF as shots/second. 10 seconds/shot is 0.1 shot/second, and the 25% reduction gives 0.075 shot/second, which is 13.333 seconds/shot. 132 damage every 13.333 gives 9.9 DPS, a 1% decrease.
Damn I'm confused now.
|
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 16:31:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 29/09/2010 16:33:18 Uhhh?
ROF is literally rounds per time (1/t - ofc you can always multiply both sides by same number to get say 600 rounds per minute - tho its same as 10 rounds per second). But in this game ROF is "module activation time"(t). Thats why you divide damage by ROF and get (dmg/t).
|
Grimpak
Gallente The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 16:42:00 -
[58]
soooo is it right to say that of these rocket changes, the increase of explosion velocity is the main change, while the RoF/dmg mod/clip size changes are more like functionality changes that don't contribute that much for raw damage applied (discounting reloads)? ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 17:41:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Grimpak soooo is it right to say that of these rocket changes, the increase of explosion velocity is the main change, while the RoF/dmg mod/clip size changes are more like functionality changes that don't contribute that much for raw damage applied (discounting reloads)?
I think they are tweaking the mythical DRF Damage Reduction Factor(?) as well so rocks will even better against small targets. Won't help against anything else so for versatility guns on Vengeance will still be superior :( Kind of sad that there will no missile on the frig level that is remotely competitive against cruiser and up.
Putting all my faith in the ship changes though, the applicable ships can still turn out godly with rocks.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 18:41:00 -
[60]
Originally by: yani dumyat
Originally by: Shadowy Assistant Edited by: Shadowy Assistant on 29/09/2010 15:36:40 It's a net 5.6% DPS increase.
Yeah, It's a 5.6% increase. I just noobed cos it was too early in the day for numbers
Indeed, (new base damage (33) / new rate of fire (5)) / (old base damage (25) / old rate of fire (4)) = 1.056 or 5.6% for the change to raw stats.
Apologies, I have not caught up with the thread with some more in-depth replies, been busy all day but will catch up tonight and tomorrow hopefully.
To give a little insight using very quick paper exercise before I must depart for the evening, these current changes approximately doubles the effective damage an AB'ing interceptor receives to use the most dramatic case of sig/speed pairing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |