EVE Search - Targeting Speed vs. Signature Radius

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Targeting Speed vs. Signature Radius - ON CHAOS

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
FZappa	Posted - 2003.12.01 20:52:00 - [31] im just wondering how this will effect NPC drones . say i warp into a belt to mine with my BS , there 5 cruiser NPC drones there if i understand right , its going to take me bloody forever to target one of them! ugh , by the time i get a lock they will be all nicly circling me at 1km off . not to mention npc's seem to have amazingly fast lock speed... -------------------------
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2003.12.01 20:53:00 - [32] ok.. here we are thinking the devs don't play the game. what tomb just said made perfect sense. the times and values look a bit wierd, but the concept is solid. all you have to do is get a griffin with a warp jammer, stasis and two sensor dampeners and any target you want is a sitting duck for however long it takes to get a lock from the battleship :) dear god! kestrel attack squads! now you'll be able to release more than the first volley of missles, lol _____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf
Zeus	Posted - 2003.12.01 20:55:00 - [33] Right now i'm worried far more about combat actually happening, since it is actually impossible for a ship to be targeted coming out of a station or warp without them being lagged already so this will only inflame the issue. So i guess the question is what are you going to to do stop people warping before they can be locked or stop people docking before the inv timer runs out?
drunkenmaster	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:00:00 - [34] Interesting idea. Will concord be affected by this at all? .
Jarjar	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:02:00 - [35] Bug
j0sephine	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:04:00 - [36] "Will concord be affected by this at all?" Concord usually brings some frigates with them -.^
Kronarty	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:05:00 - [37] I think that there shouldn't be those huge differences in "Scan resolution" between ship classes. You may have a very very small difference due to whatever technobabble devs decide is ok, but those HUGE differences are completely illogical. I don't think a frigate has waaaay better sensors than a battleship, no chance of that.
Vel Kyri	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:10:00 - [38] answer == kill invun timer. please!! -----
ga'ia	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:11:00 - [39] Well, looks fine to me only that tageting speed on bships seems maybe abit to slow? FoF missiles are definitive gonna be a kind of pre-target way to fire (much more important than now...), just switch later when you get your lock to cruise/torps, which is in the favor for the Caldari ships, esp the Raven. Raven are going to be more or less immune to this I fear... However, farming is gonna be really hard with this .. gonna test some then can back for more feedback. __________________________________________________________
ga'ia	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:19:00 - [40] Quote: answer == kill invun timer. please!! Hmm yea..if its really gonna be like above changes...the invulnerable timer is more or less unnecessary, but CCP still need to fix the "load-client-first-then-spawn-my-ship"-issue.... __________________________________________________________
zukuroo	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:26:00 - [41] TomB, could you please explain how you think Pirating and PvP in general will look with these changes? I don¦t see any possiblity for non-voluntary PvP (not that we have much of that now, since the 10 second timer is enough to get through, or warp away), nor pirating with the new system. With lock-on times as huge as that you won¦t be able to stop anyone from just casually flying through a blockade. I love the idea of frigates and cruisers becoming more useful, but I am afraid that with changes like those you might make battleships near obsolete. What about the other approach - making smaller ships harder to hit? The changes so far haven¦t done much to boost frigates and cruisers, maybe some more changes in that direction would be beneficial.
Sphalerite	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:38:00 - [42] I'd say kill the invulnerability timer now. Unless someone has 20 frigates waiting for you, they shouldn't be able to destroy your ship before your screen loads. If this works right, we'll finally see frigates as the skirmishers, cruisers as the ships of the line, and battleships in the back kicking ass once things really start.
MaiLina KaTar	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:43:00 - [43] Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 01/12/2003 21:59:19 ok just a few things TomB: The invul-timer needs to be either reduced or removed entirely. Anything else is pretty unfair in many situations. Of course you still have the issue with ships appearing before the client loaded the scene but with those locktimes it¦s not that much of an annoyance anymore. I think people will tolerate eventual lag-kills as long as they know that a fix for the loading issue is on the way. Battleships have longer locktimes now. But they are easily able to flee (same goes for cruisers). Something needs to be done about MWDs or that locktime advantage for frigs will never play a role as battleships and cruisers can simply run away to stay out of a frigates range. There have been many extremely good suggestions. You might want to take a look at this and this thread. There¦s a myriad of extremely good suggestions in these. We need FoF defender missiles or Ravens will be the absolute ubership. Call them 'patriots' please That¦s about it. only thing left to say is a big thank you This is the first big step into a world of eve where the shipclasses are balanced and elite frigate pilots make the difference. It¦s the first big step towards persistent PvP. People might moan but in the end they will be extremely happy about this. As for the locking times themselves: To me they look great. But it pretty much boils down to two things: MWDs and warp-in-distances. These are the two main factors you¦ll have to keep in mind to really balance these numbers out. Say frigs always have to do a 30km approach, the battleships will then still have enough time to aquire a lock. Same goes for MWD. If they are able to simply MWD away until they have a lock, the advantage of a faster locking time for frigs is pretty much pointless. But still the numbers look totally reasonable to me, they make sense. Mai's Idealog
Artean	Posted - 2003.12.01 21:47:00 - [44] Indeed fantastic. My Rifter will (hopefully) rock. Hope this will lower the amount of solo flying BS. Quite a stupid sigth actually (if the game was propperly balanced, that is). They should, indeed, be vulnerable against a squad of frigates, if they havent got a squad of their own. We dont want a game were all the strategies comes down to "the bigger - the best". This is a step in the rigth direction.
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:01:00 - [45] Oh yeah, TomB. Something else: What's the signature radius on Rockets, Torpedos and Missiles? I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:03:00 - [46] Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 01/12/2003 22:07:33 Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 01/12/2003 22:05:38 I absolutely love it :) giving smaller ships a good reason to exist and be used ? excellent a few sig radi' scythe - 100 auguror - 110 osprey - 120 stabber - 135 omen - 145 arbitrator - 165 rupture - 165 vexor - 165 maller - 170 Thorax - 175 Moa - 180 Blackbird - 200 Hoarder - 200 Wreathe - 220 Mammoth - 240 Bestower - 300 typhoon - 350 Iteron V - 350 armageddon - 400 tempest - 400 Badger Mk II - 400 apocalypse - 450 megathron - 450 dominix - 500 raven - 550 scorpion - 600 The Mammoth comes off fairly well compared to the other indys .. although it is in lower battleship territory still (the others being higher) with low cruiser level health that might cause a few problems though (for all of them) if the indys sig radi' were to be set according to there race/toughness you'd probably get : Mammoth : Total toughness = 1700 closest Minmater ship = Scythe - 1875 tougness sig radius - 100 actual radius - 240 Bestower : Total toughness = 1625 closest Amarr ship = Auguror - 2250 toughness sid radius - 110 actual radius - 300 Iteron V : total toughness = 2125 closest gallente ship = Exequror - 2025 toughness sig radius - 165 actual radius - 350 Badger Mk II : total toughness = 1650 closest caldari ship = osprey - 2075 toughness sig radius - 120 actual radius - 400 as you can see the indys have much higher sig radius. In all these cases the nearest ship is faster and has 20x the power grid for fitting defense equipment (also in all cases except the Iteron V the closest ship is still tougher) the closest ships can also fit MWD which the indys cannot If it goes live like this the indys will be even more space piniata/old grannys (yay 50 points! .. sorry death race popped into my head while writing :D) with a huge amount less defense than any other ship for the same amount of time to lock An example : some people are camping a gate/JIP and 4 ships appear - a frigate, a cruiser, an indy and an battleship Frigate : least threat, slowest lock, least loot ... probably the last thing to be targeted Cruiser : medium threat, medium lock, second to last loot .. probably second to last target Industrial : low threat, easy kill, fast lock and potentially highest loot = probably the first lock by far battleship : highest threat, fastest lock, best or second best loot .. but its far more likely to escape with MWD or just warping away than the indy - second thing to lock after the indy I can only suggest two solutions A: the quick-fix/Easy solution - Lower the indys sig radius down to low cruiser level where they would still be more vulnerable than the cruisers but not the hugely attractive candy they will be unchanged B: the cool/harder solution raise the indys toughness (keeping the weak shield: armour: hull ratio is fine) most of the way to battleships (500-1000 shield, 2-3k armour, 3-4k hull perhaps) to equal the slow speed and high sig .. possibly give them somewhat more realistic power grids .. albeit that is a very hard thing to balance (for example giving them 500 grid would allow cruiser sized shield boosters, armour platings etc which would be good but also would allow a cruiser sized weapon and/or MWD/s which the devs dont seem to want) the biggest problem here is cost admittedly - they'd have to go up .. though I guess the smaller indys could stay weak/cheap and the bigger indys get more expensive/tougher . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Saladin	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:29:00 - [47] Edited by: Saladin on 01/12/2003 22:30:31 Edited by: Saladin on 01/12/2003 22:29:32 One question. Why is it that the smallest battleship in the game (the scorpion) has the highest signature radius (600) ? --------------------------- (c) Copyright Saladin, 2005. Any editing of this post by a third party will be in violation United States Internet Copyright law 46525 of 2003.
Andrew Jade	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:31:00 - [48] This rocks. Im so glad, now fleets will be balanced, with frigs and cruisers with only a few if not any battleships. Thats great. It means that the really heavy hitters will still be there, but they are gonna have to be suported by other ship classes. Great news, im really glad about this, seems PVP will be getting very interesting soon. -Aj- WTB: Large faction smartbomb with good range. Top isk paid.
Ana Khouri	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:33:00 - [49] Signature radius mustn't necessarily have to do something with it's size. It could be, for example, it's electromagnetic field. And since the scorp is the most advanced BS it's likely it has the biggest field. BTW - what about a new module which lowers the sginature radius? "Signature Reduction Field" or something like that. free speech not allowed here
Saladin	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:45:00 - [50] I think another way to make this practical is to change the numerator in TomB's equation. His original equation is: 10000/scan resolution/asinh(signature radius) I'm assuming asinh is the hyperbolic arc sine. Correct me if im wrong TomB. I think this would work better if we replaced 10000 with 2000. This would divide all those lock times by 5, keeping it reasonable while maintaining the clear advantage of using a frigate for locking. The current numbers mean people can avoid fighting at all times. --------------------------- (c) Copyright Saladin, 2005. Any editing of this post by a third party will be in violation United States Internet Copyright law 46525 of 2003.
Dark Razer	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:49:00 - [51] I like that idea, something to make it harder for people to lock onto you. Another point, like the previous poster said, just because its the smaller doesn't mean it has the smallest signiture. Indy's wouldn't have many electronics, so whats stoping them from having a smaller signiture? I don't like the idea of them being stronger, after all, i think frigates SHOULD beable to kill them. Thx, D_R **Curse Alliance Member
Doc Brown	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:52:00 - [52] How are FOF missles (and drones) affected by this? _________________________________________________ There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations.
Ana Khouri	Posted - 2003.12.01 22:57:00 - [53] An educated guess would be - they are not. free speech not allowed here
MOOstradamus	Posted - 2003.12.01 23:11:00 - [54] /me agrees with LEX LUGER and weeps a little for his rather huge MOOmmoth with the 'SOON TO BEÖ EVEN EASIER TARGET' sign emblazoned on its hull ... Appraisal of Targeting/Locking Mechanics Alterations so far: 'getting there' MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
Valeria	Posted - 2003.12.01 23:14:00 - [55] Edited by: Valeria on 01/12/2003 23:26:11 'scuse me, but a Bestower is atleast twice as big as a Scorpion; how can it have half the signature radius? I don't mind this change, I don't mind it giving frigates a bonus over Bships, but I do mind it since it will make it impossible for Bships to catch anyone, anywhere. I also mind it if the signature radius statistics won't make sense, which they don't (see first statement). By all means buff frigates, but don't nerf battleships. Edit: And what the Hey? Not only does the Raven have less radius than a Scorp (they are both small, with Raven being bigger), Caldari battleships have vastly higher radius than other Battleships. For crying out loud, have you looked at a Scorpion next to an Apocalypse? The Apocalypse is 4 times as long! Edit2: According to the Ship database, the Tempest should have 630 signature radius, the Raven 800 and the Scorpion 653, and the Dominix should have 555. It really doesn't make sense. Did you not use a scale while building this game? Ie, one Maya unit = one game unit = 1 meter? It almost seems like you just made a few meshes and scaled them around a bit in-game just to fit docking ports or whatever. Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2003.12.01 23:34:00 - [56] sig radius as I understand it is based on signature not size - caldari ships have the most electronic equipment aboard and output more signature because of it - the scorpion of course being a flying super-computer :P minmater are supposed to be the worlds foremost mechanical engineers - thus there ships use mechanical tech instead of electronic tech = lower signatures . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Valeria	Posted - 2003.12.01 23:43:00 - [57] Are you sure about that? Afaik, signature radius was already used for tracking speed calculations, thus implying that it is the actual size of the ship. I don't see how any electronic signature would affect how well you could hit an Apocalypse with a Neutron Blaster Cannon. Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage.
Redwolf	Posted - 2003.12.02 00:01:00 - [58] Edited by: Redwolf on 02/12/2003 00:06:16 Sounds to me like someone is *****ing out of actually fixing the tracking issues. thwaping frigates with tachs is just soooo much fun, but is it fair? But to penalise BS in this manner is gonna really hurt the game.
Siolan	Posted - 2003.12.02 00:01:00 - [59] I think this rocks, been waiting for a while for this one... Especially with elite frigs coming in, etc., frigates will be a MUCH more viable and neccesary fighting option
Bushido	Posted - 2003.12.02 00:10:00 - [60] Edited by: Bushido on 02/12/2003 00:46:27 I wait tha patch and say only 1 thing: PvP now is almost imposssible cause 10 sec invuln and the obsolete radar. If after patch there will be a general PvP nerf you risk to damage Eve that could be the best PvP MOG and could become like "A Tale in the desert". Bushido

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.