EVE Search - A Small Update on the Speed Changes

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

A Small Update on the Speed Changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)

CCP Fendahl	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:03:00 - [1] Just a small update on the speed changes. As Nozh recently mentioned, testing of the speed changes have been moved to Multiplicity for the time being. We're currently looking at how speed reduces the damage taken by missiles. When using a MWD, the sig radius becomes so large that the only way effective way to reduce damage is to to fast. If you plot the damage taken as a function of speed, it's clear that you need to hit over 5km/s for all missile types to get a meaningful reduction and that bigger is (generally) better. This is a major problem for cruisers and standard T2 fitted frigates. This has been a problem for a long time, but with the speed changes it has become more pronounced. Ideally, we would like to have missiles of the same class as the target be the most effective, and have the damage reduction scale reasonably as speed increases. Unfortunately if we tweak the current system to prevent bigger from being better, the difference in damage reduction between ships in the same class become unreasonable; the falloff essentially becomes so short that it's trivial to increase the speed to a point where you're invulnerable to missiles. Because of this, we're looking into alternative systems for reducing the damage as speed increases.

Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:19:00 - [2] VERY cool, thanks for the update, Fendahl! Can you provide us with some kind of graph for damage reduction that you're looking for? There's lots of bright minds here that are very eager to help. :) Also, have you looked into the BS blaster tracking/range problems with relation to the speed nerf? -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
murder one Gallente Invincible Reason	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:22:00 - [3] Awesome. How about the blaster situation, vis a vis large/medium blasters vs. cruiser sized targets? My prediction: they don't get touched and blasters are horribly nerfed for at least a year, probably two, at which point it won't matter anymore, as no one uses them and they become a relic of the past. [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Spurty Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:31:00 - [4] Edited by: Spurty on 02/09/2008 21:36:30 Edited by: Spurty on 02/09/2008 21:34:51 cruiser with MWD on has a sig of 105 (stabber) to 150 (blackbird) x 5.[0\|5] or effectively: - 525-750 T1 - <somewhere inbetween> named - 577.5-825 T2 Large guns have a sig res of 400, you should be absolutely whaling on the target for all of the 0.001 second opportunity you have of him being in range of you if they are nano'ed ;0 really, the MWD sig increase is breaking the fix. To fix speed this way, sigs need to be revisited I guess?
D4RT N3RDiUS	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:45:00 - [5] Edited by: D4RT N3RDiUS on 02/09/2008 21:47:45 Edited by: D4RT N3RDiUS on 02/09/2008 21:46:19 so you still lost and dont now what to do? uh? maybe ccp can share their ideas and we can maybe and i say maybe can say something and meybe can help to resolve the problem :) in any way we can . maybe speed tanking need a new whole idea like new modules for tanking like active armor in tanks in rl who are more ligths but they function for a limited time or somthing like defender missiles or one new defender gunn who can kill missiles so we minimize the dmg of missiles and we cant tank but if we got skills to do it .. speed tank is intented for TURRETS BOATS not FOR MISSILE BOATS or DRONE BOATS that is the friking problem if i speed tank you i cant hit you if im in a turret boat.. is that simple make nosfes and frikin neutralicers afected by traking .. so curses cant do orbit to 5000 and neut you .. the ishtar need to be nerfed so they cant go 6.5 k of velocity and only keep point an ogres t2 hiting.. the sacrilege never go nano etcetcetc.. is simple like taking the problem ships and nerfed thath ships in some way like penaltis to mwd or more mass and geting new bonuses like one new tank module with this idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_protection_system in this ships.. dont now make new thinks dont nerf all create dont destroy.. well i go change mi skills..
Barsexual Castle Greyskull	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:46:00 - [6] Edited by: Barsexual on 02/09/2008 21:46:41 I can't believe this has been going on for so long, I always had a sneaking suspicion that the mwd sig radius penalty was completely screwed up proportionally to explosion velocity of missiles and gun sig radius.
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:44:00 - [7] Just lower mwd sig radius some and boost afterburners to an actually usefull extent...?
Synapse Archae Amarr Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:51:00 - [8] Thanks Fendahl, I'm really glad to hear that at least one aspect of guerilla warfare is getting a serious look, and that the brokennes of the speed vs missiles mechanic is starting to come to light. I think you're largely correct that it's broken on both ends. Perhaps updating the in development page with your thoughts under the speed heading would be the best way to get this across? Again, HUGE thanks for the update. Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.09.03 08:03:00 - [9] Here's a giant cup of I told you so, CCP. I mean the main reason nano first became popular was that it is the only way to reduce damage from missiles. Large turrets are beyond easy to mitigate, but missiles, you have to go really fast or else you get blobbed by caldari ships. We told you the nano-whiners were by caldari missile pilots with no clue to how eve mechanics worked and we told you that your anti-missile ewar is laughably broken. It sounds like you just need to tweak the sig radius penalty on MWD and explosion velocity on missiles until you get a good balance but baring that you can always add in a new variable to ships for missile calculations to balance it as you please. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Zana Kito	Posted - 2008.09.03 08:23:00 - [10] CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems. You know why they don't need to go absurdly fast to counter turrets? Because there's turret disruption ewar, and tight fast orbit to avoid being tracked by "bigger" turrets. You first need an effect EWAR against missile/drones before you can start to balance speed vs dmg taken. Because if there's no effective ewar, people only have 1 option still, and that is speed. This defeats the purpose of AB and promotes continued preference for MWDs. Isn't this what you are trying to design against? Think about it, there's been many suggestions on effective missile/drone EWAR. Fix defenders, or turn it into something else if need be. But it simply needs to work good as a defense against the "other" weapons in eve.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.09.03 09:06:00 - [11] Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 03/09/2008 09:14:33 This is the current missile damage formula: Base Damage * min(1,Target Sig. Radius / Missile Exp. Rad.) * e^( -1 * max(0,Target Speed - Missile Explosion Speed)^2 / (AoEFalloff^2) ) = Final Missile Damage Currently, the parameter AoEFalloff is a constant set to 1500 for nearly every type of missile. Changing it affects the rate at which missile damage tapers off when a ship starts moving faster than the the missile explosion speed. I assume this is what has been tweaked. What happens if you increase the falloff for smaller missiles as well as reducing it for larger ones? Also, what happens if you change this term from a constant to a variable that depends on factors such as sig radius or possibly mass? That way, damage would taper off faster for small ships moving at high speeds than for large ships at the same speeds. I'll put some nice graphs together and see if I can come up with a system that meets the requirements that you're looking for. Of course, this does beg a few other questions. Small tackling ships can generally beat the tracking on large guns, so missiles (and drones) are their main concern. If larger ships are reliably able to do even a tiny amount of damage to them (and the missile formula is not currently chance-based), they won't be able to stay around for long enough to do their jobs. Zzz research towers Direrie NEW: Liekuri 20:1 low-end compression
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.03 09:16:00 - [12] Thanks for the update. I hope you revise tracking problems at short ranges as well while you're at it, they're quite evident with the new webs when firing on the same ship classes - and horribly painful when using T2 high damage ammo. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Morel Nova z3r0 Gravity Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 09:17:00 - [13] Originally by: Zana Kito Think about it, there's been many suggestions on effective missile/drone EWAR. Fix defenders, or turn it into something else if need be. But it simply needs to work good as a defense against the "other" weapons in eve. Drones don't really need a counter ewar since you can just blow them up, and jamming/damping etc will stop the user from directing them.
Aakito	Posted - 2008.09.03 09:28:00 - [14] Originally by: Morel Nova Originally by: Zana Kito Think about it, there's been many suggestions on effective missile/drone EWAR. Fix defenders, or turn it into something else if need be. But it simply needs to work good as a defense against the "other" weapons in eve. Drones don't really need a counter ewar since you can just blow them up, and jamming/damping etc will stop the user from directing them. So why do we need ewar for anything at all, we can just mass dps and blow it up!! Stop being pedantic, turrets have a very effective ewar. It's time the other weapons to receive their fair share. ps. ecm is anti-lock and not weapon restricted. also, if you didn't know, drones released b4 aggressed will auto fight if you ecm its owner. damps?.. lol.
Slobodanka	Posted - 2008.09.03 10:02:00 - [15] Don't bigger missiles also fly slower? Much slower? If heavys fly at 5k/s, then if you go 5.001 k/s that missile is never going to catch you and detonate near you, you take 0 dmg. Only when missile is fast enough to catch it's target before it's flight time is over then it can detonate and has a chance of dealing damage (according to ships signature and missile resolution I guess). This way you can very clearly make light misisles hit everything, heavys hit a bit slower boats, cruises hit even slower boats, and torps... well if you're not the size od cap ship and you are moving they don't hit for full dmg anyway :p
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.09.03 10:20:00 - [16] Originally by: Slobodanka Don't bigger missiles also fly slower? Much slower? If heavys fly at 5k/s, then if you go 5.001 k/s that missile is never going to catch you and detonate near you, you take 0 dmg. Only when missile is fast enough to catch it's target before it's flight time is over then it can detonate and has a chance of dealing damage (according to ships signature and missile resolution I guess). This way you can very clearly make light misisles hit everything, heavys hit a bit slower boats, cruises hit even slower boats, and torps... well if you're not the size od cap ship and you are moving they don't hit for full dmg anyway :p that is exactly what he said, and that creates a full damage at speed X zero damage at speed X+ 10% situation. And that is bad they want to get a more moderated and continuous damage reduction, not a binary on /off switch. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Lake Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.09.03 11:02:00 - [17] Edited by: Lake on 03/09/2008 11:04:17 This is copied from a post in my thread from a few weeks ago. There is more background on this topic in other posts in that thread, as well as more general speed comments. Missiles Signature Radius does not work the same with missile damage as it does with turret tracking. If two ships are completely at rest the sigRadius doesn't affect tracking at all because the sigRadius ratio acts as a multiplier of speed. With missiles sigRadius and Speed are handled separately. A ship with 200m sigRadius hit by a missile with a 400 exRadius (Explosion Radius) will receive half damage even at complete rest. A ship with a sigRadius greater than the missile's exRadius will receive full damage, but no more. The exVelocity (Explosion Velocity) reduction is then applied to this damage amount. The exVelocity damage mitigation is calculated much the same as turret tracking, turret falloff, EWar falloff, and so on. Each missile has an Explosion Velocity (aoeVelocity, 250 for torps, 500 for cruise, 750 for heavy) and a hidden attribute called aoeFalloff (1,500 for torps, cruise, heavy, and light). The old rule of thumb applies that at Optimal+Falloff you will do half damage. Near optimal there's very little damage reduction and at optimal+falloff2 there's extreme damage reduction. Here is a graph of the exVelocity damage mitigation with current missiles ( http://eve-mail.net/stuff/currentmissiles2.png ). Y-axis is simply the damage multiplier, while X-axis is ship velocity. The magical 3.5-4k speed threshold is clearly evident. I have left out sigRadius effects in part because 3D-graphs are hard to read when you can't spin them, and in part because they don't really matter that much in EVE at the moment. 1) A ship without* a MWD can not achieve a high enough speed to mitigate significant damage, even against a missile that is a class larger, with the current exVelocity formula. For Example: My Cerberus with 3x Nanofiber II, 1x Overdrive II and 2x Polycarb I has a 2% damage reduction from Cruise Missiles from explosionVelocity at top speed. 2) A ship with a MWD active has a sigRadius large enough to exceed the exRadius of even missiles a class larger. For Example: A typical cruiser sigRadius of 125m goes to 625m with the MWD active in comparison to a Cruise Missile's exRadius of 300m. Only ships with a sigRadius less than 60m (not even destroyers) receive any sigRadius benefit when being hit by a cruise missile while their MWD is active. In conclusion: The damage calculation for missiles isn't meeting the design target. I say damage calculation rather than simply missile stats after playing around with the numbers in my graphing tool without any luck. So my standard contribution comes as a new formula this time: dmgMod=0.9^((speed*(exRadius/sigRadius))/exVelocity). Here is another graph with that formula overlayed in two pink lines ( http://eve-mail.net/stuff/futuremissiles.png ). Both lines represent a typical cruiser (125m sigRadius) vs a rebalanced heavy missile (125m exRadius, 200m/s exVelocity). The higher line is with a MWD active (as denoted by the x5 multiplier next to the sigRadius) and the lower line is without a MWD active. -- eve-mail.net (thread) Instant Messaging and E-mail for EVE players
Shmekla Gallente Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.09.03 11:17:00 - [18] Originally by: Aakito So why do we need ewar for anything at all, we can just mass dps and blow it up!! Stop being pedantic, turrets have a very effective ewar. It's time the other weapons to receive their fair share. ps. ecm is anti-lock and not weapon restricted. also, if you didn't know, drones released b4 aggressed will auto fight if you ecm its owner. damps?.. lol. Oh come on. What else weapons system you can completely destroy except drones? And you say you do not have effective system against drones.
Cerui Tarshiel Minmatar Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.03 13:21:00 - [19] I'm very glad that this problem has been correctly identified and is being worked on. As others said, other weapon systems can be disrupted (turrets) or destroyed (drones). I do belive that some form of disruption for missiles is neccessary (with perhaps f.o.f's being invulnerable to them due to no relying on the ships onboard targeting systems for guidance).
Morel Nova z3r0 Gravity Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 13:31:00 - [20] Edited by: Morel Nova on 03/09/2008 13:31:45 Maybe something like a chaff launcher that makes the missiles explode prematurely. That way they will do full damage pretty much if target is sitting still (since it will be within explosion radius) and lower its damage when the target is moving fast (since it will have moved out of explosion radius). This would let ships speed tank missile boats efficiently.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.09.03 14:39:00 - [21] Just to add to Liang and Branko's comments, if you could look at the tracking formula up close (take into account target size vs. distance) that would be splendid. There's a summary post with links to all the relevant discussion on page 19 of the blaster thread. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
El Yatta Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:06:00 - [22] This is excellent news, thankyou Fendahl. However, could you please announce some work being done on BLASTERS (and to a less extent, ACs) being wrecked by this patch? Its all very well balancing missiles and sigs (imo a very good idea) but they are in danger of being overpowered, which at least some people would enjoy if you forgot it. Leaving blasters as they are with the web changes would be like deleting them from the game... _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.03 18:18:00 - [23] Originally by: Lake Here is another graph with that formula overlayed in two pink lines ( http://eve-mail.net/stuff/futuremissiles.png ). Both lines represent a typical cruiser (125m sigRadius) vs a rebalanced heavy missile (125m exRadius, 200m/s exVelocity). The higher line is with a MWD active (as denoted by the x5 multiplier next to the sigRadius) and the lower line is without a MWD active. Lake, this is excellent work. Your formula admirably stops the magic damage cliff that comes from going "too fast", however, with the nano nerf, it does not drop off fast enough as ships increase in both speed and decrease in sig radius. Additionally, it doesn't take into account that turrets have both range and transversal "holes" that can be exploited. Missiles do not have this kind of hole, and additionally have remarkably excellent range. There is nowhere to hide. In the end, the biggest problems come from the high alpha volley combined with the low overall hitpoints of smaller ships. With missile ships on the field, there will simply be no option other than to fly a fully tanked ship (preferably of the same size or larger). -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Jas Dor Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.03 18:39:00 - [24] If sig radius is currently a nullity, maybe it would be best to ignore the actual sig radius and concentrate on the base sig radius of a ship. After all why should the radar cross section matter when dealing with an omnidirectional explosion on a LOCKED target. (This makes more sense with guns as we assume the target is taking some form of evasive action). How big the target actually is, and thus how much of the expanding energy of the missile it's subject to, makes more sense damage wise. (At least when dealing with a system where the larger area exposed is modeled by the greater HP's of the ship). RL explosive velocities often exceed 7,000 m/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_velocity). Some type of chaffe modules that reduces the base sig might be the way to go on increased effectiveness. Makes swatting a fly with a sledgehammer hard and means ceptors are going to be hard to kill with anything besides light guns. Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU!
Eraggan Sadarr Phoenix Tribe	Posted - 2008.09.04 07:28:00 - [25] Originally by: Jas Dor If sig radius is currently a nullity, maybe it would be best to ignore the actual sig radius and concentrate on the base sig radius of a ship. After all why should the radar cross section matter when dealing with an omnidirectional explosion on a LOCKED target. (This makes more sense with guns as we assume the target is taking some form of evasive action). How big the target actually is, and thus how much of the expanding energy of the missile it's subject to, makes more sense damage wise. (At least when dealing with a system where the larger area exposed is modeled by the greater HP's of the ship). RL explosive velocities often exceed 7,000 m/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_velocity). Some type of chaffe modules that reduces the base sig might be the way to go on increased effectiveness. Makes swatting a fly with a sledgehammer hard and means ceptors are going to be hard to kill with anything besides light guns. Wouldn't that remove the effectiveness of target painters? That would be a sad development for minmatar and missile users in general. I like the fact that my T2 torps usually only give full damage, if i use a target painter to increase the other ships sig to above 530. I think we just need to take the full array of weapons into account when trying to redo the formula. Eve Market Scanner
Zeknichov Realm Industries	Posted - 2008.09.04 10:18:00 - [26] Recalculate the formula so that sig and speed are dependent upon one another and not separate formulas then just tweak calculations and numbers so you have the missiles you want damaging the ship sizes you want at the dps you want.
Jas Dor Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.04 18:12:00 - [27] Originally by: Eraggan Sadarr Originally by: Jas Dor If sig radius is currently a nullity, maybe it would be best to ignore the actual sig radius and concentrate on the base sig radius of a ship. After all why should the radar cross section matter when dealing with an omnidirectional explosion on a LOCKED target. (This makes more sense with guns as we assume the target is taking some form of evasive action). How big the target actually is, and thus how much of the expanding energy of the missile it's subject to, makes more sense damage wise. (At least when dealing with a system where the larger area exposed is modeled by the greater HP's of the ship). RL explosive velocities often exceed 7,000 m/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_velocity). Some type of chaffe modules that reduces the base sig might be the way to go on increased effectiveness. Makes swatting a fly with a sledgehammer hard and means ceptors are going to be hard to kill with anything besides light guns. Wouldn't that remove the effectiveness of target painters? That would be a sad development for minmatar and missile users in general. I like the fact that my T2 torps usually only give full damage, if i use a target painter to increase the other ships sig to above 530. I think we just need to take the full array of weapons into account when trying to redo the formula. A target paint is providing a spot for the missile to home in on (what a real target painter does) so, let the target painter increase the base sig. Missiles use base sig + target painters, guns use modified sig + tracking computers and target painters. Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU!
PirceHat	Posted - 2008.09.04 23:47:00 - [28] Edited by: PirceHat on 04/09/2008 23:54:10 Edited by: PirceHat on 04/09/2008 23:51:07 Edited by: PirceHat on 04/09/2008 23:50:01 The main problem with the current technique is you are applying a linear falloff to an exponential system. Based on my imperfect guesstimates from your new mwd speeds chart I entered a high, low, and mode case for each main speed class. Then obtaining an exponentially smoothed best fit for each speed class moving downwards numbered 1,2,3 etc. (Eg ceptors are 1, EAS 2, frigates 3, etc.) you get: Veolocity = 4047e^(0.11ClassNumber) R¦ = 0.955 So yes, the speeds are definitely moving exponentially. First off the missiles don't fit any* curve smoothly with the base. All R¦ are below .85 . Secondly the missiles explosion velocity is added linearly to what should be something based on an exponential process. Changing it to something like this should at least make the missiles hit the proper class. Normals doing full damage to the mode of the speed class, and precisions doing full damage to the the highs of there intended speed class. Note, you would still be able to tank precisions with the "highs" of the ship class because you can add speed mods. MissileExplosion Vel Precision Light2750 Light2000 Precision Heavy1400 Heavy1000 Precision Cruise750 Cruise500 AFter Skills: MissileExplosion Vel Precision Light4125 Light3000 Precision Heavy2100 Heavy1500 Precision Cruise1125 Cruise750 More later, specifically the falloffs.
Freakdevil Explora Empire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.09.05 01:53:00 - [29] An interesting idea proposed by another pilot (so I take no credit) was to introduce hard coded speed limits for each ship class. Make the speed limits proportionate to the missile class. Speed should still be a viable way to mitigate damage and Vagabonds and Interceptors should retain this viability. Perhaps with a bonus exclusive to these ships only. Otherwise, thanks for bringing this out into the open and acknowledging the issue. Very nice
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.05 04:32:00 - [30] Thanks for the update! Take your time, just plz dont overnerf anything Proudly annoying FC's since 2007 Remove m for manditory in mwd!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.