These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zeekar
Doomheim
#541 - 2012-04-03 22:51:55 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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?


I very rarely post on this forum because the signal to noise ratio is usually beyond horrible, but seeing this post i had to respond since i cant say i find any of these changes very thought out.

- Why would you do something just based on principle aka keeping the max locked target count at 3? Do it if it has merit don't do it if it doesn't .

- mid fight reffiting is a significant nerf to smaller groups that use capitals on a regular basis and is one of the things that actually can give a decent group the needed advantage when fighting outnumbered and honestly we do not need any more nerfs in that regard. For any group it will remove the ability to adapt to a situation, like a triage carrier reffiting mid fight when he becomes primary while giving nothing to the game except dumbing it down, regardless of how cute you think it is.

- Revisiting EW immunity. What exactly are you trying to do with that? The current supercarrier in its form is nothing else but a glorified dread, with shittier tracking i might add, and with rr ability. Which can not dock. Has to be built in a CSAA with a 3 week build time and requires a larger skill, implant and fitting investment for it to be actually considered deploying. And even then it barely out preforms a dread.

- If you implemented an attribute to turrets that would cause a damage reduction based on signature why not implement it on all turrets? Or you only consider 1000m sig resolution XL turrets shooting a 500m sig battleship broken in that regard and a 400m sig resolution 1400mm arty tracking an ahac with 90m sig without a problem as intended game mechanic? The difference in rations is actually in advantage to the XL turrets just to give you a hand with the math.

- The tracking adjustment shouldnt even occur but you would have to remove the titan combat role and actually give them a proper alliance based role. Shadoo wrote a nice post about it and i have to say i mostly agreed with him.

- Revisiting the tracking formula is the only thing i can wholeheartedly agree. And that needs to be done sooner rather then later since the current mechanic boils down to pretty much bring the biggest gun you can and blap away.
Hugo Adama
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#542 - 2012-04-03 22:56:35 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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?


Limite refitting to Supers, let's carriers refit still. And maybe do it on an aggression basis.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#543 - 2012-04-03 23:02:06 UTC  |  Edited by: steave435
Darirol wrote:
-dmg scaling for turrets

that sounds like a very smart solution, but you should be carefull with this. because if you even out everything the game will be boring. if turrets work the same way as missiles do, when drone regions drop the same bounty as other regions and so on.

They'll still be different. Turrets will hit instantly, can't have their damage smartbombed away and you can maneuver to influence hit chance.
Missiles are delayed and always hit, but since you can't influence transversal you might get a further damage reduction based on that.

Zeekar wrote:
- Revisiting EW immunity. What exactly are you trying to do with that? The current supercarrier in its form is nothing else but a glorified dread, with shittier tracking i might add, and with rr ability. Which can not dock. Has to be built in a CSAA with a 3 week build time and requires a larger skill, implant and fitting investment for it to be actually considered deploying. And even then it barely out preforms a dread.

The bolded part prooves you have no clue what you're talking about. Hint: It's not all about raw damage potential, stuff like mobility and tank is pretty significant too...

Zeekar wrote:
- If you implemented an attribute to turrets that would cause a damage reduction based on signature why not implement it on all turrets? Or you only consider 1000m sig resolution XL turrets shooting a 500m sig battleship broken in that regard and a 400m sig resolution 1400mm arty tracking an ahac with 90m sig without a problem as intended game mechanic? The difference in rations is actually in advantage to the XL turrets just to give you a hand with the math.

Can you imagine all the balance considerations that would need to be made if that was to be applied to everything right of the bat? It would be way outside the scope of this quick fix. He did open up for applying it to sub caps later on thought, and mentioning that he'd like to re-work the tracking formula while talking about that is a pretty good clue. He's just not promising stuff he's not sure he can keep.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#544 - 2012-04-03 23:03:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Raivi
Lord Maldoror wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Criticisms?



I feel the general drive here is wrong, in that it makes Eve into a lower skill game. Right now the tracking formula is rather esoteric but it works.

A move toward "turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius" reduces operational versatility on the field and encourages simply X countered by Y countered by Z. If you're in one-sized ship and you get jumped by different sig ships, you should be able to use your assets, armed with painters and webs, to kill those who have ambushed you. And, in turn, if jumping you with larger ships, they should have the same options to employ those to hit you.

Whilst I'm sure that would still be possible after the proposed changes, "turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius" is a step against it,. Unmodified is a bad word in an open-world sandbox game. There should always be opportunity to modify variables to respond to a situation.

Otherwise, we increasingly move to a rock, paper, scissors game with no fleet wanting to jump in first, lest the next fleet bring the perfect sig counter.

A game like Eve does not stand still. As the game grows, so does the collective knowledge of the people who play it. In 2007, people would jump into camps they would never dream about now - it was a lot easier to find a fight. This is not because people lack courage now. It's simply because people have come to learn what it means when they see falcons at range, or a given number of logistics or the speed of a 100mn AB Tengu, or the firepower of a super-capital or whatever else. People have learnt what counters what.

As a result, the mystery of a game, and the heart of the game, now lies in how people can adapt to given situations. The esoteric turret formula is a major part of that. If you see a bunch of battleships hitting a tower, you should never know - unless you ship scan them - whether they'll be able to hit your frigates or not.

While on the subject, let me also say I'm concerned that the tracking formula is not seen within CCP as a monument of Eve and a pillar of their mechanics.

I remember talking to Agent Xer0 and Lord Zap many times late at night after fleet, and listening to stories of m0o in the dawn of Eve back when I was still wasting my time on de_dust2. The introduction of tracking and sig had a monumental impact on the initial Wild West that they describe. You might even say that 'modern' Eve was born at that point.

And whereas much mystery has been dispelled in the collective growth of Eve knowledge, tracking and sig have remained esoteric to many people. Note, for example, the continual 're-discovery' of these mechanics. Every so often (e.g. AHACS, Afs, rifters, etc. ) a lower sig class of ship becomes vogue, catches on and is finally countered en masse by painters and webs. Gradually those counters themselves fall out of vogue and history repeats itself.

People should never have an answer to the question 'will they hit me?' before they take the fight. These last frontiers need to be enshrined and protected within the Eve code. The tracking formula and its relation to both speed and sig is one of Eve's finest technical accomplishments.

Ultimately, I don't feel the statement “scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius” is congruent with the finest aspects of Eve's game design or a full analysis of its history.


This is a good post.

If you need to do the unmodified sig thing due to time constraints, please commit to beginning the process of iterating on titans (finding a better solution) on April 25th. Don't stick it at the bottom of the backlog to be done after the rest of the ships in eve have all been balanced.
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#545 - 2012-04-03 23:07:24 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
something


I think I agree with the principles here, yeah.



never agree with yaay

ever

No sig.
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics
#546 - 2012-04-03 23:16:32 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
OK, so the approach we're currently considering is:

- 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

Criticisms?


These two changes would have too broad an impact, IMHO. What you're talking about is not only hitting supercaps, but now dreads and carriers as well, something that was specifically avoided with earlier rounds of changes. Meissa makes a solid point - if titans are a problem, nerf titans.

By my measure, dreads and carriers in w-space are fairly solidly balanced against subcaps and each other, these changes would hugely affect that dynamic in favor of subcap blobs.
Dwindlehop
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#547 - 2012-04-03 23:28:22 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:

[Refitting midcombat] is a good thing because it gives people adaptability.

I agree adaptability is a good thing. The proper thing for CCP to do is removing refitting midcombat, and instead give players the tools to display adaptability midcombat. These tools should benefit subcaps as well.

Refitting midcombat gives cap warfare an unfair advantage over subcaps.
Zeekar
Doomheim
#548 - 2012-04-03 23:33:51 UTC
steave435 wrote:

Zeekar wrote:
- Revisiting EW immunity. What exactly are you trying to do with that? The current supercarrier in its form is nothing else but a glorified dread, with shittier tracking i might add, and with rr ability. Which can not dock. Has to be built in a CSAA with a 3 week build time and requires a larger skill, implant and fitting investment for it to be actually considered deploying. And even then it barely out preforms a dread.

The bolded part prooves you have no clue what you're talking about. Hint: It's not all about raw damage potential, stuff like mobility and tank is pretty significant too...


The listed reasons, the decent damage, high volley, decent mobility and huge tank are in truth large advantages of supercarriers.
But removing EW immunity will pretty much kill all of those advantages except them being large EHP bricks that take a while to die. Their damage potential can already be removed from the battlefield with some creative tactic which cant be said about dreads and their mobility when already low with removal of EW immunity would pretty much get destroyed ( double web that aeon, so it doesn't get any where). So for them to actually give a decent bang for buck they have to keep the EW immunity.

steave435 wrote:

Zeekar wrote:
- If you implemented an attribute to turrets that would cause a damage reduction based on signature why not implement it on all turrets? Or you only consider 1000m sig resolution XL turrets shooting a 500m sig battleship broken in that regard and a 400m sig resolution 1400mm arty tracking an ahac with 90m sig without a problem as intended game mechanic? The difference in rations is actually in advantage to the XL turrets just to give you a hand with the math.

Can you imagine all the balance considerations that would need to be made if that was to be applied to everything right of the bat? It would be way outside the scope of this quick fix. He did open up for applying it to sub caps later on thought, and mentioning that he'd like to re-work the tracking formula while talking about that is a pretty good clue. He's just not promising stuff he's not sure he can keep.


I'm just trying to get his response about a specific game mechanic i hope you dont mind ;)
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#549 - 2012-04-03 23:44:52 UTC
regarding not refitting while locked, leave that alone for now and see how the other changes hold up. Stopping this removes some very fun advanced tactics and the benefits of removing it may not be worth it
Martin Ehrenthal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#550 - 2012-04-03 23:56:38 UTC
I hope it won't prevent dreads from shooting gardians sleepers in w-space.
Jita Alt666
#551 - 2012-04-04 00:02:26 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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


I can see the logic behind this suggestion, however it will drastically limit tactical options. How is this for a "mid point":
Non-targeted ships can refit as current mechanics stand
Targeted ships suffer the same capacitor penalties when refitting that ships suffer when off-lining and on-lining modules.
james1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
#552 - 2012-04-04 00:08:35 UTC
Love the tracking scaling change. Please please dear god though balance test it to high hell so you don't fec up the balance between cruisers, frigates and bs.

....
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#553 - 2012-04-04 00:10:52 UTC
Posting to reiterate that scaling gun damage based on unmodified ship sigs is a bad idea.

Also if you wanted to limit combat-refitting restrictions to supercaps I'd be OK with that.

Also also, I was re-reading one of your posts, Greyscale, and noticed that you said [turretchanges] would be good because they would stop titans from ratting. What's wrong with ratting supercaps? I'm assuming you guys don't like the idea that they can print isk quickly? I doubt they fall anywhere along the normal "risk vs reward" curve (they're 60b+ isk ships, and I doubt they peform much better than a couple of carriers when ratting) and ratting supers provide gank opportunities that the game sorely needs.
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon
#554 - 2012-04-04 00:20:15 UTC
The only deal-breaker I see is the no-refitting-in-space. Don't do that. That R&K vid really is a prime example of why refitting carrierside shouldn't be scuttered (personally wish it applied only to carriers and subcaps - **** supercapitals forever - but I suppose that's not fair to supercapital pilots*

* Goddammit. I actually wrote those last six words. Barf.
Blurtmaster
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#555 - 2012-04-04 00:30:30 UTC
If you do these changes:
What about the PVE End Game and capital spawns?

Level 5 missions needs to be revisited and adjusted.

You will need to insert Capital Sleeper ships in C6 wormholes to balance the end game content. I am here referring to the capital spawns - which will make absolutely NO sense after a capital nerf - to need capitals to spawn a subcapital fight.

We would of course LOVE a hard End Game Sleeper fight. [Currently it is way to easy.]

Or just make C7s. [Free beer next fan fest on me.]




PS. Also, L6 missions would be nice to see. - All PVE content is not actually needed to be available for everyone. Dying horribly is a part of the game.
SuperBeastie
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#556 - 2012-04-04 00:31:39 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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


I would like the lock count nerf to go away

I'm all for this other than you are suggesting basing it on unmodified sig. If someone chooses to fit their drake to have a sig of a carrier it should be hit like a carrier.

After watching the most recent r&k video I can safely say you are nuts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFahR4wXTg&feature=g-u-u&context=G24eaca1FUAAAAPAAHAA

[center]SuperBeastie's Third Party Service My in-game Channel is Supers Third Party[/center]
Mindboner
Doomheim
#557 - 2012-04-04 00:38:57 UTC
Quote:
You will need to insert Capital Sleeper ships in C6 wormholes to balance the end game content. I am here referring to the capital spawns - which will make absolutely NO sense after a capital nerf - to need capitals to spawn a subcapital fight.

We would of course LOVE a hard End Game Sleeper fight. [Currently it is way to easy.]

Or just make C7s.



Seems like you need to see the bigger picture here.

AND this would also reduce RMT farming in my opinion.
Singular Structure
Doomheim
#558 - 2012-04-04 00:43:56 UTC
Quote:
#558Posted: 2012.04.04 00:38 | Report
Quote:
You will need to insert Capital Sleeper ships in C6 wormholes to balance the end game content. I am here referring to the capital spawns - which will make absolutely NO sense after a capital nerf - to need capitals to spawn a subcapital fight.

We would of course LOVE a hard End Game Sleeper fight. [Currently it is way to easy.]

Or just make C7s.



Seems like you need to see the bigger picture here.

AND this would also reduce RMT farming in my opinion.


Besides the RMT problem to kill capital ships for farmers, I think that PVE capital content is missing from the 33% in Wormholes, that EVE geographically actually consists of.

CCP really need to market Wormholes as the totally unique environment of 48h dynamic world it really is.

C7 systems would be a whole new wet dream to explore, bikinis or not.
Miana Zarek
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#559 - 2012-04-04 00:51:37 UTC
Quote:
CCP really need to market Wormholes as the totally unique environment of 48h dynamic world it really is.

C7 systems would be a whole new wet dream to explore, bikinis or not.


Exploring new things would be nice!

Although C7's would be something wonderful to go into - It would sound to good to be true.

Seelene mentioned that Sleepers should attack POSes etc - well that would be an end game worth a challenge. Just capital spawns would actually be enough.



(Bikinis, I think I would need them manufactured in nanoribbons for my XL guns. (Even if you nerf them.))
Zxmagus
Delta Sqad
#560 - 2012-04-04 01:15:29 UTC
Nice ideas i think combat refitting has needed to be axed for years and looking at sig with titans guns is a good start.