| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
   |
Posted - 2007.10.18 21:38:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: MotherMoon
as your ignored it before I will bring it up again.
does tracking speed follow this? Do smartbombs? what about bombs? Anything on drones?
you said every weapons system in eve follows this magic rule so please show us that EVERY weapons system needs to be like this. I want to see prove outside of turrets.
Well, I answered this 4+h ago in the other thread, but here goes again... SLIGHTLY shorter version.
The TWO main concepts of EVE combat damage are:
* larger weapons reach farther, deal more raw damage, hit smaller/faster targets worse
* the longer you reach, the less damage you deal, and vice-versa
Argue as much as you like to the contrary if you like, fact remains, THOSE TWO ARE THE NATURAL LAWS.
Now, you have drones, which don't reach farther, but just deal more damage (while moving slower).
Drones however are a common aspect of most ships in EVE, and for the vast majority of them, only take a secondary (or even tertiary) damage-dealing spot, with the exception of a handfull (really just a handfull) of Gallente ships, where they are more or less in a tie between primary/secondary damage dealers.
You can exclude them from the "balancing act" we were trying to pull here without much problems (quite the contrary, they would only reinforce my argument, since missile-using ships barely do have a noticeable dronebay to begin with).
You also have smartbombs, which ignore everything except proximity, deal damage to everybody in range, no ship whatsoever has any bonuses to them, and all ships without exception can use them.
It would be pretty much pointless to count them in from the viewpoint of this argument, wouldn't you agree ?
SO WHAT'S LEFT THERE ? Well, just turrets and missiles now, isn't it ?
Taking a glimpse at turrets, you see that the previously (countless times mentioned) progression goes always and without exception for the same "relative class size" of turret (e.g. "biggest small/med/large/XL blaster") as x2 ranges, x2 ammo damage, x1.5 RoF.
Not only THAT, but if you compare DPS output vs optimal+falloff as a ratio (same as comparing with optimal*0.5+0.5*falloff, really, for high-damage ammo and 83% of effective DPS), you will notice a pretty CLEAR correlation between them... namely, that a small DPS increase comes as a price for a heavy range decrease (in a previous example, a bit more than +50% DPS for more than *4 range difference, for blasters-vs-rails).
Looking at missiles, we notice that the "guided missile" T1 ammo also follows the same x2 range, x2 ammo damage progression, and to a much lesser/coherent degree the RoF progression.
But that's where the similarities stop... frigate-sized missile systems are completely out of whack with just about everything, assault launchers are weird (to say theleast) and HAMs are pretty much a "wtf" moment.
So, ok, I get it... you DON'T want rockets/lights to fall completely in line with HAMs/heavies and torps/cruise.
But the ammo (i.e. volley) damage and guided ranges at least have to be "ok" here, if nothing else.
I can somewhat understand the reasoning behind the rocket resistance (5km instead of 10km means even with a missile speed bonus you get in web range, so that is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing), but then again you could just reduce that to 7km (10.5 with max range bonus, so out of web range again) and buff the DPS a bit less compared to current values, say just *2 instead of *2.26 as initially proposed.
What's the magical difference between 20 and 10 km HAM range in cruiser/battlecruiser combat, for starters ? It's not like you wouldn't be in scram range already, and the enemy wants to have you in web range anyway (alternatively you can just switch to javs if he doesn't), or fit a single missile flight speed rig and go past that value too. And so on and so forth.
_
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 21:45:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Dragon Lord
People dont tend to mention that the dps calcs for guns are for normal hits, when you start maxing you skills in gunnery you get a lot of good excellent and wreaking hits which skyrockets your dps.
Actually, nope.
IF you have "near perfect tracking" (i.e. nearly 100% chance to hit), damage bonuses are spread evenly between x0.5 and x1.5 of "normal" damage, and 1% of your shots are x3 damage wreckings.
At nearly 100% chance to hit, you deal on average roughly 102% of your "normal" damage.
NO HIT EVER gets more than x3 damage, and the average (if you shoot long enough) is never above 102% normal damage, in ideal circumstances.
Originally by: Julius Romanus
Rockets power comes entirely from the fact that you can hit for full dps out at 8-10km IE the edge of web range. Nerfing range on rockets is dumb. They barely kick ass as a frigate weapon as is, "lets get into small blaster range :D" is just stupid.
So, if rockets would deal MORE damage as small blasters, but have a shorter range as small blasters... would you still say the same, or would you say the exact opposite, namely "using small blasters ? well, stay the hell away from rocket range them, getting closer would be just stupid".
I fail to see how this is an argument for anything but "hello, I can't grasp the concept of higher damage shorter range always needing to apply regardless of type of weapon used".
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 21:57:00 -
[33]
You cant make rockets have less range than small blasters, they going to have a .5km range?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 22:31:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Goumindong
You cant make rockets have less range than small blasters, they going to have a .5km range?
All guns still deal around 83% of their "nominal" damage at optimal+0.5*falloff, and roughly 50% at optimal+falloff.
At max skills, a Light Neutron Blaster has 2250m optimal and 3125m falloff.
With Antimatter Charge S, that's 1125m optimal + 1562m half falloff, for a 2687m range with 83% DPS, or 4250m w/50% DPS.
With Iron Charge S, it becomes 3600m optimal and same 1562m half falloff, 5162m range w/83% DPS, or 7725m w/50% DPS.
AM-S DPS is *2.4 of Iron-S DPS, and the "effective" range of Iron-S is roughly *1.9 that of AM-S.
Lead-S you get 3812m w/83% DPS and 5375m w/50% DPS.
Lead-S DPS is *1.6 of Iron-S, effective range ratio of Iron roughly *1.35 vs Lead.
Considering rockets are a "do or die" situation, I believe even an optimal+falloff effective range equalisation would be sufficient here... so, at a roughly 5km base maxreach, I'd fully expect them to deal roughly just as much DPS as a Light Neutron with Lead at similar skill levels, if not even slightly more.
_
1|2|3 |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 01:12:00 -
[35]
Edited by: d026 on 19/10/2007 01:15:29
nevermind.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 01:45:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Akita T
...
1/2 falloff = 77.62% of expected damage before tracking
Falloff = 39.5% of expected damage before tracking
At least get the numbers right before balancing.
|
Swamp Ziro
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 01:59:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
...
1/2 falloff = 77.62% of expected damage before tracking
Falloff = 39.5% of expected damage before tracking
At least get the numbers right before balancing.
where are you getting those? Isn't the definition of falloff itself "50% to hit chance at optimal+falloff" ?
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 02:04:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Goumindong on 19/10/2007 02:05:09
Originally by: Swamp Ziro
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
...
1/2 falloff = 77.62% of expected damage before tracking
Falloff = 39.5% of expected damage before tracking
At least get the numbers right before balancing.
where are you getting those? Isn't the definition of falloff itself "50% to hit chance at optimal+falloff" ?
I am running them through the average hit quality formula.
50% hit chance = about 40% real dps.
|
Swamp Ziro
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 02:08:00 -
[39]
Just so I have this straight(since i dont have that formula):
Optimall+falloff range = 50% to hit chance, but every hit also has some penalty on the quality, resulting in that 39.5% figure of expected damage?
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 02:14:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Swamp Ziro
Just so I have this straight(since i dont have that formula):
Optimall+falloff range = 50% to hit chance, but every hit also has some penalty on the quality, resulting in that 39.5% figure of expected damage?
Yes. Running naughty boys spreadsheet, run the "variable" damage calcs to get the real numbers.
Alternatly search SHC for the thread where we figured it all out.
|
Andreya
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 04:24:00 -
[41]
DEVS, javelin rockets and HAMS explosive radius are not correct, Hams javelins have a higher explo radius than the javelin rockets! plz investigate it, much appreciated
Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. |
Pudnucker
Boennerup Banden
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 04:53:00 -
[42]
1) Turrets are not missile launchers. Missile launchers are not Turrets.
2) Different race's ships have different stats; so why shouldn't weaponry vary? This isn't a ****ty RTS where every side has the same unit that just looks different.
3) You usually come up with a high standard of entertaining forum material but this latest crusade of yours represents a new nadir. The basis of your argument is flawed and your ideas in this regard would contribute nothing worthwhile to the game overall.
4) Just because you think something should be doesn't mean other people do. Remember that you're not a member of the RAND Corporation here to advise CCP. You're just a player. Get some perspective, please.
Pud out, word.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 05:29:00 -
[43]
Quote:
It would be pretty much pointless to count them in from the viewpoint of this argument, wouldn't you agree ?
yes.
However i still think you should look at tracking speed and the fact that missiles ignore tracking speed.
p.s.(didn't this all come form you saying torp should be nerfed but have as much of a range decrease??)
-----------------------------------
I'm working my way through college
target CCP
need...more room... |
Pudnucker
Boennerup Banden
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 05:45:00 -
[44]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Quote:
It would be pretty much pointless to count them in from the viewpoint of this argument, wouldn't you agree ?
...p.s.(didn't this all come form you saying torp should be nerfed but have as much of a range decrease??)...
No, it came from him firstly stating that Torps need a 60km range and later that every weapon in Eve, regardless of the difference, should have a twofold scale applied as the size increases, hence the rocket/HAM spam.
|
Chavu
Ganja Labs
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 07:48:00 -
[45]
Hey Goumindong, you should join the rest of us in just ignoring Akita T's relentless whining.
She makes a post every few months or so about how Caldari missile PvP is broken, posts some wrong information and then writes a "solution" that would make missiles completely overpowered.
Originally by: Akita T
Last but not least, you could start readjusting lights/heavies/cruise missiles so that they "make sense" from a short-vs-long range and damage-vs-range ratio similar to the NEWLY changed rockets/HAMs/torpedoes the same way as how blasters/rails, pulses/beams and ACs/arties fit in here.
"Could" being the operative word here. As in, not absolutely necessary, but nice to.
The whole post is about how you want short range missiles to follow turrets, and then you don't want long range missiles to follow turrets. That's fair? Good god. Stop posting. Not balanced. 2 word. Sentences own.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:54:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
...
1/2 falloff = 77.62% of expected damage before tracking
Falloff = 39.5% of expected damage before tracking
At least get the numbers right before balancing.
Oh, you are right here... I was ignoring the quality of hits issue I helped put into a formula (Kazuo Ishiguro had the raw data, I helped a bit, Naughty Boy integrated it into his spreadsheet later on). My bad.
Still doesn't change much of what's been said so far, the only difference is that insetad of calculating for optimal+falloff you calc for optimal+2/3*falloff... which is not all that huge of a difference, now is it ?
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:39:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Akita T
i helped
That is funny, I dont remember you helping, who are you on scrapheap?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 02:17:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Akita T on 20/10/2007 02:26:12
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
i helped
That is funny, I dont remember you helping, who are you on scrapheap?
I don't have a scrapheap account. I just read it once in a while. Not often tho'.
Linkage
Helped. Not VERY much, but helped nevertheless.
Enough to KNOW it well enough anyway. But apparently not to remember it when it matters.
Partially on this forum (see link in linked thread), partially in-game convos with Ishiguro.
The funny thing is you replied in those thrads too, but you don't seem to remember that either 
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 02:41:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 20/10/2007 02:29:52
Originally by: Goumindong
That is funny, I dont remember you helping, who are you on scrapheap?
I don't have a scrapheap account. I just read it once in a while. Not often tho'.
Linkage
Helped. Not much, but helped nevertheless.
Partially on this forum (see link in linked thread), partially in-game convos with Ishiguro.
Helped enough to KNOW it well anyway. But apparently not to remember it when it matters.
The funny thing is you replied to me in the thread too, but you don't seem to remember that either
I replied to you saying "it exists, i think, but i think we should change the entirety of tracking", not to you doing any actual work.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:04:00 -
[50]
Not that it matters anyway... back on the ACTUAL issue at hand.
So, ok, maybe I exagerated in the "rocket/HAM DPS buff, range nerf" department with my initial suggestion.
Still... let's have some very direct and relatively simple questions.
Do you believe that rockets are fine in PvP just the way they are now, when comparing ships able to use rockets with similar ships that are using turrets ?
I mean, not just the Crow and Vengeance, but ALL ships that actually are designed for missile use... compared to similar ships using guns.
Same question/request for HAMs, on ships designed for missile use, compared to similar class gunboats... as PvP results, of course, and don't just use the Sacrilege as example.
Now, OTHER than Raven and Typhoon (out of currently existing ships), was there any OTHER good reason to change Torpedoes the way they were changed, for PvP use ?
And finally, IF you conclude that rockets/HAMs aren't quite as good (relatively speaking) as the new torps when compared to similar sized weapon systems... why shouldn't the exact same reasoning apply to "HAMs/rockets need a similar change too" ? Or would you rather see the torp PvP-buff, PvE-nerf reversed ?
You can't both eat your cake then still have it too, you know ?
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 06:01:00 -
[51]
I pretty much dont see a problem with rockets and ham dps, the only issue i have with missiles is ham/siege fitting and long range missile speed/flight time.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 06:54:00 -
[52]
Lol hams should do blaster level damage? Thats pretty funny. Hams dont use cap, null doesnt give blasters 80km range, and hams dont have tracking problems at extremely close range.
The thought of a sacriledge doing 700 dps is just.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 07:11:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Lol hams should do blaster level damage? Thats pretty funny. Hams dont use cap, null doesnt give blasters 80km range, and hams dont have tracking problems at extremely close range.
The thought of a sacriledge doing 700 dps is just.
Hmm, let's try this...
Lol blasters should do laser level damage ? That's pretty funny. Blasters barely use half the cap, and have insane base tracking that doesn't even begin to compare to pulses.
The thought of Deimos doing over 1k DPS is just
Yeah I know, I was intentionally being facetious, just to drive a point home.
_
1|2|3 |
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 11:12:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 20/10/2007 07:28:59
Originally by: Gamesguy
Lol hams should do blaster level damage? Thats pretty funny. Hams dont use cap, null doesnt give blasters 80km range, and hams dont have tracking problems at extremely close range.
The thought of a sacriledge doing 700 dps is just.
Hmm, let's try this...
Lol blasters should do laser level damage ? That's pretty funny. Blasters barely use half the cap, and have insane base tracking that doesn't even begin to compare to pulses.
The thought of Deimos doing over 1k DPS is just
Yeah I know, I was intentionally being facetious, just to drive a point home.
Now you're being ********. Neutron blasters have a 16% dps advantage over pulse lasers, in return they have around 1/5 the optimal. In addition, blasters use about as much cap as pulse lasers with the relevant skill at 5.
HAMs dont use cap at all, have much longer range than blasters, and dont have problems with tracking ever(at any speed where their exp velocity would be significant factor blasters and pulse lasers wont hit either).
Btw, deimos does so much dps is because of its 5 medium drones. We can argue about how the zealot isnt up to par and should get 5 turrets, but that has nothing to do with how overpowered a sacriledge doing 700 dps would be.
|
Kaleidon Reth
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 12:20:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Kaleidon Reth on 20/10/2007 12:22:49
Originally by: Akita T
The TWO main concepts of EVE combat damage are:
* larger weapons reach farther, deal more raw damage, hit smaller/faster targets worse
* the longer you reach, the less damage you deal, and vice-versa
Argue as much as you like to the contrary if you like, fact remains, THOSE TWO ARE THE NATURAL LAWS.
You argue in circles, you claim that they are the natural laws because that is how turrets operate and then you claim that because rockets don't follow the natural law of other weapons(in reality: only turrets) they should be changed. You suffer from a bad case of "turrets are the normal weapon"-disease.
Why does longer range HAVE to mean lower dmg? You completely fail to recognize that there are a number of variables that you could fiddle with to allow for longer ranges. Why not long range, high dmg but fiddle around with the explotion velocity and radius to makes these weapons useless against anything that isn't a carrier or larger (I'm not talking about rockets here mind you)?
Instead of thinking up ways of making every weapons system work exactly the same way why don't you put some of that brainpower into figuring out good ways of making each weapons system unique, so that there is actually a reason to have several different systems?
Your argument is flawed in it's entirety because you assume a couple of things that just don't make sense:
1)Guns are the only normal weapons while all other systems are deviating systems (not-normal)
2)All weapons systems should be "normal" (aka like guns)
3)Normal is good (diversity is bad)
These three form your "unconscious" argumentation, in the way that you claim that there is a "natural law" in a space video game that dictates how things "should" be, you arrive at this "law" by looking at only guns because of (1). Then you go on to claim:
4)The only factor important is that range and damage should stand in relative proportion to each other, and because of (1)-(3) you propose to make rockets adhere to this system since it is "normal"
5)All factors not goverend by (4) such as velocity, explosion velocity, flight time, ability to deal different kinds of dmg, explotion radius, tracking, countermeasures abillity(defender missiles/tracking disruption/dampening), abillity to blindfire and dozens of other factors are not important
In other words, you look at one relation on one weapons system, and claim that because this relation looks so and so then that is THE natural law. It's like looking at small and large smartbombs and claiming that the damage scaling from small to large that is present in a smartbomb should govern every scaling of damage in the game. And you know whats funny? Nothing in this whole post matters, becasue the concept of a "natural law" in a videogame is laughable and most players, unlike you, crave diversity, not adherence to limiting "laws of the videogame".
|
Kaleidon Reth
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 12:22:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Akita T
"hello, I can't grasp the concept of higher damage shorter range always needing to apply regardless of type of weapon used".
Tell me again where you made a solid argument for why it has to? Because I can't seem to find it.
|
Pesadel0
Ordem dos Templarios
Pax Atlantis
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 12:39:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
Goonswarm at its smartest, right there
Erm ,the goon is right is this particular line of tough.
|
Myra2007
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 16:37:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Now you're being ********. Neutron blasters have a 16% dps advantage over pulse lasers, in return they have around 1/5 the optimal. In addition, blasters use about as much cap as pulse lasers with the relevant skill at 5.
Although i agree to your point i have to nitpick a bit. If we are counting ship bonuses when comparing weapons then we should include *all* ship bonuses. So lasers may use about the same cap as gallente with the typical ship skill at lvl5, but in that case the difference in dmg will be much higher than 16% due to the +25% dmg for the gallente ship skill level. (~45% if i am not mistaken)
Arguably some amarr ships do have a dmg or rof bonus which makes it more difficult. Its just not fair to compare two ships and account for only one bonus on one ship and both on the other. So imo either leave skills out or make a more detailed, case-for-case analysis.
However i don't see a reason why missiles should do that without any of the drawbacks turrets have either.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 18:12:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Akita T
[Then what about rockets ?
Would you say a rocket Hawk stands a chance against a blaster Enyo ?
Or that a rocket Kestrel will ever prevail over a blaster Incursus ?
What about a Merlin vs Tristan fight ?
How about a rocket Flycatcher vs a blaster Eris, or god forbid, an AC Sabre ?
All depends on starting range and how aggressive the blaster pilots are.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 02:10:00 -
[60]
Well, fine, I give up, all missiles are fine, ok ?
Have fun with not using any of'em (succesfully) in actual (you know, as in "not on paper") PvP from any Caldari ships, with the exception (maybe) of torpedoes from a Raven/Golem.
Sheesh.
_
1|2|3 |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |