| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
   |
Posted - 2012.03.28 12:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
after reading dozens of pages, i still cannot see why you can't simply multiply the actual applied turret damage with something like max(1, sig radius / sqrt(gun resolution)). |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 15:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:after reading dozens of pages, i still cannot see why you can't simply multiply the actual applied turret damage with something like max(1, sig radius / sqrt(gun resolution)). Target painters, for the most part.
don't TPs get diminishing returns? if there is no point in putting more than 2-3 painters on a target, you can account for that by adding a constant factor to the damage nerf. i'm not an expert but a scenario where titans can damage other caps without any help, damage BS and buffer drakes drakes with TP support, and not seriously damage cruisers no matter how much they get webbed/painted seems reasonable to me.
if the diminishing returns on TPs aren't strong enough, you can still nerf TP stacking. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 16:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We don't want to balance turrets around the *assumption* of TPs, and we don't want to do a wider nerf to TPs just to solve this one case.
you aren't nerfing TPs per se, just stacking TPs on one target. i am not aware of a situation where this is a valuable strategy, except in a mission golem (which honestly is already unviable, unless you want to be a snowflake). also, how is it a bad idea to make a titan dependant on subcap support whenever it encounters subcaps? |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 16:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Harotak wrote:
And the best solution to this problem IMO is to change all EWAR so that individual modules are slightly more powerful but you can't stack more than one of each effect on any given target. This improves small gang and fleet combat gameplay equally IMO.
This should even extend to ECM so that each person being targeted by ECM only has to roll the random number once every 20 seconds and any further ECM applied to that target simply compares the jam strength to the existing random number and doesn't roll a new one.
we're looking for a low impact, fast to implement solution. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 16:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:
Regular Capitals in general a bigger boost in terms of damage and tanking against sub caps and be effective against sub capitals to warrent brining in super capitals to kill them off as using conventional forces would be too costly to dispose a carrier or dreadnaught.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 16:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:You could even argue that this is too much tracking disruption, and that a single Crucifier would render a Titan useless. To that, I suggest you use your subcapitals to shoot the Crucifier. I hear that T1 frigates don't tank very well. 
this would make almost every blob battle be about who manages to kill or jam the opponents ewar first. not that i object, just stating the fact.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Innominate wrote:So the titan nerf is posted. Dozens of posts are made explaining how the nerf is bad because it can so easily be bypassed. And the solution is to soften the nerf?
I don't get it. Allow me to explain. Titans are mostly outright or partially bought with RL money via plex.
are you sure about that? i have little understanding of 0.0 politics but spending up to 200PLEX just to win at internet spaceships seems a little... excessive. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 13:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?
*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in. Hence the bit about potentially adjusting the current balance between optimal and falloff. We already have a mechanic to make you hit less at long range; if that's not working, I'd prefer to fix that mechanic rather than introduce another one alongside it. If we don't like that you can do 70k optimal on pulses, we have the technology to just reduce that number to a range that we do like, and kick the falloff up to compensate. If we don't like the way damage drops off as a result, we can adjust the falloff formula to do whatever we want it to do 
please note that reducing the optimal/falloff ratio can actually INCREASE the reach of a gun (see machariel). you' d have to nerf the optimal without increasing the falloff to actually reduce the effective range. also, please consider that reducing optimal to 0 would be functionally equivalent to removing falloff completely and instead making sig res scale with target distance. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 15:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Christopher Crusman wrote:Greyscale,
What are your thoughts on moving the sigrad/sigres comparison from being a multiplier on tracking to being a multiplier on range? (Sorry to kind of harp on this after my more elaborate version a few pages back, but it seems like it fixes a lot of issues, esp. with zero-transversal shots, and I want to know that you at least saw it, even if you then concluded it'd be a terrible idea :P)
very nice solution imo, even scaled down to subcap sizes. not that i mind sniping frigs in missions but from a balance standpoint it seems strange that a turret BS only needs to launch drones once a day in lvl4s. i wouldn't make it a linear multiplier tough, something like sqrt( sig size / sig res) * base turret range seems more appropriate. |
| |
|