Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1124
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:52:00 -
[271] - Quote
Rammix wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
taht hard to grasp? Because they are BUFFIGN trackign computers by allowign them to overheat. They are afraid that without a nerf to the tracking, the metagame of XL guns insta blapping battleships will return.
Its OBVIOUS, and anyone that stopped to think before writing would have perceived their reasoning. I think also that is not needed, but their motivation is clear.
It would be OBVIOUS if they balanced it without nerfing anything. In the case of tracking, TCs aren't going to be boosted or nerfed so they shouldn't touch the capital guns. Instead, it would be a good idea to just disallow dreds to overheat TCs. Or allow to overheat, but with role drawback (for the modules) in the ship stats. Or with drawback in the modules based on which ship they're fitted on. There are always options to do things elegantly.
That is another option, and maybe you shoudl suggest that , instead of attacking other players and Developers. THis change is not a random nonsense change as the rapid launchers. It is a change that might be overdone due to excessive fear, but at least he reasoning is CLEAR. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Khan Farshatok
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill B O R G
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:53:00 -
[272] - Quote
Rammix wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
taht hard to grasp? Because they are BUFFIGN trackign computers by allowign them to overheat. They are afraid that without a nerf to the tracking, the metagame of XL guns insta blapping battleships will return.
Its OBVIOUS, and anyone that stopped to think before writing would have perceived their reasoning. I think also that is not needed, but their motivation is clear.
It would be OBVIOUS if they balanced it without nerfing anything. In the case of tracking, TCs aren't going to be boosted or nerfed so they shouldn't touch the capital guns. Instead, it would be a good idea to just disallow dreds to overheat TCs. Or allow to overheat, but with role drawback (for the modules) in the ship stats. Or with drawback in the modules based on which ship they're fitted on. There are always options to do things elegantly.
or just dont **** with TC's at all. it makes it overpowered for armor ships. you have tracking links for shield and trackign computers for armor. most shield tanked ships dont use tracking computers. its an unfair boost unless you boost the passive boost of tracking links.
again fozzie resign immediately. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
9004
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:59:00 -
[273] - Quote
Khan Farshatok wrote:its an unfair boost unless you boost the passive boost of tracking links.
Tracking links are receiving the same boost as tracking computers in 1.1, by gaining the ability to overheat. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8573
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:02:00 -
[274] - Quote
So I decided to check Aebe's math, just to be sure.
Oh look it's the same graph. My EVE Videos |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
184
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:07:00 -
[275] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Rammix wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
taht hard to grasp? Because they are BUFFIGN trackign computers by allowign them to overheat. They are afraid that without a nerf to the tracking, the metagame of XL guns insta blapping battleships will return.
Its OBVIOUS, and anyone that stopped to think before writing would have perceived their reasoning. I think also that is not needed, but their motivation is clear.
It would be OBVIOUS if they balanced it without nerfing anything. In the case of tracking, TCs aren't going to be boosted or nerfed so they shouldn't touch the capital guns. Instead, it would be a good idea to just disallow dreds to overheat TCs. Or allow to overheat, but with role drawback (for the modules) in the ship stats. Or with drawback in the modules based on which ship they're fitted on. There are always options to do things elegantly. That is another option, and maybe you shoudl suggest that , instead of attacking other players and Developers. THis change is not a random nonsense change as the rapid launchers. It is a change that might be overdone due to excessive fear, but at least he reasoning is CLEAR.
Just for the Records: you mixed Rammix with Kahn. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:09:00 -
[276] - Quote
What is this? Me and a goon agreeing with each other?! Surely the world must be ending! |
Rammix
Cosmic Clowns Killers Red Alliance
252
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:10:00 -
[277] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Rammix wrote: WHY nerf dred tracking? What's the reasoning? It must be serious, because there are too many supers out there so nerf of dreds (which can lead to decrease in their popularity) should [edit: must] have a very strong reasoning behind it.
I have read complains here that Rise has not given his reasoning for nerfing capital guns. But it's fairly self-evident when you consider that dreads are "designed" to be mobile POS and carrier bashers, as are titans (amongst other roles). Capital guns wield great power and it's not in the interest of game balance if they can use that power against all classes of ship. If that were the case, the only ship to fly would be a capital. Everything else would be obsolete. I am pretty sure it's the dev team's intention that capital ships *require* subcapital escorts in order to survive against sub-capital fleets, or fleets with sub-capital support. The game would not be interesting if a capital ship was like a Death Star with no exhaust port. It's the exhaust port's unguarded opening that gives rise to the narrative. With this in mind, any tracking nerf that does not actually reduce damage application against another capital ship can be seen as reasonable. The fact that it may (or may not) require a re-think of tactics is irrelevant. No, it's relevant. Simply put, less popular dreds (for different reasons and different situations) - more supers. More supers - more absurd war. You can't nerf a ship without affecting its popularity in general. And by affecting its popularity you also affect many other aspects of its use.
2nd thing. Dreds WERE designed for bashing PoS and capital bashers, but they - as it often happens in eve - outgrew this narrow role and became something more. As someone of ccp stuff mentioned in one of the videos (eve vegas maybe), malleability is very important.
Kagura Nikon wrote:THis change is not a random nonsense change as the rapid launchers. It is a change that might be overdone due to excessive fear, but at least he reasoning is CLEAR. I would've agreed with this, but... This topic is not an isolated single case, devs recently come up with ideas that make me and some others think that devs do drugs, and generate ideas being high.
edit: typo. OpenSUSE 13.1, wine 1.7 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8574
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:12:00 -
[278] - Quote
Actually I'll need to make a third graph... most relevant I think of all. My EVE Videos |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
184
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:15:00 -
[279] - Quote
I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
457
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:23:00 -
[280] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps...
As I understand it increasing sig size ratio is roughly equivalent to reducing tracking by the same factor.
Turrent damage explanation on Eve Uni web site
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
|
Sgt Ocker
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:26:00 -
[281] - Quote
iskflakes wrote: but seriously, titans are so useless right now it's not even funny. Rubicon 1.2, Duel role for Titan - Bridge subcaps, make pos look perdy by having a big shiny jump portal inside.
Rubicon 1.3, New bonuses for titans - 750m Drone bay, 500m drone bandwidth (your guns are useless but you can deploy 20 sentries) NB; Leviathan is the exception, it will receive 250m Drone bay, 125m Drone Bandwidth (don't want Caldari pilots thinking drones are for them) + Leviathan has capital missiles and torpedos, what more do you need.
Seriously, it not like they are the biggest ship in game, take years to train for to get good skills, cost an arm and half a leg to buy. Then you want them to be useful as well? Wow, asking for much?
**Sarcasm intended**
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
184
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:30:00 -
[282] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps... As I understand it increasing sig size ratio is roughly equivalent to reducing tracking by the same factor. Turrent damage explanation on Eve Uni web site
Then increase it even more, who cares, capital shouldnt Hit subcaps? Ok fine, but missing other Capitals is just silly. Reducing damage, fine, but missing? Really? |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:38:00 -
[283] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps... As I understand it increasing sig size ratio is roughly equivalent to reducing tracking by the same factor. Turrent damage explanation on Eve Uni web site Then increase it even more, who cares, capital shouldnt Hit subcaps? Ok fine, but missing other Capitals is just silly. Reducing damage, fine, but missing? Really?
Increasing turret sig resolution is exactly equivalent to nerfing tracking. There is literally no difference between the two. |
Lyron-Baktos
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
451
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:39:00 -
[284] - Quote
so, will BS still be easily hit by dreads? How the **** do you remove a signature? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8575
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:39:00 -
[285] - Quote
This graph shows why nerfing it is still dumb, and why not nerfing the tracking would not break anthing And so does this one. Yes ladies and gents, allowing your dreadnoughts to overheat two TPs without the tracking nerf results in a whopping 3% greater DPS, in optimal conditions. Clearly this is broken and a 5% nerf to dread tracking was needed to avert this horror.
(My prior graphs were actually calculated using the wrong value for turret signature resolution, but that only changes the width of the x-axis, not any of the y-axis values on any of the graphs).
So there you have it. I may have been arguing that Aebe's math was right (and it was) but that doesn't mean he looked at the whole picture. I don't think, as a result, he arrived at the right conclusion. The first graph also demonstrates that with two overheated tracking computers you almost make up for the nerf... you get like 99.2% of the chancetohit that you had before. My EVE Videos |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8575
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:40:00 -
[286] - Quote
Also seriously buff the Phoenix. My EVE Videos |
Khan Farshatok
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill B O R G
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:41:00 -
[287] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Khan Farshatok wrote:its an unfair boost unless you boost the passive boost of tracking links. Tracking links are receiving the same boost as tracking computers in 1.1, by gaining the ability to overheat.
so a mod that has been passive for ever is now going to be activated and given OH. where the hell do you peopel come up with this utter trash?
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
277
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:45:00 -
[288] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps... As I understand it increasing sig size ratio is roughly equivalent to reducing tracking by the same factor. Turrent damage explanation on Eve Uni web site Then increase it even more, who cares, capital shouldnt Hit subcaps? Ok fine, but missing other Capitals is just silly. Reducing damage, fine, but missing? Really? What's this shouldn't be able to hit subcaps baloney? |
SFM Hobb3s
Vanguard Frontiers Black Legion.
50
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:51:00 -
[289] - Quote
Step in the wrong direction I would say. Not only are dreads going to suck a lot more, but when you NEED to overheat, its going to be in a situation where you are already at 10% tidi and module activation is already not working well. You can't even activate/deactivate overheating reliably in these conditions.
Not to mention having the abiltiy to overheat and script all these new modules is going to have a much bigger impact on node cpu useage. Especially with scripts being switched, burned out modules being replaced regularly on the field, etc.
Before, you could field 300 archons and use up the same node cpu as nearly 3300 players (10x sentries each). I'd say this brings that 'high load' scenario closer to crashing an unreinforced node a lot sooner than it would have before. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome.
109
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:56:00 -
[290] - Quote
nerf the worst capitals moreso, LOGIC!
But i guess excessive tracking would cause problems, but really: fix capitals next. forget the other ships, this is what we want now. not 2016. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8575
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:58:00 -
[291] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:But i guess excessive tracking would cause problems An at most 3% buff to DPS with two overheated TCs is not what I'd consider excessive. See my post above (that goes for everyone, especially Fozzie). My EVE Videos |
Khan Farshatok
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill B O R G
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:10:00 -
[292] - Quote
http://eveion.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/icelandic-police-raid-ccps-headquarters.html
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:20:00 -
[293] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:This graph shows why nerfing it is still dumb, and why not nerfing the tracking would not break anthingAnd so does this one.Yes ladies and gents, allowing your dreadnoughts to overheat two TPs without the tracking nerf results in a whopping 3% greater DPS, in optimal conditions. Clearly this is broken and a 5% nerf to dread tracking was needed to avert this horror. (My prior graphs were actually calculated using the wrong value for turret signature resolution, but that only changes the width of the x-axis, not any of the y-axis values on any of the graphs). So there you have it. I may have been arguing that Aebe's math was right (and it was) but that doesn't mean he looked at the whole picture. I don't think, as a result, he arrived at the right conclusion. The first graph also demonstrates that with two overheated tracking computers you almost make up for the nerf... you get like 99.2% of the chancetohit that you had before.
I'm not really invested in either side of this argument, since I don't fly dreads (and prefer not to fly where there are dreads, for that matter)--It's been months since I've flown anything larger than a cruiser. I absolutely agree that not nerfing the tracking would not be a big deal. Just like the nerf would not be a huge change, your graphs show that the slight boost when overheating without the nerf would also not be a big change.
Many people on both sides of this argument seem to think that there's some kind of phase change in the tracking equation, where at x tracking you can track other dreads reliably and at 0.95x tracking you cannot (or, on the other side, at 1x tracking you can't track battleships reliably and at 1.05x tracking you can). CCP/CSM seem to have had some of this thinking when they decided that they better nerf tracking or else dreads would be OP because of overheating, and many of the counterarguments in this thread take similar positions on the opposite side, as if a 5% nerf is going to make their dreadnaughts useless all of a sudden. I think both sides are severely overestimating the magnitude of the effect. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:25:00 -
[294] - Quote
Khan Farshatok wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Khan Farshatok wrote:its an unfair boost unless you boost the passive boost of tracking links. Tracking links are receiving the same boost as tracking computers in 1.1, by gaining the ability to overheat. so a mod that has been passive for ever is now going to be activated and given OH. where the hell do you peopel come up with this utter trash?
You and Fozzie are talking about different modules. The mod you are thinking of is the tracking enhancer, not the tracking link. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8575
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:25:00 -
[295] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Many people on both sides of this argument seem to think that there's some kind of phase change in the tracking equation, where at x tracking you can track other dreads reliably and at 0.95x tracking you cannot (or, on the other side, at 1x tracking you can't track battleships reliably and at 1.05x tracking you can). CCP/CSM seem to have had some of this thinking when they decided that they better nerf tracking or else dreads would be OP because of overheating, and many of the counterarguments in this thread take similar positions on the opposite side, as if a 5% nerf is going to make their dreadnaughts useless all of a sudden. I think both sides are severely overestimating the magnitude of the effect. Yeah, I definitely agree. That mentality is stupid. However I subscribe to the school of thought that says "if I gain the ability to overheat, I should never have to do so just to get the same benefit I had before". My EVE Videos |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8576
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:30:00 -
[296] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Khan Farshatok wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Khan Farshatok wrote:its an unfair boost unless you boost the passive boost of tracking links. Tracking links are receiving the same boost as tracking computers in 1.1, by gaining the ability to overheat. so a mod that has been passive for ever is now going to be activated and given OH. where the hell do you peopel come up with this utter trash? You and Fozzie are talking about different modules. The mod you are thinking of is the tracking enhancer, not the tracking link. Except that's not Fozzie's fault, because this moron specifically said "tracking links". My EVE Videos |
Khan Farshatok
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill B O R G
102
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:36:00 -
[297] - Quote
you're right i did say tracking links and meant tracking enhancers, but someone with half a brain and that actually played eve would have been able to figure out what i was talking about when i said it was a low slot modules. just more proof that this ******* idiot does not in fact play eve. FFS aebe, someone who barely even logs on to eve, ******* knew what i was talking about. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
313
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:39:00 -
[298] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:I'm not really invested in either side of this argument, since I don't fly dreads (and prefer not to fly where there are dreads, for that matter)--It's been months since I've flown anything larger than a cruiser. I absolutely agree that not nerfing the tracking would not be a big deal. Just like the nerf would not be a huge change, your graphs show that the slight boost when overheating without the nerf would also not be a big change.
Subjective nonsense bolded. I also am not invested in either side, but to claim an understanding of the magnitudes involved without looking at particular situations that actually happen is useless.
If there's a transition point (hint: phase change is not the proper term usage) then I think that's what we want to know about.
Most people just asked for a proper explanation - expecting to see an edge case of some kind where **** hits the fan, mandating a slight reduction in tracking. |
Khan Farshatok
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill B O R G
102
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:40:00 -
[299] - Quote
FOZZIE WE DEMAND YOUR RESIGNATION IMMEDIATELY! |
Khan Farshatok
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill B O R G
102
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:42:00 -
[300] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:I'm not really invested in either side of this argument, since I don't fly dreads (and prefer not to fly where there are dreads, for that matter)--It's been months since I've flown anything larger than a cruiser. I absolutely agree that not nerfing the tracking would not be a big deal. Just like the nerf would not be a huge change, your graphs show that the slight boost when overheating without the nerf would also not be a big change. Subjective nonsense bolded. I also am not invested in either side, but to claim an understanding of the magnitudes involved without looking at particular situations that actually happen is useless. If there's a transition point (hint: phase change is not the proper term usage) then I think that's what we want to know about. Most people just asked for a proper explanation - expecting to see an edge case of some kind where **** hits the fan, mandating a slight reduction in tracking.
he wont give us an explination. he is going to keep watching this thread and crying at his desk while people call him out and ignore the people who are asking for it. fozzie is a god damned *****. end of story. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |