| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
MalVortex
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
   |
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:53:00 -
[1]
My Excel spreadsheets demand the formula! :)
Well, I already made a feedback thread on it, but currently interceptors (or anything w/ a MWD really) are skull-****ed by missiles. Precision Heavies really have no business 2 shotting an interceptor. Granted, that might already have been addressed with the missile tweaks you've mentioned Nozh (I ran the tests the moment the changes were up), but the potential for all frigates going worthless scares me a bit.
Afterburning, even with these changes, is still going to be niche because you can't maneuver on-grid. Sure, you can get under a battleship and /dance, but tackling that battleship 30km off suddenly just got a lot more suicidal/impossible. I say this to caution against making AB's *the* speed-tanking module, for there are many ships that require MWDs to do their job in any reasonable fashion.
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 17:40:00 -
[2]
>_> your going to make us re-derive it. Thats no fun 
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 18:43:00 -
[3]
Its been completley rewritten. The old one looked at the worst case scenario of speed or signature radius only, and missile explosion falloff was simply a constant used to define the rate of damage dropoff in TV > MEV scenarios.
Nozh's post indicates its a much more give and take relationship with signature radius and missile velocity. Which is why the formula would be nice to have, so we don't have to muddle through setups but can actually test breakpoints and see how the new signature radius vs. velocity ratios shape up.
========
Very very early testing (I will get a full spreadsheet going today hopefully) shows that the new stats are much better than the first incarnation. Bomber vs. inty was actually a challenge for both 
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 22:36:00 -
[4]
Edited by: MalVortex on 17/10/2008 22:37:09
Edited by: MalVortex on 17/10/2008 22:36:33
A corpmate and I just completed comprehensive interceptor vs. Missile damage testing.
Results are Here
Hope you like spreadsheets.
edit: I can type. Really.
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 22:51:00 -
[5]
Interceptors were chosen for three reasons:
1) They are very sensitive to missile changes, and are a widely flown ship. Compared to "nano-hacs", they still rely solely on speed tanking.
2) They can play with their signature radius from lol-small to medium extremely easily. This makes them a natural test bed for signature-radius related experiments. Like missiles.
3) They were previouslly ****d by missiles in the last iteration. With that data we can see progression in the changes for better or worse.
4) Even if they got a signature radius bonus to MWD, we now have empirical data to see if it was enough or too much. PLUS, this provides evidence on whether they need it at all or not.
I might add more ships later. Your welcome to go do your own tests and post them too - don't' complain that I didn't chose your favored setup.
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 22:01:00 -
[6]
A stealth bomber with torpedos would be completley worthless. You woudn't alpha anything, you'd be in sub 20km range at max, and your DPS would be only a minor improvement.
The signature radius bonus to cruise makes SBs an equal match for intys - a roll they long have been denied. Having a cloaking, insta-locking anti-frigate isn't a bad roll now that they can engage interceptors due to the new missile damage formula.
|
| |
|