| 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) |
Red Six
   |
Posted - 2003.12.02 00:17:00 -
[61]
This is an illustrative post to try and help people understand the logic better. I'm going to get my chaos setup updated and have to come over and test this as I haven't yet. I won't comment on it's effectiveness/ineffectiveness until I have. I'm going to use RL comparisons for illustration purposes. Hopefully this will make sense, if not I apologize in advance.
The way I see this, the new sensors targetting method makes me think of submarines and their sensors namely sonar. Looking at it in that context helps put this in perspective for me.
The Caldari ships, while advanced have a large signature(electronic noise) which would make it easier to acquire a localization of the target because of all the medium slots they have.
RL example, the Soviet Alfa class of submarines was one of the most advanced hulls in any submarine fleet. During testing when the reactor was run up to full power and the submarine went to flank speed during a test in the seas north of the old Soviet Union. The Alfa was heard all the way down at a US Navy listening post in Puerto Rico. A large signature that was easy to localize similar to Caldari ships high tech noise with all those medium slots.
Here's where my logic breaks down some. As I see it the Amarr ships for the most part with their low numer of med slots should have the lowest signatures. Although some Minmatar ships do have equivalent number of medium slots compared to equivalent Amarr ships. My only way to explain this is that lasers are more high-tech than projectile weapons and thus do have a slightly larger electronic signature. Weak argument I know but only thing that seems to fit the facts.
Anyhow, based on the signature radii a Scythe (Minmatar cruiser tier 1) has the lowest electronic signature. It's putting out the least amount of electronic noise to detect and use to localize the target. That causes the Scythe's attakcers to have to wait a very long time to localize and lock a Scythe.
Going back to my real world analogy, this makes a Scythe comparable to a USN 688 Los Angeles class attack sub. It has a very small signature and is harder to localize and lock up. Meaning attackers will have to be more patient and wait longer for the sensor to gather enough data to localize the 688 class sub. In real life 688 class subs have trailed Alfa subs at 800 meters for days without being detected. Won't go into reasons why take to long and may bring about unnecessary flaming. Something like that obviously can't happen in the game, at least not without cloaking.
I realize the firepower comparison in my real world analogy is relatively equivalent between the Alfa and LA class subs. So that part doesn't hold up however the signatures of the two subs are what we are comparing not firepower, in that instance the analogy does hold up.
Industrial ships are like modern merchant cargo ships. Designed to haul cargo not be stealthy, hence the large signature.
Signature radii were taken from Zyrla's post. If the signature radii are changed to reflect a more physical sensor reading, similar to Radar Cross Section, then things will change.
Hopefully this made sense to someone besides me.
|
Novo DuPont
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 01:36:00 -
[62]
Tomb:
While I understand the point of frigates my point was BS vs. BS. Scorps already have a advantage with sensor boosters as it is. What the values given will do is give Scorps a bigger adavantage in targeting speed differences than they currently do if all bonuses remain the same.
The stacking penalty work greats on other items but when you got devices that give 50% to 60% bonuses even giving only 1/2 or 1/4 the bonus is still alot.
On top of this has the concideration about Sensor Dampeners been looked at. Three of those gonna make players lock times as high as 45 seconds against other BS's!?! So a Scorp with 3 Sensor Boosters and 3 Sensor Dameners will be ALOT more powerful than they currently are now agasint other BS's.
That can be a serious issue during PvP fights. So all someone can do is just warp away or hope there is a corpmate in the same sytem to go after the Scorp, unless you have a same equiped Scorp. Then it will boil down to whoever warps in 2nd loses the target locking race.
Not good :(
"To succeed greatly one must sacrifice greatly"
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 01:57:00 -
[63]
Oh man, this will bring soooooooooooooooooooooo much trouble, although the idea is good. But the penalty is far too high.
My god, 34 seconds. Add 3 sensor dampeners too and it's up to 2 minutes. And also, if the battleship will "auto target back" he will be stuck on trying to lock the frigate and can't lock any battleships coming in.
Today people are using sensor dampeners to cut down the range. After this sensor dampeners will rule. Their will be no use of ECM.
Either it's time to go back into a scorpion and fit it with 4 sensor boosters + 3 dampeners + scrambler, or to train up FOF missiles and heavy drones to lvl 5 and fit 6 launchers on my Raven, or it's time to get back into a frigate.
As I said, I really like the idea, but the penalties are way to high.
Either the values needs to be more than halfed or sensor boosters needs to be hit with the nerf sledgehammer down to like 1.15 instead of 1.5x.
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Drutort
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 02:14:00 -
[64]
ok ok... so what happens to dampers? err hmm how are they going to work? are they going to make hte signature small? or what?
or will they just make that lock time X amount more?
that means that say a BS vs a frig... even using dampers on the frig it would do almost nothing? but BS vs BS not much either.. but a frig vs a BS damping would make the BS almost not able to lock on to the frig? or really long time??? 
just wondering how these modules going to change...
support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo
my MoBlog |
ProphetGuru
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 02:18:00 -
[65]
Edited by: ProphetGuru on 02/12/2003 02:20:15
All this is doing is guaranteeing frigs will be 1st targets once 2min later, u actually lock em. I am so much more in favor of boosting frigs and cruisers rather then nerfing the abilities of ships a lot of people have busted rump to get into.
Who wants to be in the griffin in a fleet battle with 30mill of implants in their head?
I know this is early testing, I would like to request this is tested a long long time b4 implemented. Sensor boosters, damps etc as currently made will throw this all out of wack. A look at targeting skill should be required too.
Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
|
Civil Deity
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 02:29:00 -
[66]
remember to fix the skill signature analysis too!!!!! i just trained the beast to 5! :)
if this was already mentioned sorry i didn't have time to read all posts.
Civil Deity
Wanna kill pirates? Join EV! Join SA! check us out:
www.everlastingvendetta.com
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 02:39:00 -
[67]
 Quote:
Edited by: ProphetGuru on 02/12/2003 02:20:15
All this is doing is guaranteeing frigs will be 1st targets once 2min later, u actually lock em. I am so much more in favor of boosting frigs and cruisers rather then nerfing the abilities of ships a lot of people have busted rump to get into.
Who wants to be in the griffin in a fleet battle with 30mill of implants in their head?
Actually it means I'd better start production on FoF cruise missiles if dampeners go untouched. That and drones 
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 |
Fairlane
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 02:43:00 -
[68]
When will the "insta podkill to collect the bounty of the mean pirate that killed me cuz im a carebear" button be ingame??? Great job guys.. You really turning this game into a Mining simulator.
Maybe you should change that Text on the back of the package that says "..or the most nefarious pirate ever to terrorize the galaxy" to "be the pirate that dont do anything at all in the galaxy" .. Just a thought... You might get some muppets from Sims-online to start playing this game
Wallhack... aimbot... You name it!!!
RUKI VVERH ...MUSORA! |
Falhofnir
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 02:44:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Falhofnir on 02/12/2003 02:44:55
This total revamp of the game PVP mechanics and logics just CAN'T work with the game as it has been balanced for the past 6 months.
I'll be surprised and glad if anything good comes out of that idea before 10-12 months considering how fast you've been at balancing stuff since release.
Sorry to sound that pessimistic, i really enjoy playing your game tomb (and other devs, but since tomb is balance master :), but you just never seem to foresee the negative effects of the changes you make (which i won't develop now, need to sleep ^^).
And rushing such a huge change to get castor out in time, or delaying castor to make that change in a properly balanced way, i'll let people chose what's worse, but i dislike both options.
|
Bushido
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 03:08:00 -
[70]
Quote:
Maybe you should change that Text on the back of the package that says "..or the most nefarious pirate ever to terrorize the galaxy" to "be the pirate that dont do anything at all in the galaxy" .. Just a thought... You might get some muppets from Sims-online to start playing this game
Sims can drink whisky
Bushido |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 04:14:00 -
[71]
From the post:
This is testable now on Chaos but is not fully tuned, more changes will happen to these example numbers I'm giving out.
You may dislike these changes, if you do so, flame some where else.
Please test this out and leave behind comments and bugs if you find them.
If you don't feel like testing it to give feedback on possible bugs or make suggestions and would rather want to flame at some example statistics that are currently being used, then please make a thread some where else for the flames, thank you.
PS: Signal Amplifier, Signature Analysis, Sensor Booster, Remote Sensor Booster and Remote Sensor Dampener are not working currently on Chaos - I'll update them tomorrow.
"Where is my hat?" |
Brukhai Khan
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 04:59:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Brukhai Khan on 02/12/2003 05:04:19
Quote:
You may dislike these changes, if you do so, flame some where else.
apart from two regrettable exceptions I think everyone was quite productive about the issue - and you have to admit that these changes do raise some very important questions as they will have an impact on PvP like probably nothing else before.
most people are naturally very concerned about the game they are playing and paying for, so please give them the benefit of the doubt if they become a bit agitated at the threat of a modification like this changing the EvE they like for the worse.
|
Elithiomel
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 07:38:00 -
[73]
Question: why is the target lock time determined by the ship class. Surely the scan resolution should be determined by the weapon class.
(Maybe this is a daft question and maybe it has been asked/commented on before. If so just ignore it).
It should be an option to load up small class weapons on a cruiser or medium class weapons on a battleship in order to lower your lock times.
---------------------------------------------
Engineers motto; If it doesn't fit, force it. If it breaks it needed replacing anyway. |
Madcow
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 08:25:00 -
[74]
I like this change allot this will improve more devirse ships allot to make it nicer then having everyone flying in battleships.
______________________
I am just a crazy cow |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 09:18:00 -
[75]
Quote:
It just seems like a way of pushing people out of battleships.
Bingo.
It's a first step of bringing frigs and cruisers back in the fray.
It's a first step in making mixed fleets a must in PvP.
If you can't realise that the fact that 90% of the ship's flown in PvP are Bs is a problem then you need to look at the greater picture.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Nicholas Marshal
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 09:34:00 -
[76]
This is the best idea from TomB ever.
This is precisely what EVE needs. Once this goes live, we will see proper fleet engagements, with frigates and cruisers (and a Battleship or 2) - as opposed to 10 Battleships slugging it out (which is completely silly).
Lone battleships will have to be REALLY careful now as well - a small flight group of rifters could take one out. The battleships will need escorts.
Excellent work dev. team ! I'm looking forward to utlising my frigate collection.
|
Neminem
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 09:37:00 -
[77]
Tomb you have succeeded in making BS's a waste of ISK now.
A couple BBs with decent groupware are all you need.
WHy don;t you leave **** that works alonew and work on fixing crap that doesn't.
Like the 10 secone invuln, and rock respawns.
I'm sick of this tampering to try and induce balance. Screw balance scorpions are EW ships and should be more powerful at that. etc etc etc...
Get a grip!
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 09:52:00 -
[78]
Quote:
WHy don;t you leave **** that works alonew and work on fixing crap that doesn't.
Everyone and his mother is a BS is not **** that works.
2 whole ship classes being obsolete is not **** that works.
TomB isn't changing he is CORRECTING a situation that was never meant to be.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Flatliner
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 10:11:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Flatliner on 02/12/2003 10:27:37
Tomb, while I welcome the idea of making frigates and cruisers more usuable in the game, what brought such a drastic change to the idea of lock times?.
I mean explain to the eve community why this drastic change needs to be made, to a pvp'er this is just another nerf and a one that's against the use of battleships.
With current idea of lock times, instead of seeing a few battleships at a gate or station, you will see battleships + all the support ships, cruiser+frigates, the lag will be hideous.
Workarounds:
Problem: Too many battleships ingame.
Why: Best ships available, and everyone wants one, you can't change that.
Acceptable change:
Make the mineral costs to battleships x4 what they are now & build time days not hours.
This would make losing one costly & not easy to replace, during that time, people would use cruisers or frigates anyway.
This would also help the market, much better than it currently is.
Invunerability time:
This has been a concearn for many for a long time, only way to effectively get around it (currently) is to lag the opponents long enough to get a lock, or hit the unwary/unskilled.
Possible change:
Keep the 10s invul timer, but add another 10s warp/jump/re-dock penalty, once you jump or warp/undock you can't for another 10s after the first 10s invul timer.
Why: This would re-kickstart the pvp issues ingame, and make the use of warpcore stabalizers more viable.
Frigates/cruisers:
Make modules exclusivley for them only.
Example: Cloak for cruisers or frigates.
Why:
People need a damn good reason to use one other than only having the skill to do so, make them more tempting to use.
This is in no way a flame, just addressing issues that are known, and can be worked around.
Flatliner.
|
Nicholas Marshal
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 10:17:00 -
[80]
I think not. Everyone would still gravitate to Battleships again.
TomB's changes will ensure that 'proper' groups of ships will be useful again i.e A battleship, some cruisers and some frigates.
If you want to pvp, why do you HAVE to do so in a BS anyway ? At least after TomB's changes pirates will be able to have a great time swooping down on lone batleship pilots in their Rifter squads.
Surely this is more fun anyway ?
|
Maxwell Johnson
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 10:23:00 -
[81]
While I largely agree with this, I have some commnets. I do not believe however that they will be considered or even read by DEV, this could be the reason I have never posted here before.
First, I do not have any battleship skills.
Now...
I think people who have taken the time to learn signature analysis and sensor linking should benefit, they don;t really benefit now.
I think EW atuned ships would logically have some method of screening excesive electronic signature, this should be taken into account. Just cos it's capable of EW don't nerf it. It has other weaknesses, for example, it will likely be the first ship targeted and destroyed in a fight.
Frieght ships are sitting ducks. The will always be slow, easy to see and fat with profilable ware. This is what fleets are for, to clear the path for them... think WW2.
Frigates are support vessels so these changes are best for them. But what about the destroyer class? Is that still coming, as we need something that can take down a nible hard to track frigate. Frigate will probably need a sensor range boost. They would not normally be upclose and personal ships as they do not have the firepower required. These should be supporting the line ships with sensor linking and weapon linking etc etc.
Cruisers are ment to be able to cruise. Right now they don't. These are (as someone said) ships of the line, and should be the do'ers. These ships should require specific skill sets to provide specific tasks in a fleet.
There are a few other things...
You need to have a good all rounder cos there are lone wolfs, and there always will be. Don't push them out.
MWD's need to be nerfed a little, but not in how, just how much. ie. make em chew juice more. Or even how about having one module affect another. e.g. Active MWD boosts sig x200%? or deactivates shield booster?
just some idea's.
Later
Max |
Thrak
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 10:24:00 -
[82]
By all means make frigates and cruisers harder to target than battleships.
But all ships should acquire targets at the same rate. As mentioned earlier it does not make sense and cannot make sense (note this is no different than the current targeting times - they don't make sense either). A battleship has better everything, including sensors) than a frigate. It's only disadvantages should be it's size and speed.
If you think the main problem with the lack of use of cruisers and frigates is targeting speed you're wrong. It's a)insurance b)MWDs and c) insurance and MWDs.
Er back to this change, unacceptable - stupid even. If it comes in I'm gonna see if I get scout drones to relay target information to me. After all they are tiny should have a locking speed of .3 seconds 
|
Thrak
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 10:30:00 -
[83]
Oh btw : guess who'll be fitting two-three shield/cap transfer modules so that the uber targetting frigate alt can survive whatever it's warp jamming until my friends and I get a lock.
Gotta love two accounts...
|
Flatliner
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 10:33:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Flatliner on 02/12/2003 10:37:57
Trust me, the lag will be hideous, jumping or undocking into the battleships+all the support ships it will need. It will also effectively kill solo playing.
Those who have had large fleet actions know what I mean by this.
Flatliner.
|
Milk
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 10:45:00 -
[85]
I am afriad you cannot test alliance wars on Chaos server.
PvP is so few and far between already, please ensure that the changes don't make it non existant.
I fear that these changes will just mean regions of space will not be able to be controlled by alliances, and just be overun by frigates killing industrial ships where possible, and uncatchable due to long lock times and no way of reaching them in "safe" spots in space.
I strongly suggest that somehow "forced" PvP is implemented.
________________________________________________
You know whats good for you.
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 11:08:00 -
[86]
Edited by: McWatt on 02/12/2003 11:24:37
good points:
1. more fleet action
2. the dumb idea that this change will allow frigates to "close in" on Battleships got dropped.
cons:
1. FOF missiles will rule. ccp should have fixed the frigate/big missiles issue after the championship debacle.
2. drones?!?
3. how can somebody think about balancing this without bringing sensor boosters in and before fixing jump-in-lag???
hopefully this will not be the end to PvP at all. the last thing we need is making camping / hunting even more difficult. we ll see.
btw, of course everyone IS using a "stopper" blackbird at the moment already!
|
Dukath
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 11:21:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Dukath on 02/12/2003 11:22:59
Personally i agree with the fact that lock times will increase for larger ships. However I also think that in order to preserve PVP this change should be balanced together with
-removal of invulnerability timer
-removal of warp drive active, ie a ship should align and simply accellerate to 2 au and only then should the warp drive active flag be set.
-balancing of sensor boosters/dampener modules
-balancing of ECM (i don't think a lone frigate or cruiser should be able to jam a battleship, radar strength should be increased to that you either need a full jamming 4 medslot frigate to jam 1 cruiser or more than 1 frig and either a blackbird with full jamming on medslots or 2 cruisers to jam a battleship.) This is in my eyesa very much needed rebalancing if the lock times are changed.
Trying to balance the locktimes without taking these factors into account will simply be a waste of time since those factors WILL cause problems if they are not changed.
|
Braccas
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 11:25:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Braccas on 02/12/2003 11:50:10
Aight...i¦m not the balancing freak, but i think there has to be a simple solution for a complex problem.
I see the point in locking smaller objects taking more time, but that just applies to small/small. What if we take a look at big/big?
Does it really make sense that a BS takes 20sec to lock a BS? No, not at all!
1. Example_Frigate:
- 7sec to lock another frig
- 4sec to lock a cruiser
- 2sec to lock a BS
2. Example_Battleship:
- 15sec to lock a frig
- 9sec to lock a cruiser
- 3sec to lock a another Battleship
That¦s how i¦d like to see it. It would put sense in using cass vs. class AND small vs. big.
Camp a gate in a BS and get blown up by an incoming cruiser pack.
|
von Steinroehder
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 11:36:00 -
[89]
Suggestion to targeting speed depending
on ship class. Values are examples.
This approach is balanced and can be
applied by a formula calculated from
signature radius.
General rule:
Each class the target is larger than you
decreases your locking time by half.
Example ships:
Frigate A - 12 sec base locking time
Cruiser B - 16 sec base locking time
Battleship C - 20 sec base locking time
Viewed from Frigate A:
Trying to lock other frigate: 12 secs
Trying to lock Cruiser B: 6 secs
Trying to lock Battleship C: 3 secs
Viewed from Cruiser B:
Trying to lock Frigate A: 16 secs
Trying to lock another cruiser: 8 secs
Trying to lock Battleship C: 4 secs
Viewed from Battleship C:
Trying to lock Frigate A: 20 secs
Trying to lock another cruiser: 10 secs
Trying to lock Battleship C: 5 secs
This would make frigates viable.
Please read, please comment.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.12.02 11:40:00 -
[90]
True - but what will be the effect? Instead of Scorps and BB as ECM and apocs/tempest/raven as damagedealer you'll get griffins as ECM and apocs/tempest/raven as damagedealer. Big change.
free speech not allowed here |
| |
|
| 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 |