Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Thlad Stolch
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 19:34:00 -
[1]
(Sorry if wrong forum, but here it goes...)
There keep being noises from players and CCP about a possible drake nerf. Instead of doing that directly, why not do it indirectly.
Defender missiles for players are completely broken, but for rats they work mostly fine. (Rat defender missiles eat up 1 to ~3 player missiles (group them and see what the boss in Vengeance 4 does to applied damage))
Why not fix the defender missiles for the players? 1) Keep the loading of the defender missiles, so the module stops working every so often during the reload. 2) Player activates the module and it just stays on until either session change or out of ammo. 3) If there is a missile (group) inbound, the defender does a certain amount of damage, and then it waits a certain amount of time before checking for more inbound missiles. 4) The defender missile damage is applied like guns: instantaneous. This can have the side effect of _removing_ objects from the grid = maybe a decrease in server usage. 5) Maybe make 3 or so sizes of defender modules/missiles, like cap boosters. This allows tuning of power grid/cpu, inbound missile damage per missile size, ammo capacity.
This would change up the dynamics of missiles in pvp massively, since there would be an active counter compared to speed, sig radius, and distance. (5) could introduce nice fitting tradeoffs with the high utility slots, etc.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 19:43:00 -
[2]
Because of 3 things.
1) The drake isn't imbalanced as such, the only problem arises when there's MASSES of them, utilizing their excellent projection and VERY low cost. Fixing defenders into something very viable(which you'd have to do to change anything) you'd hurt all missile ships, including the drake in situations where it's quite balanced.
2) The problem with the drake is not as much a balance issue as a performance issue. Drakes cause lag, lag is biased meaning it can be tactical to field(or not field) drakes froma server performance perspective. This is plain wrong. A fix doesn't equal a nerf(atleast not necessarily). Defenders would add to the direct problem.
3) I honestly can't remember. Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 763215
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 19:58:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Thlad Stolch
2) Player activates the module and it just stays on until either session change or out of ammo. 3) If there is a missile (group) inbound, the defender does a certain amount of damage, and then it waits a certain amount of time before checking for more inbound missiles. 4) The defender missile damage is applied like guns: instantaneous. This can have the side effect of _removing_ objects from the grid = maybe a decrease in server usage. 5) Maybe make 3 or so sizes of defender modules/missiles, like cap boosters. This allows tuning of power grid/cpu, inbound missile damage per missile size, ammo capacity.
This all describes smartbombs pretty well. You can fight missile spam through the power of Disco: boogie, get down, and pwn.
|
Gecko O'Bac
H A V O C Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 20:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Thlad Stolch
2) Player activates the module and it just stays on until either session change or out of ammo. 3) If there is a missile (group) inbound, the defender does a certain amount of damage, and then it waits a certain amount of time before checking for more inbound missiles. 4) The defender missile damage is applied like guns: instantaneous. This can have the side effect of _removing_ objects from the grid = maybe a decrease in server usage. 5) Maybe make 3 or so sizes of defender modules/missiles, like cap boosters. This allows tuning of power grid/cpu, inbound missile damage per missile size, ammo capacity.
This all describes smartbombs pretty well. You can fight missile spam through the power of Disco: boogie, get down, and pwn.
True and also it doesn't fight missiles with yet another missile (that's the issue CCP has with drakes: missiles cause performance issues).
That said, another, better option (which I have suggested a long time ago and which CCP agreed is, roughly, what they're going to do once they have enough time and find a decent way) is to change missiles from a "physic" based model to a simulation based model, like they've done with fighter bombers' missiles.
|
Thorian Baalnorn
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 20:41:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gecko O'Bac
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Thlad Stolch
2) Player activates the module and it just stays on until either session change or out of ammo. 3) If there is a missile (group) inbound, the defender does a certain amount of damage, and then it waits a certain amount of time before checking for more inbound missiles. 4) The defender missile damage is applied like guns: instantaneous. This can have the side effect of _removing_ objects from the grid = maybe a decrease in server usage. 5) Maybe make 3 or so sizes of defender modules/missiles, like cap boosters. This allows tuning of power grid/cpu, inbound missile damage per missile size, ammo capacity.
This all describes smartbombs pretty well. You can fight missile spam through the power of Disco: boogie, get down, and pwn.
True and also it doesn't fight missiles with yet another missile (that's the issue CCP has with drakes: missiles cause performance issues).
That said, another, better option (which I have suggested a long time ago and which CCP agreed is, roughly, what they're going to do once they have enough time and find a decent way) is to change missiles from a "physic" based model to a simulation based model, like they've done with fighter bombers' missiles.
You can fix missile lag by :
1) making it act like other ammo types. 2)Increase velocity and decrease flight time. 3) Increase damage and decrease ROF.
Doing number 1 would just take away the object factor
Doing #2 would give you the same range, have less missiles in the air at the same time( since they dont spend 20 seconds going to target and thus 1 drake has 3 volleys in the air at a time) and marginally increase damage against smaller faster targets.
Doing #3 would decrease missiles in the air but keep the DPS the same with a higher alpha.
Changing #2 or #3 by say 20% should reduce missiles in the air by 20% in theory thus reducing missile load on the server by 20% Doing both at 20% should reduce missile lag by about 40% without making drastic changes to missiles.
Both 2 and 3, i would think, would be an easy quick fix. All they have to do is change the base stats on either all launchers or all missile types by +/- 20%. One dev could probably do both in a day easy.
|
Gecko O'Bac
H A V O C Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 20:58:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn
You can fix missile lag by :
1) making it act like other ammo types. 2)Increase velocity and decrease flight time. 3) Increase damage and decrease ROF.
Doing number 1 would just take away the object factor
Doing #2 would give you the same range, have less missiles in the air at the same time( since they dont spend 20 seconds going to target and thus 1 drake has 3 volleys in the air at a time) and marginally increase damage against smaller faster targets.
Doing #3 would decrease missiles in the air but keep the DPS the same with a higher alpha.
Changing #2 or #3 by say 20% should reduce missiles in the air by 20% in theory thus reducing missile load on the server by 20% Doing both at 20% should reduce missile lag by about 40% without making drastic changes to missiles.
Both 2 and 3, i would think, would be an easy quick fix. All they have to do is change the base stats on either all launchers or all missile types by +/- 20%. One dev could probably do both in a day easy.
In truth point 1 is the only logical thing to do. That's because IIRC about 70% or more of the load caused by missiles is done in two instances: creation and destruction of the physical object because they both touch the inventory system which is the most "fatigued" of the eve systems. Point 2 would do basically nothing while point 3 would be helpful but would increase missile alpha (which isn't all that desirable).
Changing missiles to a simulation model would allow us to do a lot of other things beside reducing lag. For a complete list I send you to my old thread: Missiles and wishful thinking
(Just a note: raising missile speed wouldn't influence missile damage a little bit, not directly at least. The damage formula is based on explosion velocity not missile velocity, and the two are completely unrelated. The only case in which a higher speed would help you do more damage is if a ship is slow enough to be damage by missiles and is flying at the edge of your range and is able to fly out of range while the missile is in flight. Basically: never happens, because either the ship is simply out of range, or the ship is so fast that is actually able to ALWAYS outrun missiles, never getting hit. In this last case raising velocity would, yes, make the missile hit but the damage done would be 0 since the EV is MUCH lower than missile speed)
|
Thorian Baalnorn
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 22:16:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Thorian Baalnorn on 29/10/2010 22:23:46 Edited by: Thorian Baalnorn on 29/10/2010 22:20:35
Quote: Just a note: raising missile speed wouldn't influence missile damage a little bit, not directly at least.
My thinking on this is the fact that now missiles could "catch" targets that it could not catch before. Though at those speeds, the target would suffer very minimal damage. Though i could just hear an inty pilot whine coming with such a change.
Also i thought the lag issue came from having to track objects in space. 7 missiles @ 2 volleys in flight per ship = 14 missiles x 100 drakes. 1400 extra objects for the server to keep track of in space. 3 volleys would be 2100 missiles for every 100 drakes. That is the same effect as adding 2100 drones to the server load. Thus why they added the drone limitations.
Edit: It is also my understanding that this is why drake armies ungroup their weapons. More objects to keep track of= greater server load. Enough that it pushes the server to its max and beyond.
Thus 2 and 3 would indeed work.
Or an even better solution is mark it as exploiting and get out the banstick. 2 week ban for parties using drake army blobs with ungrouped missiles for the sake of creating lag. obviously you get 100 drakes in a fleet and all ungroup their missiles, you know they are exploiting.
|
Aerilis
Gallente Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 23:15:00 -
[8]
This would actually work pretty well. I would be OK with leaving the Drake as it is as long as there is a relatively simple way to mess with their damage projection. Turrets have tracking disruptors, missiles should have a counter.
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 23:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Aerilis This would actually work pretty well. I would be OK with leaving the Drake as it is as long as there is a relatively simple way to mess with their damage projection. Turrets have tracking disruptors, missiles should have a counter.
Still haven't watched the smartbomb 'firewall' video?
Anyhow, defenders were meant to be that thing, but they've been broken since inception (exellence ftw) so you can't really cry foul on something that never worked in the first place. 1 medium smartie is all it takes instead. I think that's more efficient (given it can stop exponentially more missiles and thus damage) than even 'fixed' defenders would be.
As far as normalizing launchers, i'm all for it. I'm way past giving a crap about animations, just make the bloody launchers function without lag.
|
Thorian Baalnorn
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 23:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Aerilis This would actually work pretty well. I would be OK with leaving the Drake as it is as long as there is a relatively simple way to mess with their damage projection. Turrets have tracking disruptors, missiles should have a counter.
Its called a MWD.
|
|
Anarkiss
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 08:09:00 -
[11]
drake fix = ban from 0.0
|
July Shine
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 08:33:00 -
[12]
Guys don't be ridiculous. Drakes ARE unbalanced becouse they can fit tank and gank at the same time. It's the only ship that can fit a ridiculous huge buffer tank while dealing a tremendous damage at the same time. This is called overpowered to me.
|
Jovan Geldon
Gallente Lead Farmers
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 08:44:00 -
[13]
The simple solution in my mind would be to make Doomsday weapons AoE again. I'd like to see the Drakes much-vaunted tank stand up to that
|
Aeo IV
Amarr Oneironautics Research Institute
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 08:48:00 -
[14]
Defenders should be changed to chaff.
|
Lord Zekk
Angel Raiders
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 08:53:00 -
[15]
Originally by: July Shine Guys don't be ridiculous. Drakes ARE unbalanced becouse they can fit tank and gank at the same time. It's the only ship that can fit a ridiculous huge buffer tank while dealing a tremendous damage at the same time. This is called overpowered to me.
However in order to that it has to sacrifice tackle mods.
|
wizard87
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 11:15:00 -
[16]
When everyone flies the same ship for pvp it is pretty much time to nerf it.
Sorry but thats the way it works.
Next flavour of the month I predict is the Ferox after Hybrid ammo changes, so get training.
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 15:37:00 -
[17]
Originally by: wizard87 Next flavour of the month I predict is the Ferox after Hybrid ammo changes, so get training.
Way ahead of you, i'm stockpiling hybrid ammo, ships, and modules.
|
SFX Bladerunner
Minmatar Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 15:46:00 -
[18]
Missiles produce more lag on the server than guns.
CCP does not want you to use defenders.
Drake needs a nerf.
BOOST WINMATAR.
Also, <INSERT ZEEKY BOOGY DOOG HERE>
Thanks. __________________________________________________
History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.. |
Cataca
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 16:25:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Originally by: wizard87 Next flavour of the month I predict is the Ferox after Hybrid ammo changes, so get training.
Way ahead of you, i'm stockpiling hybrid ammo, ships, and modules.
Are there specifics yet? I mean, any official word?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 16:50:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Aeo IV Defenders should be changed to chaff.
Put them into a midslot and you've got yourself a decent idea. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 17:19:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Cataca
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Originally by: wizard87 Next flavour of the month I predict is the Ferox after Hybrid ammo changes, so get training.
Way ahead of you, i'm stockpiling hybrid ammo, ships, and modules.
Are there specifics yet? I mean, any official word?
If there were we'd have seen a market surge already. Related goods are still (comparably) worthless so it's a good time to invest (imho) in the underdog. Worst comes to worst, they nerf caldari/launchers and gallente+caldari gunboats look slightly better by comparison. There's really no way to go but up for the hybrid market.
|
Aerilis
Gallente Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 17:46:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Originally by: Aerilis This would actually work pretty well. I would be OK with leaving the Drake as it is as long as there is a relatively simple way to mess with their damage projection. Turrets have tracking disruptors, missiles should have a counter.
Still haven't watched the smartbomb 'firewall' video?
Anyhow, defenders were meant to be that thing, but they've been broken since inception (exellence ftw) so you can't really cry foul on something that never worked in the first place. 1 medium smartie is all it takes instead. I think that's more efficient (given it can stop exponentially more missiles and thus damage) than even 'fixed' defenders would be.
As far as normalizing launchers, i'm all for it. I'm way past giving a crap about animations, just make the bloody launchers function without lag.
It's called empire bro. The entire world doesn't live in 0.0
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 17:59:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Aerilis It's called empire bro. The entire world doesn't live in 0.0
Carebear more please.
|
Aerilis
Gallente Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 22:46:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Originally by: Aerilis It's called empire bro. The entire world doesn't live in 0.0
Carebear more please.
Which is why I'm arguing about the balance of Drake fleets. Because I'm a carebear. mmhmm.
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 23:35:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Aerilis
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Originally by: Aerilis It's called empire bro. The entire world doesn't live in 0.0
Carebear more please.
Which is why I'm arguing about the balance of Drake fleets. Because I'm a carebear. mmhmm.
Is there an officer, problem?
|
Logical Chaos
Reverse Psychology. BAT PHONE
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 01:09:00 -
[26]
Easy solution:
Remove Drakes 25% resistance Bonus and make that 25% more Shield HP (still pretty damn good)
This does: -Not hurt 1v1 capability -Remove the fact that a T1 ship has so frickin good omni-resists that it can be RRed very easily -Make the drake just as **** for lvl4s as the other races BCs -Give some sense to the Nighthawk that can stay unchanged
|
Fulkurth
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 01:30:00 -
[27]
This all came about because a CCP employee mentioned that Missiles cause lag.
I don't believe I remember reading from them "The drake is overpowered it needs a nerf whats your opinion?" I don't remember reading from them "Guys... guys... stop with the HUGE assed blobs of the drake; it's a crappy PVP ship stop overcoming that by getting loads of people to field 'em at the same time."
This came about through missiles. Any "nerf" of change that needs to happen, needs to happen to missiles and missiles alone. As pointed out by others in the thread, you EFT warriors really have no idea about the Drake. Can we fit an awesome Tank? HELL YA, can we get soem decent DPS from HAMs? HELL YA! Can we fit an awesome tank AND keep our target tackled, preventing them from warping off, countering their speed bonus? Er... crap.. we can't.
HML are designed to offer stable DPS over a distance, but that DPS is delayed; which can be a hell of a drawback. If the fact that too many missiles in space at the same cause lag, up their damage, lower their ROF - or simply change the physics model used by missiles in the first place.
|
Denuo Secus
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 02:18:00 -
[28]
Originally by: July Shine Guys don't be ridiculous. Drakes ARE unbalanced becouse they can fit tank and gank at the same time. It's the only ship that can fit a ridiculous huge buffer tank while dealing a tremendous damage at the same time. This is called overpowered to me.
Please don't be ridiculous!
-> Shield tanks have to sacrifice tank for tackle / ewar.
-> Armor tanks have to sacrifice tank for gank.
Fitting tank but no tackle is the reason why Caldari is considered as "lol pvp" race.
Remember? PvP/solo/success/Caldari -> pick three?
Even more ridiculous: shield tanks are lol in fleets right? Everyone uses armor in fleets...but suddenly one shield tank seems quite usable in fleets! Lets "balance" it!
Plz...leave the Drake alone. I don't care about null sec blobs. CCP should just fix the lag caused by missiles. -
Save the missiles from the glowing blob :S
R ----------> * A --------> * V --------> * E -------> * N ---------> *
|
Aerilis
Gallente Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 02:57:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Denuo Secus
Originally by: July Shine Guys don't be ridiculous. Drakes ARE unbalanced becouse they can fit tank and gank at the same time. It's the only ship that can fit a ridiculous huge buffer tank while dealing a tremendous damage at the same time. This is called overpowered to me.
Please don't be ridiculous!
-> Shield tanks have to sacrifice tank for tackle / ewar.
-> Armor tanks have to sacrifice tank for gank.
Fitting tank but no tackle is the reason why Caldari is considered as "lol pvp" race.
Remember? PvP/solo/success/Caldari -> pick three?
Even more ridiculous: shield tanks are lol in fleets right? Everyone uses armor in fleets...but suddenly one shield tank seems quite usable in fleets! Lets "balance" it!
Plz...leave the Drake alone. I don't care about null sec blobs. CCP should just fix the lag caused by missiles.
6 mid slots = prop mod, 3 tank mods, 2 utility mods. Which usually comes in the form of a MWD, 80k EHP, point, and web. Don't be ridiculous.
|
Cataca
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 03:27:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Logical Chaos Easy solution:
Remove Drakes 25% resistance Bonus and make that 25% more Shield HP (still pretty damn good)
This does: -Not hurt 1v1 capability -Remove the fact that a T1 ship has so frickin good omni-resists that it can be RRed very easily -Make the drake just as **** for lvl4s as the other races BCs -Give some sense to the Nighthawk that can stay unchanged
It would change the fitting around a bit, but actually it ends up as a buff. Resistance mods are stacking penalized, shield extenders are not. The easiest example how that works out is the Proteus for instance. One of the biggest sub capital buffers there are.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |