These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
#581 - 2012-04-04 07:07:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mecinia Lua
CCP Greyscale wrote:
OK, so the approach we're currently considering is

- Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principle
- Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapon
- Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targete
- Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering thi
- 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 lis

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'd not adjust tracking right now, concentrate on the other areas, no need to break something now that has to be fixed again later.

EW immunity should probably go, however they should have enough sensor strength, warp core strength etc, that it would take about a dozen subcaps to effectively hold them or jam them. Introduce new EW Capital Ship (probably a new dreadnought say level 3 Dreadnought, one per race with their races EW bonuses). They would use Capital EW Modules which against capitals would be just like using a Scorpion against Battleships (while we are at it the other races could use their own EW Battleships....). I'd probably base the bonuses of the EW Capital Ship off the races Recon bonuses, making them a bit more flexible.

I'd rather see baby steps, then massive changes that might incredibly break the game.
McFly
Peanut Factory
#582 - 2012-04-04 07:32:54 UTC
I'm Down wrote:

Scaling damage makes 0 sense. Can you honestly tell me a battleship in the real world will aim it's guns at a suicide bombing speed boat and magically hit it for less damage simply because it's small. NO. It's gonna hurt like hell, it's just going to have a rough time hitting it, especially if it's moving at all.


The 5 inch gun on most US Naval Cruisers/Destroyers instapop those puppies. Of course there's some pretty amazing radar and fire-control systems that allow those guns to hit so accurately.

But I agree with Yaay a bit here. Scaling Damage combined with making ewar ineffective in this equation (using base signatures) defeats the purpose of webs and painters, which if nothing else have seen a revival in the last couple years against various fleet doctrines.

Titan Ratting: Who the hell cares to be honest. I think any reason for someone to take a supercap out of the pos shield is good for eve. Just like anything else. Smart and/or Lucky people will get away with it while Dumb and/or Unlucky People will end up on the frontpage of EveKill/Kugu/EN24.

Ewar Immunity: I dont see anything broken with ewar immunity currently. Especially now that Supercaps can no longer be remotely boosted with tracking links, remote sensor boosters, or etc. No reason for any of this to change. 1 Ship a titan can't kill (after scaling change) should not be able to disable it completely. ECM would basically make supercaps useless. Because we all know even with 300 sensor strength, (proteus + grails + remote eccm on a guard) you still get jammed by ec-300s.

Locked Targets: Reducing locked targets is also pointless imho. All that will happen is you are taking a highslot away from a ship that when fielded with 30 others doesn't really need to fit their bridge anyway. This change only hampers titan pilots in small groups.

Refitting While Locked: This is dangerous to mess with. Triage Carriers depend on this ability to survive when a hostile force tries to use supercarriers as the "I win" button against a small coordinated group of subcaps supported by 1 or 2 carriers. Rooks And Kings have shown this in their latest video, but they aren't the only people to have used it.

Just one thing I'd like to point out, when everyone was crying for drake armies to be nerfed in 2010, CCP stood on the ground that balancing a ship based on people using a hundred of them wasn't a good practice. Why is everything different when people use 20-40 100Bil Isk Hulls?

Dont nerf these ships to the point no one has a reason to use them for anything besides bridging. The original scan res change would have caused this. Remember pre dominion when titans spent 90% of their lives inside pos shields. Dont cause that all over again. We got them out of the pos shield, and on grid in the fight, and they die from time to time.

tbh eve is the kind of place where a MWD Maelstrom with LSE's moving with 0 transversal should take the full brunt of the biggest guns in the game.

LakeEnd
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#583 - 2012-04-04 08:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: LakeEnd
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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


It kinda smells that this one is going to affect all capitals, which in my opinion is very bad idea.

First of all, aren't capitals supposed to be different from subcaps in other ways than just CPU and PG. If you take away to refitting capability what's left besides the jump drive?

Secondly you will be removing lot of different roles and tactical options from say triage carriers. Just take a look at latest Rooks and Kings video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFahR4wXTg where you can see how big role the refitting under fire plays. Please don't dumb down the game any more, superior tactics and player skill should still have some effect to this game.

Thirdly just because you are hell bent on driving the supercaps into gutter, it does not mean that you have to destroy the one capital ship class that is actually working really well currently.
fLitSer
#584 - 2012-04-04 08:18:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
OK, so the approach we're currently considering is:

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.
Criticisms?


I dont think this is a solution to much, it's the Tracking to damage ratio on targets that needs attention, not having the ability to refit a ship in space.
This would also be a royal pain in the ass for friendly targeting ie; remote reps .... no?

gfldex wrote:
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)


RnK would just adapt as seen previously as the very good strategist's/PvP'ers they are!
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#585 - 2012-04-04 08:23:50 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
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.


I used mine for it for a while when we were in a safe area, and I was pulling in 300-350m/hour.

I'm Down wrote:
All these replies get at the point. The tracking formula is borked to hell, not the damage potential based on ship size. Fix the sig over distance issues and you fix the whole problem with the tracking formula. Doesn't make it impossible to hit a target, just really damn hard to at range.

Scaling damage makes 0 sense. Can you honestly tell me a battleship in the real world will aim it's guns at a suicide bombing speed boat and magically hit it for less damage simply because it's small. NO. It's gonna hurt like hell, it's just going to have a rough time hitting it, especially if it's moving at all.

1) Realism should have NO impact on game balance concerns. Make up the RP to fit the mechanics that are needed, not the other way around.
2) If you want to go RP-mode, then ships aren't shooting rounds as big as they are, and when you're firing f.e. a beam laser that beam needs to stay on the target trough out the firing cycle in order to do full damage, so if it's having a hard time hitting it's not gonna manage to keep the beam on target constantly, thus reducing damage.
Tiger's Spirit
Perkone
Caldari State
#586 - 2012-04-04 08:29:53 UTC
You want to know the best idea ?
Delete supercaps and problem solved!!!
Ken Ishitawa
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#587 - 2012-04-04 08:42:02 UTC
If you're looking at building the difference in ship signature radius and Weapon Sig radius into the equation to work on damage should this not be an exponent not a linear relationship. After all it should be the area profile of a target that alters damage not how long a ship is.

That might require the sig radius of all/most ships to be changed though so should be done with the ship role work.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#588 - 2012-04-04 10:22:03 UTC
If you as developers really want a trump card move that makes titans less scary on the battlefield, make the Doomsday hit for 25% of it's total damage when a dread is in siege. This way 20 dreads on the field all the sudden look way scarier since titans can't instantly remove their natural counter. Keep carriers blapable since logistics is overpowered in game anyways. But if a dread is crazy enough to lock him self in posistion for 5 minutes with no remote support ability, he deserves a defensive advantage and not a 1 shot kill worry.

This is also an incredibly easy fix in addition to the good ones posted above..... and you can focus on the tracking formula later for the other problems.

Just please, for the love of god don't make gun damage scale on sig, make hit chance scale.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#589 - 2012-04-04 11:01:57 UTC
Making dreadnoughts into anti-BS platforms just goes to obsolete BS and make dreads the new fleet platform. So, little change, except that the dreads are much more mobile thanks to jump drives and require much more SP to fly, thereby hindering and discouraging new pilots from taking part in fleet engagements. Not a sensible change at all.
ilammy
Brave Collective
#590 - 2012-04-04 11:04:30 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Keep carriers blapable since logistics is overpowered in game anyways.
Do you mean 'If they are not in triage'?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#591 - 2012-04-04 11:28:51 UTC
Mechael wrote:
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?


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.


Already doing this Smile The "balance team" is pretty small, and we talk to each other about all of these things, don't worry Smile And yeah, we'd love to move balance to a place where the "core concept" ship is making up say 40-50% of the fleet rather than 80%+.

CynoNet Two wrote:
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?


<3

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


1-4 are hopefully targeting Escalation, 5 and 6 I have NFI at this time Smile

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#592 - 2012-04-04 11:34:33 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:

My biggest concern with this list of proposed changes is this: if you're going to delve into sorting out / changing the way guns apply damage to their targets, PLEASE make sure that whatever formulaic changes you make don't detrimentally disrupt current balance between subcap classes.


This is exactly why we're making a change that we can apply selectively to XL guns rather than just changing the tracking formula.

Creat Posudol wrote:
Mechael wrote:
Honestly, it wasn't until fairly recently that I came to understand that tracking and sig radius have a multiplicative effect on each other rather than being two separate things entirely. I liked it better when I believed they were separate; it made so much more sense.
The same goes for me. I've been playing since 2004 (sometimes more, sometimes less), it was only a few years ago (maybe 2009? 2008?) as I was looking into something entirely different that I realized that the signature difference was basically a modifier for tracking. I just happened to be looking at the turret formula and all of a sudden there was an "aaahhhh..."-effect. At the very least this needs to be so much clearer, but preferably just finally fix it and make it work like the wording of the attribute suggests.


Yeah, I suspect this is a pretty broad issue, which doesn't make me totally happy.


CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#593 - 2012-04-04 11:36:22 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
I'll post here too...

CCP Greyscale wrote:

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

Criticisms?


Yes, very much so.

This is an example of a nerf that is overreaching. You don't want titans to refit in combat, then prevent titans from refitting in combat. They don't do it all that much anyway.

My concern here is everyone else.

Refitting midcombat is a tactic used sparingly that has been in use for years. Foundati0n posted a video about it in 2009 and used it since at least 2007. It's not an easy thing to do, it's not a magic button "here I refit from one configuration to another", it's used infrequently in small/medium gang warfare that involves a small number of caps.

It is a good thing because it gives people adaptability.
It makes decisions one makes in the battlefield matter, as opposed to making only the decisions made when undocking matter.
It removes part of the rock-paper-scissors scenarios where one can find themselves screwed up because of information they couldn't possibly have (what fleet you end up facing, which may or may not be the one you set out to fight against).
It makes player skill matter. Keeping track of what's going on in the fight, where you are, what you're up against and other situational awareness important.
It helps against blobs, if I can make important decisions on the field, I don't need to bring everything and the kitchen sink to prepare for every single possibility.
It makes people stay and fight where they would have fled because they don't have something to counter whatever they end up facing.
It's a fair tactics, in the sense that everyone has an equal ability to employ it.
It creates interesting fights because of evolving tactics in the fight, so there's an ebb and flow as opposed to whoever is winning in the beginning is winning in the end.

It may not be what CCP had in mind when refitting on carriers became a possibility, but isn't this a sandbox, emergent gameplay and all that?

Now, to get back to titans, if you want to prevent titans from doing that, I don't have too much of an objection, but then limit that nerf to titans and titans only.



Reposting my reply from the CSM forum here so everyone can see the discussion:



This sort of gameplay is emergent and cool and interesting and something we very much enjoy seeing players discover, but it also sits in a particular kind of design grey-area where it's not really something we want to be seeing (for reasons I'll describe in a second), but something that's benign enough that we're not actually going to take action to nerf it just because of that, but also nevertheless something that we're not going to explicitly exempt from larger changes if they happen to impact it.

The reason we don't really like this sort of thing is that pre-fight fitting decisions are supposed to be one of the fundamental decisions of EVE combat. Most MMOs let you change your weapons and armor more-or-less on the fly. We don't, and there are clear and long-standing design principles behind that. SMAs let you make that decision *closer* to the fight, but they're not there to let you change your fitting *in* the fight. Yes, we need more interesting decisions that players can make during combat, that's one of the fundamental problems with our combat model right now IMO, and yes, removing this option will take some interesting decisions out of combat, and that makes us sad.

That said, it is nevertheless the case that the design team here doesn't feel that explicitly supporting this kind of gameplay by exempting non-supercap ships from the restriction we want to take here is a direction we want to be taking the game in over the medium term. We would rather remove this particular option in the short-term to maintain the importance of pre-fight fitting, and then solve the larger problem of a lack of interesting decisions during combat in the medium term with mechanics that explicitly and properly support such decision-making in the full range of combat scenarios, rather than grandfathering in an exception to the general design intent to leave a small bandaid on a large wound.

We're still listening to the feedback here, obviously, but we feel we have a lot of reasons to be moving in this direction right now.

Mike deVoid wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further.


I've started a proposal thread on FHC that does just this: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?6245-The-Great-Tracking-Nerf-v0-1


If you want to discuss it here I'd recommend posting it here Smile
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#594 - 2012-04-04 11:41:03 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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


I'll try to make it simpler.

With missiles, we cap damages with a direct signature and velocity comparison, and that's why damages don't scale down with turret size (when turret size increase, damage to smaller target reduce a lot).
With turret, we cap damages with chances to hit and a multiplier (I forgot it last time ; I will go back to it later), and that's why damages scale down pretty well with turret size (when size of turret increase, damage to smaller target do not reduce too much).

That is because with missiles, being small is enough to reduce incoming damages, and speed reduce them further.
While with turret, your size only affect how easy you will manage to outtrack the turret, and it is actually your piloting only (by increasing your transversal velocity) which decrease the chances to hit and the damages.

Turret damage formula is made with two members : tracking member (where sig ratio is used with transversal velocity) and range member (where we check if target is in optimal range, and reduce chances to hit when it's not).

You can cap turret damage directly if you want without modifying the turret damage formula, but that would be a coarse way of doing it because it would go against the idea of the turret damage formula and it would make turret more like missiles but without the advantages of missiles.
So you have two ways of doing it : by modifying the turret damage formula, or by tweaking the damage modifier.

I already explained how to tweak the turret formula to affect hit chances, which will affect the raw dps of turrets : if you want signature to directly affect hit chances, you need to add a member next to the tracking and range members (X = A + B + C with A the tracking member, B the range member and C the new sig member) ; this will make hit chances, and hence dps, to be directly affected by signature regardless of any other factor.

Then follow an explanation of the damage modifier of turret, because I didn't realized that you can directly modify the damage output of turret the way you like with no difference.


I didn't realized there was the other way until tonight. Damages on turret are affected by the quality of hit.
I will not consider wrecking hit to make it simpler. Infact, when you shoot with your turret, a random number between 0 and 1 is drawn, we call it X. The formula determine the higher value X can take to hit the target. Look at the evelopedia for more explanations. In brief, turret damage number is multiplied by X+0.5. So if your turret can hit the target, it will do at least 50% of its damage and at most 150% (provided it's not a wrecking hit).
So a quick and dirty fix to cap XL turret damages could be made here. Multiply this ratio with the damage modifier by the sig ratio and you're done.
Damage modifier look something like F = D * (X+0.5) (F = final damage number, D = damage of turret (after all its bonuses), X = the random number drawn to determine the hit).
Make it like
F' = D * (X+0.5) * (target sig radius / turret sig resolution)
Which can also be F' = F * (target sig radius / turret sig resolution)
and you have something missile like. But then, you will see a lot more Leviathan... maybe...


So you can actually modify damage of turrets directly with sig, but that would make them a lot more similar to missiles without their advantages (though 20m/s explosion velocity is still a very limiting factor for capital missiles and balance that a bit; but that's not true for lower classes of missiles).


Ok, I think I get you now, yeah. Putting that extra term in the damage formula is more or less what we're planning on doing here, I think.

I'm Down wrote:

I do not like the damage scaling with unmodified sig. Titans should always be able to do full damage under perfect conditions. You just need the ability to make perfect conditions much much harder. Ultimately, a 3x webbed ship at 60km should be moving fast enough to avoid tracking if the sig penalty was in place properly rather than the horrible current mechanics.


"Why?" (For bonus points, frame the answer as "it would be better for the game as a whole if this were the case because...)

(Also, I'm not being facetious here, I'm actually interested in the answer. I have to make judgment calls based on my understanding of the situation, so unsupported assertions are problematic.)

Grideris
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#595 - 2012-04-04 11:41:19 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mike deVoid wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further.


I've started a proposal thread on FHC that does just this: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?6245-The-Great-Tracking-Nerf-v0-1


If you want to discuss it here I'd recommend posting it here Smile


It's a pretty massive set of posts - I actually would in this instance recommend that you read it over there.

http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com -** the** blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need

Oberon Pedar
Euphoria Released
#596 - 2012-04-04 11:44:39 UTC
Didn't have the time (or patience) to read 30 pages of post but, at the risk of repeating what other might have said:

I think titans should behave more like a mobile POS (or at least have that role as an option).
Introduce a new titan only module similar to the industrial module of the rorqual.

While this new module is active:
Titans get zero speed;
Titans cannot be bumped;
Titans cannot jump;
Titans cannot open cynos;
Titans cannot be remote repped;
Titans cannot online the new module inside a POS shield;
Titans cannot online the new module if they are less than 100km from a POS and less than 50km from another titan;
Players can man the titan’s turrets (maybe introduce capital EWAR modules that can also be manned by players);
The titan shields would expand like a POS shield (radius equivalent to a small POS shield);
Shield HP increase while the new module is online (normal shield resists mods also affect the total amout of EHP);
Shield boosters cannot be activated while the new module is online (or maybe require fuel to do so);
Ships inside de shield cannot target anything outside the shield and are not affected by bombs (but the titan shields are);
Ships inside de shield cannot be targeted anything outside the shield;
Ships inside the shield can use the refitting service;
Ships inside the shield can use the jump bridge (max jump bridge range increase and fuel cost reduced);
Ships inside the shield have access to repair facilities (titan repair services use nanite paste as fuel and a limited number of simultaneous users);
Super caps cannot enter inside the titan’s shield (not sure about this one);


The new module requires fuel to work and the titan cannot be refueled while the module is online;
Titan fleet bonuses are the same;
Titan’s cannot fit a doomsday and the new module at the same time;

As side effect this would probably mean that all titans would shield tank and the number of mid\low slots per titan needs to be revised;

Other possible changes\capabilities of the new module:

Behave like a triage module and give bonuses to remote armor reps, remote shield transfers and remote energy transfers but with better bonuses (increased max range and effectiveness);
Increase titan lock speed and max locked targets (2 targets when the module is offline and 8 targets when the module is online);
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#597 - 2012-04-04 11:51:20 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
- 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)


Might not be the best solution, but why don't you make the sig ratio work as a fuzzy-miss factor? not just compare the two, but based on the sig comparision ratio shots might (partially) miss with a probability. The more close to the target's sig to the weapons' the chance for this is smaller, when it's the same size or bigger, no misses happens due to this factor, on a lower sigres on the target than on the weapons', a (partial) hit might happen, reducing the damage by a second factor, taking into account the two sigs' ratios.

Combining this with the stacking penalties of targets painter might solve the issue, when properly tuned for the numbers. Damage should scale for the size of the targets, and tracking won't be only relevant attribute. Right now even with a battleship i can volley frigs, which have considerably lower sigs than my weapons'. Seems like a more universal solution for me.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#598 - 2012-04-04 12:11:44 UTC
Jita Alt666 wrote:

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.


This is interesting.



Ganthrithor wrote:
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.


They're making *large* amounts of money - and because it's bounties, injecting large amounts of ISK - and we're just straight-up not happy with that. They're expensive, sure, but they're not supposed to be good at PvE and we don't like the amount of money they're allowing people to generate.

I'm Down wrote:
All these replies get at the point. The tracking formula is borked to hell, not the damage potential based on ship size. Fix the sig over distance issues and you fix the whole problem with the tracking formula. Doesn't make it impossible to hit a target, just really damn hard to at range.

Scaling damage makes 0 sense. Can you honestly tell me a battleship in the real world will aim it's guns at a suicide bombing speed boat and magically hit it for less damage simply because it's small. NO. It's gonna hurt like hell, it's just going to have a rough time hitting it, especially if it's moving at all.


It's an abstraction which serves us for balancing purposes. Yes, it would be more "realistic" to tune the tracking formula further, but that's a) not something that's in scope here and b) not necessarily going to produce good *gameplay*. Realism is good because it makes it easier for players to make intuitive deductions about the system so they can make better decisions, but it's subservient to making the game *good*. This is also why we don't have Newtonian combat - it's *realistic*, but it also sucks for the kind of game we're making.

Vonce forthelulz wrote:
IMO it makes sense that such a massive and powerful ship could not be held down by a single rifter with a warp scram. Also, changing titan mechanics for a perceived problem that only occurs with a handful of alliances and only in the largest of fleet battles should not make a single one defenseless to a small roaming gang with a falcon.


Again, "what makes sense" is subservient to "what would be balanced". We're probably not going to end up in a place where a single frigate can tackle a titan because it's probably not balanced, but the decisions will be balance-driven, not "it doesn't seem fair"-driven.

Dr 0wnage wrote:
2. "- Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted" Right idea, wrong implementation. I think what were looking for here is not being able to refit while having an aggression timer. After all, your crew is still at battle stations and in no position to start retrofitting your ship right?


We thought about doing it this way, but the timers are either too long (15 minutes) or too short (60 seconds), and it's a more roundabout way of getting to the same thing. In particular, with the "locked" method we like the fact that you can always use a starbase fitting array regardless, because you can never be locked inside a forcefield.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#599 - 2012-04-04 12:42:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Demon Azrakel
Mechael wrote:

Ability to hit 1 size lower with webs + painters + at around optimal range (not too close, not too far into falloff) is about how it should be. It should still struggle to hit, but hitting at that point should be possible. The problem that needs addressing, therefore, is that sig needs to affect range, not tracking

EDIT: Or maybe sig should affect range and tracking

EDIT 2: I'd also like to note that there should be no real size difference between capital ships and "supercapital" ships. I'd be very much in favor of making tier 1 carriers and dreadnaughts bigger than they currently are (about the same size, at least model-wise, as a machariel, which frankly is just too small.) A supercarrier is really just a tier 3 carrier. I'd say the size difference should be no more pronounced than it is between Cruisers and Battlecruisers (both medium sized, battlecruisers slightly larger to counterbalance more firepower, or Destroyers and Frigates (both small sized,) while the size difference between battleships and capital ships should be just as pronounced as every other size increase. But that'll probably have to wait until the balancing team works it way up to capital ships. Since they're starting with frigs, I won't be holding my breath.

A megathron does not exactly struggle to hit a webbed and scrammed cruiser (and battlecruiser would be a more apt comparison) within optimal of its blasters. It does, however, have problems at close range hitting with, say, rails. And, to top this off, titans are actually a lot more mobile (you know...siege, inability to get webbed, ability to warp in and out if there are no hics or bubbles) than dreads, so I expect dreads to fit the long range weapons more often than titans. Also, a Moros is an order of magnitude larger than a BS and has a larger set of guns. An Erebus (more than) is an order of magnitude larger than that, so why does it not get an even larger set of guns.

Carriers are too small, the macharial is too big. This has been the case for some time. However, titans and supercarriers require an order of magnitude more material input, and as such, should be an order of magnitude larger in size (the difference between a cruiser and a battleship). A supercarrier is a tier 3 carrier if a hyperion requires 15x the material input of a dominix. Not only that, but the idea of a tier 3 ship having 15x+ the hitpoints of a tier 1 ship.

One way I have put it in the past is that volume should be proportional to material input, and that volume is (for ships of similarish dimensions) proportional to lenghth (the cubic root of length, to be precise, v = l*w*h, and if these are proportional...). Given a Titan requires 3x the material cost of a SC (Lets use a Wyvern-Leviathian or Avatar-Aeon comparison, given the (very general) similarity in shape), its dimensions should be 1.44x the dimensions of a supercarrier. Given that a Supercarrier uses 15x the build material of a carrier (For the sake of argument, they have about the same shape), its dimensions should be 2.466x the dimensions of a carrier. Given that a carrier required 10x the material input of a battleship, its dimensions should be 2.15x the dimensions of a battleship. And so on. (At this point, we can calculate that a titan would have 7.63x the dimensions of a battleship, occupying the volume of 450 battleships.)

On your earlier point about diversity.
Mechael wrote:


I actually left a C5 hole because of these mechanics that you seem to like. To each his own, I suppose.

Carrier + Loki + Battleships/T3's with a dread warping in for the final escalations ... every goddamn time. Boring as all hell. There's no diversity out there, precisely because weapon size doesn't matter anywhere near as much as raw DPS does so long as you bring a webber ship or two. There is currently no room for well over half of the ships in the game in PvE (or PvP for that matter.) The lack of diversity due to current game mechanics is a tragedy and exactly what these changes are trying to fix (once you apply them to ships other than only titans, anyway. Only applying this to Titans really should not be an option in the long term.)


Have you seen incursions. If you change it, you just have incursions with triage. If there must be a cookie cutter fleet for each (in both cases there is a shield and armor variety), then at least don't make them the same fleet compositions (difference is triage carrier + carrier for escalation only + dreads, you would actually be reducing it to triage carrier + c carrier for escalation only + 2x dreads for escalation only, do you want the sole purpose of dreads in w-space isk making to be to spawn **** and warp off?). Remember, sleeper sights were kinda designed with dreads in mind (ya know, the whole capital escalation thingy).

Anyway, curious as to CCP Greyscale's opinion on XXL turrets and a 1 size lower with webs or (in the case of sieged dreads / idiots burning straight at you or sitting still) immobility (severely low transversal) rule (with XXL turrets set up to have insane weapon sig and tiny, tiny tracking). A dread should be able to hit BS like a BS can hit cruisers (not all that well if you remove webs from the equations). A titan can hit carriers (and useless, moving dreads out of siege) like a dread can hit BS in siege, etc.
CCP Greyscale wrote:

They're making *large* amounts of money - and because it's bounties, injecting large amounts of ISK - and we're just straight-up not happy with that. They're expensive, sure, but they're not supposed to be good at PvE and we don't like the amount of money they're allowing people to generate.


Fix local chat and the risk rises a lot. Just sayin'.

Atm, the risk is minimal because they can be aligned out and watching local (with intel channels based on local chat intel). If local was not such a good tool, this story would be different.
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#600 - 2012-04-04 13:34:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

This sort of gameplay is emergent and cool and interesting and something we very much enjoy seeing players discover, but it also sits in a particular kind of design grey-area where it's not really something we want to be seeing (for reasons I'll describe in a second), but something that's benign enough that we're not actually going to take action to nerf it just because of that, but also nevertheless something that we're not going to explicitly exempt from larger changes if they happen to impact it.

The reason we don't really like this sort of thing is that pre-fight fitting decisions are supposed to be one of the fundamental decisions of EVE combat. Most MMOs let you change your weapons and armor more-or-less on the fly. We don't, and there are clear and long-standing design principles behind that. SMAs let you make that decision *closer* to the fight, but they're not there to let you change your fitting *in* the fight. Yes, we need more interesting decisions that players can make during combat, that's one of the fundamental problems with our combat model right now IMO, and yes, removing this option will take some interesting decisions out of combat, and that makes us sad.

That said, it is nevertheless the case that the design team here doesn't feel that explicitly supporting this kind of gameplay by exempting non-supercap ships from the restriction we want to take here is a direction we want to be taking the game in over the medium term. We would rather remove this particular option in the short-term to maintain the importance of pre-fight fitting, and then solve the larger problem of a lack of interesting decisions during combat in the medium term with mechanics that explicitly and properly support such decision-making in the full range of combat scenarios, rather than grandfathering in an exception to the general design intent to leave a small bandaid on a large wound.



Man I dunno, you admit that it's emergent and cool and interesting. If that's the case, perhaps the design principle that tries to eliminate it is the thing that needs to be changed, and not the gameplay?

I don't even feel I have to make an argument. The argument has already been made and it's here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFahR4wXTg
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=23348

If the entire dev team making this decision can sit down, watch that full video, and then tell the playerbase that you want to remove refitting in combat for all ships... mind = blown. It's so clearly the wrong call.

At the very least, please delay the decision to Inferno and see how the signature-based fix works out first?

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