These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Titan changes - update

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cid Tazer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#421 - 2012-03-30 12:55:50 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CynoNet Two wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?

*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions

How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in.


Hence the bit about potentially adjusting the current balance between optimal and falloff. We already have a mechanic to make you hit less at long range; if that's not working, I'd prefer to fix that mechanic rather than introduce another one alongside it. If we don't like that you can do 70k optimal on pulses, we have the technology to just reduce that number to a range that we do like, and kick the falloff up to compensate. If we don't like the way damage drops off as a result, we can adjust the falloff formula to do whatever we want it to do Smile


Unfortunately not having the time to run the numbers myself, but are you satisfied with how the tracking formula disregards signature resolution as transversal approaches 0?

It appears to me on initial inspection that as transversal approaches 0, the turret to target signature ratio has less and less influence on the to hit chance. Would it make more sense to add it as a range modifier so that the turret -> target sig resolution ratio would be modifier on range as opposed to transversal speed?
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#422 - 2012-03-30 13:14:20 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CynoNet Two wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?

*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions

How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in.


Hence the bit about potentially adjusting the current balance between optimal and falloff. We already have a mechanic to make you hit less at long range; if that's not working, I'd prefer to fix that mechanic rather than introduce another one alongside it. If we don't like that you can do 70k optimal on pulses, we have the technology to just reduce that number to a range that we do like, and kick the falloff up to compensate. If we don't like the way damage drops off as a result, we can adjust the falloff formula to do whatever we want it to do Smile


please note that reducing the optimal/falloff ratio can actually INCREASE the reach of a gun (see machariel). you' d have to nerf the optimal without increasing the falloff to actually reduce the effective range. also, please consider that reducing optimal to 0 would be functionally equivalent to removing falloff completely and instead making sig res scale with target distance.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#423 - 2012-03-30 13:16:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fair enough, shelving that idea for now, then. It's something we might revisit in some form when we get round to looking at EAFs, but that's out of scope here.

Changing subject and following up an earlier discussion, we were knocking around the possibility of damage-scaling based on unmodified sig radius, so you couldn't affect it with TPs etc.


Don´t shelve the ideia because that is one of the best ideas here, make it so that allot of ships can be effective against titans blobs .

And just because one block says it can´t be done , it doesnt mean it wont be done in strategic terms , goons/allies arent really the top in fleet combat.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#424 - 2012-03-30 13:20:10 UTC  |  Edited by: steave435
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CynoNet Two wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff

*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions

How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in.


Hence the bit about potentially adjusting the current balance between optimal and falloff. We already have a mechanic to make you hit less at long range; if that's not working, I'd prefer to fix that mechanic rather than introduce another one alongside it. If we don't like that you can do 70k optimal on pulses, we have the technology to just reduce that number to a range that we do like, and kick the falloff up to compensate. If we don't like the way damage drops off as a result, we can adjust the falloff formula to do whatever we want it to do Smile

But doesn't that take you back to having to change an entire mechanic, which will then significantly affect the balance of all other ships as well? And if you're gonna start messing with that, then changing the falloff formula to fix a tracking problem rather then changing the tracking formula doesn't make sense.

In addition to that, if it's just the falloff formula being changed, then it's going to reduce damage at range by roughly the same amount against ALL types of ships, including capitals, not only sub-caps

If you do have time to re-work the formulas, what I'd like to see is separating tracking from the guns signature.
Run a script to divide the tracking of every gun by its current sig res, and then set the variable for the guns signature in the tracking formula to a constant 1. Since signature is simply a modifier, this will have absolutely no effect what so ever
For example, a BS sized gun with 400 sig shooting at a frigate with a sig of 40
Today, the BS has a tracking of 400x, but since the guns signature is 10 times higher then the friagtes, its tracking get reduced to 10% of its base value. 400x * 10% = 40x
With this change, its tracking would only be x base, but since the guns signature is considered to be 1, it gets multiplied by the target ships signature, in this case 40. x * 40 = 40x

So why make a change that has absolutely no effect?
Well, 2 reasons really
1. It makes it easier to understand and more intuitive. Currently, a newbie will assume that the gun with the highest tracking track the best, without realizing that the signature radius can change that completely
2. It frees up the signature stat to be used for something else.

So, what could it be used for?
To give guns that need it a maximum damage potential against smaller ships. A new step would be added in the damage taken formula, comparing the sig res of the gun with the sig of the target. If the target is larger, do nothing, but if the target is smaller, reduce the damage taken by the ratio of the 2 signatures. For example
An Avatar is firing at a Tempest. The XL lasers that the Avatar is using has a sig res of 1000, and the Tempest has a signature of 340, so the sig ratio is 340/1000 = 0.34. Modify the damage the Tempest would normally have taken by that value
However, the Tempest firing at the Avatar would have a 400 sig gun firing at a almost 16 000 sig target, so since the target is larger then the gun, it does normal damage
Result: Even if the Avatar hits, it's doing 66% less damage to the Tempest then it would normally do, but firing at the appropriate sized target still does the same damage as it does now

But this would change the sub capital balance as well...
Not necessarily. Have the script that adjust the tracking to the new values also reduce the sig res of all non-XL turrets to 1
Since it is no longer considered in the tracking formula and there are no ships with a signature of less then 1, they will track exactly like they do now and there are no targets that they'd get a damage penalty against

Why is this good?
1. It's a balancing tool. Currently, it's very hard to balance tracking since it's almost impossible to get a tracking value that allows the big ship to hit the small ship sometimes, without also having that hit result in the smaller ship dying almost instantly. This mechanic makes it possible to have the tracking formula decide what types of ships you can hit at all, and you can be pretty generous with that since you also have a second formula to decide how much damage is taken when a hit actually occur.
2. It opens up for new ship roles. For example, you can have 1 BS with low tracking and low sig res. It will be able to hit BS and maybe BCs for full damage, but can't do anything to cruisers, and then you can have an another BS with high tracking and high sig res that can hit anything but will do very little damage to anything smaller then a BS. You'd then have to choose between a BS that can fight only BC and BS and a BS that can fight anything, but is less effective against any given target.
Cid Tazer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#425 - 2012-03-30 13:27:31 UTC
steave435 wrote:

An Avatar is firing at a Tempest. The XL lasers that the Avatar is using has a sig res of 1000, and the Tempest has a signature of 340, so the sig ratio is 340/1000 = 0.34. Modify the damage the Tempest would normally have taken by that value


From my understanding of the tracking formula it is turret/target so 1000/340 which == 2.9 blah blah blah. The number isn't really important because it is multiplied by tracking speed ratio and then squared. Also big numbers are good here because it is the exponent part of 0.5 ^ whole bunch of stuff.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#426 - 2012-03-30 13:36:08 UTC
Cid Tazer wrote:
steave435 wrote:

An Avatar is firing at a Tempest. The XL lasers that the Avatar is using has a sig res of 1000, and the Tempest has a signature of 340, so the sig ratio is 340/1000 = 0.34. Modify the damage the Tempest would normally have taken by that value


From my understanding of the tracking formula it is turret/target so 1000/340 which == 2.9 blah blah blah. The number isn't really important because it is multiplied by tracking speed ratio and then squared. Also big numbers are good here because it is the exponent part of 0.5 ^ whole bunch of stuff.

I know how it works now. I'm suggesting that we change how it works so that the guns signature is a modifier for damage, but not tracking.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#427 - 2012-03-30 13:40:31 UTC
That would have the downside of homogeonizing everything towards missile-like mechanics, but that might not be the end of the world as it would solve the problem ov oversized guns once and for all.
Cid Tazer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#428 - 2012-03-30 13:44:56 UTC
steave435 wrote:
Cid Tazer wrote:
steave435 wrote:

An Avatar is firing at a Tempest. The XL lasers that the Avatar is using has a sig res of 1000, and the Tempest has a signature of 340, so the sig ratio is 340/1000 = 0.34. Modify the damage the Tempest would normally have taken by that value


From my understanding of the tracking formula it is turret/target so 1000/340 which == 2.9 blah blah blah. The number isn't really important because it is multiplied by tracking speed ratio and then squared. Also big numbers are good here because it is the exponent part of 0.5 ^ whole bunch of stuff.

I know how it works now. I'm suggesting that we change how it works so that the guns signature is a modifier for damage, but not tracking.


I misunderstood your previous post.

However, I would contend that it should be a modifier for both because relative size should make something more difficult to hit as well as hard but not impossible to do full damage.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#429 - 2012-03-30 13:56:24 UTC  |  Edited by: steave435
Cid Tazer wrote:
steave435 wrote:
Cid Tazer wrote:
steave435 wrote:

An Avatar is firing at a Tempest. The XL lasers that the Avatar is using has a sig res of 1000, and the Tempest has a signature of 340, so the sig ratio is 340/1000 = 0.34. Modify the damage the Tempest would normally have taken by that value


From my understanding of the tracking formula it is turret/target so 1000/340 which == 2.9 blah blah blah. The number isn't really important because it is multiplied by tracking speed ratio and then squared. Also big numbers are good here because it is the exponent part of 0.5 ^ whole bunch of stuff.

I know how it works now. I'm suggesting that we change how it works so that the guns signature is a modifier for damage, but not tracking.


I misunderstood your previous post.

However, I would contend that it should be a modifier for both because relative size should make something more difficult to hit as well as hard but not impossible to do full damage.

That will still be built in to the tracking of the gun itself and the signature of the target. Since the sig res of the gun is simply a modifier for the guns tracking, the tracking is reduced to compensate for the removal of signature, and signature of the target is still a factor.

While making it missile-like might reduce variety a bit, like you say Raivi, this mechanic also opens up for other variations to compensate for that, and as you mention it fixing the balance issues is worth any potential loss in that regard anyway.

When there is time, this can even be extended down to the sub-capital level and when that happens, it's suddenly possible to make frigates much more survivable and thus more viable in big fights.
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#430 - 2012-03-30 14:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Reilly Duvolle
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Reilly Duvolle wrote:

Then drop the script (at least for now). Declare XL weapons on Titans to be an exploit after patch-day and get the players to remove them themselves. GMs sort out non-compliance cases. Its not like Titan pilots are your typical casual player likely to miss something like this anyway so I suspect the GMs wont have too many cases to handle.


That's an incredibly hacky way of doing it and not really a precedent we want to be setting.


Oh I completely understand that the very thought probably affects every fiber in your body in a bad bad way Big smile But it would at least mean an unexploitable solution to the problem which is perfectly alligned with your explicitly stated goal of what a Titan should do instead of all this mucking about Lol

Oh well. At least I tried.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#431 - 2012-03-30 14:07:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Here are my re-balancing proposals:

  1. Siege and triage combined into one unit called siege and can be fit to all capital ships. Scan res increase bonus of 200%
  2. Siege not only allows drone/fighter/fb to be used while activated, but also doubles their dps for any capital ship. Siege is required to activate drone control units.
  3. Siege is required for DD.
  4. Siege has same cycle time for all ships.
  5. DD can only be used against structures. No limit to the number of active DD (up to 8).
  6. Carriers get bonus to cap transfer activation of 15% reduction of cap needs for cap energy transfer.
  7. No eWar immunity for any ship. Titan ship sensor strength remains at 200. +2 warp core strength for Titans and SC.


#1 Levels the playing field so that all caps have the same drawbacks for their special abilities and simplifies the cap balancing.
#2 Brings a dps boost to carriers and SC with the penalty of immobility and strontium and (currently) no RR aid to any sieged ship.
#3 DPS special ability with siege drawbacks.
#4 The choice to go siege requires the same sacrifice from all caps.
#5 Titans rule alliance sov warfare. Alliance own Titans mostly because they are really good at sov warfare and that interests alliances. DD does not rule in fleet battles, but Titans still have powerful cap guns/missiles plus siege. A Titan with 8 DD is powerless to fight any fleet, because it has no cap guns and DD cannot be activated against/hit player ships (only structures).

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Christopher Crusman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#432 - 2012-03-30 14:46:04 UTC
Greyscale,

What are your thoughts on moving the sigrad/sigres comparison from being a multiplier on tracking to being a multiplier on range? (Sorry to kind of harp on this after my more elaborate version a few pages back, but it seems like it fixes a lot of issues, esp. with zero-transversal shots, and I want to know that you at least saw it, even if you then concluded it'd be a terrible idea :P)
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#433 - 2012-03-30 14:58:35 UTC
As I wrote here : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=950583#post950583

This fix is a patch on a serious issue however it is important for CCP to completely review super carriers and titans. CCP need to give these ships a role that makes people WANT to use them in combat, without making them an I-Win either on their own or in large amounts...
For the fix I like the reduced tracking part and the option to only lock up 2 targets at a time. CCP going back on their scan resolution nerf is something that makes sense...

Long term it is however important to look into these areas:
* Make people want to use super carriers and titans in fleet battles
* Prevent the ships from being overpowered by focus on supporting fleets rather than being dps monsters

People only want to bring expensive ships if they get to use them and will be able to see the results without a guaranteed instant loss the moment the battle begins. It should be evident that these ships require a certain finesse instead of having a huge amount of EHP and a ton of potential dps.

I'm suggesting CCP to:
* Define roles clearly (Make Titans support their own fleets and Super Carriers wreck havoc on the enemy)
* Give the ships more modules to assist their fleet with
-> Mods for Titans to set structure resistance to 99% on a targeted ship for a short cycle (Structure Stabilizer)
-> Mods for Titans to prevent cloaking within a 100km radious
-> Mods for Titans to neutralize effects from EW
-> Remote Energy Neutralizer Burst for Super carriers
-> Remote Stasis Webifier Burst/Emitter for Super carriers
-> Remote Target Painter Burst/Emitter for Super Carriers
-> Remote Tracking Disruption Burst/Emitter for Super Carriers
* Make sure getting hit by more than 1 module of the same type will have no additional effect
* Make Super Carriers and Titans are unable to warp/jump out while using modules
* Remove the ability on Super Carriers and Titans to receive shield and armor from others
* Boost the ability on local repairs (100% or higher bonus to hp/cycle pr skill level?)
* Give them a Capital Damage Control to become invulnerable & stationary once for 15/30 minutes when entering structure
-> This will prevent doomsdaying and killing Titans and Super Carriers initially in the battle
* Make the EHP for Interdiction Bubbles stronger against smartbombs

If CCP give these ships a reason to be fielded (lots of modules) and a guarantee to live through at least 15/30 minutes of fighting even if doomsdayed there should be a good reason to bring the Titans and Super Carriers to the field.
At the same time enforcing a local tank means that Titans and Super Carriers cannot be invincible through having a huge spider-web fleet of RR.

Make it fun to fly the big ships, but make it FAIR

Pinky
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#434 - 2012-03-30 15:00:04 UTC
Christopher Crusman wrote:
Greyscale,

What are your thoughts on moving the sigrad/sigres comparison from being a multiplier on tracking to being a multiplier on range? (Sorry to kind of harp on this after my more elaborate version a few pages back, but it seems like it fixes a lot of issues, esp. with zero-transversal shots, and I want to know that you at least saw it, even if you then concluded it'd be a terrible idea :P)


very nice solution imo, even scaled down to subcap sizes. not that i mind sniping frigs in missions but from a balance standpoint it seems strange that a turret BS only needs to launch drones once a day in lvl4s. i wouldn't make it a linear multiplier tough, something like sqrt( sig size / sig res) * base turret range seems more appropriate.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Christopher Crusman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#435 - 2012-03-30 15:09:16 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Christopher Crusman wrote:
Greyscale,

What are your thoughts on moving the sigrad/sigres comparison from being a multiplier on tracking to being a multiplier on range? (Sorry to kind of harp on this after my more elaborate version a few pages back, but it seems like it fixes a lot of issues, esp. with zero-transversal shots, and I want to know that you at least saw it, even if you then concluded it'd be a terrible idea :P)


very nice solution imo, even scaled down to subcap sizes. not that i mind sniping frigs in missions but from a balance standpoint it seems strange that a turret BS only needs to launch drones once a day in lvl4s. i wouldn't make it a linear multiplier tough, something like sqrt( sig size / sig res) * base turret range seems more appropriate.


Yeah, I was wondering about the multiplier; sniper BS only being able to hit frigates, range-wise, at 10-15km does seem a little harsh. But really, it does make a lot more sense for it to affect range rather than tracking; range is already the "accuracy" term (and if you're thinking of it as a pseudo-angular accuracy, a smaller ship should have to be closer for you to hit it), and the current way doesn't make much physical sense (do frigates have auto-ECM that beams crud into the turret-traverse gears? do titans' gravity wells pull turrets around to follow them faster?)

Would solve the problem of blapping zero-transversal dictors on other Titans, and could really revitalize smaller classes of ships in fleets (if AFs and ceptors are functionally invulnerable to the main guns of battleships and up, unless they choose to stop and look down the barrel, they might both become more popular and require destroyers to counter them); main problems would be edge cases like sniper t3 BC fleets outranging battleship fleets horribly due to the lower sigrad, and sniper BS fleets in general becoming less powerful against everything but other battleships (and it's not like they're exactly FOTM to start with). I'm not sure this would be a real problem, since a HAC fleet would rip the t3 BC fleet to shreds, but it is something to consider.
OldMan Gana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#436 - 2012-03-30 16:35:03 UTC
pmchem wrote:
Greyscale,

Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.

This^^^

Love United- Hate Glazer
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#437 - 2012-03-30 17:47:14 UTC
I think that the problem here is a "social" one.

We have dream-team alliances that can field a self sufficient fleet of supercapitals; and supercapital pilots enjoy the company of other like minded individuals.

If this is a problem CCP wants to solve in the long run, I think some things must happen in order to make supercapital ships more dependent on regular capitals/subcapitals support.


  • supercapitals will lose their invulnerability to electronic warfare.
  • supercapitals will not be able to fit electronic warfare modules of all sorts.
  • Supercapitals will not be able to fit remote buff modules (remote ECCM, tracking links, remote sensor boosters, energy transfer arrays or shield/armor transfer arrays). The SC bonuses, especially the Hel ones, must be changed.
  • all supercapitals will have an (almost) null capacitor and shield recharge rate.
  • all supercapitals will have their stats nerfed; they can reach the current stat values only through remote support by capitals and subcapitals (that is tracking links, remote SEBOs, remote ECCM).


After these things or at least part of this list has happened, Supercapitals could even be boosted; but they will become an instrument for fleets instead of OP monsters.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#438 - 2012-03-30 18:02:47 UTC
Camios wrote:
I think that the problem here is a "social" one.

We have dream-team alliances that can field a self sufficient fleet of supercapitals; and supercapital pilots enjoy the company of other like minded individuals.

If this is a problem CCP wants to solve in the long run, I think some things must happen in order to make supercapital ships more dependent on regular capitals/subcapitals support.


  • supercapitals will lose their invulnerability to electronic warfare.
  • supercapitals will not be able to fit electronic warfare modules of all sorts.
  • Supercapitals will not be able to fit remote buff modules (remote ECCM, tracking links, remote sensor boosters, energy transfer arrays or shield/armor transfer arrays). The SC bonuses, especially the Hel ones, must be changed.
  • all supercapitals will have an (almost) null capacitor and shield recharge rate.
  • all supercapitals will have their stats nerfed; they can reach the current stat values only through remote support by capitals and subcapitals (that is tracking links, remote SEBOs, remote ECCM).


After these things or at least part of this list has happened, Supercapitals could even be boosted; but they will become an instrument for fleets instead of OP monsters.



lol and this is suposed to fix supers?
Gripen
#439 - 2012-03-30 18:46:35 UTC
It's quite surprising for me that you are trying to came up with some kind of special case for the supercapital guns here while exactly same problem exists in subcapital world as well manifesting itself with frigates being extinct from all 0.0 warfare formats.

Christopher Crusman wrote:
Greyscale,

What are your thoughts on moving the sigrad/sigres comparison from being a multiplier on tracking to being a multiplier on range? (Sorry to kind of harp on this after my more elaborate version a few pages back, but it seems like it fixes a lot of issues, esp. with zero-transversal shots, and I want to know that you at least saw it, even if you then concluded it'd be a terrible idea :P)

And while we are at it what about using (target signature)/(signature resolution) as a multiplier to ship lock range? (yes, that would require moving signature resolution attribute to ship hull) This is my favorite solution for the problem and while it may be a quite significant change it also has more positive effects like making EAFs preferable over recons in range of situations.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#440 - 2012-03-30 19:30:09 UTC
Gripen wrote:
It's quite surprising for me that you are trying to came up with some kind of special case for the supercapital guns here while exactly same problem exists in subcapital world as well manifesting itself with frigates being extinct from all 0.0 warfare formats.


Completely agree with this. Titans blap BCs too easily and Battleships blap Frigates too easily. It's more than just one ship class.

That being said a full rebalance of turret tracking against small targets is probably too much for Escalation, but I would love to see it in the near future.