| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
   |
Posted - 2008.11.14 20:05:00 -
[1]
Solution : +100% sigradius penalty to all afterburners 
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 20:08:00 -
[2]
how about yes |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 20:15:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Vaal Erit
Better solution: Grasp the idea that it is supposed to be possible to speed tank missiles.
135% speed boost for BA-II * 1.25 from Accel Control 5 = +168.75% speed vs +100% sig.
You're still getting a benefit from it. Just not as huge as before.
Quote:
Since you are failing to adapt, I guess you are doing a lot of dying, huh? Lols, noobs.
I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now, I seldom do missions (and I do them in a NH which works awesome right now), and I'm cross-trained in almost everything... so, no, I don't do a lot of dying.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 20:18:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kiotsu Adler
Please stop asking for nerfs we got enough with current changes. Adapt or die and stuff...
How ironic... |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 20:37:00 -
[5]
Originally by: ElCoCo
Originally by: Akita T
I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now...
Ah ok I see now.
Having fun orbitting ppl on the test server eh?
SOME people actually do other stuff than just stand still and shoot or hit "orbit" and shoot.
However, even IF you did that and only that, you'd still have a decent idea of what's good and what's bad.
Originally by: Vaal Erit
If you don't play the game, then STFU. You know nothing of current game mechanics. Your opinions are about as relevant as George Bush in a rocket scientist convention.
Missiles were broken (OVERPOWERED) at the beginning because they did full damage all the time, they were "fixed" so that they would deal less damage to smaller/faster targets, and it was good enough before rigs and overheating came into play.
Missiles were broken (UNDERPOWERED) in the "nano age" against nano-boats, dealing next to no damage at all. A double "fix" came into being, one for the nanoboats in general (since turrets also had the same problems) and a quasi-fix for missiles.
Now missiles lose way too much damage way too early with increased target speed, and then almost stop losing damage as targets get faster and faster.
The SHAPE of the damage reduction curve is ok (i.e. the formula is good), but the coefficients are all wrong.
You could do a slight linearization of the missile damage formula, but then ships without an afterburner (or a MWD) would be toast and ships with afterburners too good.
The OBVIOUS solution that does least "collateral" damage is to have afterburners get a penalty SIMILAR to that of MWDs, but lower.
Missile damage formula remains the same, afterburners STILL help more at speed-tanking than no afterburners or MWDs, still increase ability to dictate range, still have a negligible capacitor consumption, but would have a slight drawback on top of using up a midslot.
At the same time, turrets get better too against AB-using targets.
The advantage of being able to maneouver much better should have a drawback in vulnerability, same logic by which MWDs have a sigradius penalty.
Do you hate the IDEA of a sigradius penalty or the AMOUNT of it ?
Adding a sigradius penalty is only LOGICAL.
If you feel like 100% penalty for a T1 AB is too high, how about 80% then ? Or 75%, whatever.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 20:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Gnomes Rock
Originally by: Akita T
I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now, I seldom do missions (and I do them in a NH which works awesome right now), and I'm cross-trained in almost everything.So, no, I don't do a lot of dying.
What posible thought process lead you to believe this would be a good thing to include in your post while advocating such a huge nerf to afterburners? 
Lack of "TQ PVP experience" is not a disqualifier for an informed opinion on a "hot topic" issue.
So what lead me to believe it would be a good idea to add that comment IN SPITE of the obvious "omgn00b you know nothing then, STFU" comments ?
Honesty on one side (why bother lying when telling the truth is so easy), and the belief logical arguments can be compelling for their own sake, NOT only because the one behind it has a lot of experience in dealing with the issue so far.
Heck, I believe I have a much better perspective on the whole situation MAINLY because I can look at it objectively - I am not nerfed nor boosted by any of the changes, therefore I have no problem looking at it from all possible angles.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 21:24:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Akita T on 14/11/2008 21:24:30
Originally by: Mistress Frome
I love how akita can make a topic and suggest changes, admit he doesn't play the game, and still make everyone else look stupid.
It's a gift, it's a curse... 
Originally by: Winterblink
Lets see your crunched numbers for this vs turrets then. If they come out equal, I'd endorse it. :)
Assuming target speed, range, transversal and weapons used to shoot at it are the same and only signature differs, assuming target is within optimal for turrets so we can forget the falloff part, assuming we're dealing with the part of the missile damage formula where speed matters (all of these for simplicity's sake), you get:
* for missiles : DPS = DPS * (C1*sig/speed)^C2
** for turrets : CTH = 0.25 ^ (C3*speed/sig)
where C1, C2 and for the most part C3 too are weapon-related things that don't change during a fight.
C3 also depends on range to target, but we assumed that to be constant too.
NOTE: DPS of turrets is NOT base DPS*CTH (chance to hit), it's more complicated.
It's actually Average DPS = BaseDPS * [ 0.03 + (CTH - 0.01) * (0.5 + CTH/2) ]
But it's pretty close to BaseDPS*CTH, only slightly lower.
...so it's kind of hard to put it as simple as "X% increase in signature leads to an Y% increase in DPS", because it's not linear at all, and it's not even the same kind of formula.
You can only do it on a case-by-case basis (target ship mass leading to speed differences for same sig difference, type of weapon used, etc).
For some, missiles will benefit more, for others, turrets will benefit more.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 21:35:00 -
[8]
Originally by: ouroboros trading
akita T is a cleric of the achurian skillpoint cult.
More like true neutral half-human [sic] multiclass fighter/rogue/mage with low charisma and high everything else
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 21:53:00 -
[9]
Quote:
I haven't had enough play testing on TQ and neither has pretty much anyone else to start spouting off exact numbers to change or IF anything needs to be changed.
So, wait... you're criticizing ME for not having TQ experience (but with plenty of SiSi experience), while you admit to having NO experience AT ALL, and being completely against a "spreadsheet" approach to calculating advantages and disadvantages ?
Talk about hypocrisy...
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Here's an example, the penalty of an AB is that you are **** slow and cannot escape or dictate range very well.[...]Lol at thinking you can maneuver with an AB.
So... NOT having an AB then is a benefit, eh ?  Let's see you do any maneouvers WITHOUT one and see the difference.
Quote:
But you just want missiles to hit ABing ships for full or close to full damage and that is not how the game is designed.
Since the "design" changes constantly your comment above has absolutely no redeeming value.
Quote:
For too long, missile spammers have received 100% damage like it is diving mandate and THAT is what was wrong and correctly fixed by CCP.
That was fixed almost 3 years ago, not a couple of days ago.
Quote:
If CCP retweaks the missile/AB interaction it will be because of player testing on TQ and player feedback, not by an overly pretentious troll that doesn't even play the game any more.
So.. give feedback then. Oh, wait, you have none.
I HAVE tested all missile classes and all gun classes on the targets they were designed for on SiSi, and I got my conclusions : in most cases, afterburner-using ships are overpowered compared to both no speedmod and to MWD-using ships.
Feel free to TEST IT ON TQ and claim the contrary AFTERWARDS.
Until then, feel free to take your own advice and STFU.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 22:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Faife
this flamewar needs graphs. c'mon epeeners, excel, gnuplot, what have you, show me the pretty before and after charts for damage!
Your wish is my command !
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Linkage
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 22:34:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Akita T on 14/11/2008 22:36:21
Originally by: Faife
perfect for that data, but i was hoping for a "AB tank now" vs "AB tank post-akita" one
Say we take the same "heavy missiles vs cruisers" scenario.
Well, cruisers have a no-mods, no-implants top speed between 153 m/sec (Osprey, no skills, 125m sig) and almost 289 m/s (Stabber, max skills, 105 sig). Let's just call that 250 m/sec on average.
So that would basically mean a cruiser at top BASE speed (absolutely nothing on it for speed, just the base hull) shot with heavy missiles (supposedly an anti-cruiser weapon to be used on cruisers/battlecruisers) right now receives well under 60% of full heavy missile damage on average, or a 40% reduction if you prefer.
Simply adding an afterburner at mediocre skills boosts the average cruiser speed to somewhere over 600 m/s on average, and that would be barely around 25% damage taken, or almost a 75% reduction. And that's regardless of range to target.
Adding a sigradius penalty to the afterburner (depending on just how much sigradius penalty you want to add and depending on actual ship) could make it take anywhere from 35% to 50% damage... or a 50-65% reduction.
...give or take a few percent anyway.
Originally by: Cibo Seidensha
With all your number crunching, dont forget that speedmods are not all about speedtanking missles.
Some people actually use them to get from A to B faster you know (where B is a gate, a target, or just as far away from a chaser as possible).
In this sense an MWD is still far superior to an AB.
This superiority is not linear either. So you need to give the AB other features where it is far superior to an MWD to balance this out and not put it in line with it there(as the GOP suggested).
You mean, OTHER than the fact it DOES increase your speed, the fact it barely drains any capacitor with reasonable skills, that it doesn't give a capacitor penalty and the fact it CAN'T be shut down by scramblers ?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 22:44:00 -
[12]
What's the point in using lights, heavies and cruise missiles in WEB RANGES ?
Sure, if you're talking rockets, HAMs and torps, you'd have a point... but for the LONG range missiles, why would you even BE in web range in the first place ? Disruptor/TP range, yea, sure... but web range ? Nah.
If you want to compare anything, compare web benefit vs TP benefit
Even at max skills and with a ship with TP bonuses, you'd barely get close to web benefits.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 22:56:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Akita T on 14/11/2008 22:57:18
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
could you add "heavy missles vs cruiser sized target w/ MWD"?
Damage against ships with MWDs is almost the same as against the same ship with no propulsion mod, only slightly lower, mainly because of the effect of the Acceleration Control skill (or using a higher metalevel MWD).
A target with a T1 MWD and no Acceleration Control skill trained will usually take the same missile damage with the MWD on or off (unless it was already taking reduced damage due to sig radius alone with MWD off, then it can get a bit more complicated).
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 23:07:00 -
[14]
I'm not at all against, say, making T1 ABs give a 166% speed boost with a 100% sigrad penalty (and say T2 give 200% speed boost with same 100% sigrad penalty, or same//166% speed boost with a 80% sigrad penalty... and so on for higher metalevel ABs).
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 23:12:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
Also, why are afterburners overpowered again? Because they're not useless?
By the gods, she's on to me
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 23:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Megan Maynard
And hitting for 40-60% of max damage is different then turrets how?
Let's see... you CAN make your turrets hit for nearly 100% damage even if your target is sporting an AB in a similarly fit ship by simply matching velocities, but you can't do the same with missiles (no, not even dual/triple bonused painters plus expradius or expvelo rigs will do that, while same TP but tracking rigs WILL nearly do that even if you barely have half speed for transversal negation with turrets)... and also turret max damage is usually noticeably higher than missile max damage (and no, switching ammo is really not much of an option for a lot of missile boats, and even if it is for some, there's usually little point in doing that since most people try to have no big resists holes for PvP).
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 00:06:00 -
[17]
Quote:
So you, the mighty AKita T are telling me that I can attain wrecking hit status on nearly every hit?
You'd get 300% of base DPS that way, with all shots wrecking.
The AVERAGE DPS against a stationary target in optimal is 102% of base DPS, not 100%.
Yeah, sure, you DON'T get anywhere close to 50% DPS if you have a high transversal or you're out of optimal, but if you DO have a speed comparable to the enemy ship's speed, you CAN get close to the base 100% DPS with not that much effort.
Quote:
A. Capless, something that us minny pilots live with everyday as a reason for lower damage and fall off rather then optimal bonuses.
And still, projectile boats outdamage missile boats at point-blank range.
Quote:
B. Able to strike any targets, locked or not locked in the missiles range.
You haven't been using FOFs much, have you ?
Quote:
C. Shortest skill path to use effectively.
Not much of an advantage.
Quote:
D. Do all damage types.
And with the exception of the Raven, Khanid and a handfull of minnie ships, you're pretty much forced to only use kinetic most of the time anyway.
Quote:
E. Have the capability of the highest alpha as well as the highest DPS in game.
High alpha against stationary or nigh-motionless targets, sure. And about DPS, only if you're talking torp Raven, because other than that... not even close.
Quote:
F. Have an excellent ROF and Clip size.
Compared to what ?
Quote:
G. Have no counter from any ECM for their attributes.
Have no low/mid slot module to boost the attributes either.
And no, a TP is not a booster to missile attributes. Even if it does help, indirectly. But other than the Golem, hmm, what race DOES have TP bonuses on their ships, I wonder...
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 00:44:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Akita T on 15/11/2008 00:45:45
Originally by: Pohbis
Can you slap a target painter on that chart? 
Let me "zoom in" on the "up to 2km/sec" area and add not just one TP, but several variations of TP.
There you go:
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Linkage
P.S. The OLD chart has the "pre-qr" line WRONG.
I was mistakingly using the QR expvelo with the old formula.
Corrected to include OLD pre-QR expvelo of HMs in the QR damage curve.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 00:54:00 -
[19]
Oh, hey, what, no more "just fit a TP and it's fine" replies ?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 01:00:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
How about: boost ABs to 200% speed boost[...]
Post #56 in this thread...
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 01:05:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Miss Artica
Everyone should stop with the "This is overpowered... that is overpowered..." Lets just see how things go for more than 1 week.
"Things" have been going like this for MONTHS on the test server.
Do you think bringing it almost unchanged on TQ will be any better ?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 01:06:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kuzya Morozov
I think he is a 60 year old lady, IRL...
You're sort of half-right in a weird way
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 14:27:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Akita T on 15/11/2008 14:28:21
First off, why does your "cruiser target" have 165m base sig ? But nevermind...
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
with MWD included
Legend:
ORANGE - pre-QR damage
RED - QR damage
BLUE - QR damage with T1 MWD on
GREEN - QR damage with T1 MWD on and a max-skill-bonus TP-II
Quote:
well, since heavy missle boats with MWD will always catch you and your AB, let's see what happens with webs. the x-axis shows your "max speed" and the graphs indicate how your damages changes if at those settings 1 or two webs were applied
Legend:
ORANGE - pre-QR damage - you forgot to add the web effect there too - it should be a horizontal line at 100% damage in that case for the entirety of the graph
RED - QR damage
BLUE - QR damage with one T2 web
GREEN - QR damage with two T2 webs
Note : speed is the original, pre-webbing speed, not the post-web speed.
Translation : so a 165m base sigcruiser that would do 1300 m/s unwebbed will STILL get a 50% damage reduction AFTER being webbed down by a T2 web, while before it would have taken full damage (heck, it would have taken ALMOST full damage UNWEBBED) ? Yeah, it DOES sound like ABs needs some boost in sigradius.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.15 17:16:00 -
[24]
Originally by: narccissa
Since when did caldari ships need webs to apply full damage at range? What turret ship needs a web to do full damage from 80km away, roughly the range of t2 heavy missiles.
this
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 13:42:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Akita T on 16/11/2008 13:44:07
Originally by: Gypsio III
Stop looking at absurd situations in isolation - you need to consider plausible TQ combat environments, then consider missile effectiveness in comparison to previous mechanics.
Plausible Pre-QR situation : "LOL, you're trying to use MISSILES to PVP ? Get a gunboat".
Plausible Post-QR situation : "LOL, you're trying to use MISSILES to PVP against AB ships ? Get dual web dual painter. Or better still, get a gunboat".
Quote:
So. Let us consider a plausible scenario, using Stafen numbers:
Pre-QR: 990 m sig Vaga MWDing around at 4500 m/s, it takes 1% damage from CN Heavies. Hey, look, missiles are useless.
Post-QR: 990 m sig Vaga MWDing around at 3100 m/s, it takes 55% damage from CN Heavies.
Post-QR: 165 m sig Vaga ABing around at 1200 m/s, it takes 31% damage from CN Heavies, and 58% when it gets webbed, which it is likely to be.
Webbed by what ? A Caracal/Cerberus/Drake ? HA ! Un-freaking-bloody-likely.
Also, AGAIN, what the hell is a LONG-range missile boat doing in WEB range ?
HAMs, I could ALMOST understand getting (accidentally) in web range, but with heavies ? WTF ?
Quote:
Practical example:
Pre-QR: my Cerberus shooting at 4 km/s nanoIshtar : lol 1 damage, missiles are useless. So I shot his drones.
Post-QR: my Cerberus shooting at 2.12 km/s "nano"Ishtar: lol his shield down in three volleys, 80% HM damage.
You forgot...
Post-QR: Cerberus shooting at 800 m/s AB Ishtar: lol 25% HM damage. Unless you somehow manage to web it (because, umm, you're in a MWD Cerberus? right) and then it's meh, 50% HM damage.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 13:53:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Akita T on 16/11/2008 13:55:57
Check this too for somebody else's analysis with a similar conclusion, which I'm sure you will completely refute it too.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 16:22:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Either that or I'm being wilfully trolled, in which case I should know better.
You probably should
|
| |
|