These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#801 - 2012-04-16 16:16:47 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
steave435 wrote:

It should still be theoretically possible to hit smaller ships for SOMETHING if they **** uo and don't mind transversal at all, so please go with the 17% option then. That would mean roughly BS level DPS being applied to a BS, but only if you can track it. That's not a problem IMO, and if it were to turn out to be, you can iterate on it later and reduce it even more.


I think you've forgotten the fundamental problem with a titan blob, and the reason we can't just nerf tracking: when fighting a titan blob it is not possible to maintain transversal to everyone. This is a bad argument that has been dismissed a long time ago and should stay in the rubbishheap of titan balancing principles. Anyone who speaks about "maintaining transversal" as relevant to if a ship should survive vs. titab blobs is making as much sense as someone demanding to measure skull shapes to determine personality traits.

No, I haven't. They can hit sometimes, but do way less damage. If they do 3% damage VS a battleship, imagine what it'd be like against a BC, or a cruiser if he's stupid enough to let you land the shot on him.
I'm a titan pilot myself atm, so I know perfectly well what they're capable of, and cruisers and below ARE able to avoid getting hit by not being ********. With the tracking nerf, BCs should be right around that limit as well.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#802 - 2012-04-16 16:17:03 UTC
So with the assumption that a battleship has four domination TPs on it, and it's getting shot at, what percentage of theirehp will a standard fleet fit abaddon and standard fleet fit maelstrom lose if they get hit (with MWDs, and without)?
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#803 - 2012-04-16 16:17:05 UTC
hey I used to remember a time nobody liked using painters Im just glad they're finding spots in the fleet just saddening its to the point of abuse.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#804 - 2012-04-16 16:17:42 UTC
As long as these aren't long-term solutions, I'm okay with them.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#805 - 2012-04-16 16:19:13 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
steave435 wrote:

Now take into account that you'd need a dedicated SC painting every single ship a titan wants to shoot and the fact that you'd need to coordinate that perfectly with the titan pilots. Now add in the skirmish bonus and you're down to about 1000 even then, meaning (conservatively depending on the formula and border value chosen) 50% damage reduction on those few shootable ships. Finally, the SCs loose about 60% of their cap mods, very significantly affecting RR ability.


This is trivial, and we all know it. Supercarriers and armor titans together will ensure that there's no shortage of target painting. It's simply nonsense to claim otherwise, and that's why the balancing must be based on the assumption that a targeted battleship has 3-4 faction target painters on it.


Yeah, coordination of that kind of stuff is super easy. That's why EW is used so much in large fleet battles, everyone knows exactly who everyone else is using their EW on and is thus able to apply their own to the best possible target.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#806 - 2012-04-16 16:19:18 UTC
steave435 wrote:

No, I haven't. They can hit sometimes, but do way less damage. If they do 3% damage VS a battleship, imagine what it'd be like against a BC, or a cruiser if he's stupid enough to let you land the shot on him.
I'm a titan pilot myself atm, so I know perfectly well what they're capable of, and cruisers and below ARE able to avoid getting hit by not being ********. With the tracking nerf, BCs should be right around that limit as well.

Everything you're saying has been systematically disproven over and over again. We've all seen the proof titans routinely blap dictors, hictors, and even rifters just for the hell of it. I would appreciate it if you'd refrain from making us reprove the sky is blue since it's been done in this thread and other threads to death.
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#807 - 2012-04-16 16:21:08 UTC
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.


Fortunately, Greyscale knows target painters are a problem. I have faith he will save the subcaps!!


I agree here. I am pretty happy that Greyscale is working hard to secure subcapital warfare for the future by correcting mistakes of the past. The steps he is taking with target painters to correct these mistakes is wonderful.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#808 - 2012-04-16 16:23:31 UTC
steave435 wrote:
Yeah, coordination of that kind of stuff is super easy. That's why EW is used so much in large fleet battles, everyone knows exactly who everyone else is using their EW on and is thus able to apply their own to the best possible target.

Goonswarm is easily able to do this and has been doing it for some time: scorpions are an essential part of alphafleet doctrines. So yes, coordinating EW isn't all that tricky, it's a solved problem, and as a result we can safely assume that it will immediately be solved for titan blobs as soon as it is relevant to their interests (blapping subcaps like mad).
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#809 - 2012-04-16 16:23:49 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
steave435 wrote:

No, I haven't. They can hit sometimes, but do way less damage. If they do 3% damage VS a battleship, imagine what it'd be like against a BC, or a cruiser if he's stupid enough to let you land the shot on him.
I'm a titan pilot myself atm, so I know perfectly well what they're capable of, and cruisers and below ARE able to avoid getting hit by not being ********. With the tracking nerf, BCs should be right around that limit as well.

Everything you're saying has been systematically disproven over and over again. We've all seen the proof titans routinely blap dictors, hictors, and even rifters just for the hell of it. I would appreciate it if you'd refrain from making us reprove the sky is blue since it's been done in this thread and other threads to death.


Yeah, if they just turn away and fly in a straight line to get away they'll get hit. The few times people bothered to stick around and fight, we were unable to hit both Tengus and ahacs since they actually maintained transversal, even out at 100k in the Tengu case. Now cut the tracking in half and take into account that even with the 17% damage to a BS option, those cruisers would only be taking about 4-5% damage the few times the shots connected.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#810 - 2012-04-16 16:25:27 UTC
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.


Fortunately, Greyscale knows target painters are a problem. I have faith he will save the subcaps!!


I see what you did there What?


We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.
Gabriel Kaile
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#811 - 2012-04-16 16:26:16 UTC
steave435 wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
steave435 wrote:

Now take into account that you'd need a dedicated SC painting every single ship a titan wants to shoot and the fact that you'd need to coordinate that perfectly with the titan pilots. Now add in the skirmish bonus and you're down to about 1000 even then, meaning (conservatively depending on the formula and border value chosen) 50% damage reduction on those few shootable ships. Finally, the SCs loose about 60% of their cap mods, very significantly affecting RR ability.


This is trivial, and we all know it. Supercarriers and armor titans together will ensure that there's no shortage of target painting. It's simply nonsense to claim otherwise, and that's why the balancing must be based on the assumption that a targeted battleship has 3-4 faction target painters on it.


Yeah, coordination of that kind of stuff is super easy. That's why EW is used so much in large fleet battles, everyone knows exactly who everyone else is using their EW on and is thus able to apply their own to the best possible target.


Considering this coordination is exactly what gets used with Huginns and Scorpions in our Alphafleet doctrine, I'd say, yes.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#812 - 2012-04-16 16:27:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
Staeve appreciate the sincerity of your belief you should be able to blap subcaps, but I'm not interested in reproving the sky is blue. Everyone else is aware that transversal is not an excuse for blapping subcaps and there's really no reason to try and convince you as well. You like blapping subcaps, and I can't fault you for that: I too like abusing the **** out of broken mechanics to cause trouble and do it whenever I can. But it's no excuse for pretending that's not what you're doing.
Kazanir
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#813 - 2012-04-16 16:30:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Kazanir
Let me expand on my previous post. Right now, titans have a base scan resolution of roughly 2.6 to 2.8 times that of their respective racial dreadnought, Min>Am>Gal>Cal in order, assuming Tech II siege modules on the dreads. This clearly needs to be nerfed downward for anything that is supposed to alter how effective titans are against subcaps. Even if that change is merely reducing their base scan resolution by 50%, that's not an insigificant change, and it makes "fit sensors boosters or not" a relevant choice for those all-important midslots.

Furthermore, let's talk more about Strong Drop. Current penalties to Drop boosters are:

Turret falloff (affects Ragnaroks the most, Erebus somewhat)
Shield capacity (hurts Ragnaroks badly)
Armor repair amount (doesn't affect Erebus/Avatar at all)
Max velocity (lol)

This is broken. The penalties should be changed to:

Turret optimal + falloff -- a lower penalty but applied to both numbers
Shield capacity -- as current
Armor RESISTANCES or armor AMOUNT -- this change makes it dangerous for armor titans to use
Max velocity (lol)

The Drop changes should be an obvious "yes" considering how much more important boosters are to titan pilots than anyone else, and how self-evidently broken Drop is when comparing armor titans to shield titans.
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#814 - 2012-04-16 16:32:51 UTC
steave435 wrote:

Yeah, coordination of that kind of stuff is super easy. That's why EW is used so much in large fleet battles, everyone knows exactly who everyone else is using their EW on and is thus able to apply their own to the best possible target.

Remind me to show you my neat Erebus/Aeon/Archon ISBoxer setup. Did I mention it was neat?
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#815 - 2012-04-16 16:33:45 UTC
So one real question is, what we are donig for escalation a temporary patch?

If yes then the posters need to start sorting thier ideas into
The ideas for the quick patch which is something we need to focus on with esclation a week or two away to get something out the door to hold back the damn of tears a few months while we rebuild the gun fomulas from the ashes.

Then ideas for the long run should be on hold but formulating them shouldnt mean we stop developing but I think we need to stop dilerberating them for the time being. I am liking many of the long term plans being suggested just that we need something viable for escalation and if nessecary inferno. We can focuse on the larger picture post inferno.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#816 - 2012-04-16 16:36:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.


Fortunately, Greyscale knows target painters are a problem. I have faith he will save the subcaps!!


I see what you did there What?


We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.

That works for a BS, but it gets too severe when it gets further down in sizes. Even a fully painted BC flying straight at a titan would be taking only ~6% damage, and a cruiser doing the same would take 1%. Without the squaring, it would be roughly 50% against a BS, 25% against a BC and 10% against a cruiser when you actually manage to hit and assuming you have perfect support. That may sound high, but restricting the titans target choices to only max painted ships with low transversal rather then any ship with low transversal on top of those raw damage reductions adds up to enough.
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics
#817 - 2012-04-16 16:36:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Ampoliros
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Battleships and sig radius: our current thinking is that all those sig radius penalties are there for sound balance reasons, and the only thing they really open up a vulnerability to right now is cap ships. Ignoring them for the purposes of cap ship guns just makes passive shield tanking even more desirable than it is right now. If you're finding that your 2000m drake or 4000m maelstrom are still taking huge amounts of damage from capitals, and that this is causing you problems, that's an issue with your choice of fitting rather than with overall game balance

Dreadnaughts: this has no effect on their main role as anti-capital/anti-structure (all of which are around or above 2000m), so we've honestly not worried about them too much. We'll have a quick discussion about their use in PvE today or tomorrow, but that may not result in any further changes.


I hate to be pushy, but I don't really feel you're addressing my concerns here. I'm honestly not that concerned about the PvE issue, although i'm glad you're taking a look at it as other w-space folks are - i'm concerned about the PvP side of things.

Moreover, there are a multitude of sigradius reducing effects and bonuses that exist in the game, and properly stacked it would absolutely have an effect on the main role of dreadnaughts. A c6 wolf-rayet with loki skirmish links would see triage archons with 30k tank and 950m sigrad; that's not even including boosters or implant sets, which would push it down even further. 50% dmg reduction vs your intended targets is absolutely an effect, and that's assuming you guys stick with linear scaling.

e: with second-degree scaling, ie (target sigrad/gun radius)^2, you're talking about 22% dps. That means you go from needing two or three dreads to break it now to needing 10 to 15. Straight
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#818 - 2012-04-16 16:38:09 UTC  |  Edited by: pmchem
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.


Fortunately, Greyscale knows target painters are a problem. I have faith he will save the subcaps!!


I see what you did there What?


We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.


The exact nature of the scaling would be the hope. There are a variety of functions or games you can play in the exponent which would make it so under your 'baseline' of 2000 or 2500, the scaling drops off damage VERY quickly and target painting even up to ~1700 could end up doing near zero damage.

50% at 1400 sig basically means superfleets can still do 50% dmg stacking faction TPs. I'd be more aggressive in the scaling, but I imagine you all are making graphs and stuff looking at this. (Thanks!)

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#819 - 2012-04-16 16:38:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
CCP Greyscale wrote:

We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.


Could you just double-check that with your proposed formula, a titan hitting a hictor or a dictor (and here the dictor DOES need to be balanced around having an mwd) does very little? That's really important to ensure titans can't clear their tackles without support.

Working on some numbers to see what that would do in effect to battleships - thanks for the info.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#820 - 2012-04-16 16:42:24 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.


Could you just double-check that with your proposed formula, a titan hitting a hictor or a dictor (and here the dictor DOES need to be balanced around having an mwd) does very little? That's really important to ensure titans can't clear their tackles without support.

Working on some numbers to see what that would do in effect to battleships - thanks for the info.

With a linear scaling it would get hit for 25% damage, or 4% if the values are squared..and the MWD is only used for a short period while approaching anyway, once you get there you turn it off since it does absolutely nothing with the bubble up anyway. With it off, it would be about 1% or 10% depending on method chosen.