Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3579
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 17:56:00 -
[331] - Quote
Pyro Tsu wrote:First of all:
- Automate your balancing-tests. An average programmer should be able to write a framework for that within a month or less given how many excellent tools the community has already created and even licensed as free open-source.
- Specify (internally, for game-dev use only) what exaclty should be able to kill a titan. 40 average BS? 50? At what loss to the BS subcap fleet?
- Write tests for that. Heck, even feed battles from killboards to your new framework and see whether balancing lead to the status quo and/or your expectations.
- Having such framework and tests you can experiment with other formulas and balancing more aggresively and with a far more lowered psychological barrier.
- Instead of guessing what the outcome might be and instead of being afraid that you "fat-finger" something change's effects will be revealed to your sooner.
- You can process input from the community profound and faster as well as respond to feedback by the community in a way that shows your appreciation for it and that it has been considered without bias.
I get the impression that you, as CCP, limit yourself to being against this-and-that and have not thought about the entire theatre and its parameters from top to bottom. A target's effective signature radius should always decrease with its distance - if that ship is smaller than the projectile. One exception being missiles, because they're guided and because we already have explosion velocity and -radius. In the end it will help bringing missile- to gun-based titans closer. Maybe that's even a viable idea for smaller gun.based vessels?
Discolsure: I am no game-designer but an engineer.
Automated testing does not account for player creativity. They also already have thin clients that they can spew numbers out of easily.
Problem with that thinking is that people will start to bring sufficent forces to alpha a titan and thats bad for business due to sheer costs and skill points.
The thing they fear is not fat fingering stuff its stuff that players do that gets around the most well thought out plans. Its like war, not all stratagies work.
|
Kaj'Schak
Sensus Numinis Ev0ke
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 17:58:00 -
[332] - Quote
Greyscale. Could you point out the problems of current titans is? And who complains about it and what is the reason behind this compaints.
If you just go for the tracking of the XL turrets it would already do a lot.
But then also look at the artillery turret tracking because currently Maelstroms will hit Drakes that orbit them at 30 kms with their1400mm guns.
CCP says Eve is a sandbox where you decision matters and can influence whole empires. Some did it wrong in the past. Now they have to deal with it. Why does CCP instead change the game. This ain't no sandbox then. |
Wyatt 3arp
IPT BR3
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:07:00 -
[333] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:Stop torturing both yourself and the community. Remove all gun- and missileslots from titans, boost doomsday dps to compensate and be done with it. Its where this thing is headed anyway.
So there is NO reason at all to deploy titans amirite? Thats a pretty neat way to beat your enemy supercap fleet.
Someone at some point must decide to deploy supers, but why would anyone do it if they wont do a thing that gives u any advantage considering its high cost?
Now, if you make structures vulnerable to supers/caps only, it would be ok I guess... Isn't that what everyone wants? Supers/caps beeing "alliance assets"? If your alliance wants sov, you have to assemble your supercap fleet.
|
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:11:00 -
[334] - Quote
Wyatt 3arp wrote:Reilly Duvolle wrote:Stop torturing both yourself and the community. Remove all gun- and missileslots from titans, boost doomsday dps to compensate and be done with it. Its where this thing is headed anyway. So there is NO reason at all to deploy titans amirite? Thats a pretty neat way to beat your enemy supercap fleet. Someone at some point must decide to deploy supers, but why would anyone do it if they wont do a thing that gives u any advantage considering its high cost? Now, if you make structures vulnerable to supers/caps only, it would be ok I guess... Isn't that what everyone wants? Supers/caps beeing "alliance assets"? If your alliance wants sov, you have to assemble your supercap fleet.
I dont say I agree. I only say that since CCP has expressively stated that they see titans as a pure anti-capital ship, its the only logical solution. |
Tsalaroth
BRG Corp Acquisition Of Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:25:00 -
[335] - Quote
Mar Drakar wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further.
Possibly he means that in the damage formula there should be an additional factor that depends only on the sigRadius/sigResolution ratio. The current formula has this, but it is combined with transversal velocity, and that means that if transversal is null then the sigRadius/sigResolution ratio does not matter. In fact, this is the reason why you can use alpha effectively. does it really matter if you hit a fly with a car (hello ww beattle aka XL blaster) or just a rock.... a fly is still squashed.
With an XL, more like it fires Hurricanes or cruisers - in this case, at frigates.
Yeah, I don't know if I can agree with cutting down the damage it does with traversal at zero. I don't think a Rifter's gonna survive a Rupture shoved up its ass. Though the wording and mental image of that is hilarious. |
Snot Shot
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:38:00 -
[336] - Quote
Can you put a whale tail on the back of the Erebus when this patch goes through? . GÇ£God grant me the serenity to accept the things I canGÇÖt shoot, the courage to shoot the things I can, and the wisdom to GTFO!!GÇ¥GÇô Snot Shot - 2012.....Yeah I'm a killin machine..... http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=50753
|
Wyatt 3arp
IPT BR3
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:43:00 -
[337] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:[quote=Wyatt 3arp][quote=Reilly Duvolle]Stop torturing both yourself and the community. Remove all gun- and missileslots from titans, boost doomsday dps to compensate and be done with it. Its where this thing is headed anyway.[/quote}
So there is NO reason at all to deploy titans amirite? Thats a pretty neat way to beat your enemy supercap fleet. [:roll:
Someone at some point must decide to deploy supers, but why would anyone do it if they wont do a thing that gives u any advantage considering its high cost?
Now, if you make structures vulnerable to supers/caps only, it would be ok I guess... Isn't that what everyone wants? Supers/caps beeing "alliance assets"? If your alliance wants sov, you have to assemble your supercap fleet.
[/quote}
I dont say I agree. I only say that since CCP has expressively stated that they see titans as a pure anti-capital ship, its the only logical solution.
Ok, but it's a bad one if doesnt come with a new role for them. I dont believe that trillions of isk and literally years worth of SP spent by ccp customers would be justified by the ability of RF'ing something 2 minutes faster than it would be if only subcaps were deployed
If CCP removes guns from titans (or remove its ability to fight subcaps, like done before with supercarriers), there would be 2 scenarios -You have subcap superiority: No one wants to play with you, bcause they will end up with supers on the field doing nothing to your subcaps -You have supercap superiority: No one needs to play with you, because you just wont have anything to do if they dont deploy caps besides dying a slow death
That seems fair to anyone? |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
169
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:49:00 -
[338] - Quote
I'm looking at the carriers and dreadnoughts and comparing them to the super carriers and titans. There seems to be one key module missing between the pairs of ships
- Carriers have Triage Module - Dreadnoughts have Siege Module
What about the idea of adding an equivalent Suepr Module for the Titan and Super Carrier:
Nerf the base ships - Cut Capital Weapon damage bonuses by 50% - Cut Super Carrier Fighter/Bomber damage bonuses by 50% - Drop E-War Immunity - Cut Shields, Armour, and Structure by 50%
Add in the 5 minute Strontium-fueled module: - Enables E-War Immunity - Disables Jump Drive - 100% bonus to Shields, Armour, and Structure - 100% bonus to Capital Weapon damage - 100% bonus to Fighter/Bomber damage |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:54:00 -
[339] - Quote
Gnaw LF wrote:If you are going to do this then you will also need to split off the XL gun into a category used by Dreadnaughts and Titans. Otherwise the Dreads will be inadvertently nerfed. Maybe this is a solution ... Titans get XXL guns, dreads stick with current XL.
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
137
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:55:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Harotak wrote:I personally like the idea of completely removing supercap ewar immunity. This is actually something we're evaluating at the moment, alongside a large built-in WCS bonus. The big issue is that it also makes it possible to use assistance modules on them (tracking links etc) which potentially undoes all the benefits.
How big of a WCS bonus? The whole reason that the ewar immunity removal can work is that it would force supercaps to control the field in order to leave, rather than being able to simply clear a few dictors and bail. +2 to stop one random rifter from catching a titan is one thing, while +10 would effectively be a supercap boost as the size of existing titan blobs makes jamming all of them impractical. |
|
Christopher Crusman
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 19:13:00 -
[341] - Quote
Upon reflection, I think I may have misinterpreted one of Greyscale's earlier comments
Shifting the signature term over to be a multiplier the range side of the formula, rather than the tracking side, would accomplish basically the same thing as my "switch sig resolution to angular" proposal; the main caveat is that it should probably have a cap of 1, just so we don't get silliness like frigates shooting blasters at battleships, at 40km, and being effectively in optimal. (Though it would be one way to get frigate snipers!)
It also has the benefit of not causing sniper ships to become ineffectual even against their own size class at extreme ranges (due to the angular cross-section getting teeny), though "highly-damped weapon mount" rigs to improve sig resolution at cost of tracking or something similar could be implemented as a fix (it'd be just one more stat sniper ships need to improve). Just shifting it over to the range formula instead is probably better. It's a ltitle less realistic than an angular accuracy/resolution, but given that the current system has gun mounts magically becoming able to pivot 100x faster when they're targeting a titan than when they're targeting a frigate, that's probably not a major concern. (Maybe it's the gravitational pull! :V)
It'd be a fairly major game balance change, and would probably need to be thought through carefully, but I think it could really improve the game long-term. In particular, it seems like it would be conducive to more interesting fleet doctrines, if AFs/ceptors were effectively invulnerable to opposing battleships regardless of how spread out the blob is (barring drones), necessitating destroyers to counter them, and so on up the lines. (Of course, it could also stagnate things even more, by virtue of making primarying the logi all but impossible and so rendering anything but "alpha the combat ships" even more pointless...) |
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 20:07:00 -
[342] - Quote
EnderCapitalG wrote:The best counter to "quickly moving around" is jump drive spool up time. Will also allow for the killing of the cyno frigates that most people use to hotdrop dozens of capitals/supers onto other fleets. A drive spool up of even 30 seconds would give the opposing fleet 30 seconds to neutralize the cyno and if it's killed during that time then the jump is halted. That's not a soloution, it's an another problem. It would mean that the first one to get there would be able to keep the hostile supers from getting there too, reducing the risk. In addition, that spool up would have to be VERY long, otherwise capitals will still be able to move around faster. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
242
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 20:33:00 -
[343] - Quote
Innominate wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Harotak wrote:I personally like the idea of completely removing supercap ewar immunity. This is actually something we're evaluating at the moment, alongside a large built-in WCS bonus. The big issue is that it also makes it possible to use assistance modules on them (tracking links etc) which potentially undoes all the benefits. How big of a WCS bonus? The whole reason that the ewar immunity removal can work is that it would force supercaps to control the field in order to leave, rather than being able to simply clear a few dictors and bail. +2 to stop one random rifter from catching a titan is one thing, while +10 would effectively be a supercap boost as the size of existing titan blobs makes jamming all of them impractical.
Yeah, there's no reason for supercaps to have any WCS bonus. These are combat ships designed for PVP, they're not haulers or miners. Supercaps aren't special; no ship is. Promoting stabbed PVP in this fashion is absurd and fundamentally against not only the stated aim for supercaps to act as support to subcapitals, but it's also against one of the core tenets of Eve - that one newbie in a frigate really can make a difference. |
Citamarret
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 20:48:00 -
[344] - Quote
Kaj'Schak wrote:Greyscale. Could you point out the problems of current titans is? And who complains about it and what is the reason behind this compaints.
Having a small fleet of Supercaps be literally impervious to everything except a larger fleet of Supercaps is unhealthy for the game. This excludes anyone who is unable to fly a Supercap from participating in arguably one of the most fun aspects of being in a 0.0 Alliance. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
453
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:09:00 -
[345] - Quote
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. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:14:00 -
[346] - Quote
Lol, Bee's and Pets once again trying to push their changes by spamming alts.....here's to seeing CCP listen to the players for a change....
Looking to stamp out apiphobia in my lifetime..... |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:16:00 -
[347] - 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. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:18:00 -
[348] - Quote
Agreed, CCP. The Scan res and lock penalty proposed was over the top. As much as it sucks to be blobbed by them they need to be powerfull, they need to be respected. I offered a thread in F&I about Guardian style Sov titans (on skydell I think) but that's my ideal use for a Titan. I'm tired of the one battle warfare of null. Let these wars extend months, even years and the Titans can be the hub of those wars. |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 22:18:00 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm Down wrote: dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.
[much text].
This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected). . The idea of reducing damage simply because of sig size is unrealistic and very short sighted about combat. That means you can manipulate the damage further with target painters, etc while not reaching the objective of difficulty hitting outside a comfort zone. Basically, what you've suggested is a means of bypassing eve mechanics.
My fix is aimed at working within the mechanics, but actually making sense of what they are meant to do. Ships should not simply get a damage boost because of range. For every action, there is a reaction. Yes I can track it better, but no, i can't see it as well. I still should ultimately have the opportunity to project maximum damage under certain conditions.
Your proposal removes the possibility of maximum damage potential. Essentially your plan as I have understood it would suggest that a cannon ball would somehow mysteriously lose damage potential just because it was aimed at a fly instead of a building. The power should always be there, the difficulty accessing it should be the goal.
Your solution does not aim for this, mine does. |
Ed Hardi
Evej0ke
138
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 00:04:00 -
[350] - Quote
Madlof Chev wrote:Greyscale sits at a table with PL, Titan nerf gets nerfed.
INTERESTING. Interesting are that only goon/test dummies (and pets) vote for the Titan nerv. Goon tears, best tears... |
|
Brother Theos
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 01:26:00 -
[351] - Quote
Shadoo wrote: ... have you considered removing the ability to fit turrets/launchers altogether and instead buffing the Doomsday Device cycle/dmg to match the overall DPS vs. capitals ...
This idea had considerable merit, however it seems unlikely to me that a Titan class ship would have no defenses against sub-capital ships at all. (visualize epic space battles scenes from movies, where high ROF, smaller caliber weaponry is fired from capital ships or space stations at smaller craft - search Youtube for "space battles")
I propose three changes 1.) XL weapons are removed from Titan 2.) the DD is buffed to compensate for loss of DPS against Capitals 3.) a new Titan-class weapon only is introduced that offers some (!) protection against sub-capitals
Perhaps something like a rapid-firing friend-or-foe missile battery. As this defense system spreads it's damage throughout a fleet, this would keep logistics pilots busy (which they find fun and keeps them feeling useful) and could add an interesting level of complexity to a fleet battle. The side fielding Titans has the advantage (in addition to Titan specific fleet bonuses) of keeping the opposition fleet's logistics busy, thereby decreasing the number of logistics repping the primary.
If corectly balanced, such a Titan only anti-capital weapon could solve the blapping sub-cap problem, not leave Titans completely vulnerable to sub-caps and add an interesting level of complexity to fleet battles. |
Christopher Crusman
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 03:14:00 -
[352] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm Down wrote: dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.
[much text].
This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected). [snip] Your proposal removes the possibility of maximum damage potential. Essentially your plan as I have understood it would suggest that a cannon ball would somehow mysteriously lose damage potential just because it was aimed at a fly instead of a building. The power should always be there, the difficulty accessing it should be the goal. Your solution does not aim for this, mine does.
If by 'having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected)' Greyscale means "scale optimal/falloff according to sig radius/resolution ratio", it still has the potential for a full-damage shot - the frigate would have to be both close and moving slowly, rather than the current "far away OR moving slowly". So, it has tracking and range (against a small target, at least) naturally counterbalance each other much more so than they do now, by giving you a shorter effective optimal - but that optimal can be increased by target painters. It seems quite reasonable to me.
I agree that scaling actual weapon damage by sigrad/sigres ratio wouldn't really be an optimal solution.
|
Kozmic
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 05:51:00 -
[353] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected). .
Because a turret damage formula that does all the damage to a stationary target and sig appropriate damage to a moving target is stupid. Missiles already do not work this way. |
Ebisou
Origin. Black Legion.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 08:16:00 -
[354] - Quote
I find I'm Down's arguments very compelling. Please don't dismiss his ideas as too hard to implement or too drastic. They would add a new level of realism to fleet fights and make it so you would need to bring a variety of ships to the field.
Start the change in XL guns first as a trial and see how it works then once you have a formula, put it on the test server that's what its there for. Do an actual test for once. |
Sendo Jarix
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 08:52:00 -
[355] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway.
I don't think anyone really expects such a large change as that for the upcoming release but it would be great to see this being worked on to implement in the end of year expansion.
There are plenty of other suggestions here though that would make do in the mean time but leaving them with only the tracking nerf isn't going to change anything. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1051
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 10:17:00 -
[356] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm Down wrote: dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.
[much text].
This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected). . The idea of reducing damage simply because of sig size is unrealistic and very short sighted about combat. That means you can manipulate the damage further with target painters, etc while not reaching the objective of difficulty hitting outside a comfort zone. Basically, what you've suggested is a means of bypassing eve mechanics. My fix is aimed at working within the mechanics, but actually making sense of what they are meant to do. Ships should not simply get a damage boost because of range. For every action, there is a reaction. Yes I can track it better, but no, i can't see it as well. I still should ultimately have the opportunity to project maximum damage under certain conditions. Your proposal removes the possibility of maximum damage potential. Essentially your plan as I have understood it would suggest that a cannon ball would somehow mysteriously lose damage potential just because it was aimed at a fly instead of a building. The power should always be there, the difficulty accessing it should be the goal. Your solution does not aim for this, mine does.
I'm not sure that you're talking about the thing I'm talking about. My above-quoted post isn't about "damage falloff based on sig", it's about the attribute called "falloff" that guns already have. |
|
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 10:32:00 -
[357] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm Down wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm Down wrote: dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.
[much text].
This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected). . The idea of reducing damage simply because of sig size is unrealistic and very short sighted about combat. That means you can manipulate the damage further with target painters, etc while not reaching the objective of difficulty hitting outside a comfort zone. Basically, what you've suggested is a means of bypassing eve mechanics. My fix is aimed at working within the mechanics, but actually making sense of what they are meant to do. Ships should not simply get a damage boost because of range. For every action, there is a reaction. Yes I can track it better, but no, i can't see it as well. I still should ultimately have the opportunity to project maximum damage under certain conditions. Your proposal removes the possibility of maximum damage potential. Essentially your plan as I have understood it would suggest that a cannon ball would somehow mysteriously lose damage potential just because it was aimed at a fly instead of a building. The power should always be there, the difficulty accessing it should be the goal. Your solution does not aim for this, mine does. I'm not sure that you're talking about the thing I'm talking about. My above-quoted post isn't about "damage falloff based on sig", it's about the attribute called "falloff" that guns already have.
I know the difference between the two, but earlier you suggested the difference in sig of the gun and sig of the target result in a falloff in damage similar to missiles. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1051
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 10:41:00 -
[358] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm Down wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm Down wrote: dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.
[much text].
This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected). . The idea of reducing damage simply because of sig size is unrealistic and very short sighted about combat. That means you can manipulate the damage further with target painters, etc while not reaching the objective of difficulty hitting outside a comfort zone. Basically, what you've suggested is a means of bypassing eve mechanics. My fix is aimed at working within the mechanics, but actually making sense of what they are meant to do. Ships should not simply get a damage boost because of range. For every action, there is a reaction. Yes I can track it better, but no, i can't see it as well. I still should ultimately have the opportunity to project maximum damage under certain conditions. Your proposal removes the possibility of maximum damage potential. Essentially your plan as I have understood it would suggest that a cannon ball would somehow mysteriously lose damage potential just because it was aimed at a fly instead of a building. The power should always be there, the difficulty accessing it should be the goal. Your solution does not aim for this, mine does. I'm not sure that you're talking about the thing I'm talking about. My above-quoted post isn't about "damage falloff based on sig", it's about the attribute called "falloff" that guns already have. I know the difference between the two, but earlier you suggested the difference in sig of the gun and sig of the target result in a falloff in damage similar to missiles.
Yup, but that's not the concern I have with your above suggestion, hence the clarification of my meaning |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 10:47:00 -
[359] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Innominate wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Harotak wrote:I personally like the idea of completely removing supercap ewar immunity. This is actually something we're evaluating at the moment, alongside a large built-in WCS bonus. The big issue is that it also makes it possible to use assistance modules on them (tracking links etc) which potentially undoes all the benefits. How big of a WCS bonus? The whole reason that the ewar immunity removal can work is that it would force supercaps to control the field in order to leave, rather than being able to simply clear a few dictors and bail. +2 to stop one random rifter from catching a titan is one thing, while +10 would effectively be a supercap boost as the size of existing titan blobs makes jamming all of them impractical. Yeah, there's no reason for supercaps to have any WCS bonus. These are combat ships designed for PVP, they're not haulers or miners. Supercaps aren't special; no ship is. Promoting stabbed PVP in this fashion is absurd and fundamentally against not only the stated aim for supercaps to act as support to subcapitals, but it's also against one of the core tenets of Eve - that one newbie in a frigate really can make a difference.
I'd like to hear a CCP response to these points. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1051
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 11:13:00 -
[360] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Innominate wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Harotak wrote:I personally like the idea of completely removing supercap ewar immunity. This is actually something we're evaluating at the moment, alongside a large built-in WCS bonus. The big issue is that it also makes it possible to use assistance modules on them (tracking links etc) which potentially undoes all the benefits. How big of a WCS bonus? The whole reason that the ewar immunity removal can work is that it would force supercaps to control the field in order to leave, rather than being able to simply clear a few dictors and bail. +2 to stop one random rifter from catching a titan is one thing, while +10 would effectively be a supercap boost as the size of existing titan blobs makes jamming all of them impractical. Yeah, there's no reason for supercaps to have any WCS bonus. These are combat ships designed for PVP, they're not haulers or miners. Supercaps aren't special; no ship is. Promoting stabbed PVP in this fashion is absurd and fundamentally against not only the stated aim for supercaps to act as support to subcapitals, but it's also against one of the core tenets of Eve - that one newbie in a frigate really can make a difference. I'd like to hear a CCP response to these points.
Not a a bonus to WCS, but rather a built-in thing like Blockade Runners have, so they're more vulnerable to tackling but can't be tackled by a single rifter, because that would be too big a balance swing for us to be comfortable with right now, particularly on top of the mooted already-huge EW-immunity removal. The reason we're considering immunity-removal is that it allows you to tracking-disrupt or sensor-damp titans, rather than to make them hugely vulnerable to warp disruption. Even if we gave them a built-in strength of 50, it's still a pretty sizable numeric nerf as we go from needing infinity MWDing rifters to ~13 to tackle a titan, and the infinite-strength point from bubbles, dictors and hictor points still work as currently.
Also, most ships are special in some regard, and titans more than most. That's why ship selection is interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |