Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alexis Nightwish
210
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 17:30:21 -
[31] - Quote
To the top!
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
723
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 18:54:41 -
[32] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:Just stop blueballing or be better at it and you won-Št loose your ship.
Or use a mjd/mwd to get out of the blast area, use a low sig ship.
But please don-Št nerv bombs to uselessness.
-1 So, battleships and battlecruisers continue to get shafted, because MJDs can't spool up fast enough, and can't reliably get out of range with an MWD even if already cycling it on when the bombs are launched.
Something as simple as another 1s (so 1 tick to see bombs and start MJD spool up) would be a massive change, and produce a spot where a well coordinated group of bombers could be ready to bomb those ships that are now almost all in one spot, 100km directly forward.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
295
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 04:45:23 -
[33] - Quote
Shield-tanked ships taking more damage because of their increased shield radius makes sense since the shield increases the surface area of the ship exposed to damage.
Since they're called "shield extenders" it indicates that they increase shield HP by making the surface area of the shield bigger.
Assume that unextended shields are about 1m off the ships hull. If you had a perfectly spherical ship with a 124m radius (for easy maths), the surface area of the shields would be 196, 000m3. This is what would be exposed to AoE damage.
Assume further that a shield extender adds just 5m to that raduis. This increases the surface area of the shield to 212, 000m3. More area exposed to damage should mean more damage taken.
Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
|
Alexis Nightwish
214
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 19:51:10 -
[34] - Quote
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:Shield-tanked ships taking more damage because of their increased shield radius makes sense since the shield increases the surface area of the ship exposed to damage.
Since they're called "shield extenders" it indicates that they increase shield HP by making the surface area of the shield bigger.
Assume that unextended shields are about 1m off the ships hull. If you had a perfectly spherical ship with a 124m radius (for easy maths), the surface area of the shields would be 196, 000m3. This is what would be exposed to AoE damage.
Assume further that a shield extender adds just 5m to that raduis. This increases the surface area of the shield to 212, 000m3. More area exposed to damage should mean more damage taken. Well if we're talking lore and not just game mechanics I still disagree because if you ever look at the shields on ships (you can see them when using a hardener) they are no larger than the ship itself. The shield is literally right on the surface, and for all we know it is nanometers in thickness.
Going back to game mechanics, how does a target painter or MWD have anything to do with how much damage a non-targeted AoE weapon should do?
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
253
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 20:41:58 -
[35] - Quote
I really like solution #1, it also opens up potential for doing a lot more with bombs/bomb launchers with regards balancing.
Could even be applied to smartbombs too, allowing for another balancing stick to be used there...
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
56
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 23:28:52 -
[36] - Quote
Its hard to find a fair balance with something that does a mass amount of damage over an area. (Basically it does exactly what it was intended to do.) There really isn't anything else mechanics wise that compares to it except smart bombs.
If you could incorporate some sort of 'bump' mechanic expanding out from the center of the explosion (like the shockwave before the actual explosion; use the explosion velocity as a factor in the calculation) pushing smaller mass ships/drones a certain distance (based on the ships mass) out of the area of effect of the main damage (like a set mass limit defined by a certain class of ship ie. frigate, cruiser etc.) and affected by velocity, vectoring of the mass in relation to the bomb's location at time of detonation. Could also affect other bombs (a shockwave detonates others, the explosion destroys them). It could space out spam bombing a bit. (There is also nothing that would stop someone from pushing a ship away from one explosion right into the center of another; could make for some interesting game play)
This would give you two sets of damage numbers to use; two separate definitions for applying damage with only one calculation (if object makes it out of area, apply this part, if not, apply this one. One for smaller massed ships (shockwave) and one for the others that don't move out of range (which could also still be the smaller ships depending on their agililty etc.) The idea being that you wouldn't have a ship affected by both definitions at the same time (it either made it out of the area of effect or it didn't receiving the full brunt.)
The shockwave AoE would have to be a distance greater than the bombs AoE...
Any ship pushed away by the shockwave would still take damage and would then be disoriented (like running into a stationary object) Spinning outward, maybe even being pushed out of weapon/mod range in the process...
Hmmm, I can't really tell or not if my explanation of this idea makes sense?
Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne
Déan gáire...Tiocfaidh ár lá
|
Alexis Nightwish
241
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 22:33:50 -
[37] - Quote
Enya Sparhawk wrote:shockwave stuff To be completely honest I hate displacement in games, and the coding that would have to go into this would certainly be complex so I can't really agree.
My hope is that my proposal would introduce a mechanic that simple enough to understand (most of us already know how the falloff formula works), but flexible enough to easily balance, while at the same time not punishing a player horribly just because he/she flew a shield ship/had MWD on.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Alexis Nightwish
241
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 22:36:42 -
[38] - Quote
I just thought of another perk of my proposal. If CCP ever wanted to introduce different types of bombs, it would be much easier to mess with the numbers to produce different types.
Just a random, spur of the moment example, but high yield vs low yield bombs? High yield could be small radius, large damage, while low yield could be large radius, low damage.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
377
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 11:11:39 -
[39] - Quote
I here this alot. Bombs or bombers are XXX problem. Yet there is no data to support this. None.
In fact a look at killboards and they only thing that needs fixing seems to still be Ishtars.
That is right very few ships in the scheme of things are dying to bombers.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
303
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 12:42:27 -
[40] - Quote
I think EHP of bombs should be at least halved. Less concentrated bombs per volley, still making a meaningful impact, but not replacing an entire combat fleet with an I-win button. Bombs literally make battleships the weakest combat ship of the game.
Also, 'distance to epicentre' is a horribly bad idea. Anything that tries to calculate 'falloff' from bombs is bad. You are adding so much more calculation requirement to a function that already eats up way too many cpu cycles (as evident in ANY fleet fight involving tidi).
And this is all the more reason to lower bomb EHP. Less bombs/volley, less strain on hamsters. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1884
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 17:39:06 -
[41] - Quote
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:Shield-tanked ships taking more damage because of their increased shield radius makes sense since the shield increases the surface area of the ship exposed to damage.
Since they're called "shield extenders" it indicates that they increase shield HP by making the surface area of the shield bigger.
Assume that unextended shields are about 1m off the ships hull. If you had a perfectly spherical ship with a 124m radius (for easy maths), the surface area of the shields would be 196, 000m3. This is what would be exposed to AoE damage.
Assume further that a shield extender adds just 5m to that raduis. This increases the surface area of the shield to 212, 000m3. More area exposed to damage should mean more damage taken.
So my armor and hull actually inflate too? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
860
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 17:41:10 -
[42] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:Shield-tanked ships taking more damage because of their increased shield radius makes sense since the shield increases the surface area of the ship exposed to damage.
Since they're called "shield extenders" it indicates that they increase shield HP by making the surface area of the shield bigger.
Assume that unextended shields are about 1m off the ships hull. If you had a perfectly spherical ship with a 124m radius (for easy maths), the surface area of the shields would be 196, 000m3. This is what would be exposed to AoE damage.
Assume further that a shield extender adds just 5m to that raduis. This increases the surface area of the shield to 212, 000m3. More area exposed to damage should mean more damage taken. So my armor and hull actually inflate too? 1.6meters for a 1600mm plate. Bulkheads would be internal though.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1884
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 17:44:09 -
[43] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:Shield-tanked ships taking more damage because of their increased shield radius makes sense since the shield increases the surface area of the ship exposed to damage.
Since they're called "shield extenders" it indicates that they increase shield HP by making the surface area of the shield bigger.
Assume that unextended shields are about 1m off the ships hull. If you had a perfectly spherical ship with a 124m radius (for easy maths), the surface area of the shields would be 196, 000m3. This is what would be exposed to AoE damage.
Assume further that a shield extender adds just 5m to that raduis. This increases the surface area of the shield to 212, 000m3. More area exposed to damage should mean more damage taken. So my armor and hull actually inflate too? 1.6meters for a 1600mm plate. Bulkheads would be internal though.
Except my shield extender makes my armor and hull take more damage somehow because my bloated sigs which makes bomb do more damage to me is my ship literally inflating from the shield extender. Shield extenders should also give armor and hull HP bonust since they are offectively bigger plates installed now that they grew in size.
Can I stop now or need I go on? |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1180
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 17:52:58 -
[44] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I 100% agree that any issue with bombers lies in bomb mechanics, and not bombers themselves. While there may be a few people out there who wish they could return their torpedo deliveries, by and large the complaints about bombers stem from their massive AOE death waves.
That said, my concern with these solutions, while cool, is that they don't fundamentally shift the impact of bombs. Right now bombs do the most damage to things with large signature radii that are too slow to burn out of the explosion radius before they impact.
#1 still punishes slow-moving ships. Industrials, battleships etc will still be taking the brunt of bomb damage while frigates and destroyers, which were already fast enough to get out of the way within 12 seconds, will still be taking zero or nearly zero damage.
#2 is the same thing, and is essentially what the explosion radius currently does. Ships with lower signature radius already get bomb damage reduction. This may be increasing that reduction but ultimately on a high level doesn't solve the "problems" that bombs cause.
#3 through #5 are therefore mixes of the same thing. I guess I just wonder if it will change enough, essentially
(EDITED to not go off on a tangent)
makes sense, but still leaving them as they are is worse, perhaps alongside the epicentre and velocity you could look at what reduces speed too well, webs and HIC bubbles with those reduced in effectiveness that would help with the issue, also AB's getting a buff would help incase you're scrammed or know you will/dual prop fits.
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
Ele Rebellion
Dead Star Syndicate
38
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 19:40:21 -
[45] - Quote
Actually I think the best way to fix them is to reduce the Resistances of bombs.
This limits the number of bombs that fired on a target at once.
Reducing this number down to about 7 or 8 means the bombers have to allow a short bit of time between waves of bombs. Thus allowing for the targets a chance to escape. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
861
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 21:18:03 -
[46] - Quote
Ele Rebellion wrote:Actually I think the best way to fix them is to reduce the Resistances of bombs.
This limits the number of bombs that fired on a target at once.
Reducing this number down to about 7 or 8 means the bombers have to allow a short bit of time between waves of bombs. Thus allowing for the targets a chance to escape. Already is 8 IIRC. Dropping it so you need something like a 4s stagger between waves of 4-6 would be ideal IMO.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Doctor Carbonatite
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 00:06:30 -
[47] - Quote
Why not a warp speed penalty on the launcher module that is in effect even if it's offlined? E.g. with T1 launcher you warp 1 AU/s, maybe 1.5 for T2 (actually giving people a reason to train for it).
Most of what I've read suggests that the warp speed changes were what made bombers broken; slowing bomb-fitted ones down should "fix" that without smacking just about every play style. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1170
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 06:42:21 -
[48] - Quote
Love potion #5.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
392
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 07:59:30 -
[49] - Quote
Currently you need 3 to 4 waves to kill battleships. Its 12 seconds! before the first wave hits, and if timed perfectly 6 seconds for each wave after that. So 24 seconds for the 3rd wave to hit.
24 freeking seconds at least (often longer). What the hell are you guys doing to die to bombs at all? Clustering together and going AFK or something?
And still "bombs are a big problem" is just *not* supported by the data.
In fact bombers seems to be used far far more often with just Torps.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |