| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
khosta
   |
Posted - 2008.07.30 14:10:00 -
[1]
I think what you are trying to do by reducing webifier effectiveness is a good idea, but it is going to have profound effects and expose a flaw that has been with eve from the start.
The issue of course is the delicate balance between guns and missiles.
The relationship between the strong webifier effect and those tiny, very precise tracking numbers found on the attributes page of guns is very tightly interwoven.
As such a sweeping change to the webifier strength value is going to require equally sweeping changes to these tracking values.
Heres an over-simplified example:
A blaster BS has a target BS with AB on webbed (90%) in optimal range. The target is able to put up a transversal of 30 m/s. Lets assume that this 30 m/s transversal is near the limit of the blaster tracking.
For easy numbers, the same target BS unwebbed will be doing 300 m/s.
If we change the web effect to 60%, in this same scenario, the target BS will now be doing 120 m/s. To maintain balance as things are, and assuming you dont want to nerf blasters, you would need to increase their tracking by 4x! 400%!
reducing web effectiveness by small amounts will require a large increase in tracking to compensate
There are those who will say just fit a tracking computer. Firstly fitting a web and a tracking computer as a mandatory fit would be a nerf to blasters. Secondly, no tracking computer increases tracking by 400%.
Basically, short range guns are on the edge as it is. We havent even factored in the effects of a single midslot, fire and forget module that completely ruins ALL guns on a given ship. Missiles have no such counter. Until recently, ludicrous speed was the only way to counter missiles, and just look how ludicrously fast they had to go to do it.
So nerfing the ludicrous speed has now removed the only counter to missiles, which is fine, but there exists a huge imbalance given the much more effective gunnery counter.
Even with your month of testing on SiSi, and the player feedback, I dont think you are going to be able to get this right. The very strong webifier was the glue that held this fundamentally unbalanced system together.
As i cant see you increasing tracking values by 400% or more, I have the following prediction:
Short range gunnery will die completely for a while (bold prediction huh?).
Players will go missile mad. It will be a period where missiles are completely over the top for all but long range fleet warfare (where long ranged guns will still have a use). Blaster ships will disappear completely. They were already on the edge, but thats another topic. Caldari and Khanid ships will be the only sensible choice for non-fleet pvp.
However, despite the game being utterly broken for a while, some good will come of it. It will become apparent that missiles are way too overpowered in the most obvious way possible. Here's a list of reasons:
They have no effective counter (not even speed anymore).
They can work even if jammed.
They use no cap.
They have absurd optimal range for the damage they do (especially torpedos).
Caldari ships have often complained that they cant tackle and have a reasonable tank. Well they will now. Just like the nanos before, they will only need a buffer tank, leaving plenty of midslots for EW. The only thing they will fear will be other missile and drone ships.
Any caldari readers who agree with this assesment might be jumping for joy at their new found dominance. But I have a cautionary warning for them. It is possible to get buffed one time to many. You will be briefly at the top of highest mountain until the vast imbalance is realised and you get nerfed to the depths of the deepest valley.
Beware CCP, your game has a fundamental flaw where one weapon type can miss all too easily while another simply cannot miss or be countered.
The strong webifier holds this fragile imbalance together. Chaning it will have massive repercussions!
|
khosta
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 14:26:00 -
[2]
(continued)
I think the huge imbalance will become obvious during the sisi testing phase, but I dont think you will do enough to keep short range gunnery usable. After all, your focus is on eliminating ludicrous speed.
As such, let me be the first to announce that I am training missiles right now (luckily they are effective with way too few skillpoints) and will be leaving my gunnery ships where they belong, unused, in dry dock.
Finally, before someone jumps in with "omg how can you change skill training for something that has only just made it to sisi, and nowhere near TQ?", I hope I have shown how it will be impossible for CCP to not inadvertently nerf close range gunnery into the stone age.
Unless of course they make 400% improvements to tracking, to move closer to the 'always hit' nature of missiles. Switching my TQ skill training now is my gamble they wont do this. I think odds are in my favour, dont you? 
|
Nye Jaran
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 14:40:00 -
[3]
Smartbombs.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 14:56:00 -
[4]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/07/2008 14:57:15
I didn't read the whole thing.
"the target BS will now be doing 120 m/s"
ok then match your speed and transversal becomes 0 and you hit 100% of the time (basicly)
what is the issue again? oh right you don't know how transversal works, got yah, consider it a free lesson.
unless you talking about something else? but I don't think you are :P
tracking speed on guns has almost nothing to do with the targets speeds speed and has more to do with sigradius which will still effect you even when at almost the same speed. think of sig radius as a mulipler for transversal to find angular velocity which is the important number when you do math for tracking.
turn on angular velocity and ship velocity and go back to testing then come back and give us more details.
EXTRA FUN NOTE!
activating a web on a ship slower than you will make it harder to hit. no seriously it will.
 Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
khosta
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: MotherMoon
I didn't read the whole thing.
And therein lies the problem. You failed to read the phrase 'over simplified' that I used to describe my example. The example wasnt meant to descibe in detailed text exactly what would happen as two ships webbed, counterwebbed, and spiralled through space. By all means feel free to make your own thread to show this in all the detail you want.
The point of my example was to show the tight relationship between webifier and blasters. Such that even a small reduction in webifier effectiveness requires a massive boost to tracking to compensate.
I would suggest in future that if you want to criticize a post, that you first read it, otherwise your post just looks like some kind of adolescent emo-fit 
|
Zxeries
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:12:00 -
[6]
meh i think i better idea would just be to fix tracking, its so chance based atm that its broke if you can track it you should be able to hit it, instead of the half random chance to hit that is used atm.
and sorry to say this but if you cant hit a BS moving at 120 in your optimal then you have problems
|
ZW Dewitt
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: khosta
Originally by: MotherMoon
I didn't read the whole thing.
And therein lies the problem.
The problem lies in the terrible formatting of the first post.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:24:00 -
[8]
Blaster tracking and range has been in need of a buff for some time now. A 4x increase would not be excessive I think. I'm almost shoving my neutron blasters up the other ship's exhaust port. I should very well be able to hit him!
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
FlameGlow
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:25:00 -
[9]
OMG! Missileships attacking! 
Last I heard a good counter to missiles is tanking, you tried it? Besides, even if immobile, you only get hit for full damage by missiles of same and smaller class as your ship.
And more imaginative stuff like defenders, smartbombs also is there to counter missiles - and any ship class can use those(not like so-called 'nano counters')
IMO best weapon in game now is pulse lasers - good damage and tracking with sufficient range.
_____________
I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: khosta
Such that even a small reduction in webifier effectiveness requires a massive boost to tracking to compensate.
but that's just it it doesn't take more tracking it just takes a change in speed.
Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: FlameGlow
OMG! Missileships attacking!
Last I heard a good counter to missiles is tanking.
On the test server:
Raven + tanked Ishtar/Diemos = Dead HAC in 4 volleys. 
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:34:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Originally by: FlameGlow
OMG! Missileships attacking!
Last I heard a good counter to missiles is tanking.
On the test server:
Raven + tanked Ishtar/Diemos = Dead HAC in 4 volleys.
yeah missles need to be rebalanced. I'll make a thread on this later but basicly a medium type missle should hit for full damage when the ship is webbed, hit for 60% when the ship is using an afterburner, and hit at 2% or less when the ship is MWDing.
Note with th changes get one scram on the MWDing ship and it's downmore than 90% with a web and missles now deal full damage to the target and then some.
not this is only in the same ship class.
persicion missles should hit for 80% damage on a ship using an afterburner and 50% on a ship MWDing in the same class.
Then basicly this so that the persicions missles one level above the ship size like medium hitting small ships even persicion missiles should hit for 10% when the ship is afterburning with a web on him.
This would have to also see a boost to target painters and ships will have to web the tacklers, allowing for a medium ship to deal 40% of it's missles damage to a close range webbed afterburning ship.
or something like this I don't know didnt do any math:P
Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:37:00 -
[13]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/07/2008 15:37:28
another example ... before nerf a battleship might have been going 2000m/s and you web him for 90% putting him down to 200 m/s
after nerf
the battleship is going 1800m/s and you hit him with a scram and a web putting his speed down 94% putting him at 108m/s in fact sloer than before the nerf.
So close range weapons will be by your logic more viable as after nerf killing a super fast ship will be easier if your in a fast ship.
Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
Corduroy Rab
Xenocidal Uprising
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:44:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Originally by: FlameGlow
OMG! Missileships attacking!
Last I heard a good counter to missiles is tanking.
On the test server:
Raven + tanked Ishtar/Diemos = Dead HAC in 4 volleys.
Really? My expereince was somewhat different. With a Demios v cruise Raven (w/o neut), Demios won. Demios v torp raven with neut, Raven won, but it wasn't in only 4 volleys. I have fraps incase there is doubt.
What setups where you using? I am most currious.
I will also agree that missles might need some looking into.
|
khosta
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:47:00 -
[15]
Edited by: khosta on 30/07/2008 15:51:12
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Blaster tracking and range has been in need of a buff for some time now. A 4x increase would not be excessive I think.
Yeah agreed. Massive tracking boosts would also narrow the gap with the 'always hit' nature of missiles. I just noticed from reading another thread that a post by Bellum Eternus also suggests immediately giving them a 3x increase and watching what happens.
This is why I made this thread. When we look at skills boosting tracking by 5% per level, and ship bonuses by 7.5% per level, it becomes very clear that with any modification of webfiers at all, these tiny fractions become irrelevant.
The real can of worms here CCP, is the fundamental imbalance between your excellent gunnery scheme which requires real skill to use effectively, and missiles that require no real skill to use, and in fact totally undermine the gunnery system. Until now the strong webifier has masked this imbalance at close range.
Change webs even slightly and you are going to be swamped with the need for practically re-inventing blasters, balancing tracking disruptors, massive missile nerfing so that a given class of missile starts to miss when the equivalent guns do, and finding an equivalent missile counter of balanced effectiveness to tracking disruptors.
Change webs a lot and... well i dread to think of the implications tbh.
And all this is just about the tracking! Change speed as well and its going to be even more complicated.
Best constructive advice i can give is if you want to go this route, then buff blaster tracking by 300% to 400%. If that seems absurd (and it is) then suggest having a dev meeting to discuss how close range gunnery in general can be made to work within the context of an opposing weapon system that cannot miss unless ludicrous speed is maintained and sustained. Until then, the strong webifier is the chewing gum holding this house of cards together
|
FlameGlow
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:54:00 -
[16]
Edited by: FlameGlow on 30/07/2008 15:55:40
Originally by: Corduroy Rab
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Originally by: FlameGlow
OMG! Missileships attacking!
Last I heard a good counter to missiles is tanking.
On the test server:
Raven + tanked Ishtar/Diemos = Dead HAC in 4 volleys.
Really? My expereince was somewhat different. With a Demios v cruise Raven (w/o neut), Demios won. Demios v torp raven with neut, Raven won, but it wasn't in only 4 volleys. I have fraps incase there is doubt.
What setups where you using? I am most currious.
Paper tanks with no resist mods? With faction torps,full lows of BCU, max skills& implants 4 volleys are about 20k raw damage.
Then comes signature or speed reduction, resist reduction and so on.
_____________
I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button. |
Straight Chillen
Gallente
Solar Wind
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:55:00 -
[17]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/07/2008 15:37:28
another example ... before nerf a battleship might have been going 2000m/s and you web him for 90% putting him down to 200 m/s
after nerf
the battleship is going 1800m/s and you hit him with a scram and a web putting his speed down 94% putting him at 108m/s in fact sloer than before the nerf.
So close range weapons will be by your logic more viable as after nerf killing a super fast ship will be easier if your in a fast ship.
Have you even been on singularity to test this or are u just talking? First off, you will find it is extremely difficult to achieve 1800m/s. Hell it takes like 60% of your cap to even get upto top speed, The fact you are forced to a screeching halt 10km to your target. At that range you will have to use a much longer ranged ammo, which inturn give you crap DPS, All the while the TorpRaven your trying to kill, has been spamming you with torps for the last 30km.
P.S. any BS that does 1800m/s isnt doing it for long
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 15:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Straight Chillen
Originally by: MotherMoon
Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/07/2008 15:37:28
another example ... before nerf a battleship might have been going 2000m/s and you web him for 90% putting him down to 200 m/s
after nerf
the battleship is going 1800m/s and you hit him with a scram and a web putting his speed down 94% putting him at 108m/s in fact sloer than before the nerf.
So close range weapons will be by your logic more viable as after nerf killing a super fast ship will be easier if your in a fast ship.
Have you even been on singularity to test this or are u just talking? First off, you will find it is extremely difficult to achieve 1800m/s. Hell it takes like 60% of your cap to even get upto top speed, The fact you are forced to a screeching halt 10km to your target. At that range you will have to use a much longer ranged ammo, which inturn give you crap DPS, All the while the TorpRaven your trying to kill, has been spamming you with torps for the last 30km.
P.S. any BS that does 1800m/s isnt doing it for long
jezz my point is yes on SiSi right now a web plus a scram slows down a target more than a web use to. You know what I meant! >.<
Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 16:03:00 -
[19]
Khosta I'm honestly going to just request nicely you never post on the forums again untill you test it on sisi or at least learn how the game works.
Tracking speed is now BOOSTED you idiot.
yes blasers need an an incease in tracking and the web nerf makes it easier for blaster boats to hit thier targets. you fail you think lower another ships speed makes it eaier to hit.
STOP POSTING UNTILL YOU UNDERSTAND how this is not correct.
I mean it where the hell are you coming from? this is thread a troll? or do you honestly not understand how tracking works?
Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
Euriti
Gallente
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 16:06:00 -
[20]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/07/2008 15:37:28
another example ... before nerf a battleship might have been going 2000m/s and you web him for 90% putting him down to 200 m/s
after nerf
the battleship is going 1400m/s and you hit him with a scram and a web putting his speed down 94% putting him at 108m/s in fact sloer than before the nerf.
So close range weapons will be by your logic more viable as after nerf killing a super fast ship will be easier if your in a fast ship.
fixed.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 16:09:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Euriti
Originally by: MotherMoon
Edited by: MotherMoon on 30/07/2008 15:37:28
another example ... before nerf a battleship might have been going 2000m/s and you web him for 90% putting him down to 200 m/s
after nerf
the battleship is going 1400m/s and you hit him with a scram and a web putting his speed down 94% putting him at 108m/s in fact sloer than before the nerf.
So close range weapons will be by your logic more viable as after nerf killing a super fast ship will be easier if your in a fast ship.
fixed.
thanks I honeslt should of posting something without doing the math sorry 
my point was that you can now makes ships go even slower after nerf than before if they are running a MWD.
Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 17:16:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 30/07/2008 17:17:59
Sorry, I didnt read the whole OP, just skimmed over it.
Some things:
The webber strength reduction is probably the single most reasonable change of that patch, I dare to say the whole intention is to make tracking more difficult when you are webbing a target, so substantially increasing tracking would make that change obsolete. A solution for the mega can be dropping the cap booster for a second web.
I dont fly Blasterboats, but judging from a few test runs being at the receiving end I'd say BS size blasters track other webbed BSs just fine even if they AB.
However, it is correct that the problem for blasters lies more in the need to get in range and properly maintain that range, therefor they should really have superior speed and agility over missile ships.
Looking at the raven, it is a long-range platform that doesnt care about tracking or even range (in typical pvp encounters), imho it should be slowed down considerably since it can use weapons for full effect throughout the fight. A Mega should have significant speed advantage over the raven.
Just to illustrate with a RL example, a typical combat tank is usually much faster than a mobile artillery tank, for obvious reasons.
On a side note, the same holds true for minmatar BSs, they are way too slow right now given they also need to control range to use their weapons for full effect.
The progression in BS speeds based on their weapon systems should be something like this I think:
minmatar > gallente > amarr >= caldari
|
khosta
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 17:40:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
The webber strength reduction is probably the single most reasonable change of that patch, I dare to say the whole intention is to make tracking more difficult when you are webbing a target, so substantially increasing tracking would make that change obsolete. A solution for the mega can be dropping the cap booster for a second web.
Really? I thought the point of these changes were to stop ships going ludicrous speeds rendering them immune to damage? Please explain how the solution to nerfing nanoships(which blaster ships werent generally) lies in nerfing blaster ships?
Ah just noticed you said you dont fly blaster ships. It all makes sense now
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 18:00:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 30/07/2008 18:01:55
Originally by: khosta
Really? I thought the point of these changes were to stop ships going ludicrous speeds rendering them immune to damage? Please explain how the solution to nerfing nanoships(which blaster ships werent generally) lies in nerfing blaster ships?
You do not seem to understand, webbers are getting changed to give ships operating in web range a chance to fight. The patch is intended to generally fix speed related issues, not primarily to kill nanoships completely, and the 90% webifier was the single most broken thing in eve when it comes to speed related things.
Originally by: khosta
Ah just noticed you said you dont fly blaster ships. It all makes sense now
At least you're able to read, thats a start. To give you a bit more info, I do not fly battleships either (well I can fly them and test-drived a few on SiSi, but do not use them in pvp usually, too sluggish). However, having fought countless blasterboats, I dare to say I know a thing or two about them...
If you did tl;dr; my post (just as I did with yours;), imho the main issue with blasterships as close-range fighters is the lack of speed/agility to get into range, if there are tracking problems you can always fit double webs.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 18:14:00 -
[25]
Well seen as we're having radical 'surgery' on webs, maybe it's time to look at the whole 'tracking' formula, which ism lets be honest, a bit back to front e.g. missing another Battleship up close, unable to rotate to increase hits, unable to hit while orbiting, hitting tiny frigates perfectly at ultra long range e.t.c
I posted a couple of ideas a while back on how you might change 'signature radius' into something more meaningful. Basically then, you wouldnĘt need webs to hit other Battleship sized targets at close range, and you could make tracking values much more reasonable (sorry but it doesnĘt take 652 seconds to turn a 425mm railgun through 360 degrees) while still giving smaller ships ęzones of opportunityĘ to work in both at short range and long range.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
khosta
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 18:55:00 -
[26]
Edited by: khosta on 30/07/2008 18:55:03
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
...if there are tracking problems you can always fit double webs.
But why should something that is not overpowered in the opinion of the players or CCP, which is not the target of the current changes (did not do ludicrous speed) be forced to adopt a fitting that sacrifices something else, undeniably making it significantly worse than before (eg no cap booster)?
If something is fine, and then gets nerfed, it becomes broken, yes?
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:32:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 30/07/2008 20:36:20
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 30/07/2008 20:34:14
Originally by: khosta
But why should something that is not overpowered in the opinion of the players or CCP, which is not the target of the current changes (did not do ludicrous speed) be forced to adopt a fitting that sacrifices something else, undeniably making it significantly worse than before (eg no cap booster)?
The thing is, webs as they currently are on TQ are broken, this is why they're getting fixed.
This has nothing to do with blasterships being overpowered or whatever, it is just because webs are broken. Repeat, webs are broken.
Btw I'm very close to the Rapier/Huggin, I think I could cry a whole lot about webs being nerfed, but I really think this fix is needed to give frigates and cruisers a chance against the usual webbed=dead routine.
Edit: since passive buffers are generally superior to repair tanks, I dont see what you're losing when dropping the cap booster for a second web. In other words, a plated mega with double webs will rip your injected setup apart without breaking a sweat.
|
Pipboy2K
Delta Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:13:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 30/07/2008 20:36:20
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 30/07/2008 20:34:14
Originally by: khosta
But why should something that is not overpowered in the opinion of the players or CCP, which is not the target of the current changes (did not do ludicrous speed) be forced to adopt a fitting that sacrifices something else, undeniably making it significantly worse than before (eg no cap booster)?
The thing is, webs as they currently are on TQ are broken, this is why they're getting fixed.
This has nothing to do with blasterships being overpowered or whatever, it is just because webs are broken. Repeat, webs are broken.
Btw I'm very close to the Rapier/Huggin, I think I could cry a whole lot about webs being nerfed, but I really think this fix is needed to give frigates and cruisers a chance against the usual webbed=dead routine.
Edit: since passive buffers are generally superior to repair tanks, I dont see what you're losing when dropping the cap booster for a second web. In other words, a plated mega with double webs will rip your injected setup apart without breaking a sweat.
obviously you have no idea of what you are talkin about.... you need at least a medium cap injector on a plated gank-megathron to keep the mwd running, and for longer fights to keep the guns running (and point)... yes, blasters are very cap intensive
War, war never changes |
Rika Arkenana
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:52:00 -
[29]
You mean low slots have to be used for tracking mods say it aint so 
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:54:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 30/07/2008 21:54:39
Originally by: Pipboy2K
obviously you have no idea of what you are talkin about.... you need at least a medium cap injector on a plated gank-megathron to keep the mwd running, and for longer fights to keep the guns running (and point)... yes, blasters are very cap intensive
Indeed, I stand corrected (somewhat), neutrons really suck some cap
OTOH in really long big fights you can safely assume the primary has a bunch of webs on him and isnt moving at all, while in short fights or 1vs1 situations about 3 minutes shooting time given you do not permarun your mwd should be sufficient, you'll have won the fight or be dead anyway in a buffer tank in less time.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |