Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:57:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Goumindong on 23/04/2008 17:58:00
The Problem with Remote Sensor Dampeners
There is a problem with the current implementation of remote sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors. This problem does not stem from a lack of bonuses or a lack of utility or a lack of scripting but simply a bad decision that was made when the code for scripts was being written. Because of this, when RSDÆs received their nerf, it was threefold and not twofold as intended.
Simply put, the stacking on the modules changed from - 1-[(1-current strength) x (1-bonus)] = new strength
to - current strength x (1+bonus)=new strength
This was likely done because coding the change to scripts, which add a +100% bonus to one attribute and a -100% bonus to one attribute would be much easier, as well as "balancing" the unscripted version. Unfortunately it ruined a lot of things that benefit the game and made fitting these types of modules much harder than it ought to be.
Strong Supplementary Ewar is Good for the Game
A lot of the current game relies on target calling between two gangs. Ideally, when two roughly equal gangs come in contact with each other, the one who wins is the one who calls targets better than the other. ôBetterö means hitting the targets with higher DPS, more ewar, and fewer effective hit points. In order to make this part of the game interesting and difficult for each side there needs to be variations in fitting that make guesswork possible and these variations nearly always come up in the fitting of supplementary ewar in med slots instead of tank or in the case of low slot heavy ships, the question between fitting more tank and DPS. A damp-a-drake makes a great primary target, since it has good DPS, lots of ewar, and low EHP. A tank-a-drake makes a terrible primary target since it has tones of effective hit points.
Strong supplementary ewar keeps the game from being a clear list of optimal primary targets and supports ships that have non-optimal med-low slot configurations [<3 low slots, >4 low slots with >4 med slots and <7 med slots], keeping the non-optimal slot configuration from binning what would be an otherwise good ship.
The change to add falloff to tracking disruptors was in the right direction. But the changes to stacking ware not.
What Did This Change Mean?
The change in stacking methods changed a couple fundamental points about the game.
- A non bonused Ship under the benefit of a gang link performed similarly to a bonused ship that was not
- A Bonused Ship under the benefit of a gang link was not utterly overpowered
- Ewar rigs were useful, but not necessary
- Ships of all types could be useful with these modules without massive amounts of specialization
These have all changed because the new method does not increase in strength linearly. Once you get over a 50% bonus, any bonus you add will provide a greater benefit under the new system than under the old system and vice versa. This means that if you provide either a lot of bonuses or strong bonuses under the new system you are liable to end up with some ships that can have ridiculous strength on their damps and tracking disruptors and other ships that are comparably worthless. Then, if you balance the top end to be balanced at the right point, then the low end wonÆt ever be valuable, and you only get useful when you have top skills flying rigged bonused ships with a ganglinked Eos in gang. Since we want Celestises and Arazus to be valuable without being rigged and with a ganglinked Eos in gang, and since we also donÆt want Celestises and Arazus to be stupidly overpowered when rigged with a ganglinked eos in gang something has to change. Ideally back to the way it was. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:58:00 -
[2]
The Numbers are the Proof
Here is where I present a list of bonuses and the final damp bonus that are produced with the new system and the old system. For the sake of consistency, all numbers will be derived from current numbers[though the EOSÆs bonuses should be changed back to being a 25% bonus when its got a mindlink in in-order to facilitate the first point in the list above]. All numbers assume scripts are loaded[as unscripted is even worse]
Current stacking, current numbers:
- Unbonused +lv 1 skills: 35.7%
- Unbonused + lv5 Skills: 42.5%
- Unbonused + Lv 5 Skills + Eos: 49%
- Unbonused + lv5 Skills + rigs + Eos: 54.02%
- Bonused + lv 5 Skills: 53.13%
- Bonused + lv5 Skills + Eos: 61.25%
- Bonused + lv 5Skills + Eos + Rigs: 67.531%
Old stacking, current numbers:
- Unbonused +lv 1 skills: 37.3%
- Unbonused + lv5 Skills: 50.5%
- Unbonused + lv5 Skills + Eos: 58.735%
- Unbonused + lvl5 Skills + rigs+ Eos: 62.16%
- Bonused + lv 5 Skills: 62.875%
- Bonused + lv5 Skills + Eos: 68.555%
- Bonused + lv 5Skills + Eos + Rigs: 71.66%
As you can see, even though the final damp numbers are not increased significantly, they increase to reasonable levels much faster than they do via the current system, keeping lower skilled and less specialized ships useful, and ensuring that ships with bonuses are strong without complete specialization while not being overpowered when very specialized.
A Problem Arises and Is Fixed
Unscripted modules will only be slightly less worse due to the low original base change. This can be fixed in one of two ways. The first is that you can apply the script backwards. I.E. if you donÆt have a script installed then it takes the final number and divides by 2 for that script [or some other variable to achieve the right intended balance between scripted and unscripted modules]. The second is to lower the value of the original modules and make the script bonus stronger[so say, -100% and +400%]. This way a 6% damp would be a 30% base when scripted and a 6% damp when unscripted. A change of roughly one 25% bonus.
I do not believe that the likelihood of people complaining that they do not understand the system is enough to dissuade any of those two options.
TL;DR
This is what went wrong with damps, this is how you fix them.
Addendum
This type of change also works on tracking disruptors but is less important due to the fact that tracking and optimal are not "on/off" mechanics, while locking is an "on/off" mechanic. Other numbers can be tweaked if necessary for specific balance, but this specific mechanic needs to be in place in order to achieve a desirable balance.
I Posted this in General due to its relevance towards my candidacy for the CSM regarding my ability to identify and discern problems as well as the visibility that it can generate for a seemingly small issue that has had a large number of repercussions.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Sphynx Stormlord
Gallente Snuff inc
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:08:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Sphynx Stormlord on 23/04/2008 18:10:29 This is an excelent analysis of the problem. When I saw the change, I was initially somewhat disheartened; the new system is fundementally flawed; each extra bonus provides more effect rather than in the previous system where each extra bonus provides diminishing returns.
Please CCP, do something about this. Give the nerf bat to someone with a better understanding of math than whoever was wielding it when this change was made.
And Goumindong, I think you will get my vote on the strength of this argument. I would encourage others to vote for someone who clearly understands how to work out the math behind balance issues like this.
Edit: Adding numbers for rigs but no eos might represent a more common situation for most people who solo or play in small gangs.
|
Dingi223
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:16:00 -
[4]
I agree that this is an excellent anaylsis of this problem.
My problem is with your views on other items and your ideas of balance, the most notable being the TD vs the TC / TE. TD's were changed to affect falloff, however the exact same opposing mod (TC / TE) were not. You strongly feel that TC / TE's should not be changed. I do not wish to argue this point again in this post.
My concern is that your ideas of balance in certain areas (althought limited) are heavily biased based upon your dedication to your race. If I could take comfort that you would be more neutral in your decisions, and you are very strong in expressing your opinions, I think you would make a great candidate. The 2nd problem is that you are going to make EVE even more of a EFT / spreadsheet warrior game, where every percentage point counts on the most ridiculous complicated math.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:17:00 -
[5]
I'm still not voting for you, but this is actually a great post.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Dingi223 I agree that this is an excellent anaylsis of this problem.
My problem is with your views on other items and your ideas of balance, the most notable being the TD vs the TC / TE. TD's were changed to affect falloff, however the exact same opposing mod (TC / TE) were not. You strongly feel that TC / TE's should not be changed. I do not wish to argue this point again in this post.
My concern is that your ideas of balance in certain areas (althought limited) are heavily biased based upon your dedication to your race. If I could take comfort that you would be more neutral in your decisions, and you are very strong in expressing your opinions, I think you would make a great candidate. The 2nd problem is that you are going to make EVE even more of a EFT / spreadsheet warrior game, where every percentage point counts on the most ridiculous complicated math.
For the first point i can understand. But i should say that i view these types of benefits to be of benefit primarily to caldari, then minmatar, then gallente in that order. Strong supplementary ewar supports ships with med slots especially with spare med slots. If you nerfed the tracking disruptor back to just -opt or -tracking then you would remove the last vestiges of usefulness from the tempest.
You may find the game balance forum over at SCH enlightening regarding what i think is at issue most right now in the game[and while i would like the Maller and Prophecy fixed, the strength of the Harbinger and Omen are just fine for what Amarr is supposed to be doing.
For the second point: It kinda already is, its just that the abilities of players to make these types of decisions is limited by the information that exists in the game and the meta-fitting options available allow players to change these up and keep opponents guessing
A meta-fitting options is basically a choice you make for fitting based on what you think your opponent will do. If you think he will primary you, you might fit a big ol tank. If you think he wont, you might fit ewar. Keeping these options strong is what will keep the game from simply being "well, he has a better DPS/ewar/EHP ratio and absolute than us, so we can't engage" in every engagement in the game.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:48:00 -
[7]
Moved to Features and Ideas Mitnal, Community Representative
EVE Online CCP Games Email/Netfang |
|
Dingi223
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 20:40:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Goumindong ...
Point 1. I have recently started working my way through the ideas at SHC, so I'll search for some of your threads and ideas. As I said, I have no issue with the analysis of the problem, but like all humans, at times I have different opinions.
Point 2. I agree that EVE is a spreadsheet game, however I would like to see EVE move away from being a spreadsheet, not move more toward it. This idea would be a positive change in my opinion since, as you indicate, it will allow for greater diversity in ship fits and therefore less rock / paper / scissors.
My concern is that when people really get into the math, and really get into the code, I see people min/max'ing and trying to balance everything. If EVE were perfectly balanced, we mine as well just have one race, one ship per class, and duke it out. I'm not seeking balance, I'm seeking individuality of races, uniqueness of approach, and a reason to enjoy playing a particular race.
I'll definitely get stuck into SHC, I've always only looked at ship fitments, I'll start digging into the game change forum. Good luck on your nomination bid
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:55:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Dingi223
Point 2. I agree that EVE is a spreadsheet game, however I would like to see EVE move away from being a spreadsheet, not move more toward it. This idea would be a positive change in my opinion since, as you indicate, it will allow for greater diversity in ship fits and therefore less rock / paper / scissors.
Its actually more Rock/Paper/Scissors. You just don't know whether the guy brought rock, paper, or scissors until they start activating modules on you and/or you on them.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Suitonia
Gallente interimo
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 21:38:00 -
[10]
Excellent post. The new system really hurts the newer player who wants to fly in an ewar role using RSD's/Tracking disruptors. Flying a force multiplyer role is usually the best option a new player can do for a fleet. --- I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots... |
|
el caido
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 06:37:00 -
[11]
Is the argument here that the nerf to ewar was a bad thing? Because that's an awful lot of words for such a simple whine.
It's late, and perhaps I am just too tired to fully grasp the idea here, but I have to say that the current/new system fits the bill. The idea was that roving unbonused gangs of T1 frigs and similar nonsense could easily cripple a much larger fleet with minimal skill and minimal impact to cap. Hence, we have scripts and greater emphasis on specialization. (So everyone switches over to ECM ... the path of least resistance ftw!)
Hey, I loved unstoppable gangs of half a dozen damp raxes more than anyone ... but seriously ... they were overpowered.
Assuming the numbers you supplied are correct (quite frankly, I do not care enough to check), they look something like this. Now I feel less like a troll by adding something relevant to this thread. :)
And as a side note, since it was mentioned: I would love to see a more dynamic PVP paradigm in EVE ... soonÖ? ;)
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 17:38:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Goumindong on 27/04/2008 17:38:41
Originally by: el caido Is the argument here that the nerf to ewar was a bad thing? Because that's an awful lot of words for such a simple whine.
Short answer: The post explains why the change in stacking was bad and just what effects it had independent of the changes to strength.
Quote: It's late, and perhaps I am just too tired to fully grasp the idea here, but I have to say that the current/new system fits the bill. The idea was that roving unbonused gangs of T1 frigs and similar nonsense could easily cripple a much larger fleet with minimal skill and minimal impact to cap. Hence, we have scripts and greater emphasis on specialization. (So everyone switches over to ECM ... the path of least resistance ftw!)
Hey, I loved unstoppable gangs of half a dozen damp raxes more than anyone ... but seriously ... they were overpowered.
The current/New system does not fit the bill and gangs of damp raxes and frigates were never very strong. Well, they were strong against solo ships without sensor boosters, but so are all frigate gangs[especially one with a kitsune in it], but they were not strong against other gangs due to the scalability problems of ewar.
Remember that the change to damps was threefold. First of all there was a base strength reduction. Second of all there was the script change. Third was the change in stacking. The numbers that the old system produced were actually much higher than the ones you see here. Celestises could get into the 90% range per damp. Two of the nerfs made sense, strength reduction and scripting. One of them is causing problems |
Mike Yass
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 21:31:00 -
[13]
This post would actually be useful if you didn't use all L5 skills and focused on a more realistic range set and also compared it to the old celestis/arazu which were just fine the way they were.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 23:28:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Mike Yass This post would actually be useful if you didn't use all L5 skills and focused on a more realistic range set and also compared it to the old celestis/arazu which were just fine the way they were.
The old Celestis/Arazu were not "just fine" the way they were.
There are only two relevant skills to train to 5 for using damps, and 1 if you aren't using a celestis or Arazu.
But lvl 5s for a celestis/Arazu before the nerf was 68.5% on both[and up to 80% with rigs and an Eos or more]
Current 4s are 48.96% for a celestis and 40.8% for an unbonused ship. Using the old stacking method its 57.76% for the lv 4 celestis and 47.2% for an unbonused ship.
The numbers using l5s and l1s should be close enough to extrapolate the rest, but here are the others for you.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Nemtar Nataal
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 08:07:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 29/04/2008 08:07:23 I really like you analyses of the problem its well thought threw and from what i can see would enrich the games ewar to not just include Falcons (like it is the case right now).
Another think, i was looking at the RSD numbers some time ago wrote a post about them in one of the threads about unnearfing Gallente.
From what i remember from that post, the problem with RSD doesnt seem to to be as much about there strength as it is about there range. The RSDs are not very effective over large ranges, and the reduction in the strength of the moldule ment that they wore even less effective over long ranges. Thus removing RSDs the primory role as counter measure for ECM.
Idear
Well basically my idear at that point was to ither:
Increse the optimal range of damps slightly - This would benefit everyone and would anable everyone to use damps on any ships again (not the best solution) Change the strength bonus for the Gallente eWar ships to a optimal range bonus - This would make RSD fare more effective on Gallente ships thus giving them the upper hand on RSD's. Countering the caldari ECM ships would then be done by specialized gallente ships which would give people a real insentive to fly this ships.
I dont know if this could be combined into your plan for changing the stacking on the modules, of if it would just screw up the modules as they would have less strength applying to them.
Tell me what you think...
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 17:38:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Nemtar Nataal
From what i remember from that post, the problem with RSD doesnt seem to to be as much about there strength as it is about there range. The RSDs are not very effective over large ranges, and the reduction in the strength of the moldule ment that they wore even less effective over long ranges. Thus removing RSDs the primory role as counter measure for ECM.
Absolutely not.
Increasing the range on sensor dampeners increases their strength by huge amounts. They ought to be better than ECM in the shorter range by forcing movement and worse or at best equal in the long range.
If you increase the range of damps then in fleet engagements 1 damp will be much better than 1 ECM module. Especially with ewar links[which already do this to a point]. Damps that hit this far essentially jam their targets in fleet engagements are just as strong as an ECM module[with no downsides, no SDAs, no worrying about target sensor strength, no requirement to target specific races ships].
Damps are not a primary counter-measure to ECM they are a primary measure. The range in which damps are effective makes them not overpowered in fleet engagements while also damping down specific ships easily underneath that threshold in every day use. There is no reason to increase their range.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 23:02:00 -
[17]
Excellent post Goum.
From my perspective, there are still going to be some issues that will need addressed before I think damps are going to really be worth it (even on the Lach/Arazu).
First, the Lach/Arazu should be able to 100% disable a single ship that isn't sporting a sensor booster or two. This ability would help it to make up for the inability to be viable in many other situations.
Second, the Info Warfare links need boosted. It's flat silly that they were nerfed in addition to all the other many nerfs simultaneously leveled at damps. Really, damps aren't even that useful with the aid of a gang mod. :-/
Third, damp rigs need to be boosted. I feel that they're not worthwhile to fit, because they're only a 5% increase (which, while non-trivial... is still trivial. :-/)
Fourth, damps need some sort of defense once someone get's "under" your damps. As it stands, I've seen many many Gallente recons die to an inty MWD'ing straight at them. The easiest way for this is to make the scripts 100%/20% or so.
Well, honestly, I feel that damps are simply a worthless endeavor ATM - but if at least some of these issues were resolved with Goum's idea, they might become at least viable again.
-Liang --
Originally by: Blake Abadon, Morsus Mihi insirgency caused the turn arround in the war against bob, when they forced the MM capital fleet to move back to defend their homeland.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 18:56:00 -
[18]
This isn't my "idea" i am simply identifying a problem that occurred when scripting was introduced. The bonus calculation method seen above was the original way that the bonuses were implemented.
However max bonuses on rigs were 10%[or 15% not sure] for tech 1, the start point on t2/best named damps was 44% and not 34%, and gang mods were boosting 28.625% with a max skilled Eos in gang.
If an inty is killing an arazu by simply running at it something is wrong[or the Arazu has no web], since a single damp even now will take most inties under 13km which is overloaded web range[such that the Arazu/Lach can, at the very least, web the inty and get drones on it]
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Felix Dzerzhinsky
Caldari Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 12:38:00 -
[19]
this is a fantastic post and I will give it the bump it needs - as usual Goumindong provides the math and the solutions that are nessisary. ----
GO BLUE!! |
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 12:17:00 -
[20]
Supporty bumpety.
|
|
Karanth
Gallente Eve's Brothers of Destiny FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 13:56:00 -
[21]
Good math, and with nano-nerf incoming, might be worth looking at even more.
Warp Speed skill needed! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |