Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
956
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 21:43:00 -
[91] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:I'd be willing to bet that if the op didn't word the suggestion for normalizing tracking then suggesting regarding sig res that we "we do away with it entirely," where it's reasonable to assume "entirely" means from the tracking formula as well, rather than just converting it to a constant, that it might deal with half of those posts. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. I am suggesting that we get rid of sig resolution entirely by removing it from the formula. I suggested that rather than changing game code it may be easier to just adjust values in the database, which gives the same result (I assume this is what you mean by normalization). Getting rid of it entirely and converting it to a constant ("normalizing it") are equivalent. If a variable has the same value for every entry in the database, it is effectively no longer a variable. They aren't equivalent in that you have a number serving the exact same function in the formula. Whether you refer to it as sig res or "100" or whatever number you arbitrarily chose it still functions in modifying tracking the same way. Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments. Turning a variable into a constant doesn't remove and terms from the equation, thus remove may not have been the best word to use. Actually, OP is correct and so is the thread title.
Now it's: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius, turret signature resolution
His proposal would be: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius
Base tracking stats of all turrets would be changed accordingly, obviously.
I still don't like the idea, though. Because imo the new, resulting tracking speeds would be much harder to relate to in-game target speed and distance. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1228
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 21:51:00 -
[92] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Actually, OP is correct and so is the thread title. Now it's: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius, turret signature resolutionHis proposal would be: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radiusBase tracking stats of all turrets would be changed accordingly, obviously. I still don't like the idea, though. Because imo the new, resulting tracking speeds would be much harder to relate to in-game target speed and distance. I already addressed that and stated that the normalization point alters, or for a small range confirms, what the direct comparison of target angular velocity and tracking speed would otherwise have you believe. If you don't know the normalization point then you don't know if the angular velocity of say, a thorax, being equal to your tracking means a good hit chance or a bad one.
If normalized at 50, your tracking is over twice the angular, if 200 a little more than half, at 100 your pretty close on. Either way it's not a term you can ignore regardless of what you call it or whether it changes and thus isn't "removed".
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
3523
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 21:56:00 -
[93] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments. judging by the comments, people aren't reading the op at all |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1228
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 21:58:00 -
[94] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments. judging by the comments, people aren't reading the op at all Maybe, I posted issues both ways as initially I wasn't able to conclusively discern which way he was going with it. I had to ask for clarification to be sure. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
956
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:01:00 -
[95] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Actually, OP is correct and so is the thread title. Now it's: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius, turret signature resolutionHis proposal would be: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radiusBase tracking stats of all turrets would be changed accordingly, obviously. I still don't like the idea, though. Because imo the new, resulting tracking speeds would be much harder to relate to in-game target speed and distance. I already addressed that and stated that the normalization point alters, or for a small range confirms, what the direct comparison of target angular velocity and tracking speed would otherwise have you believe. If you don't know the normalization point then you don't know if the angular velocity of say, a thorax, being equal to your tracking means a good hit chance or a bad one. If normalized at 50, your real tracking is over twice the angular, if 200 a little more than half, at 100 your pretty close on. Either way it's not a term you can ignore regardless of what you call it or whether it changes and thus isn't "removed". Actually, you're right, I'm wrong, and that's why the OP's proposal is even worse than I thought.
OP, 'doing away with turret signature resolution' is impossible, unless you want to just ignore any meaningful relation between the formula and what is actually going on in space.
Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.
OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:16:00 -
[96] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:(snip)
Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.
OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad.
How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure? |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
23
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:19:00 -
[97] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Gully Alex Foyle wrote:(snip)
Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.
OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad. How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure?
because like the whole tracking formula now people don't look at it they go off gut feeling and what they think works.
This is more obscure because while in reality it doesn't exist in there minds it still does and they have a hard time finding it. thus its obscure. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1228
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:20:00 -
[98] - Quote
Op is correct about the effects of the change making weapons which have different sig res currently more easily comparable for tracking purposes. That's a pretty factual statement. What I'm questioning are the practical gains compared to creating in what my mind is a just as convoluted system for making practical, on the fly determinations and still leaving a good amount of explaining to do before people get how tracking really works.
If simple tracking comparison is the goal, go for it. If making the system as a whole easier to understand is the goal, I think it misses the mark. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1228
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:22:00 -
[99] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Gully Alex Foyle wrote:(snip)
Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.
OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad. How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure? Because the constant that replaces it is no longer visible in the client per your suggestion yet it greatly skews the application of the portion of the information which is still in the client.
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
956
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:31:00 -
[100] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Gully Alex Foyle wrote:(snip)
Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.
OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad. How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure? Let's try the following exercise and I think you'll understand yourself.
Create an example of the new tracking speed figures for a small, medium and large turret, according to your idea.
Then imagine you're actually PVPing, with your overview showing angular velocity.
Determine which angular velocity will give you roughly a 50% chance to hit a frigate, cruiser or battleship. Approximately, no need to be exact. Basically, create a 3x3 matrix. Try to explain how you determined those figures.
If you agree to try this, and post it in this thread, I will then try do the same with the current system.
My point is, I'm pretty sure your way would be much harder to understand, especially in an actual PVP situation.
But let's do this experiment, if you disagree. |
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:46:00 -
[101] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote: (snip)
Let's try the following exercise and I think you'll understand yourself.
Create an example of the new tracking speed figures for a small, medium and large turret, according to your idea.
Then imagine you're actually PVPing, with your overview showing angular velocity.
Determine which angular velocity will give you roughly a 50% chance to hit a frigate, cruiser or battleship. Approximately, no need to be exact. Basically, create a 3x3 matrix. Try to explain how you determined those figures.
If you agree to try this, and post it in this thread, I will then try do the same with the current system.
My point is, I'm pretty sure your way would be much harder to understand, especially in an actual PVP situation.
But let's do this experiment, if you disagree.
The 3x3 matrix doesn't really make sense under my proposal, because the answer is the same no matter what size of gun I'm using: if the angular velocity is some constant (which depends on the target size) times my tracking, then I'll have approximately a 50% chance to hit. So you could make it a 3x1 matrix, I suppose.
Under the current system, you do need a 3x3 matrix because the chance to hit depends not only on your nominal tracking but also on your gun size.
So your experiment does a nice job demonstrating why the current system is more complicated. Thanks!
Edit: typo (and another typo) |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
956
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:52:00 -
[102] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Let's try the following exercise and I think you'll understand yourself.
Create an example of the new tracking speed figures for a small, medium and large turret, according to your idea.
Then imagine you're actually PVPing, with your overview showing angular velocity.
Determine which angular velocity will give you roughly a 50% chance to hit a frigate, cruiser or battleship. Approximately, no need to be exact. Basically, create a 3x3 matrix. Try to explain how you determined those figures.
If you agree to try this, and post it in this thread, I will then try do the same with the current system.
My point is, I'm pretty sure your way would be much harder to understand, especially in an actual PVP situation.
But let's do this experiment, if you disagree. The 3x3 matrix doesn't really make sense under my proposal, because the answer is the same no matter what size of gun I'm using: if the angular velocity is some constant (which depends on the target size) times my tracking, then I'll have approximately a 50% chance to hit. So you could make it's a 3 matrix, I suppose. Under the current system, you do need a 3x3 matrix because the chance to hit depends not only on your nominal tracking but also on your gun size. So your experiment does a nice job demonstrating why the current system is more complicated. Thanks! Hmm now I'm thinking you got something terribly wrong...!
But trust me, try it, writing down actual figures is really the only way to be sure it will work as intended.
If you want to confirm that your proposal is any good, that is. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
957
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 23:09:00 -
[103] - Quote
I gotta go so I'll do my part first.
Small Railgun, tracking 0.12. 50% chance to hit with target angular velocity (as shown on overview): . Frigate 0.12 . Cruiser roughly 0.4 (a bit more than 3x) . Battleship 1.2 (10x)
Medium Blaster, tracking 0.23. 50% chance with: . Frigate 0.07 (a bit less than /3) . Cruiser 0.23 . Battleship 0.7 (a bit more than 3x)
Large Blaster, tracking 0.08. 50% chance with: . Frigate 0.008 (/10) . Cruiser 0.02 (a bit less than /3) . Battleship 0.08
Random examples from ships I had in EFT. I swear I didn't need a calculator.
OP, what would happen with your suggestion? |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 23:16:00 -
[104] - Quote
Here, I made some 3x3 charts for you:
Current
Proposed
Notice how (as your numbers confirm) under the current system there are 9 different ratios of angular velocity to tracking speed that would give a 50% chance of hitting, while under the proposed system there are only 3 different ratios.
See how that makes it simpler? |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
957
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 23:33:00 -
[105] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Here, I made some 3x3 charts for you: CurrentProposedNotice how (as your numbers confirm) under the current system there are 9 different ratios of angular velocity to tracking speed that would give a 50% chance of hitting, while under the proposed system there are only 3 different ratios. See how that makes it simpler? Yes, I see your point.
My point is, under the current system K1, K5 and K9 are simply 1. Meaning your overview 'tells the truth' when you're shooting at the target size your guns 'were designed for'.
With your idea, you should probably make C2=1, so C1 would be roughly 1/3 and C3 would be roughly 3. Meaning your overview 'tells the truth' when you're shooting at cruisers.
Yeah, nice idea actually. A different perspective. Makes some things clearer, other things less clear.
As I said in my first post, it boils down to personal taste so I still don't think it's a good idea to change it after 10+ years.
The discussion was interesting, though. |
HugMe Allnight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 00:20:00 -
[106] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Here, I made some 3x3 charts for you: CurrentProposedNotice how (as your numbers confirm) under the current system there are 9 different ratios of angular velocity to tracking speed that would give a 50% chance of hitting, while under the proposed system there are only 3 different ratios. See how that makes it simpler?
I could spend time arguing the maths but enough people before me have done that,
BUT Eve does not need ot be simple, why the hell should it be, If i wanted simple i could go play minesweeper instead give me complicated give me confused, give me odd, give me bizzare, give me hell but in the end the to have fun things and have a greater sence of acheievment, we shoudl remember : "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" and really there is more scope in a game that is complicated at its very core and mechanics than one that is easy.
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 01:23:00 -
[107] - Quote
HugMe Allnight wrote: (snip)
I could spend time arguing the maths but enough people before me have done that,
BUT Eve does not need ot be simple, why the hell should it be, If i wanted simple i could go play minesweeper instead give me complicated give me confused, give me odd, give me bizzare, give me hell but in the end the to have fun things and have a greater sence of acheievment, we shoudl remember : "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" and really there is more scope in a game that is complicated at its very core and mechanics than one that is easy.
Fortunately all the people arguing against my math have one thing in common: they are all wrong.
As for complexity, scope, and richness, I absolutely agree with you. That is one of the reasons I play Eve. Fortunately, since my proposal does not change the game mechanics in any way, it also does not reduce the scope or richness of the Eve universe in any way. |
Nick Starkey
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
71
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 10:01:00 -
[108] - Quote
ITT: a lot of people who don't know the difference between complexity and depht .. |
Velicitia
Arma Artificer
2399
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 10:10:00 -
[109] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:HugMe Allnight wrote: (snip)
I could spend time arguing the maths but enough people before me have done that,
BUT Eve does not need ot be simple, why the hell should it be, If i wanted simple i could go play minesweeper instead give me complicated give me confused, give me odd, give me bizzare, give me hell but in the end the to have fun things and have a greater sence of acheievment, we shoudl remember : "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" and really there is more scope in a game that is complicated at its very core and mechanics than one that is easy.
Fortunately all the people arguing against my math have one thing in common: they are all wrong. As for complexity, scope, and richness, I absolutely agree with you. That is one of the reasons I play Eve. Fortunately, since my proposal does not change the game mechanics in any way, it also does not reduce the scope or richness of the Eve universe in any way.
on the upside -- you're also wrong in stating that "Tracking speed and signature effect the same thing in exactly the same way".
While they ~can~ work to end up getting you the same answer in specific cases, they're not the same thing. As someone else said (much better than me) -- the sig res of the gun is the grouping of shots you're able to make with that particular turret.
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
463
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:53:00 -
[110] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:HugMe Allnight wrote: (snip)
I could spend time arguing the maths but enough people before me have done that,
BUT Eve does not need ot be simple, why the hell should it be, If i wanted simple i could go play minesweeper instead give me complicated give me confused, give me odd, give me bizzare, give me hell but in the end the to have fun things and have a greater sence of acheievment, we shoudl remember : "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" and really there is more scope in a game that is complicated at its very core and mechanics than one that is easy.
Fortunately all the people arguing against my math have one thing in common: they are all wrong. As for complexity, scope, and richness, I absolutely agree with you. That is one of the reasons I play Eve. Fortunately, since my proposal does not change the game mechanics in any way, it also does not reduce the scope or richness of the Eve universe in any way. on the upside -- you're also wrong in stating that "Tracking speed and signature effect the same thing in exactly the same way". While they ~can~ work to end up getting you the same answer in specific cases, they're not the same thing. As someone else said (much better than me) -- the sig res of the gun is the grouping of shots you're able to make with that particular turret. edit -- granted that if transversal is zero, then it doesn't matter in any case.
Which is why it should be changed to actually matter.
Your guns resolution or accuracy should matter.
Think of it this way:
Relatively a small gun is a rifle. Very accurate and tight grouping
A medium gun is a tank cannon. Still fairly accurate but you're probably not gonna get a 10mm grouping are you.
A large gun is a warship gun (think 2nd world war battleship guns). Not particularly accurate but when you're shooting at another battleship or an island you just need to get close.
An XL gun is like a big, fuckoff, landbased super gun. That just needs to hit within a couple hundred meters.
This is what weapon sig resolution is but it only comes into play when a target is moving because the tracking formula favours transversal speed over accuracy and if you shoot at a stationary target the sig resolution to signature radius ratio is ignored.
This to me is wrong.
A weapon that has a resolution/grouping of a 400 out to its optimal range is going to struggle to land a shot on a small target that is stationary. Think of a tank trying to land a direct hit on a person at 1000m. Or a piece of artillery trying to bullseye a car from 3km. Yes, it can but out of 10 shots several would completely miss and a few would only just hit and some would be bang on target. The current tracking formula does not take this into account unless the target is moving.
So I say; make the turret resolution to target signature radius independant of tracking and effect the quality of hit.
To me the system should basically go like this:
Step one: Is the target in range? Yes (optimal), Kind of (falloff), only just (double falloff), or No. Step two: Can I track the target (at this range)? yes/no. This should simply be an angular velocity measurement. Step three: What is my chance to hit a target that size with this weapons accuracy/resolution. (quality of hit) |
|
Linkxsc162534
Traps 'R' Us Advanced Amateurs
83
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 18:36:00 -
[111] - Quote
Well its supposed to be easier to understand right...
Well explain to a noob post change why even though his tracking speed is double the angular velocity hes seeing in his overview. Explain to that noob why hes still missing another frig constantly (cause the sig will be 100m over 40)
If the idea of this change is to shovel it into tracking for "easier understanding" how did we gain anything because now the noob needs to go and learn sigrad anyways.
Also to the guy above. Tps do actually matter in the current equation and they do increase application of guns aswell as missiles. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
463
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 20:48:00 -
[112] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Also to the guy above. Tps do actually matter in the current equation and they do increase application of guns aswell as missiles.
I know this but, like, a web is so much betterer |
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
463
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 21:28:00 -
[113] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Fortunately all the people arguing against my math have one thing in common: they are all wrong.
I've really just been waiting for you to come up with a reasonable way to rebalance every ship and module around the new tracking speeds of turrets.
Because they would all have to be changed, so the onus is on you to prove that it's worth the effort to change everything in order to make one calculation just a bit easier for players to ballpark in a fight.
You've stated what the value of the change is to you, now justify the value of the change to CCP in terms of the amount of work it'd take them to the tangible benefits they would see. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 22:35:00 -
[114] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote: (snip)
I've really just been waiting for you to come up with a reasonable way to rebalance every ship and module around the new tracking speeds of turrets.
Because they would all have to be changed, so the onus is on you to prove that it's worth the effort to change everything in order to make one calculation just a bit easier for players to ballpark in a fight.
You've stated what the value of the change is to you, now justify the value of the change to CCP in terms of the amount of work it'd take them to the tangible benefits they would see.
I think I've said this 20 times in this thread already, but here goes again.
My proposal changes literally nothing about how damage is applied, so there is no need for rebalancing. |
HugMe Allnight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 22:47:00 -
[115] - Quote
Ok here is the issue with removing 1 value from the equation: it increases the importance of the other factors i.e 3+3+3+3=12 but you want 4+4+4=12 (this is just an example) or to be more like what you suggest merging values you really want 3+3+6=12.
Now you want to effectivly increase trackspeed across the board to compensate, what this does is mean ships with tracking bonus have just been massively buffed compared to those with out again simplistic example if i used to have a tracking of 3+50% i get 4.5 but now I get 4+50% i get 6 (agian simplistc example). You can also make simular arguments about haveing to adjust tracking computers and disrupters.
The point being:
By having more values in the equation it is easier for game balance and not allow one value to be the overiding factor in an engagment. |
Sigras
Conglomo
814
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 22:48:00 -
[116] - Quote
The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.
Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s
We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.
I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 23:36:00 -
[117] - Quote
HugMe Allnight wrote:Ok here is the issue with removing 1 value from the equation: it increases the importance of the other factors i.e 3+3+3+3=12 but you want 4+4+4=12 (this is just an example) or to be more like what you suggest merging values you really want 3+3+6=12.
Now you want to effectivly increase trackspeed across the board to compensate, what this does is mean ships with tracking bonus have just been massively buffed compared to those with out again simplistic example if i used to have a tracking of 3+50% i get 4.5 but now I get 4+50% i get 6 (agian simplistc example). You can also make simular arguments about haveing to adjust tracking computers and disrupters.
The point being:
By having more values in the equation it is easier for game balance and not allow one value to be the overiding factor in an engagment.
Your argument is ignorant and wrong. Once again,
My proposal changes literally nothing about how damage is applied, so it makes no difference in game balance. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 23:37:00 -
[118] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.
Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s
We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.
I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it.
Bigger ships are easier to hit than smaller ships. Seems pretty intuitive to me. |
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole
360
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 00:02:00 -
[119] - Quote
*Kaerakh feels that it is important to illustrate the entire thread in a single picture so that users might better understand the general idea of this thread.*
Turret mechanics are fine. They're fairly easily guesstimated, and are pretty much tried and true since the game's inception. I have little desire to change it in favor of a system that has no testing and is designed by in likely hood by people less qualified than the original designer of the tracking equation. Schrodinger's Hot Dropper - The Fate of Forum Alts - Click me! Click me! |
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
464
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 06:23:00 -
[120] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Your argument is ignorant and wrong. Once again,
My proposal changes literally nothing about how damage is applied, so it makes no difference in game balance.
I'm sure you enjoy saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Skills, modules, and implants will have an entirely different effect on the new tracking value, and since no skill, module, or implant has any effect on turret sig res that expands their efficacy. Changing their values will change how they scale, which will necessarily require other things like ship signature radius to scale with them. Now that that's changed, what about how missiles interact with sig radius? Oops... Back to the grindstone, guys, we've got more work to do... Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |