| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 45 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Vyktor Abyss
IONSTAR
   |
Posted - 2008.09.09 23:36:00 -
[601]
Any new words from CCP on this issue yet?
|
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 00:56:00 -
[602]
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 10/09/2008 00:56:26
 Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
Any new words from CCP on this issue yet?
I think the best we can hope for is that this absurd nerf gets buried and we never hear of it again.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 06:40:00 -
[603]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 10/09/2008 06:44:50
I dont get why all those people think, BS should be IWIN against cruisers. the point of the whole tracking system is that smaller ships can outrun the tracking of larger ships guns. you also have heavy neuts and drones, more hp/tank and slot advantage. you still want more?
btw when you look at the base tracking of every race biggest large sized guns, you will realise that blaster have best tracking ingame.
|
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 10:24:00 -
[604]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 10/09/2008 06:44:50
I dont get why all those people think, BS should be IWIN against cruisers. the point of the whole tracking system is that smaller ships can outrun the tracking of larger ships guns. you also have heavy neuts and drones, more hp/tank and slot advantage. you still want more?
btw when you look at the base tracking of every race biggest large sized guns, you will realise that blaster have best tracking ingame.
If you'd read the thread you'd see the part where they show that even though blasters have the best tracking of any gun, the maximum trackable orbit speed at their optimal and falloff ranges is the lowest of any gun.
|
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 12:06:00 -
[605]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 10/09/2008 06:44:50
I dont get why all those people think, BS should be IWIN against cruisers. the point of the whole tracking system is that smaller ships can outrun the tracking of larger ships guns. you also have heavy neuts and drones, more hp/tank and slot advantage. you still want more?
BS need to be superior to cruisers in short-range combat because BS are more expensive, take FAR longer to train for, and are extremely slow. The battleship has no contempt of engagement, anything in the game can catch a BS and tackle it. Drones aren't that effective alone, not all BS have a sizable drone bay, and drones are unusable by anyone who is getting shot by sentries. Likewise the heavy neut shouldn't be a required fitting for a battleship to be able to survive an attack by a single cruiser.
BS gangs will still slaughter anything since they will be able to put multiple webs on target and the target can only orbit one of the gang's BS while the others can move away a bit and track it just fine. This web nerf only hurts solo players, and will promote blobbing even more. Is forcing people to fly in a gang to PVP a direction we want to take this game?
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 12:19:00 -
[606]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
...
3. Again it comes down to 1 Battleship vs. 1 cruiser, it should not be balanced that way, if you had 3 T1 AB-fit cruisers attacking you yes I think you should be in a lot of trouble, you may take one down on approach but the others would be able to speed tank under your guns. However it should not be a case (as you agree) that a single webbed cruiser can shrug off all Large, close range turret fire just by virtue of clicking "orbit".
I agree frigates are a different proposition, and given the extreme size difference, they should be virtually immune unless multiply painted and webbed by support ships, itĘs not actually *that* far off on TQ, you can get in under even 90% webs, itĘs just most people tend to die at the outer edge of the web envelope and don't get to the 1-2km sweet spot where Large, close-range turrets cant really hit.
...
Quote shortened to avoid large walls of text.
Anyway, I sortof agree with you to a point. The thing is, tracking mechanics are quite borked - if you can mitigate 60% of damage at 4km orbit, you can mitigate 90% to full at 1km.
I consider the way torpedo damage scales with size appropriate for a BS - roughly 1/3rd DPS vs cruisers, and 1/10th or worse vs frigates - quite balanced. It doesn't make you powerless, but you're hitting at reduced enough hitting power to make a big difference, particularly when facing multiple numbers.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 06:08:00 -
[607]
In my opinion large ACs will get a much harder time and the reasons are pretty obvious.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 21:17:00 -
[608]
Iuno if its already been bought up and holy crap I'm not reading 21 pages of this stuff, but has anyone posted results from testing Large Ion or Large Electron blasters against orbiting cruisers? People, it seems, are complaining that neutron Megathrons can't hit orbiting webbed cruisers, but shouldn't you be using neutrons against large targets and swapping out to something that tracks a little better (and maybe even dropping a tracking mod or 2 into your fitting) if you're going up against smaller, faster ships?
-----------
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 08:24:00 -
[609]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Iuno if its already been bought up and holy crap I'm not reading 21 pages of this stuff, but has anyone posted results from testing Large Ion or Large Electron blasters against orbiting cruisers? People, it seems, are complaining that neutron Megathrons can't hit orbiting webbed cruisers, but shouldn't you be using neutrons against large targets and swapping out to something that tracks a little better (and maybe even dropping a tracking mod or 2 into your fitting) if you're going up against smaller, faster ships?
The guns used in the test in http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=834365&page=15#424 were ions, not neutrons (see http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=834365&page=15#428), and the cruiser was unfitted and at 1km orbit - 500m would be doubly worse. Electrons won't be hitting anything, either.
--
Gradient forum |
murder one
Gallente
Invincible Reason
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 03:13:00 -
[610]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Iuno if its already been bought up and holy crap I'm not reading 21 pages of this stuff, but has anyone posted results from testing Large Ion or Large Electron blasters against orbiting cruisers? People, it seems, are complaining that neutron Megathrons can't hit orbiting webbed cruisers, but shouldn't you be using neutrons against large targets and swapping out to something that tracks a little better (and maybe even dropping a tracking mod or 2 into your fitting) if you're going up against smaller, faster ships?
If you knew anything at all about Eve combat mechanics and turrets, you wouldn't have posted the above question.
[07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now?
[07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2
Fleet Combat Ships |
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Heavily Utilized Mechanic Mayhem
Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 05:37:00 -
[611]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 14/09/2008 05:42:16
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 08/09/2008 16:25:17
2. Remember we are talking physical size here, Most of Eve's Battleships are of the order 1km, cruisers 300-400m. that's still a very big target, also consider we can physically see Large turrets are able to turn 360 degrees in a couple of seconds, missing a webbed cruiser *all* the time is a bit absurd from that standpoint, and from a game balance perspective for Blaster Battleships, terminal.
It has been absurd since day one I believe. It IS absurd.
|
Cornette
Gallente
Black Screen of Death
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 10:21:00 -
[612]
Hmm are CCP gonna go forth with this nerf of the MWD? If so then basterships will be something of the past, spawning massive complaint threads that likely will be ignored for 2+ years, while CCP in silence curse our stubborness.
Oh well... AC Maelstrom Say hello to the World !!
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 11:43:00 -
[613]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/09/2008 11:43:59
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
...
3. Again it comes down to 1 Battleship vs. 1 cruiser, it should not be balanced that way, if you had 3 T1 AB-fit cruisers attacking you yes I think you should be in a lot of trouble, you may take one down on approach but the others would be able to speed tank under your guns. However it should not be a case (as you agree) that a single webbed cruiser can shrug off all Large, close range turret fire just by virtue of clicking "orbit".
I agree frigates are a different proposition, and given the extreme size difference, they should be virtually immune unless multiply painted and webbed by support ships, itĘs not actually *that* far off on TQ, you can get in under even 90% webs, itĘs just most people tend to die at the outer edge of the web envelope and don't get to the 1-2km sweet spot where Large, close-range turrets cant really hit.
...
Quote shortened to avoid large walls of text.
Anyway, I sortof agree with you to a point. The thing is, tracking mechanics are quite borked - if you can mitigate 60% of damage at 4km orbit, you can mitigate 90% to full at 1km.
I consider the way torpedo damage scales with size appropriate for a BS - roughly 1/3rd DPS vs cruisers, and 1/10th or worse vs frigates - quite balanced. It doesn't make you powerless, but you're hitting at reduced enough hitting power to make a big difference, particularly when facing multiple numbers.
I think I have a idea how to fix webrange tracking (and slightly offset the 'i'm bumping you so you can't hit me' part).
Simply, it could be done with the modification of the tracking formula, where we substitute signature radius with, signature_radius*distance_modifier, where, say:
distance_modifier=(5000/distance_metres+500)+1
Effectively, it counteracts the tracking nerf entirely at close range (target signature radius multiplied by x4.333 at 1km, or x3 at 2km) while having small impact out of webrange at 13km range (1.37x signature) and negligible at 20km (1.24x the signature). You can use another functions (or different numbers) to produce whatever results, I just prefer a inverse proportional approach due to simplicity and ease of calculation.
I think something of the sort would solve all our short-range tracking issues.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 16:29:00 -
[614]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Simply, it could be done with the modification of the tracking formula, where we substitute signature radius with, signature_radius*distance_modifier, where, say:
distance_modifier=(5000/distance_metres+500)+1
Do you have the pretty graphs or shall I make them?
-Liang
--
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 19:54:00 -
[615]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/09/2008 11:43:59
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
...
3. Again it comes down to 1 Battleship vs. 1 cruiser, it should not be balanced that way, if you had 3 T1 AB-fit cruisers attacking you yes I think you should be in a lot of trouble, you may take one down on approach but the others would be able to speed tank under your guns. However it should not be a case (as you agree) that a single webbed cruiser can shrug off all Large, close range turret fire just by virtue of clicking "orbit".
I agree frigates are a different proposition, and given the extreme size difference, they should be virtually immune unless multiply painted and webbed by support ships, itĘs not actually *that* far off on TQ, you can get in under even 90% webs, itĘs just most people tend to die at the outer edge of the web envelope and don't get to the 1-2km sweet spot where Large, close-range turrets cant really hit.
...
Quote shortened to avoid large walls of text.
Anyway, I sortof agree with you to a point. The thing is, tracking mechanics are quite borked - if you can mitigate 60% of damage at 4km orbit, you can mitigate 90% to full at 1km.
I consider the way torpedo damage scales with size appropriate for a BS - roughly 1/3rd DPS vs cruisers, and 1/10th or worse vs frigates - quite balanced. It doesn't make you powerless, but you're hitting at reduced enough hitting power to make a big difference, particularly when facing multiple numbers.
I think I have a idea how to fix webrange tracking (and slightly offset the 'i'm bumping you so you can't hit me' part).
Simply, it could be done with the modification of the tracking formula, where we substitute signature radius with, signature_radius*distance_modifier, where, say:
distance_modifier=(5000/distance_metres+500)+1
Effectively, it counteracts the tracking nerf entirely at close range (target signature radius multiplied by x4.333 at 1km, or x3 at 2km) while having small impact out of webrange at 13km range (1.37x signature) and negligible at 20km (1.24x the signature). You can use another functions (or different numbers) to produce whatever results, I just prefer a inverse proportional approach due to simplicity and ease of calculation.
I think something of the sort would solve all our short-range tracking issues.
Could work well. I was quite fond of the idea of using falloff to modify the tracking formula, as it's *sort of* equivalent to taking target size into account at long range. But to be honest, anything that fixes tracking up close has to be good; I'm hoping the delay between the dev responses means they are secretly tinkering on their internal server... 
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 20:22:00 -
[616]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Simply, it could be done with the modification of the tracking formula, where we substitute signature radius with, signature_radius*distance_modifier, where, say:
distance_modifier=(5000/distance_metres+500)+1
Do you have the pretty graphs or shall I make them?
-Liang
You know you want to make them 
You're better at forum whoring then I am, might as well let you champion it
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 04:40:00 -
[617]
If a cruiser should be able to challenge BS, then I want my Battleship to be able to take on carriers.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 11:02:00 -
[618]
*Tumbleweed*
I'm hoping this is a good thing, and much tinkering is going on on the devs dirty little 'secret' server
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Orange Faeces
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 16:24:00 -
[619]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove, but you have totally ignored the effects of falloff:
At 30km (typical small-gang range envelope) that Neutron setup is actually only doing 373 dps, and the Railgun boat is doing 526 all the way out to 36km.
At 50km (the upper of small-gang ranges) the Neutron setup is doing 0 dps, while the Railgun setup is doing 447 dps...
Trying to shoe-horn Blasters into a medium-range role with Null and rigs is all well and good, but it compares poorly even to railguns, lets not even talk about Pulse lasers or Torpedos...
P.s Hitting a cruiser with Void L even on TQ requires virtually zero transversal, you only manage this with baiting stupid pilots or those who are virtually afk.
It seems to me (and yes I fly deimos & blaster BS in-game) that a good solution to these problems would be to boost Null ammo. Make it so that the deimos/astarte, with their falloff bonuses, have the option to fight in falloff past web range and make these comparable choices on the field against their racial turret-HAC counterparts like the vagabond or zealot. And the same would go for Null L, right? If they are worried about the DPS profiles they could tweak that as well, but there should be a solution here...
OF
---
The Other Orange |
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:19:00 -
[620]
Bump in anticipation of the live dev blog.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Felix Dzerzhinsky
Caldari
Wreckless Abandon
G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:19:00 -
[621]
Fast battleships are not a problem on TQ. Its fast cruisers that are the cause for concern. The speed difference between an interceptor and a hac is really where the agility, speed and mass figures are too easily changed by an abundance of slots.
Blaster boats will need a lot of love if these changes go through, as Bellum said 'Pitbull on a short leash' - blaster boats need a little more slack.
----
ECCM is a Counter-measure not a defense. |
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 20:32:00 -
[622]
Well that answered nothing.... 
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Car Wars
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 20:37:00 -
[623]
live dev blog confirmed what everyone already knew:
BLASTERS GET SHAFTED
ccp hasnt listened to a single word.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 20:51:00 -
[624]
Summary for any passing dev's (lol...)
1. Fix the tracking formula to account for target size vs range.
2. Fit blasters (extends to AC's) into a role not already better occupied by Pulse lasers and torpedos at better range.
3. Don't ignore this thread.
4. See above, lots and lots of good info been generated in this thread, use it.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
killerkeano
Mortis Angelus
The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 22:34:00 -
[625]
all BS, people say adapt change race! well i spent 2 years training gal blasters etc. now a blaster boat is totally useless. whats the point anymore?
/me is selling 30+mill SP gall char
Maelstrom Crew - Pro merc corp for hire "Let US fight your battles" |
whisk
Gallente
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 23:11:00 -
[626]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
If a cruiser should be able to challenge BS, then I want my Battleship to be able to take on carriers.
i lolled
I kinde partly agree
Adapt or Die
|
killerkeano
Mortis Angelus
The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 12:28:00 -
[627]
people saying BS with blaster shouldnt be able to hit a cruiser sized target? what a load of crap.
Any amarr BS can do almost mega dps at almost any range, only other day i was doing5k/sec in an ishtar with transversal and still was popped in 2 volleys from a geddon. imagine when ishtar starts going even slower, no pg for tank, baddon will insta pop it. IMO this nano nerf is too extreme and is opening up so many more problems. Want to combat nano use a rapier/huggin as people have started doing.Things are fine the way they are.its going to get to point next where everyone is caldari sat still spamming f1-f8 with passive tanked drakes/onyx.
Gallante blaster now have a hard time, deimos astarte not great tanks, make it take even longer to get within range you'll be dead before you get anywhere near range, even with astarte falloff bonus and null!
spent 2 and hlaf years training nothing but gal boats to see them rendered rubbish, so what sell char get amarr? shouldnt have to, Oh yeah AB on a blaster boat? nah thanks. compared zealot to deimos, zealot will have nice range spread and good dps, or sac with great tank, and missile spamming HAMS
Maelstrom Crew - Pro merc corp for hire "Let US fight your battles" |
Kopkiller
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:38:00 -
[628]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Summary for any passing dev's (lol...)
1. Fix the tracking formula to account for target size vs range.
2. Fit blasters (extends to AC's) into a role not already better occupied by Pulse lasers and torpedos at better range.
3. Don't ignore this thread.
4. See above, lots and lots of good info been generated in this thread, use it.
|
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:31:00 -
[629]
Something that has always bothered me about guns and tracking is the relative values of tracking between them. It seems to me that if you want to have two guns relatively well balanced that they should both be able to track a target with the same transversal velocity at their intended engagement range. For sake of argument, let's assume that 'intended engagement range' is optimal + 1/2 falloff. So, let's look at some stats (these are all base stats, no skill/ship/ammo modifers applied):
Neutron Blaster Cannon II
Intended Range: 12.2km (7.2km Optimal + 10km Falloff/2)
Tracking: 0.0433 rad/sec
Max Transversal: 528 m/s
800mm Repeating Atrillery II
Intended Range: 12.8km (4.8km Optimal + 16km Falloff/2)
Tracking: 0.0432
Max Transversal: 553 m/s
Mega Pulse Laser II
Intended Range: 28km (24km Optimal + 8km falloff/2)
Tracking: 0.03375 rad/sec
Max Transversal: 945 m/s
'Max Transversal' is just the intended engagement range multiplied by the tracking. It represents how fast a ship can be moving perpendicular to the gun in question and 100% chance to hit ignoring of signature radius and range (they're both constant for all three given the situation anyways). I've found that it's a decent estimation of how well a gun can hit a fast moving ship.
As you can see, if you assume that blasters and ACs were intended to engage at roughly the same range (a bit of a stretch, but not a horrible one), they can handle targets of roughly the same speed. Blasters get higher base DPS, ACs get a larger engagement envelope. To me, they seem reasonably well balanced with each other.
Then come along pulse lasers. They've in between blasters and ACs for base damage, but have over double the engagement envelope of either blasters or ACs and can handle targets moving almost twice as fast as either blasters and ACs can. Mind you, this is an example with a single set of guns, but this is the general trend with pulses, blasters, and ACs.
And this is before the speed nerf....
If blasters/ACs stand any chance of competing with pulse lasers post nano-nerf, either they both need a serious buff to tracking, or pulses need to have their tracking re-nerfed.
--------------------
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Gaelenus
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:49:00 -
[630]
Yeah this whole speed balnce thing is being aproached incorrectly, i feel like ccp is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut here instead of tweaking the few things that led to insane speeds theyve decided to re work everything and the end cause is the death of gallente blaster boats.
For me this is extreamly frustrating i've only just started getting ito pvp and i love my blasterax heck i like gallente ships and thier charge in, do or die mentality. I dont want to cross train to another race not to mention the fact that i've spent ages training my gallente blaster ship skills to a good level and i have no missle skills whatsoever. This patch is just likley to make pvp inaccesible for me at least for a long time.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 45 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |