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) |
Destiny Calling
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:52:00 -
[91] - Quote
oh hey look my 100 billion isk ship is useful again.
|
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
255
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:52:00 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:pmchem wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:pmchem 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.
In the current formula, if target transversal is zero and the target is within falloff range, then the exponent in chancetohit = 0.5^(exponent) will be zero and the chancetohit will be = 1. However, if you added a new term in the exponent (or as a prefactor), then you could have it so chancetohit is less than 1 if the turretsigres is much larger than the targetsigrad. For example, add a third term to the exponent where the value of the term is zero if targetsigrad > turretsigres, and a large number when targetsidrad is zero. This value would have to be added, not multiplied (as is done in the first term in the exponent). If you wanted to do this as a prefactor, you would have a smoothly decaying function where if targetsigrad > turretsigres the function = 1, but if targetsigrad = 0 then the prefactor = 0. This is often done in classical molecular dynamics for cutoff or switching functions. I could write up a couple example formulas for either case if you're interested, (but it may take me a bit, I have work too!). It seems like it'd be just as easy just to introduce a sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets, which takes you to approximately the same expected DPS in most situations but in a more consistent manner, and with the advantage that we can use much simpler math (linear/quadratic scaling) so the average user has a better chance of being able to estimate the likely outcomes. In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now. Sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets (basically making that damage calculation partially similar to how missiles are handled) would also be a fine solution. For more discussion about my suggestion and other sigrad based talk, please see cynonet two's thread in jita speaker's park ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=55493 ). That OP is very good. In regards to target painters, there is a stacking limit to target painting effects and it would be possible -- and hopefully not difficult -- to rebalance both XL turret sigres and capital/supercap sigrad to further differentiate those massive ships from tiny little subcaps. It would be entirely possible to have it so no number of TPs would help XL turrets hit a battleship. I haven't run the numbers (I'm away from EFT) but the changes required may be minor or even non-existent, if a proper sigrad function was chosen. I understand the desire to avoid special-casing. But, I would counter that the amount of adjustments made to both XL tracking and Titans so far in an effort to balance them make this worth it. It's a problem which must be addressed, and tracking nerfs have proven to be an ineffective path. Besides, who says XL guns aren't special? These are huge, massive turrets and it's just really hard for them to accurately target such a small ship. It fits right in with player understanding of how turrets _should_ work -- big turrets have a real hard time hitting small things. Once you get to a massive differential with XL turrets shooting subcaps, this difficulty would be made explicit (regardless of transversal). Yeah, fair enough. We'll have another look into this, although I'm concerned that the amount we'd have to add to sig radii (and not just all caps, but all starbase mods as well) to put XL turrets safely north of TP-stacking limits might end up being problematic. Also, can you guys please stop +1ing - if you're under the impression that we're doing balance work based on how many posts there are in a thread you're barking up the wrong forest never mind the wrong tree. I'd hate to have to get someone to come in and clean the thread.
All we can ask is that CCP takes another look. I honestly believe it's a good and fair solution, and that it may perhaps be less work than first estimated. A roleplaying or game mechanic explanation for XL turrets being unable to hit Rifters would be quite sensible and believable. Thanks.
(note: had to delete the first quoted post here, too many levels of quotes!) |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
687
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:53:00 -
[93] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:EnderCapitalG wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".
Are you screwing with me? Citadel Cruise missiles hilariously low amounts of damage due to their explosion velocity and radius against subcapitals. CCP Greyscale wrote:La Dasha wrote: If that was really the case, then Leviathans would be used for subcap blapping with TP/web support.
I suspect the larger problem for missile-blapping is that the target has plenty of time to warp out, and you end up firing a lot of missiles at not very much. Yay context.
Everyone loves graphs, right?
Here's one: http://i.imgur.com/ipTTd.png
This Leviathan can only apply 1/8th its effective damage against a MWD Maelstrom.
Any turret titan can apply 100% of the damage. |
Snot Shot
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
Spiff O'Tool wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:... We're aware that this is going to reduce the overall efficacy * of the changes, but we feel that the scan resolution reduction had too much of a negative impact on the titan's other options, and we're not happy with any of the other possible changes we'd previously considered. ... Are you still planning on fixing the Titan blob vs subcaps "somehow", just not in this way? Or are you reversing your entire position on Titan blobs? I think the response to this one would be to GÇ£Log in your Capitals!GÇ¥GǪGǪGǪGǪGǪGǪjust because youGÇÖre too scared to log them in doesnGÇÖt mean those who do should be penalized for nothing else to shoot on the filed except your subcapsGǪ. . 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
|
Calmoto
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:55:00 -
[95] - Quote
your "nerf" isnt going to work
the people we fight atm dont even use webs and tps to kill us
post nerf a little effort on their part and its like nothing even happened
andf its only you who is going to look stupid for doing things half assed |
Shadoo
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
150
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:56:00 -
[96] - Quote
Thanks for the update, I think this will somewhat retain the currently stated role for anti-capital combat after the change viable when fit for capital combat.
I hope that you will take the time to spend more time on the ship in the very near future and consider carefully if you'd like to try to somehow try to fit this ship to a combat role given the age/wealth of the players in the EVE universe.
It just seems like you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with the Titan Combat role, and timescales/budgets allowing can find the resources needed to give this wonderful "end game" ship a unique and exciting role that truly benefits the collective, not the indivitual who choose to field them.
In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-capital role -- 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 while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?) |
Shadooing Some Metagaming
Zerg Hatchery
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:57:00 -
[97] - Quote
Shadoo wrote:Thanks for the update, I think this will somewhat retain the currently stated role for anti-capital combat after the change viable when fit for capital combat.
I hope that you will take the time to spend more time on the ship in the very near future and consider carefully if you'd like to try to somehow try to fit this ship to a combat role given the age/wealth of the players in the EVE universe.
It just seems like you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with the Titan Combat role, and timescales/budgets allowing can find the resources needed to give this wonderful "end game" ship a unique and exciting role that truly benefits the collective, not the indivitual who choose to field them.
In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-capital role -- 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 while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?) I agree with everything this illustrious poster has said |
Kyle Myr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
191
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:57:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: ... Yeah, fair enough. We'll have another look into this, although I'm concerned that the amount we'd have to add to sig radii (and not just all caps, but all starbase mods as well) to put XL turrets safely north of TP-stacking limits might end up being problematic.
Also, can you guys please stop +1ing - if you're under the impression that we're doing balance work based on how many posts there are in a thread you're barking up the wrong forest never mind the wrong tree. I'd hate to have to get someone to come in and clean the thread.
There is an impression that the iterative balance process we know is occurring with Titans out of cycle due to their strong impact on the game may be stopping short due to the many posts in the previously mentioned thread in your OP. I am simply posting in this thread to point out mechanical changes which use currently existing formulas to solve this problem.
Given that capitals have signature radii of ~3000 while capital guns have signatures of ~1250, and that all of these ships move at a rate where velocity does not factor into the equation terribly much (or at all, in the case of star base mods), there may be room to play with this formula. I don't have a spreadsheet of all relevant interactions in front of me, so I can't say for certain that there would be no problems, but considering the severity of the problem and previously proposed solutions, I'm simply saying that another look may uncover some new ground.
I'm not trying to have a seance to call up CCP Phantom, unmaker of threads. I feel that a reasonable discussion of balance here can bring about changes which keep Titans in a useful anti-capital role while removing their ability to counter all other ships when massed. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:01:00 -
[99] - Quote
Shadoo wrote: In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-support role -- 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 while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?)
Right here. A titan fix that works using existing mechanics and completely avoids the more difficult problems.
|
Kyle Myr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
191
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:02:00 -
[100] - Quote
Shadoo wrote:Thanks for the update, I think this will somewhat retain the currently stated role for anti-capital combat after the change viable when fit for capital combat.
I hope that you will take the time to work on the ship in the very near future and consider carefully if you'd still like to try to somehow fit this ship to a combat role given the age/wealth of the players in the EVE universe.
It just seems like you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with the Titan Combat role, and timescales/budgets allowing can find the resources needed to give this wonderful "end game" ship a unique and exciting role that truly benefits the collective, not the indivitual who choose to field them.
In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-support role -- 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 while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?)
Once again, Shadoo proposes a perfectly reasonable solution.
This would retain the unique ability of Titans, make them a solid anti-capital platform, and give them a fair amount of utility with which to use the rest of their high slots.
I can see this being something of a last resort, as it puts Titan combat abilities outside of the normal realm of EVE combat, but making the doomsday device something more of a regular use weapon than a 10-minute cycling deathtrap. |
|
Tergerom Loregeron
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:03:00 -
[101] - Quote
Shadoo wrote:Thanks for the update, I think this will somewhat retain the currently stated role for anti-capital combat after the change viable when fit for capital combat.
I hope that you will take the time to work on the ship in the very near future and consider carefully if you'd still like to try to somehow fit this ship to a combat role given the age/wealth of the players in the EVE universe.
It just seems like you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with the Titan Combat role, and timescales/budgets allowing can find the resources needed to give this wonderful "end game" ship a unique and exciting role that truly benefits the collective, not the indivitual who choose to field them.
In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-support role -- 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 while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?)
Watching the doomsday fire more often AND fixing blapping?
Yes please
snipe |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
539
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:03:00 -
[102] - Quote
Shadoo wrote: In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-support role -- 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 while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?)
plagiarist!
But yeah that's probably our best option at this point. |
Joe D'Trader
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:04:00 -
[103] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:EnderCapitalG wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".
Are you screwing with me? Citadel Cruise missiles hilariously low amounts of damage due to their explosion velocity and radius against subcapitals. CCP Greyscale wrote:La Dasha wrote: If that was really the case, then Leviathans would be used for subcap blapping with TP/web support.
I suspect the larger problem for missile-blapping is that the target has plenty of time to warp out, and you end up firing a lot of missiles at not very much. Yay context.
And he's saying nobody would warp out. He got your context, he was saying it was incorrect even in the context you used it. Large fleet fights people die, most of the time not tackled because we simply don't warp out. For titans in particular we don't have time to care if on of the 300+ ships shooting at us is a titan. Furthermore the Levi doesn't do much damage to subcaps, so even if there was a special case where it was small enough to see that a Levi was shooting a subcap, the subcap pilot wouldn't warp out, because :lol capital missiles:. |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:07:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:...
Also, can you guys please stop +1ing - if you're under the impression that we're doing balance work based on how many posts there are in a thread you're barking up the wrong forest never mind the wrong tree. I'd hate to have to get someone to come in and clean the thread. If you do not respect that your subscribers believe a design idea has merit (hence their +1 support), then why even bother putting up a dev blog forum thread to which players can reply?
If by "clean up" you mean remove subscriber input, then your lack of respect for your customer base is the same as it has been for the past several years. Your hubris is evidence that CCP's old guard is still set in its pre-2011 layoff ways and that does not bode well for EVE's or CCP's future. 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:08:00 -
[105] - Quote
I updated my previous ~Graph~ post. Here's a graph with resists added in (our maelstrom fitting has its largets resist to Kinetic due to drakes, so I'm going with the Biggest Buffer option, which will default to kinetic):
http://i.imgur.com/FOp7y.png |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1018
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:09:00 -
[106] - Quote
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:...
Also, can you guys please stop +1ing - if you're under the impression that we're doing balance work based on how many posts there are in a thread you're barking up the wrong forest never mind the wrong tree. I'd hate to have to get someone to come in and clean the thread. If you do not respect that your subscribers believe a design idea has merit (hence their +1 support), then why even bother putting up a dev blog forum thread to which players can reply? If by "clean up" you mean remove subscriber input, then your lack of respect for your customer base is the same as it has been for the past several years. Your hubris is evidence that CCP's old guard is still set in its pre-2011 layoff ways and that does not bode well for EVE's or CCP's future.
A good idea is a good idea and stands on its own. All +1ing - and particularly the kind of high-volume +1ing that we were seeing earlier in this thread, and I'm sure it was entirely a coincidence that a whole bunch of Goon/Test pilots dived into the thread within minutes to +1 it - does is make the thread harder to read, and more likely that a good idea gets lost in the deluge of posts. |
|
Ivana Twinkle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
175
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:10:00 -
[107] - Quote
It doesn't seem logical that a guy tasked with fixing titan weapons, is also a guy who doesn't appear to know how they function and what effects they have. :smith: |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
256
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:10:00 -
[108] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Shadoo wrote: In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-support role -- 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 while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?)
Right here. A titan fix that works using existing mechanics and completely avoids the more difficult problems.
The only immediate problem with Shadoo's proposal is that Titans would lose the ability to shoot structures. Their DPS on POS shots would be missed. However, Titan pilots may often be just fine with not being able to shoot POS...
Balancing the DD/cycle damage would take a few iterations but be possible to eventually get right. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1018
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:10:00 -
[109] - Quote
EnderCapitalG wrote:I updated my previous ~Graph~ post. Here's a graph with resists added in (our maelstrom fitting has its largets resist to Kinetic due to drakes, so I'm going with the Biggest Buffer option, which will default to kinetic): http://i.imgur.com/FOp7y.png
Can you do me one with say double-web/triple-TP? |
|
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
256
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:12:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:...
Also, can you guys please stop +1ing - if you're under the impression that we're doing balance work based on how many posts there are in a thread you're barking up the wrong forest never mind the wrong tree. I'd hate to have to get someone to come in and clean the thread. If you do not respect that your subscribers believe a design idea has merit (hence their +1 support), then why even bother putting up a dev blog forum thread to which players can reply? If by "clean up" you mean remove subscriber input, then your lack of respect for your customer base is the same as it has been for the past several years. Your hubris is evidence that CCP's old guard is still set in its pre-2011 layoff ways and that does not bode well for EVE's or CCP's future. A good idea is a good idea and stands on its own. All +1ing - and particularly the kind of high-volume +1ing that we were seeing earlier in this thread, and I'm sure it was entirely a coincidence that a whole bunch of Goon/Test pilots dived into the thread within minutes to +1 it - does is make the thread harder to read, and more likely that a good idea gets lost in the deluge of posts.
For what it's worth, I posted the link to the thread in a couple jabber channels but there was no broadcast, no asking for replies, no asking for support, or anything. People really just feel that strongly about the issue. |
|
Calmoto
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:12:00 -
[111] - Quote
People really dont like things that affects them getting nerfed, so when CCP says its going to nerf something thats broken ofcourse we are going to chime in, because we aint going to get more than 1 chance and if you screw that up because you dont understand the problem then we all lose. |
Saints12
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:12:00 -
[112] - Quote
give me a bucket all these goons tears!!!!! |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:12:00 -
[113] - Quote
pmchem wrote: The only immediate problem with Shadoo's proposal is that Titans would lose the ability to shoot structures. Their DPS on POS shots would be missed. However, Titan pilots may often be just fine with not being able to shoot POS...
I fail to see how requiring alliances to field dreads instead of just titans is a bad thing.
|
Shadoo
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
155
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:12:00 -
[114] - Quote
BTW -- just to be clear, a titan with turrets removed and DD dmg/cycle boosted would massively benefit entities with significant number of titans to a point of being fairly broken from overall game mechanics perspective
If I fielded 50 titans + 200 carriers w/sentries in that model, there's not a whole lot of anything anyone in EVE could do about it -- unless they brought more titans themselves. The supercarrier role would in that model be fairly limited to structure-only game, since a few titans would just DD blap a SC fleet fairly efficiently given the massive alpha from DDs.
So I'm not suggesting it's a good change, but it would accomplish the currently stated objective for the titan to be purely anti-capital combat ship.
I'd just wish that the proper resources are dedicated to Greyscale and the team to put he 2-3 devs on this to rework the ship completely and just move it out of the combat role because no matter how you twist this -- the ship just will always be OP given the number of them that exist and their concentration in few alliances in EVE. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
256
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:14:00 -
[115] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Shadoo wrote: In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-support role -- 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 while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?)
plagiarist!But yeah that's probably our best option at this point.
that link has yet another good cynonet two post. Not trying to +1, but people often don't click on links unless urged to do so. |
stavi shaushu
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:15:00 -
[116] - Quote
Delicious goon tears in this thread.
Bottom line - changes in game mechanics should not be made to make happy only one alliance in Eve. |
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
92
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:16:00 -
[117] - Quote
We should not nerf scan res on titans, but decrease their tracking abilities even more. Down to 25% or less of what they currently are. When a titan nails a subcap it should be an awesome lucky shot that totally annihilates the subcap. Drugs and implants shouldn't affect capital sized vessels (boosters, slave, snake, etc), and armor supers should be rebalanced to compensate for the lack of slaves.
The goal here is to let them still play effectively in the anti-capital role they were designed for (which they don't need tracking for) |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
213
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:16:00 -
[118] - Quote
Shadoo wrote:BTW -- just to be clear, a titan with turrets removed and DD dmg/cycle boosted would massively benefit entities with significant number of titans to a point of being fairly broken from overall game mechanics perspective
If I fielded 50 titans + 200 carriers w/sentries in that model, there's not a whole lot of anything anyone in EVE could do about it -- unless they brought more titans themselves. The supercarrier role would in that model be fairly limited to structure-only game, since a few titans would just DD blap a SC fleet fairly efficiently given the massive alpha from DDs.
So I'm not suggesting it's a good change, but it would accomplish the currently stated objective for the titan to be purely anti-capital combat ship.
I'd just wish that the proper resources are dedicated to Greyscale and the team to put he 2-3 devs on this to rework the ship completely and just move it out of the combat role because no matter how you twist this -- the ship just will always be OP given the number of them that exist and their concentration in few alliances in EVE.
Don't boost damage: reduce cycle. |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:19:00 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:EnderCapitalG wrote:I updated my previous ~Graph~ post. Here's a graph with resists added in (our maelstrom fitting has its largets resist to Kinetic due to drakes, so I'm going with the Biggest Buffer option, which will default to kinetic): http://i.imgur.com/FOp7y.png Can you do me one with say double-web/triple-TP?
Raw EHP: http://i.imgur.com/Q7gWs.png
Resists added: http://i.imgur.com/wUfQ7.png |
Kyle Myr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:21:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Kyle Myr wrote:Ok, I understand the context of your post, but warping in and out isn't necessary mechanically against Titan missiles currently. The damage formula alone means that small, fast ships with low signature radii are able to speed tank their weaponry. Yup. However, it is likely to be a primary reason why nobody's bothered to set up blapleviathans with TP/web support (aside from the fact that you'd need either lots of officer webs or a paper-thin recon to actually pull it off, rather than just slapping a TPII in a mid), which was the discussion we were having. Again, yay for context.
I think we agree, but because of the fact that your posts are necessarily short, I'll break it down:
The damage formula for missiles scales very well with target size and velocity, such that capital missiles from Titans (which get a bonus to damage normally, unlike Dreadnought's sieged damage bonuses, which are balanced by the drawbacks of siege) do minimal damage to small signature targets moving quickly. This is fine, as 'mass Leviathans' are unable to kill all sub capital ships without support, as they do not do exponentially stacking damage as amassed.
Your suggestion, for a 'blapping Leviathan' would involve the use of Target Painters and Webs, which are currently unnecessary for Turret based Titans to do large amounts of damage to sub-capitals, due to the fact signature radius on Turrets is not as significant as explosion signature on capital missiles, and because Angular Velocity is relative, as opposed to the absolute nature of linear velocity, so that for a larger group of spread out Titans (which is the issue, not solo Titans), angular velocity approaches 0 for one of these turret titans, and thus this numerical factor in the damage formula approaches 1 (which is to say, it is not possible to decrease damage this way).
To do the equivalent of this using webs and target painters would not be unreasonable, but it would require a significant support fleet of Target Painting carriers (which has already been proposed as the 'counter' to the since scrapped signature radius change) or a large amount of Carriers or Huginns using faction webs (as mentioned, Rapiers are paper thin, and while Huginns are far from invulnerable even with carrier reps, they at least can be tanked). Even still, with stacking penalties, ship velocity would not be reduced to 0, and this mechanical setup still requires a support fleet, something which current turret titans are perfectly fine operating without.
As far as I can tell, the 'goal' of these changes is to give Titans a role while operating with a support fleet, and as an anti-capital platform. Reducing tracking and the number of targets they are capable of locking goes part of the way towards this, but the underlying problem deals with the relative angular velocity of anything versus a spread out blob of turret titans (0), versus the absolute velocity of any ship versus a missile (not 0). This is evident in all the killmails of sub capitals killed by Titans. |
|
|
|
|
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 |