| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
   |
Posted - 2008.10.19 11:25:00 -
[1]
Awesome work. Now I can test balance just with a spreadsheet, without having to faff about with ship fits, resists etc. 
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 11:49:00 -
[2]
If would be awesome if you could check that this holds for HAMs and torps as well, please.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 20:37:00 -
[3]
A basic feature of the new formula is that your target must have a sig radius greater than the explosion radius of your missile for full damage to be dealt. This is the same as the current TQ formula.
However, the converse is not true - if your taregt is going faster than your missile's explosion velocity, then full damage can still be dealt if the target's sig is sufficiently bigger than your missile's explosion radius - achievable by painting or MWD sig bloom.
Cruise missiles now have an explosion radius of 533 m (400 m with GMP V). This makes a Cruise Raven pretty crappy in its antisupport role - a Falcon will get a much greater reduction in damage than currently the case.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 10:22:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Rip Striker
Perhaps heavy missile (with increased time and velocity) ships will fulfill that role? To me it seems that CCP wants to:
Cruise missile Raven - Anti support BC/BS
Heavy missile Cerberus - Anti support Cruiser
Imo, as is should be...that is, no way a cruise Raven should outperform a heavy Cerberus when taking out cruiser sized ships.
Your logic is sound in principle. However, the problem is that there aren't really any support BC/BS (well the Cruise Raven itself is one) - it's typically HACs and Recons doing the stand-off DPS and ewar support. Now certainly the Cerberus should be more effective than a Cruise Raven against those ships - but currently I believe that the gap in effectiveness is too much - ~70% damage reduction on a Falcon from Cruise is too much. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.12 17:35:00 -
[5]
Quote:
missile / drf / c
light 2.8 0.603838
rocket 3 0.639119
heavy 3.2 0.679911
ham 4.5 0.881599
cruise 4.5 0.879992
torp 5 0.939506
The numbers seem to fit the equation:
c = K * log(drf)
Thanks, Stafen
Just to clarify, the log function is the natural logarithm, to the base e, often denoted as ln.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.12 17:49:00 -
[6]
Just running the modified formula though my spreadsheet. The difference relative to the previous iteration appears to be minimal - except for Rage and Fury, which do somewhat more damage then previously modelled in absurd situations such shooting Rage torps against an interceptor.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.13 01:54:00 -
[7]
Yes.
To do full damage, your target must have a sig radius greater than the explosion radius of your missile. This is the same as the old mechanics.
However, if your target is going faster than the explosion velocity of your missile, then you can still deal full damage if the target's sig is sufficiently greater than your missile's explosion radius.
This can be achieved increasing the target's sig using Painters or the 500% self-painting effect of a MWD, or by decreasing the explosion radius of your missile, such as by using Rigour rigs, Crash or by training Guided Missile Precision.
|
| |
|