Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Reid Lutman
Intaki Armaments Persona Non Gratis
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 19:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm in a dread using 3500 quad siege artillery and i'm hitting a maelstrom at optimal with emp for about 600 (300 per turret) dmg per hit, in siege. This isn't normal.
Anyone else noticed this?
Sig radius affects a ships ability to hit a target. Are ccp now going to link dmg from turrets to sig radius as with missile launchers.
What logic is used for this? If a large shell hits something it's going to do big damage. I would be really unhappy if this change reachs tranquility.
|
Bl4ck Ph03n1x
Burned Logic Circuit
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Stupid questions, but: does the weapon "perfectly hit"? Have you took the resists in account? |
bornaa
GRiD.
215
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
That's new way of calculating damage for XL weapons. BUT... it will be only for Titans. Patch so that its applied only when XL guns are fitted to Titan is coming tomorrow. That Ain't Right |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
lol, i didn't hear of that nerf yet, that's just awesome |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 21:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
i though it was just an idea and they needed lots of time to make it happen ? |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 10:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
In the current version on sisi, the damage reduction against smaller targets applies to all XL guns. We've a slightly newer version where the damage reduction only applies to XL guns when mounted on a Titan. This should be getting on to sisi later today.
The balancing discussion has been happening in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1149893#post1149893 "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
Bubanni
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
230
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 10:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tanaka Aiko wrote:i though it was just an idea and they needed lots of time to make it happen ? ... yes, and thats what the test server is for... testing the ideas... |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
873
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 11:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Or maybe we need XXL guns... (and XL/XXL sized rigs). |
Xeyena
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"... |
Aidamina Omen
Aperture Harmonics K162
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"...
Except that Dreads have like 1/10 of the EHP, and in order for them to do more DPS then the average battleship they need to enter Siege, which renders them immobile for 5 minutes, AND are unable receive repairs remotely.
Seems like a pretty good risk/reward balance to me; don't touch dreads, they are fine as is. |
|
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"...
This isn't improving Dread guns to do something new this just allows them to retain what they could already do. I don't recall seeing moans and tears about how Dreads are blaping subcaps have you?
Subcaps are not some endangered species like the spotted owl that needs to be handled with kid gloves and protected from threats that haven't even manifested themselves during all these years that Dreads have been around.
Perhaps in your idea world Subcaps and Caps shouldn't even be able to target each other. I am not sure what you really want but really shouting fire when there isn't even smoke just makes the rest of us wonder if you are playing the same game we are.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1194
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"...
If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers. |
|
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:Tanaka Aiko wrote:i though it was just an idea and they needed lots of time to make it happen ? ... yes, and thats what the test server is for... testing the ideas... of course, but i was talking about the time needed to code it... when i read it, it was like it would take ages to do it... and a week after it's done... o_O |
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
64
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 17:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"... If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers.
You ever considered making capitals ineligible of receiving bonuses from sub-caps? It would make supercaps substantially more vulnerable to enemy subcaps (reduced tank) whilst also preventing such ridiculous scenarios such as carriers getting under the guns of Dreadnoughts with ease, as well as Titans being able to reduce Citadel Torpedo damage substantially (e.g. 65% reduction by a Ragnarok that is self-boosting as well as being Loki boosted) simply be being aligned.
It would also make it worthwhile to fit Warfare Links on capitals, so that they can boost their peers, a bonus which I believe is almost never used presently. |
Demolishar
United Aggression
243
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 17:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"... If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers.
So it's okay that titans would be unable to hit those carriers? I thought titans were meant to be the cool new anti-capital weapon. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong White-Lotus
539
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 19:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
I don't get it, wouldn't all of this be solved with sub system targeting for capital ships?
For instance you want that titan or dread with XL guns to do less damage? Take out it's targeting array. Then it does damage based on sig radius as well, until the timer is done and the ship can self repair the part.
The catch? the sig radius of the targeting array is so small only cruiser and smaller can hit it.
You take this to it's extreme and capitals have 3/4 subsystems to target. Each of them taking out some core function making smaller ships useful in battle verus cap ships. The main counter to these new OP cruisers? Battleships will deal with them.
In which case how do you deal with the frigate which are hitting the even smaller sub systems? easy, get some destroyers and cruisers to take out the frigates. Give every class class a role versus capital ships and all of these capital ship balance issues would be finished. |
lolcorpholder alt
ebil piwates inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 19:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:I don't get it, wouldn't all of this be solved with sub system targeting for capital ships?
For instance you want that titan or dread with XL guns to do less damage? Take out it's targeting array. Then it does damage based on sig radius as well, until the timer is done and the ship can self repair the part.
The catch? the sig radius of the targeting array is so small only cruiser and smaller can hit it.
You take this to it's extreme and capitals have 3/4 subsystems to target. Each of them taking out some core function making smaller ships useful in battle verus cap ships. The main counter to these new OP cruisers? Battleships will deal with them.
In which case how do you deal with the frigate which are hitting the even smaller sub systems? easy, get some destroyers and cruisers to take out the frigates. Give every class class a role versus capital ships and all of these capital ship balance issues would be finished.
:effort: |
fab24
Tax Fraud Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
So first you make them unable to DD subcaps (k, that's pretty normal) Then you cut their tank. Then you remove their targeting abilities. Then you remove their tracking. Then you remove their damage.
I mean... Seriously? |
TheButcherPete
Specter Syndicate CORE Alliance
127
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
Aidamina Omen wrote:Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"... Except that Dreads have like 1/10 of the EHP, and in order for them to do more DPS then the average battleship they need to enter Siege, which renders them immobile for 5 minutes, AND are unable receive repairs remotely. Seems like a pretty good risk/reward balance to me; don't touch dreads, they are fine as is.
agreed. My moncole doubles as a cigarette lighter, a flashlight, a laser and x-ray goggles. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm in love with Punkturis. -á-á-á
|
Tarn Kugisa
Space Mongolian Pinked
69
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 22:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"... If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers.
Scary BS-Sized Carriers? I Endorse this Product and/or Service [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=16580[/url] |
|
Chuc Morris
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
fab24 wrote:So first you make them unable to DD subcaps (k, that's pretty normal) Then you cut their tank. Then you remove their targeting abilities. Then you remove their tracking. Then you remove their damage.
I mean... Seriously?
Seems legit to me
|
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
38
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 17:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
Not a big fan of Titans but this is getting ridiculous.
Just take away the damn gun slots and make them all missile slots. Give them a new "mini doomsday" mod so they can instead fit multiple of those(properly nerfed compared to the regular d.day) to use for guns. |
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION
129
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 18:59:00 -
[23] - Quote
sig and turrets have always been related. Though was target resolution, the ability to hit accurately when tracking. Not sure the xl change, but target resolution has always been there. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 16:32:00 -
[24] - Quote
fab24 wrote:So first you make them unable to DD subcaps (k, that's pretty normal) Then you cut their tank. Then you remove their targeting abilities. Then you remove their tracking. Then you remove their damage.
I mean... Seriously?
They should never have been combat ships, the simple fact CCP continuously need to nerf them further proves that. Titans should have been POS-like operated mobile stations from day 0.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"... If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers.
So why not do something about low-sig-radius carriers instead. Dreads should be anti-structure and anti-cap (and they're great at it) not roflstomping battleships as well. That's what fighters should be for. CCP, fix the forum's image tags http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á visit at http://bit.ly/wdatt |
Izuru Hishido
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering Violent Society
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 03:43:00 -
[25] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:They should never have been combat ships, the simple fact CCP continuously need to nerf them further proves that. Titans should have been POS-like operated mobile stations from day 0.
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. The titans never deserved to be a combat ship, they deserved to sit in the damn towers and just issue out bonuses. When CCP saw that enough titans were able to AOE DD carriers instantly, they should have realized 'wait, this is completely broken' and pulled all their combat capabilities. Give them a limited jump range, yes, but a longer bridge range, a major bonus to links (and don't tie it down to only armor or shield or any of that crap per titan) and so on, then this problem solves itself.
Titan - Guns - DD = Fixed.
Titans should have just been super-sized command ships, i.e. triple-quadruple the size of the SMA's and corp hangars, give them role bonuses as FLEET BOOSTERS since they get the natural bonuses to that **** already, and just nuke their guns and remove the DD. Yes, people would *****, but it'd be far less than this catastrostorm of complaining that we've got now.
That said, there's one factor that most people seem to be missing in this thread. XL turret tracking is being cut in half, but as a consolation prize, siege tracking penalties will be removed. I don't know if any or all of you missed that memo, but as far as I know, that will be happening. It might not be active on sisi right now, but it probably will be either later this mirror or at the latest, next mirror.
As for the people worried about being tracked by a dreadnought, if you're on the field with a dread and you get hit for full damage, you're doing something wrong. Fix it, there's an insanely easy solution that doesn't involve forums.
Oh, and for the record, it was always possible to have 'super tracking dreads' Xeyena, they just never got used on TQ because the fits gimped the dread horridly. |
Soldarius
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
207
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 08:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
Last time I checked, all turrets have a signature resolution which is compared to the signature radius of the target in the damage formula. So, working as intended. I will grant that it is entirely possible the actual numbers may have been tweaked. "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
80
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:39:00 -
[27] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:I don't get it, wouldn't all of this be solved with sub system targeting for capital ships?
For instance you want that titan or dread with XL guns to do less damage? Take out it's targeting array. Then it does damage based on sig radius as well, until the timer is done and the ship can self repair the part.
The catch? the sig radius of the targeting array is so small only cruiser and smaller can hit it.
You take this to it's extreme and capitals have 3/4 subsystems to target. Each of them taking out some core function making smaller ships useful in battle verus cap ships. The main counter to these new OP cruisers? Battleships will deal with them.
In which case how do you deal with the frigate which are hitting the even smaller sub systems? easy, get some destroyers and cruisers to take out the frigates. Give every class class a role versus capital ships and all of these capital ship balance issues would be finished. Sure I'll just code that right up for you, ready for testing it in 30 min yeh? |
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 11:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
Dreads are completely unchanged if you ignore out of siege DPS. To copy my reddit post:
Chance to hit = .5^((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)2)
From: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage
Basically, they just multiplied the top and bottom of a fraction by 2
Current: (Turret Tracking x 2 and Signature Radius by 2). Ignoring the rest of the equation, chance to hit = .5(Turret Signature RadiusTarget Radial Velocity/(Tracking SpeedTarget Signature Radius))
New (Turret Tracking x 2 and Signature Radius by 2): Ignoring the rest of the equation, chance to hit = .5(2Turret Signature RadiusTarget Radial Velocity/(2Tracking SpeedTarget Signature Radius))
The 2's cancel out. So dreads only lose DPS out of siege.
Also for all the dread on BS haters, your Megathron should never hit a webbed and painted thorax, especially while you essentially warp scramble yourself and sit still for 5 minutes.
Dreads still take forever to lock (that nerf did not go through on titans from what I read), still hit like old dreads (not old titans, the things everyone had a problem with), and still have to deal with siege. That "forever to lock" bit means a lot more given the limit on locked targets (2 or 3, depending on skills) for dreads than it does for titans (3, but you can lock a ton faster).
I still think that Titans should be given XXL weapons, so you can try to follow a general "1 size down and webbed" rule, with the definition of "webbed dread" being sitting still and little transversal. |
ViRUS Pottage
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 18:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote:Hey, don't blame the Titan. Blame the fact that powerblocs obtain them so easily.
It's not the power blocs fault that CCP can't properly maintain the game. If they kept supers and titans tracked and did something about it BEFORE 80 titans could be fielded by a single alliance we wouldn't have this problem right now. |
ViRUS Pottage
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 18:55:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:[quote=fab24]They should never have been combat ships, the simple fact CCP continuously need to nerf them further proves that. Titans should have been POS-like operated mobile stations from day 0.
1/10 |
|
OlRotGut
17
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:16:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Xeyena wrote:Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"... If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers.
There should be some sort of mechanic to make a 'minimum signature radius' for capital ships, so as to prevent people from reducing their sig radius of these types of ships through buffs like implants, warfare links, boosters, etc.
Or perhaps any ship with a 'jump drive' could never go below xxxx sig radius.
Seems unrealistic that a Carrier can reduce its sig radius so much as to not get hit by titans. ya know you guys should introduce 'flak cannons' for titans. ;o) |
Leysritt
The Last Remnant
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:50:00 -
[32] - Quote
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with Dreads.
They take a long time to lock targets (titans did not get a scan res nerf that was originally planned for them). They cannot move or warp when in siege mode. They cannot be remote repaired or cap transfered (neuts work on dreads in siege mode). They are pretty much stuck and mostly defenceless for 5 minutes.
It takes a Dread 30 seconds to lock a Battleship, 50 seconds to lock a cruiser, and an eternity to lock a frigate.
They have only 1/10 the EHP of Super Capital Ships and without the ability to get remote reps while in siege means they are going to die if a Fleet primary them.
They are forced to survive by Local Active tanking that scales poorly in fleet battles.
Dreads can be oneshot killed by Doomsdays, unless the Dread fits a heavy tank, but its DPS drops as a result.
If you're sitting still in a ship for a long time and allow a Dread to lock and Kill you. Then your piloting skills are terrible and I recommend you quit this game.
If you try to make the Dreads the same as Titans, you pretty much make them obsolete since Titans and Super Carriers do not have as much weakness as Dreads have, and can perform the same role better.
If you apply Sig radius damage to all turrets then Smaller ships will pretty much have their EHP drastically increased against larger ships. There would be almost no point in using Battleships. |
Izuru Hishido
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering Violent Society
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:33:00 -
[33] - Quote
ViRUS Pottage wrote:TheButcherPete wrote:Hey, don't blame the Titan. Blame the fact that powerblocs obtain them so easily. It's not the power blocs fault that CCP can't properly maintain the game. If they kept supers and titans tracked and did something about it BEFORE 80 titans could be fielded by a single alliance we wouldn't have this problem right now.
There is absolutely nothing that CCP could do mechanically or logistically to prevent power blocs from building titans at the rate they currently are. Any ideas to the contrary would have to be thought up by either someone who doesn't even play the game or a five year old that believes that the titan spawning tree only blooms once a year.
If a power bloc wants a titan, it will obtain it. It doesn't matter the size of the bloc, the amount of space held, so on. If they can't build them on their own, they'll just buy them from blocs that can build the titans and supers.
Titans have always been a problem, the only realistic solution at the moment is to remove all titan offensive capability. That is the only measure short of removing them from gameplay that would curb the rate of acquisition for power blocs. I don't really give a damn if you agree or not, but it is the only feasible solution that could be implemented that would have a drastic effect on titans in any shape way or form.
Apologies for detracting from the topic at hand. |
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 14:41:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:In the current version on sisi, the damage reduction against smaller targets applies to all XL guns. We've a slightly newer version where the damage reduction only applies to XL guns when mounted on a Titan. This should be getting on to sisi later today. The balancing discussion has been happening in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1149893#post1149893
I believe it's a huge mistake to continue special casing things. Make the change to the tracking/damage formulae as a whole. We need more separation between weapon system sizes/tiers so that a high tier, large weapon system is not effective vs. smaller hull sizes (ie. Mega Pulses not very effective vs. BC's and Cruisers).
Further adjust the sig radii of the various hull sizes to solidify this change. |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
87
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
^ Changing the entire turret mechanics will be nothing but a big hassle for everyone including CCP.
Changing the turret mechanics to your suggestions will make flying Battleships even more useless and make everything eschewed to favor Battlecruisers and Cruisers even more.
This game is Battlecruisers Online, where everyone and their grandma flies one and mainly PVP in them while other ships are largely forgotten or ignored. |
OlRotGut
17
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
Parsee789 wrote:^ Changing the entire turret mechanics will be nothing but a big hassle for everyone including CCP.
Changing the turret mechanics to your suggestions will make flying Battleships even more useless and make everything eschewed to favor Battlecruisers and Cruisers even more.
This game is Battlecruisers Online, where everyone and their grandma flies one and mainly PVP in them while other ships are largely forgotten or ignored.
I think that's just because in large, battleship damage output just doesnt cut it overall.
Battlecruisers are mobile, put out DPS that can take down a battleship all the while tanking almost like one, at least imo.
There should be no way in hell a titan mega extra large gun should be able to rotate fast enough on its turret platform to track anything smaller than a carrier, unless that target was stopped at 0 speed.
|
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 23:58:00 -
[37] - Quote
Parsee789 wrote:^ Changing the entire turret mechanics will be nothing but a big hassle for everyone including CCP.
Changing the turret mechanics to your suggestions will make flying Battleships even more useless and make everything eschewed to favor Battlecruisers and Cruisers even more.
This game is Battlecruisers Online, where everyone and their grandma flies one and mainly PVP in them while other ships are largely forgotten or ignored.
Just because it's hard work, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if it's good for the game.
It wouldn't make anything useless. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
76
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 22:04:00 -
[38] - Quote
Quesa wrote:Parsee789 wrote:^ Changing the entire turret mechanics will be nothing but a big hassle for everyone including CCP.
Changing the turret mechanics to your suggestions will make flying Battleships even more useless and make everything eschewed to favor Battlecruisers and Cruisers even more.
This game is Battlecruisers Online, where everyone and their grandma flies one and mainly PVP in them while other ships are largely forgotten or ignored. Just because it's hard work, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if it's good for the game. It wouldn't make anything useless.
"Good for the game"
Whose game perhaps yours maybe?
In general Battleships(with a few exceptions like pirate bs) are not worth using for several reasons.
They are slow, poor agility, expensive, Big sig radius, expensive, weapons have poor tracking, heavy skill requirements compared to many other classes of ships, large mass unfavorable for wormholes, etc.
Battleships don't really bring much to the table for their higher costs and advantages compared to Battlecruisers.
This sig radius/resolution scaling with make smaller ships overpowered over large ships. Not only does larger ships have trouble hitting these targets and cannot hit once they get under the guns, but the EHP of smaller ships gets boosted against larger ships. There would be even less of a reason to use Battleships since majority of players fly BC, Cruisers, and Frigate sized ships.
Trying to make turret sigs radius based is trying homogenize it with missiles is a dumb and bad idea.
Turret and Missiles need to have distinct differences and making them more of a same to each other ruins gameplay. |
Just Alter
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
61
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 00:00:00 -
[39] - Quote
I for one have never been satisfied by how turrets and missiles scale dmg based on sigs.
In real life there's not a single instance of something like this ever happening.
Larger is better, there's nothing to do about it.
Speed and sig tanking should just be removed and changed to a normal tank.
Little would change in the end result, things would just look cleaner. |
Miss New York
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 16:19:00 -
[40] - Quote
Capitals and supers have never been as vulnerable as the vast majority of he players ( i.e. the ones that cannot afford to field one ) would like. They have been nerfed from day one for the only reason that "some can afford them". Nobody is bothered by 2000+ drake fleets that have been locking the servers for years, those are never "too many", but everybody is vociferating against a 80-titans fleet.
Doesnt matter that no real-life situation would make a fleet of aircraft carriers vulnerable against 10-20 fishing boat captains with .45 guns and 10 bullets. No nerf is enough. So, to make that vast majority of players happy, i propose to make those ships museum pieces. Make them unable to track or target ANY ship, reduce their tank to something that will make any crappy frigate pilot happy to put one out of the misery, and generally convert them to something similar to the trousers that you can buy at the GOLD market with more isk than you spend for a 2-mile-long ship.
This game is full of stupid things already, and there will always be people asking for more. |
|
Warrior Xena
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 16:25:00 -
[41] - Quote
related to the dread-vs-signature issue this was also raised several times, to no effect so far.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1176574#post1176574 |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 01:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
Leysritt wrote:If you apply Sig radius damage to all turrets then Smaller ships will pretty much have their EHP drastically increased against larger ships. There would be almost no point in using Battleships. Do you have any idea how awesome this would be? Can you begin to imagine the styles of gameplay that would be introduced because of this? We're playing battleships online. It's all about bringing more DPS to the table. Do you know how many frigates or cruisers I recall engaging that weren't faction, T2, or flown by rookies while I was in roaming gangs in LoSec and Nullsec? NONE! Do you know how many frigates or cruisers that weren't faction, T2, or flown by rookies that were allowed to participate in said roaming gangs? NONE! Face it. This kind of change is what the game needs.
Besides, missiles have a signature based damage reduction, and I don't think people avoided using larger missile boats (for that reason, anyway).
Soon Shin wrote:Trying to make turret sigs radius based is trying homogenize it with missiles is a dumb and bad idea.
Turret and Missiles need to have distinct differences and making them more of a same to each other ruins gameplay. ** CAUTION: WOT INCOMING! **
OK, that's it. I just have to say it.
When I learned that turrets would have the same damage reduction scale that missiles have, I thought to myself, "it's about god damn time that another lack of a parallel was finally addressed." But then I found out it was only XL turrets. I facepalmed. After that, I find out it is done identically to the way missiles get their damage reduction. I facepalmed again. Yes. Missiles and turrets are different. They are designed to be equivalent, but they execute themselves in different ways. There are many parallels that are not present, but in this post, I am going to address only one: Scalar damage output.
Missiles and turrets both act on the fundamental principle that a small fast target isn't as easy to hit as a giant sluggish target. Turrets do the best they can to keep up with a target. The inability to achieve the most potent strike based on turret tracking systems is referred to as Hit Quality. It is a relative form of damage output. Missiles have a parallel element to this. The inability to achieve the most potent strike based on Damage Reduction. This is an absolute form of damage output. There are times when one is superior to the other, and vice versa, but overall, the fundamental mechanics follow the same parallel.
However, there is an element present in missiles that has no parallel in turrets - Static damage reduction based on signature size. A stationary pod can receive a maximum of 62.5% damage from a light missile with maxed skills. However, that same pod will have no problem at all receiving a wrecking hit from a pre-escalation dread in siege mode. This mechanic was a by-product of the **** poor design concept of missiles, way back in the day of Cruise Kessies.
When Speed Rebalanced came around, missiles were redesigned. CCP took the signature relationship to transversal velocity, adapted it to use absolute velocity (with some hidden modifiers to reinforce this), and applied it to missiles. The execution of it was quite different, but the RMS relationship between the two are nearly identical. The pitiful excuse for a damage calculation was replaced with one that actually made sense, so there was no longer a need or a justification for the static damage reduction. But it was kept in anyway. So while we are left with a missile tracking system that is far less broken than the one before it, far less broken isn't the same thing as working properly.
One solution to this would be to remove the static damage reduction from missiles. I wanted this at first, but having it be applied to XL turrets hinted at something much more interesting. If the falloff hit quality modifier was adapted to use signature comparison, we would have that element to parallel missiles. It would look like this: HitQuality = Min(1, TrackingMultiplier, FalloffPenalty, SigRadius / SigResolution) Yeah, I know that's woefully put together, and probably doesn't illustrate everything there is to illustrate, but it fixes the aforementioned problem quite well, and doesn't interfere with falloff or tracking for like-sized vessels.
** WOT ALL CLEAR **
So, what needs to be done about the signature radius issue? Changing the static damage reduction on XL turrets to signature based hit quality modifiers would be a good start. Applying said modifiers to all turrets would be better. Kill two birds with one stone. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |