|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
79
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:10:14 -
[1] - Quote
Good general direction and nice information flow. +1 from me
Though it may be worth considering a ROF script as well. There are certain situations where point blank crippling the dps of a missile/torp ship would be beneficial as well as add more tactical depth. The idea would also apply well to turret ships for similar reasons. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 00:09:58 -
[2] - Quote
No they dont e2. You just whine louder than the Imperium forum CTA. To be entirely honest its an impressive talent.
Small things to note.. These module will by nature punish missile boats to what seems to be an excessive amount.. However remember CCP balances off meta statistics.. No one is arguing the dominance of RLML boats. The effect or the missile disruptors will be profound but not out of line with similar effects of a tracking disruptor fleet against a turret using enemy. Considering to be useful you have to know the enemy fleet comp to properly shut down a certain doctrine... this severity is acceptable provided the disruptors remain two independent mods.
As to the buff to MGCs... I was one of the biggest opponents of the nerfed numbers but honestly after spending the time to fly fits and see what they succeed at or fail at they were not very off balance to TPs. The nerf was still a terrible knee jerk reaction that shouldn't have happened.. but the mods have a defined purpose on many hulls. Mostly in allowing normally short ranged weapon systems to suddenly become mid ranged/long ranged weapon systems. The 10%ev/er bonus puts them fairly in line with a TP for most fitting purposes.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 00:21:33 -
[3] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) I agree with this.
Easy to answer.. One mod would basically revert eve to drones online. A single EWAR fit that can shut down all but one weapon system? Not a good idea. By keeping two modules you require FCs to utilize scouts or risk being neutralized by enemy ewar... it also means defenders can fit to fight an attackers ship types thus gaining an advantage against larger fleets attacking them. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 06:18:22 -
[4] - Quote
While the idea of a defensive missile smacks highly of military space opera there is one situation where it would be an issue.. possibly even gamebreakingly.
TiDi.
Yes the game is "supposed" to function normally but slower up to 10% TiDi.. but in reality things start breaking early. Especially when that "thing" is a missile that has to track another missile. With server tics you'd probably have phantom hit situations where the defender literally had no effect as well. Heck right now missiles have issues with hitting on the edges of tics.
Honestly from a raw mechanics thing defenders as a concept are terrible. Logically in real life they make sense... practically they just cant work without major sacrifices unless ccp just want to space magic crap(which is terrible code.. please dont space magic).
You'd probably get more usage and differentiated tactics if you broke apart armor/hardeners to something akin to ablative vs reactive. (Ablative(which is a form of reactive) creates a spall layer and disrupts physical/energy rounds theoretically while reactive(explosive plating) physically uses directed blasts to divert and disrupt an incoming explosive typically missile based.) Honestly such a split of defenses would definitely shake up metas and give missiles an absolute roll in the rock paper scissors doctrine game. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 16:00:47 -
[5] - Quote
A major factor of missile disruption is that it gives OPTIONS to the dev team.
Do we actually need missile disruption? Yes. Hell yes. Why? Because it gives an FC a direct counter to cerb fleets as an example. Does it negatively hit cruise pvp boats or possibly gut RHML boats? Yes possibly.. but because people can now COUNTER these fits... they can and will be looked at for buffage by the dev team if needed.
You cant have your cake without a neighborhood bully who likes that flavor. This is a PVP game. Rock paper scissors is the absolute god. Anything which violates that truism doesn't need to exist and we've all seen how destructive such a ship can be(ishtar anyone?)
Additionally to anyone who is saying the missile mod reduction is to heavy...realize disruption is brutal. Reloading ammo doesn't really help and its laughable people seriously suggest "just switch to long range ammo" . All long range ammo does while under TD is make you have an illusion of hitting anything for any meaningful amount. Disruption is what is termed as a "hard counter" If the enemy FC sees you are all ranged turret boats he can switch to a fleet that will out range your optimal and then TD the hell out of you. You currently see cerbs/caras out more because they currently cant be disrupted and always have sniper grade optimals. Disruption means more counters, more thinking, and more diversified metas. This is a GOOD thing people. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 02:43:17 -
[6] - Quote
To the people trying to say point defense or active missiles launched at other active missiles are a great idea... Please take a moment to google 3D math equations that would relate to your ideas before posting them. Then google what these equations would do to a server with 700+ people in a fight. Then realize that any time such a system was used en masse you would cripple the local nodes even with small fleet fights. Not to mention that the "tics" the server uses to calculate such things would innately cause them to basically fail over 30% of the time. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 12:33:44 -
[7] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:~Snipsnip~ BiaB would probably make this a non issue.
Thing is we already have this in game (defender missiles). It's just not effective.
Also, [AFAIK] grouped missiles don't work as a group of multiple missiles. They look like they are but they are not. They are a "Super Missile" with a a cumulative HP pool and damage value that is the sum of all the missiles. You can then lower this damage value by lowering the HP pool with SB's or defender missiles. The client also renders this visually by showing you number of missiles left in the super missile.
The other side of the coin is also that the server needs to do all these calculations constantly for missiles in flight. If you destroy those missiles the calculations no longer need to be carried out so the problem of server load would self medicate.
I also wonder how missile disruption modules would effect missiles already in flight and then when falloff range begins to make the effectiveness of said modules sporadic, would the server then not be forced to "re-calculate" on and off causing more load? BIAB wont make servers calculate faster. All BIAB is free up server load/read times to allow MORE things to happen and to prevent latency from causing an issue in larger fights or higher population systems. Think about BIAB as a high efficiency two sided compression system. It just ensures that for one event(transferring) is done with far less active load than before. Once you are loaded BIAB doesn't really do much.
Yes each individual ship compresses all its missiles into one "group" to the server(fozzi correct if I'm in error here please) However, You are only thinking of the calculations from one side. If you have a PD/defender ship vs a fleet of cerbs you have limited options. You either space magic damage away with a flat reduction(this is bad. Space magic is bad). You have the module be completely ineffective because it only targets one enemy ships missiles at a time... Finally you do the most effective system which is having the defensive system target ALL incoming hostile targets for interdiction much the same way an actual missile defense system(like PHALANX CIWS) works. Trouble is to actually do this you need specialized systems to calculate best fire rates and target priorities.. in EVE or really any game thats an absurd thing to ask for. It's one of the main reasons you rarely, if ever, see real point defense in any video game.
This problem exists with smartbombs as well. Every time you fire one off it has to interact with everything it hits. If i had to guess smartbombs are a problem to the devs when performance is discussed. I think they get away with it by simply doing one volume calculation and then applying an effect to everything inside that volume. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 19:39:42 -
[8] - Quote
Drones don't exactly need ewar. Though this would depend on where CCP wants drones to fit into the meta.
If drone hulls are meant to be the "jack of all trades" then allowing them to be ewar immune isn't immediately a bad thing provided: 1] Drones never exceed a more specialized hulls abilities(IE they would always be worse than a sniper ship at sniping) 2] Their effective application was always less than the weapon system they are competing against. 3] They remain destroyable and with a limited storage capacity.
Except for a few hulls this actually applies. It gives drone hulls the niche of being able to handle multiple situations without actually being better than what they are fighting.
It also lets things like disruptors have a critical niche as well. Remember ROCK - PAPER - SCISSORS.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
95
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 21:11:05 -
[9] - Quote
One last attempt here..
Defender missiles aint gonna happen folks. Let me spell out the whys.
EVE operates on "tics" and when an enemy launches a missile at you that takes 2 whole seconds(or one "tic") before you, the victim, even knows the missile is in space. After that two seconds even if it was 100% automatic defender missiles would take 2 seconds to respond because the action has to roll into another server tic. Then if everything went perfectly on the THIRD server tic the defender would have to close on the hostile missile cluster. If these two don't meet during this server tic the fundamental way sh*t works says the chances of a f*ckup is high.
In most cases missiles are in the air for(and its being bolded for emphasis)LESS THAN FOUR SECONDS. This means that even in PERFECT LATENCY SITUATIONS the defender will NEVER EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK. In other words due to the way the game is fundamentally constructed the concept of player defender missiles is never going to work period dot end. CCP will not recode the entire server base just to allow a single module to work..
The only reason defender missiles work for NPCs is that NPCs are handled entirely server side so things like latency doesn't functionally apply to them the way it does to other players.
Additionally mobile "aoe effects" again.. not really going to happen. Smartbombs only work because they are mounted on generally slow hulls. Remember a ship in EVE Online is a dot with a vector on a 3D graph. Volume draws against moving objects within a 2s tic system mean trying to "hit" an object becomes retardedly complex. Even if you timestamp the hell out of things. It's not an efficient use of resources and thus falls squarely in the area of "terrible design".
Modules work so well because its built on a cycle. Once on the server calculates if the effect hits the target and if so does it have any falloff penalties. After that calculation the effect is simply applied until it triggers an out of range, one of the two targets no longer exist, or the cycle ends and is not reapplied. Very low cost, Very efficient, Very good code. It allows for fights to work without causing CCP engineers to run around with fire extinguishers every 15 minutes on a Saturday.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 03:03:53 -
[10] - Quote
This is just a blurb attempting to explain some major differences in missile theory and why "hard scifi" generally does things the way they do. Hopefully it will explain why interfering with the ship is more likely than actually messing directly with the missiles.
On a planetary body missiles eventually cap out in size as technology advances. Once you have a powerplant capable of traveling the diameter of the planet you dont really need more range. Thus you can design missiles to be self contained "smart" weapons as you miniaturize the power system. Maximum size is always a concern however because of atmospheric flight issues and the fact that you have a gravity well. Navigation is also considerably easier as you have a fixed body to run any positioning by.
In space... all these tricks go away and mass of missiles is no longer a significant concern. This is a massively radical shift in both methods and technology needed. This is furthur compounded by the fact that a ship will always have superior sensors, computers, and telemetry than a missile. Generally in a space situation the firing ship would become the "anchor" for navigation purposes. The ships superior optics and sensors would become the eyes on the long trip to the target. All the missile has to do is maintain link with its ship and accelerate like mad. Once its limited optics and computer systems is within range to be effective youd only have seconds left anyway.
Thus in many ways a missile in space will most likely have more in common with a "fly by wire" missile system than it does with an actual smart weapon on earth today. The majority of its flight will be controlled by the ship that launched it until it can acquire its target itself.
Thus.. as in most hard scifi.. the means to stop yourself from getting hit revolve around making the ship harder to acquire(signature) and screwing with the telemetry systems of the firing ship(disruptors). The eve universe carries on this tradition of jam the ship not the missile in lore. It seems weird but it actually has foundations in logic and design theory. Space changes many of the ways you look at doing things. |
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
177
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 02:20:09 -
[11] - Quote
Ewar in utility highs? That won't totally imbalance EWAR hulls and make for hilarious situations where you completely lockdown literally everything you run into.
Seriously though the midslot limitation is part of balance. They generally contain things that lock down an enemy either by stabbing them, webbing them, or preventing them from dictating the fight the way they might otherwise choose to. If you take any of these items and expand them outside of the midslot with exclusivity you will automatically grant whatever that item is an insane buff via power creep. The choice to fit that item suddenly becomes very easy and thus the risk associated with NOT having said item along goes away as well.
I'm sorry but highslot EWAR without making literally everything highslot would just make a balance nightmare. |
|
|
|