Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 15:01:00 -
[1]
Edited by: CCP Nozh on 17/10/2008 15:02:53 We are currently testing a new missile damage formula to address the issues mentioned here.
As before ships are still protected from larger missiles by their signature radius. When going sufficiently fast, the damage taken from missiles is reduced by the signature radius to speed ratio, rather than just speed: going faster, or reducing the signature radius will reduce missile damage further. For a ship with the same signature radius as the missile's explosion radius, the missile's explosion velocity indicates the speed at which the missile damage starts to get reduced. The new formula allows for speed tanking using afterburners. In fact, afterburners will in general be more effective than microwarpdrive for speed tanking missiles since they decrease the signature radius to speed ratio more than microwarpdrives do.
We've been looking at changing the signature radius bonus on interceptors to a reduction in MWD signature radius penalty, in order to boost their MWD speed tanking capabilities.
The current missile stats are still a bit rough, but we're confident that we can address the missile issues with the new formula.
We're going to be working hard (crunching) on getting missiles properly balanced during the next week. We'll be updating the server almost daily with tweaks.
So if you want to have input on the missile changes, now is the time.
The new missile damage formula has been running on Singularity for a week now, but the missile damage values have been constantly changing (from now on I'll try to post any changes we do here). Agility on ships has also been recalculated based on mass, instead of mass + MWD mass penalty.
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:20:00 -
[2]
Can we actually have the formula? It will be worked out in a few weeks anyway surely it would be advisable for testers to have it now so that they can suggest tweaks more directly and issues can be identified.
Or we can just guess, which is certainly more fun but doesn't make for very effective bug reporting.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:25:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Can we actually have the formula? It will be worked out in a few weeks anyway surely it would be advisable for testers to have it now so that they can suggest tweaks more directly and issues can be identified.
Or we can just guess, which is certainly more fun but doesn't make for very effective bug reporting.
This, i would love to know what the actual formula is.
|
Toolivus
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:28:00 -
[4]
yeah, knowing what the formula is would help us test if it's intent is balanced, not just if the implementation is balanced.
(spell check covers me drunk posts, oh my()
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:31:00 -
[5]
Yeah, it would be immensely helpful if you could publish the new formula, please.
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:49:00 -
[6]
At the moment, similar missile types (cruises/torps, hams/heavies, rockets/lights) share the same explosion velocity and explosion radius - is this intended?
__________
Originally by: Tortun Nahme nah, that is the true badge of a forum warrior, to draw the humorous ire of the devs
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:53:00 -
[7]
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.
|
BlackHorizon
Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:56:00 -
[8]
Actually, CCP should never release the formulae. That would ruin all the fun.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 16:58:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate At the moment, similar missile types (cruises/torps, hams/heavies, rockets/lights) share the same explosion velocity and explosion radius - is this intended?
Probably. Consider that tracking on turrets is offset by an increase in range. So that the ships ought to be able to hit things going the same speed in an different range.
So with rockets/lights you trade damage for range, but don't change the damage reduction. With beams to pulse lasers you trade range for damage, but don't change the speed at which damage reduction occurs, only where it occurs. At least, that would be the theory.
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 17:19:00 -
[10]
Well, the reason I ask is mainly because the explosion radius of your standard cruise has nearly doubled (to 533m) and the explosion velocity has also dropped sharply (but it has for all missiles). If cruises are going to be the same as torps in all regards except for reduced DPS and longer range, it's going to be widely perceived as a significant nerf to your standard missionrunning raven
Of course, on the other hand a lot of the t2 missiles don't even have the proper stats put in place yet (eg, full drawbacks but no benefits), so I'm just trying to see at what point Nozh is in his rebalancing __________
Originally by: Tortun Nahme nah, that is the true badge of a forum warrior, to draw the humorous ire of the devs
|
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 17:30:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Can we actually have the formula? It will be worked out in a few weeks anyway surely it would be advisable for testers to have it now so that they can suggest tweaks more directly and issues can be identified.
Or we can just guess, which is certainly more fun but doesn't make for very effective bug reporting.
We won't be releasing the formula to the public (we never have), what we're trying to achieve with the public testing is balance testing rather than functional testing. We know the missile damage formula works.
How do you guys feel the damage scales between classes atm?
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 17:40:00 -
[12]
>_> your going to make us re-derive it. Thats no fun
|
Pattern Clarc
Naglihiem
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 17:46:00 -
[13]
Thank goodness.
You've gone 1/3 of the way to actually addressing the real issue, I look forward to testing this over the coming days...
|
Toolivus
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 17:55:00 -
[14]
I would offer to help people to gather data to derive the formula but the patch is huuuuuuuuge unless I'm seeing more one's than I should so that'll take a whole heap of time. message me on sisi or tq (or shc) with times you're available if you need someone to help gather data (I don't have t2 of any missiles but I can shoot all the t1 ones; I can also be a target of roughly any subcap size you want so v0v).
but make it tomoorrow because I'll be fighting a shitty hangover tooth and nail for a whiole..
|
Rex Lashar
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 18:36:00 -
[15]
Well first off, did you actually change the missile formula?
It looks more like you made signature radius of greater relevance than it was, while ensuring missile damage falloff starts taking effect sooner (specifically, even before the ship's base speed).
These are good changes, especially being able to use an afterburner on AFs. I also agree that the interceptors bonus would need to be changed, otherwise you're really just nerfing them in an era where they're of marginal use to fleets. By changing the mwd penalty, this would have the nice side effect of interceptors being smaller to turret ships as well.
From the stats, what I can deduce is that cruise are only more effective against small things than torpedoes due to missile falloff. Anything moving more than 1km/s is going to take far less damage from torps. Which is good. I'll post feedback when sisi gets back up.
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 18:43:00 -
[16]
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
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 19:14:00 -
[17]
Originally by: MalVortex
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
Posting just to support people who actually test the changes. I can't atm, i'm not at home :( ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
MyOwnSling
Gallente RONA Corporation RONA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 19:32:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Batolemaeus Posting just to support people who actually test the changes. I can't atm, i'm not at home :(
Yes. Changes sound very interesting. I look forward to the results. ------------- Stop whining.
Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face...
|
Grim Vandal
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 19:55:00 -
[19]
The best dmg reduction is achieved with an active afterburner.
The mwd can also reduce the dmg somewhat as soon as you reach higher speeds but initial you take more dmg compared to not using one.
I like these changes very much because it was time that the mwd wouldnt deliver both good sides = overall speed and speed tank compared to the AB which always had less speed AND a non existent speed tank against missiles
The in module balance is very well achieved this way in my opinion however the results eg. for interceptors needs be thoroughly tested.
Greetings Grim |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 20:39:00 -
[20]
The key balancing issues are the damage done by oversize missiles against smaller ships, and the damage done by missiles against ABing or MWDing ships, with and without web applied. It's tedious to test these things on Sisi, because it involves fiddling with fits, checking logs, getting people with the right skills etc. - but all this can be done easily on a spreadsheet.
I understand why you don't want to publish the formula, but the formula will be derived in due course, and telling us it now would allow us to quickly and easily infer the balance in situations of interest. It would be really helpful.
|
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 20:44:00 -
[21]
Did the old system not have a sliding bar thingy on the noob introduction jobby showing dmg to speed to sig radius for noobs just joining?. You kinda slid this thing and it showed damages in relation to speed and sig?.
How is that not the same as giving out the formula?.
|
Captain Longshlong
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 22:08:00 -
[22]
Hypothetical scenario: solo pirate in a Stabber jumps into a random camp. Drakes/Ravens provide their DPS. Pirate tries to burn away from the camp with MWD... (Since I don't think afterburning away from a camp will EVER be an option.)
What happens?
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 22:12:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Captain Longshlong Hypothetical scenario: solo pirate in a Stabber jumps into a random camp. Drakes/Ravens provide their DPS. Pirate tries to burn away from the camp with MWD... (Since I don't think afterburning away from a camp will EVER be an option.)
What happens?
Stabber go splat.....but then that is what would have happened now on tq if the camp had a bit of tackle with it.
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 22:36:00 -
[24]
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.
|
Darth Skorpius
The Crow Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 22:39:00 -
[25]
i knew something was idfferent hwen i logged in last night after dt to see if weapon linking had been fixed and noticed my ravens cruise missles were now virtually useless against npc frigs and even some cruisers. initial volleys were great as the npcs werent moving, but after that, the cruise missile damage was cut in halve against frigs and cruisers, gonna log in again now and do some testing against battleship npcs as well as testing with a drake
bunnies stole my sig |
Rex Lashar
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 22:47:00 -
[26]
As I said elsewhere, ceptors are probably not a good test right now. The sig radius reduction bonus is probably going to change with a mwd sig penalty reduction bonus.
CCP, PLEASE CONSIDER: Give Interceptors a velocity bonus to afterburners, that puts them on par with the MWD. That would make them insanely hard to hit to oversized turrets and not just missiles. They wouldn't be better fleet tacklers than Interdictors, but at least they'd be a lot more survivable than they are currently. That seems like a fair tradeoff for being able to tackle only one target at a time.
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 22:51:00 -
[27]
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.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 23:29:00 -
[28]
Originally by: MalVortex 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.
I can see why CCP wouldn't want to release the formula, as some people will start basing their opinions on it rather than the actual in-game experience of it. It's a pity we all get lumped into that category though.
Hopefully it will be figured out by some smart player before release as it may take just a few mins for a community member to spot a glaring hole in it that has been overlooked during our blindfolded testing. I'd much rather this kind of thing was found before implementation than allowed to go live to be figured out later and exploited for months before being rectified.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 00:02:00 -
[29]
Hey Nozh, what about large blaster tracking?
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Stafen
Killer Koalas
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 01:20:00 -
[30]
Well I have been playing around with a heavy missile caracal shooting at various ships.
It seems the damage formula looks like the following: ( Not fully correct, but is close enough to get the feel how it works )
Damage = max(1,ship_sig/Exp_rad) * exp{ -k * max(v - v0,0)^0.25 }
where
ship_sig = Ship's Signature Exp_rad = Missile Explosion radius v = ship's speed
Now v0 and k are functions of the ships signature and the explosion velocity.
v0 is interesting as it is the speed you have to go at to start decreasing missile damage.
As said by Nozh if you ship sig == explosion velocity then v0 = explosion velocity.
I did a few tests to see how v0 varied. I used a afterburner claw and a afterburner stabber.
Ship Sig / v0 24 / 565 - claw 105 / 247 - stabber 141 / 210.6 - explosion vel / explosion rad
So as you can see smaller the ship signature the faster you need to go to start decreasing missile damage.
This is bad for small fast ships (interceptors).
I have not tested what happens when your ship signature becomes bigger then the explosion radius. (ie. fast big ships) I am guessing v0 must have a minimum which equals the explosion radius otherwise things would get unbalanced.
Now I need to gather more data, but sis is now offline so it will have to wait.
Hope I am clear enough so at least someone can understand me.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |