These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Gameplay Center » Ships & Modules » Titan changes - update

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page2425262728Next pageLast page

Titan changes - update First post First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

CCP Greyscale

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 3,741

#501 - 2012-04-03 15:49:23 UTC

CCP Greyscale wrote:

steave435 wrote:

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.

Note to self: re-read this on Monday.

Ok, yeah, I think I see what you're doing here, and I think I like the options that this opens up. I also like that if we do the damage-scaling thing now it lays the groundwork for this sort of work later.

(I was busy yesterday trying to make Excel do something kinda stupid.)

CCP Greyscale

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 3,741

#502 - 2012-04-03 15:50:25 UTC

Nova Fox wrote:

Would having a dynamic signature resolution help with the situation?

Currently there doesnt seem to be a dynamic that changes the area where shots are placed in at optimal as far as I am aware not even skills or implants or rigs let alone modules.

I purpose the faster you swing the sniper weapons outside thier default around the larger the resolution as you are sacificing stability to get shots in the general area.

Inversly stabilizing the sniper weapons to have slower tracking might increase thier chance to hit within the area but makes them less likley to hit closer and speedier targets.

As for the shotgun weapons make it so that streching out thier distance would have similar effects. The further you try to make them reach out the less accurate they are.

However make them closer ranged and it will make it a surgical weapon.

Implimentation should stick with modules for now. Long term include skills and ammo into the factor.

This kind of player decision-making is something I'd really like to see more of. Very much approve of this sort of thing.

CCP Greyscale

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 3,741

#503 - 2012-04-03 15:51:40 UTC

I'm Down wrote:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

I'm Down wrote:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

I'm Down wrote:

Mate, this does not work. You can't fix the problem with a tweak to a broken system, you need to fix the system. The reason we can find ways to exploit the system is because it's not built correctly. I can already come up with a way to abuse this system simply because it's not addressing the issue at hand, which is range affecting tracking.

I'd love to have a live chat with you sometime because discussing this on the forums in not very effective. But needless to say, buffing DD and / or trying to work the game within the current tracking mechanics are both horrible ideas for numerous reasons. You just need to grit your teeth and actually fix the core problem.

Also let me point you to this very old post now that was aimed at the first round of titan changes and balance, got huge positive player feedback including the CSM chair, and actually addresses the problem of stacking supers on grid to counter the one natural counter... dreads.

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1014819

Although, I would make sure that the cap requirement is above 40% to prevent jump in and DD instantly attempts.
I would also make sure that siege dreads got a reduction in effects, but unsieged dreads were vulnerable.

Makes the DD near impossible to stack, penalizes huge super numbers to support a titan who chooses to DD, and acutally makes the titan more of a supportive role in fights.

And it actually ushers in the age of new tech 3 modules and ships.

Ok, hit me with the abuse cases then Smile

We don't have time to "fix the system" right now, but we want to tone titans down ASAP. If tweaks can hold us over for a while, I'll take tweaks.

The issue with tweaking falloff is that you don't adress the tracking. If I can find the link later, I'll post it, but about 2 years ago in an IT alliance vs MM/NC fight, Sala Cameron got somewhere near 110 kill mails and almost all of them were singular damage by his titan. He wasn't even using close range weapons... He was using a Ragna with Artilleries.

ALL he used was tracking computers and damage mods in the fight. No painters, no webs. He understood that the tracking formula as it is now puts so little emphasis on sig of a ship compared to it's transversal velocity, that he simply waited til their orbit alignment dropped their trans. velocity down to nearly 0. In eve combat, this happens all the time unless you have 1 fixed object to orbit that is the only object you are being shot by.

Scale titan fights up to 20 + and you will always have at least half the titans that can find this magic moment to blap with. When you have tons of targets to chose from of all ranges of skill, you're easily going to be able to reduce an enemy's fleet power quickly. Toss in web effects, and you make their margin of error drastically smaller.

The issue is that at range, the tracking drastically increases and the sig never changes. Greater difference in gun sig to ship sig at range means a greately reduced need to for the defending pilot to have a perfect orbital path and a much much smaller window for those titan pilots to find that hole where traversal velocity drops close enough to 0 where it overwhelms the sig.

So if you affect the gun sig as range increases and then reduce titan tracking.... both in cooperation actually make titans useless against support under most circumstances.

This is the same reason why pulse ships are so popular in game today. If you take away drakes and tengus, you'll probably see Amarr as one of the primary fleet concepts in 0.0. This is due to their high tracking + high range giving them some silly amount of hit potential on any ship class in game because of range and range alone.

As for the DD stacking with multiple mods, you can look around page 18 of this thread for that explanation.

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

No, falloff only affects your raw chance to hit, not ability to hit. It might lower a ships dps, but not it's ability to hit targets. When you're talking about a titan with 10-15000 dps, even at falloff, it's still able to project 7,000 dps. It does not make a pilot miss simply because his target is actively trying to avoid damage by moving and carrying a small sig.

The point is, pilots need to be punished for having 0 speed or stupid approachs. But pilots who are intentionally trying to fly well should be rewarded more. The current system doesn't allow this and provides no good options for how to avoid damage other than stay out of the reach of guns. There is no way to consistently avoid damage while in optimal or falloff, especially with blobs.

There needs to be a reward to fighting in the enemy optimal, but piloting well.

I think I agree with the principles here, yeah.

CCP Greyscale

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 3,741

#504 - 2012-04-03 15:56:17 UTC

Ganthrithor wrote:

Regarding all this formula-manipulation: I'm bad at mathematics, but please don't do anything that would affect subcap turrets and their uses. I see that you say in your post that your changes wouldn't really change anything for subcaps, which is good. What I wouldn't want is a scenario where, for example, I can no longer blap an interceptor that is MWDing at my battleship with zero transversal.

Basically, stay away from any changes to gun hit mechanics that straight up reduce damage applied by larger guns to smaller targets. Doing this would make it too easy to fly tacklers (by, for example, turning flying interceptors into "turn on MWD, approach target" rather than the current mechanics where you need to manually pilot to keep transversal up, etc).

Regarding removing supercap EWAR immunity: I'm all for it, with a couple of provisions:

1. Supercaps get at least plus ~10 WCS. Remember that scrams count for two points. Tackling a supercap should require intention-- a random passerby shouldn't be able to do it solo, but a small gang / trap making a concerted effort should.

2. Work out some way of ensuring that POS ewar modules cant tackle supercaps, or at the very least, un-manned modules can't / won't. I don't think supercaps being unable to gank on cyno beacons would be a positive change for the game, as it would make blind jumping to beacons too safe (it's already pretty safe, since a player can blind-jump and log-off during their invulnerability timer if there are hostiles on grid).

I really like the idea of substituting EWAR vulnerability for a tracking nerf, as this would allow XL gun platforms to continue working as-is in solo / small gang / ganking scenarios (where there is no EWAR on the field) while dealing with the problem of subcap blapping in fleet scenarios (where hostiles would presumably bring the appropriate EWAR ships to a fight). Any solution that manages the blob-related problems while leaving the ships' solo capabilities intact is one I'm in favor of.

Specifically regarding #2, if we want cynos at starbases to be interdictable, it's not something I'd want you to need a supercap for, so I'm not totally worried about that particular scenario.

Ganthrithor wrote:

Why would you want to emphasize doomsdays, oh god. DDs are such a god-awful mechanic in the first place.

Hey Greyscale-- have you guys looked into nerfing in-combat refitting off of SMAs at all? I really do think that it's Titans' ability to swap from a sensorboosted / tracking comp / damage mod setup to a tanking fit mid-battle that makes them overpowered in groups. When they fit for tracking they don't have that large of a tank, and could be killed fairly easily by a large subcap / normal cap fleet. Alternatively, if they fit a tanking setup, they're much harder to kill but have difficulty tracking subcaps.

I'd imagine that if Titan pilots were forced to choose between a tank and the ability to hit subcaps, you'd see far fewer tracking-Titans on the field.

Yup, it's silly, we're probably going to fix it while we're doing this (proposed implementation is "you can't refit while someone has you locked", which means we're not relying on aggro timers, you're always able to do it inside starbases etc, and also hurts people trying to use it while suicide ganking and suchlike.)

CCP Greyscale

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 3,741

#505 - 2012-04-03 15:57:57 UTC

Bouh Revetoile wrote:

About the tracking formula.
I think the best solution in the thread for this problem is to move the sig ratio from the tracking member to the range member.
But infact, it depend on what we want the sig ratio to be.
When I read about it in some guide, here is the picture I saw : http://eve.mondespersistants.com/images/images_art/2581.jpg
(french pic sorry; green is turret sig res, blue is ship sig radius, black are shot)
So the sig res is the area where the turret cannot distinguish anything and hence its shot will land anywhere in this area.
Signature radius is the size of the ship.
Considering this definition, we understand that any turret shot on a smaller target than its sig res have a chance to miss, hence the probability to hit we have.
However, if this model is right, the tracking formula is wrong. Indeed if sig res and sig radius are area, then, for a turret, it is given for an optimal range. Hence, in that optimal range, sig res and sig rad would give you your chances to hit, but these chances to hit would reduce while the distance increase (I don't know how to call this, but it's a story of point view enlarging with distance). Therefor, the sig ratio should *also* apply to the range member for our model to be good. And here we come to the falloff ! After some drawing, I think the sig ratio should simply be applied to the falloff.
So what about the tracking member now ? Does the sig ratio should apply to it ? I think the sig ratio have nothing to do with the tracking member. Tracking represent the angular velocity a turret can move to align a target. Whatever the size of the target, this member is supposed to determine if the turret can follow it's target to shoot at it.

In this model, the formula would become something like this :

Quote:

ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ (((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/(Turret Falloff*(Target Signature Radius / Turret Signature Resolution)))^2 + (Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius)^2)

But this will also extend our virtual falloff if the target sig radius is larger than the turret sig res (what which could make sens). If we don't want that, the formula become :

Quote:

ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ (((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/(Turret Falloff*(min(1, Target Signature Radius / Turret Signature Resolution))))^2 + (Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius)^2)

The tranquility tracking formula is this one :
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((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)

In this formula, the sig ratio is a multiplier to tracking member, and nothing else. Some people already explains why this is a bit silly.

In my formulas, we have the third member to adjust hit chance based on the sig ratio, hit chances being the damage modifier for turret, no need to turn them into missiles. This third member is now a hard pressure on the damage potential of turret based on signature. It can even be tweaked by adjusting the exponent. Furthermore, the presence of the sig ratio in the range member will kill the falloff if the target is too small. That may hurt minmatar more than the others, but I think they are way too powerful against smaller ships right now; by the way, that can be tweaked with an exponent too. You can also tweak the sig res of autocanon to compensate.

That's it. Now, if a math guy can check this, that would be perfect; I'm only a computer guy, and I lack rigour to be good at maths.

Important note : tweaking a model is good, but those tweaks should not modify the model. I think the best way to tweak the model is to use exponent on the terms to give them more or less importance; but I'm not scientist.

About the titans now : I think people using them will always find a way to use them against subcap. The best ideas I saw here are removing the EWar immunity (maybe give them some resistance to it) or a siege/triage module (force them to be alone and actually commit when committing to a fight). I prefer the siege module to be honest, because you can tweak it on top of everything else. Maybe removing the damage bonus of titans and placing it on some siege module can be a good idea ?

I *think* I understand what you're saying here, but I'm not 100% sure :/

CCP Greyscale

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 3,741

#506 - 2012-04-03 16:02:29 UTC

CynoNet Two wrote:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

Removing EW immunity - sell it to me hard Smile

Proposal:

Limit titans to 3 max targets
No scan-res changes
Remove ewar immunity flag from titans (even if it allows remote boosting)
A -75% tracking nerf on XL guns to compensate for remote links
Give titans a warp core strength bonus of 1 per level of racial titan*

Reasoning:

It's by far the easiest change on the table, just requiring removal of the ewar flag and tweaking of existing stats that were already planned.
Introduces a trade-off for Titan mobilty in a fight. Dreadnoughts currently have to siege and commit to a fight to recieve their damage and ewar immunity. Titans are free to break off at any time, and therefore should be vulnerable to ewar.
Forces players to control the sub-capital battlefield or take a severe risk with their supercaps.
Supercapital fights no longer rely on simply killing all hostile dictors to remove the risk to titans, although titans can't be tackled by a single opportunistic frigate.
Creates far more options to counter titans than just "more titans" or "enough suicide dreads to crash the node".
Encourages more experimental fleet compositions as there are now multiple avenues to counter titans, via various options to tackle or ewar them.
ECM, tracking disruption and sensor damping become alternative tools against titans, especially the latter two which are currently underused in fleet combat.
*The max warp core strength of 5 is based on the fact that many supercaps will be able to easily smartbomb away most ships with warp scramblers. Taking this value any higher massively increases the number of ships needed to tackle a several dozen strong titan fleet and reduces the pool of available pilots for EWAR ships.
We can revist the balancing at a later date when more resources are available. For example: giving EAS better bonuses for this role, or having the programming resources needed to prevent remote assistance on titans in exchange for another boost.

Ok, I like the reasoning here, and it's something I'm seriously interested in pursuing - but I'm concerned that it's trying to solve the immediate problem in too roundabout a way. It's definitely making them more vulnerable, and it's very likely a healthy thing for EVE overall, but it's relying on the emergent outcome developing in a particular way to counter the blapping issue, and I'm wary of taking another gamble on that sort of approach (this is the same sort of approach I was using with the scanres nerf, and that turned out to be full of exploitable holes).

Ken Ishitawa wrote:

Could a new colum be added to the over view so that not only can you see what EWAR a target might be doing to you but also cumulatively what EWAR your fleet is doing to a hostile fleet. this would massively reduce over jamming of one target and under jamming of others.

Interesting. I'll look into this.

CCP Greyscale

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 3,741

#507 - 2012-04-03 16:10:30 UTC | Edited by: CCP Greyscale

OK, so the approach we're currently considering is:

- Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles
- Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons
- Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted
- Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this
- Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC)
- Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list

The damage scaling guarantees that we solve the problem we're trying to solve, which is why we're currently favoring that approach. It also stops people from ratting in titans so effectively, which is considered a significant plus. Finally, it's likely laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive tracking adjustment at some possible time in the future maybe TBC perhaps you see how I'm being non-committal here right.

Stopping mid-fight refitting is a "cute" solution that may or may not end up contributing to this in practice, but it's not behavior we want to support anyway so removing it now seems reasonable.

The tracking nerf on XL weapons may or may not still be needed, we'll see how that pans out.

The tracking formula is now very much on my radar; as above I make no predictions about when we might look at it but it does warrant another look I think.

Criticisms?

813
gfldex Likes received: 813	#508 - 2012-04-03 16:20:39 UTC 2 CCP Greyscale wrote: - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted No beer for you from Rooks'n'Kings at next fanfest for you. (read: they will hate you long time) If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Mechael

Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail

Likes received: 248

#509 - 2012-04-03 16:22:07 UTC

CCP Greyscale wrote:

Sounds great, in theory. Can I highly recommend working together with whichever team is focused on rebalancing all of the ships (CCP Yterbium or however you spell it, I believe?) I think that this is all moving in the direction of making sure that every ship and piece of equipment that ships use has a clearly defined role in a fleet, no matter the fleet size. I'd specifically take this opportunity (CCP as a whole looking at game balance very seriously for the first time in ages) to help steer the game away from having large fleets that are composed 90% of identical hulls and fits. A well balanced fleet should have clear advantages, and yes, well balanced likely means not having an overabundance of any type of ship, capital or otherwise. It'd be great to see fleets with every class of ship represented, and the best way to make that happen is to make not having a certain class of ship be a serious hole in your fleet's viability.

The way damage is applied is by far the most important step towards this (no more large/XL weapons that can blap every ship size, making small/medium ships obsolete) and I have to say that I like where this is going and I hope everything turns out to be :awesome: ... after figuring damage out, EWar is definitely the next step.

Whether or not you win the game matters not. It's if you bought it.

CynoNet Two

GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves

Goonswarm Federation

Likes received: 713

#510 - 2012-04-03 16:28:38 UTC

CCP Greyscale wrote:

<3

How much of this is likely for Escalation and/or Inferno?

Dratic

TURN LEFT

Likes received: 6

#511 - 2012-04-03 16:31:46 UTC

Taking away refitting i think is a bad move and lessens available tactics available to players.
At the moment battles are far too much towards forming a perfect counter to the other side or no fight happens at all.
The ability to change fits mid fight allows people to adapt and survive rather than get stomped.
Failing that allowing people to simply lock a target it to disable fitting is too overpowered for a hostile fleet. If the target was being aggressed it may be reasonable to deny them fitting for a short amount of time.

pmchem

Brutor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 708

#512 - 2012-04-03 16:33:26 UTC

CCP Greyscale wrote:

- Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted

This specific change is terrible. Check out this R&K recent combat video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFahR4wXTg

A video that makes Eve both look fun, and requires people to be creative and adapt mid-combat. That would no longer be possible with this change.

I'll respond to the rest of the proposed changes shortly...

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Callic Veratar

Likes received: 683

#513 - 2012-04-03 16:35:12 UTC

I mentioned a while ago the idea of a fuelled module for Titans and Supercarriers that both enables EWAR immunity and disables jumping/warping, plus other potential benefits.

That being said, EW immunity seems to be off the table for now. The changes seem good, especially if it applies to all ships and not just caps. I always found it ridiculous that destroyers in missions are minor annoyances.

597
GeeShizzle MacCloud Likes received: 597	#514 - 2012-04-03 16:36:18 UTC \| Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud bahhh :P

CynoNet Two

GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves

Goonswarm Federation

Likes received: 713

#515 - 2012-04-03 16:42:57 UTC

Callic Veratar wrote:

That's actually a really fair compromise. Let supercaps keep ewar immunity if they fit a special siege module like a dread (which can also increase max targets and/or gives massive local rep/HP bonuses), or stay out of siege and be vulnerable to ewar and retain the ability to move around.
Damage is unchanged in either case.

pmchem

Brutor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 708

#516 - 2012-04-03 16:43:03 UTC

CCP Greyscale wrote:

- Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles
- Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons
- Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted
- Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this
- Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC)
- Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list

The damage scaling guarantees that we solve the problem we're trying to solve, which is why we're currently favoring that approach. It also stops people from ratting in titans so effectively, which is considered a significant plus. Finally, it's likely laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive tracking adjustment at some possible time in the future maybe TBC perhaps you see how I'm being non-committal here right.

The tracking nerf on XL weapons may or may not still be needed, we'll see how that pans out.

The tracking formula is now very much on my radar; as above I make no predictions about when we might look at it but it does warrant another look I think.

Actually, I like all the rest of your changes and 'revisit later' list. Just not the refitting thing (even if limited to Titans I think it would be a bad thing for combat and also be annoying as hell even with pure blue fleets. "who has me locked? please unlock me I need to refit!"). Let's give these changes a shot! The exact numbers for item #2 in your list may need some extensive testing, of course...

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

John Maynard Keynes

Science and Trade Institute

Caldari State

Likes received: 42

#517 - 2012-04-03 17:04:31 UTC

CCP Greyscale wrote:

OK, so the approach we're currently considering is:

- Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles

To what purpose? You can easily circumvent it by fitting a certain module in your high slots.

Quote:

- Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons
- Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted
- Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this
- Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC)
- Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list

The damage scaling guarantees that we solve the problem we're trying to solve, which is why we're currently favoring that approach. It also stops people from ratting in titans so effectively, which is considered a significant plus. Finally, it's likely laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive tracking adjustment at some possible time in the future maybe TBC perhaps you see how I'm being non-committal here right.

Stopping mid-fight refitting is a "cute" solution that may or may not end up contributing to this in practice, but it's not behavior we want to support anyway so removing it now seems reasonable.

The tracking nerf on XL weapons may or may not still be needed, we'll see how that pans out.

The tracking formula is now very much on my radar; as above I make no predictions about when we might look at it but it does warrant another look I think.

Criticisms?

Overall good approach. I especially like the ideo of dmg sacaling depending on gun resolution.

But plz don't forget one thing. You will nerf the titans now and then again later whan you actually have the ressources to do a appropriate fix. Consider to take some changes you do now back later. Because too much nerf would make this ships simply useless.

steave435

Perkone

Caldari State

Likes received: 88

#518 - 2012-04-03 17:37:54 UTC | Edited by: steave435

John Maynard Keynes wrote:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

OK, so the approach we're currently considering is

- Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principle

To what purpose? You can easily circumvent it by fitting a certain module in your high slots.[/quote
Yeah, but that's a slot you could have had something else in, like f.e. a bridge for bridging people, neut for capping out HICs, a smartbomb to clear drones and bubbles or a cloak if you're going somewhere where you don't have a POS

I like that change list, with 3 possible exceptions

1. Refitting in combat opens up for some advanced combat tactics that are harder to pull off on a large scale then on a small scale (like the tactics used by Rooks and Kings for example), and using superior tactics to defeat a otherwise superior enemy should be encouraged....but it does kinda ruin the whole point in having to select what fit to use before heading out. Not really sure where I stand on that one TBH

2. There might be too many changes at the same time if all of those go trough, especially if the tracking nerf is included. If they get a maximum damage cap trough the sig comparsion while also loosing their EW immunity and getting their base tracking nerfed, then that's probably going too far. I'd let them keep the EW immunity for now, and have an another look at it in a few months, if it turns out that titans are still somehow managing to blap it should be pretty easy to remove the immunity then (I'm assuming there's just a "ImmuneToEW = 1" that need to be changed) if the decision about what to do in that situation has already been made in this pass.

3. The damage scaling based on sig doesn't really have to be based on base sig rather then actual sig. Missiles use the actual sig, and that mechanic has prevented this from being an issue there.

Nova Fox

Novafox Shipyards

Likes received: 4,639

#519 - 2012-04-03 18:27:36 UTC | Edited by: Nova Fox

Overall if it must be done then yes having XL gun damage scale with target size then so be it.

I just feel we'd be losing some realism having a empire state building ramming though a battleship at near lightspeeds.

Anyways further interating on the signature resolution vs gun behavior it would be an additional oppertunity to diversify the guns.

For example beam lasers could retain the best resolution when its tracking is boosted with railgun then artillery while being inverse order for the short ranged weapons.

It would also open oppertunity to add additional ammo, scripts, modules, and skill training, and electronic warfares.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Bubanni

Corus Aerospace

Likes received: 854

#520 - 2012-04-03 18:35:13 UTC

CCP Greyscale wrote:

I am a huge fan of the damage reduction based on sig radius vs sig resolution, would be awesome on all turrets, of cause with some adjustments, perhaps even skills that effect Sig res on turrets (like missiles)
,

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

First pagePrevious page2425262728Next pageLast page