These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#901 - 2012-04-16 23:56:46 UTC
You guys really should increase the sig radii of caps, at least while this scaling band aid is on. There's no way dreads and titans should be doing reduced damage to other caps.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#902 - 2012-04-16 23:57:08 UTC
John Caffeine wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
[quote=MisterAl tt1]

Are people actually running x-instinct/halo carriers? I see the theoretical problem, and it's something we may want to look into at some point, but I don't want to do a lot of running around for something that's largely theoretical.


We're not now, but I promise you X-instinct using, Haloed carrier will be standard for triage carriers with these changes, and I very much look forward to pwnzoning dreads in 800m sig Pantheon carriers.

We're also using dreads to shoot subcaps on a very frequent basis, which works well if you invest a few billion into webbing ships. This will heavily nerf the use of dreads, but we didn't like that shipclass anyway, and not having to worry about dreads killing our triage is well worth the loss of the dreads' combat role.


this is why you don't artificially **** with formulas rather than fix problems.
Kadesh Priestess
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#903 - 2012-04-17 00:05:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadesh Priestess
I'm Down wrote:
Raivi wrote:
Are you really saying that titans are the only thing preventing Tengu Online? If tengus are a problem change tengus.


I'm stating that the developers have this awful habit of seeing a stopgap fix as a solution to further problems and will be encouraged to apply it to all guns. I'm saying that trying to artificially scale damage due to ship size removes any reason for pilot skill and only encourages trump smaller ships like the tengu that have artificially high damage/range ratios
Are you serious? I would absolutely love such adjustment to be applied to subcaps - look at modern fleet compositions, they tend to exclude smaller ships if there's bigger & fatter replacement for them (taking desired gang mobility into consideration). AFs and EAFs are good example, it's impossible to fix them without taking some role from bigger ships (e.g. by granting their 'target audience' with partial resistance to bigger-sized guns, bigger/smaller-sized ewar and stuff - be it skill-dependent or not). If you want to see AFs taking part in fleet engagements - you should make cruiser-sized and bigger hulls inefficient when it comes to killing frigates. Same applies to long-ranged cruiser hulls & modern tier3 BCs - even if ccp will nerf logis/LR webs/points somehow, so that LR HACs dps will be enough to break some skulls - they're already obsoleted by tier3 bcs in most of their roles.

And if your primary concern is absence of skill - what do you think about EHP attribute of ship, which is absolute no-brainer in this regard too and tends to increase as ship size increases? Plain signature-based damage reduction looks like EHP's lesser brother, be it good or bad.

Active tank probably falls into this category as well, tho it still needs some manual control & is vulnerable to neuting, unless ccp introduces these new shield boosters.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#904 - 2012-04-17 00:13:34 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
John Caffeine wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
[quote=MisterAl tt1]

Are people actually running x-instinct/halo carriers? I see the theoretical problem, and it's something we may want to look into at some point, but I don't want to do a lot of running around for something that's largely theoretical.


We're not now, but I promise you X-instinct using, Haloed carrier will be standard for triage carriers with these changes, and I very much look forward to pwnzoning dreads in 800m sig Pantheon carriers.

We're also using dreads to shoot subcaps on a very frequent basis, which works well if you invest a few billion into webbing ships. This will heavily nerf the use of dreads, but we didn't like that shipclass anyway, and not having to worry about dreads killing our triage is well worth the loss of the dreads' combat role.


this is why you don't artificially **** with formulas rather than fix problems.


Two Step's idea of a sig radius penalty to triage and siege seems like it would solve that problem easily and effectively.
Rythm
True Power Team
#905 - 2012-04-17 00:28:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rythm
I've ran some numbers and - post nerf dread == 0.8 of pre-crucible dread which brings income per character into 200-300 kk per hour bracket (not taking logistics time into account - scanning/hauling). Probably it will cause exodus of 2xcar/2xdread farmers as they'll be able to get same isk/hour from nulsec and normal players as same isk/hour can be gained from incursions in highsec (taking all the interrupts from scanning into account) or even better isk/hour from lowsec incursions. T3 materials are bound to spike which will probably slow down depopulation of w-space. I think we will see 2009-ish numbers soon in w-space which is maybe a good thing.

Some math about "normal players" - 10 people fleet : carrier, salvager, 8 tengus.
Tengu dps ~ 600 with heavy missiles (optimistic)
Effective DPS per fleet member - 480
ISK/EHP in core bastion with 1 cap resp ~ 100
=> 1 fleet member gets 480 * 100 = 48,000 isk per second of mob shooting.
=> 172,800,000 isk per hour
Salvage on average amounts to 1/3 of income (best case).
172,800,000 + 57,000,000 (best case guesstimation) = 228 kk per hour per fleet member.
Not taking scanning into account.
DelightSucker
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#906 - 2012-04-17 02:46:53 UTC
Damage scaling is just BAD Sigh,

hey i am sitting completely still here in my house size Cruiser, and now the Car size projectile hits the house, and all it did was braking the class in the bedroom window,

that's just sad, so damn sad

if you sit still and dont move at all you need to DIE. this is EVE not WOW.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#907 - 2012-04-17 02:56:43 UTC
Mechael wrote:
pmchem wrote:

1. Stacked target painters from a huginn on a common battleship (one LSE, 3 shield rig maelstrom) raise its sig to ~1700, which is very close to the base sig res in your above numbers. This suggests the damage would hardly be scaled down at all. If you went with a linear or quadratic falloff (assuming dmg is 0 at sig = 0 and 100% dmg at 2000 sigrad).

2. Turning MWD on the BS gets sigres > 3000 immediately, so MWDing BS would be easy targets for Titans.


Er ... if you're MWDing at no transversal while covered in target painters you kinda deserve to get blapped by XL guns. I'd have thought that much would be a little obvious.

But you're right about one thing, the proposed changes are not enough.


If we insist on looking at sig for XL guns for Titan balancing, lets just compare dps of turrets vs DD. Erebus with 3 MFS and 6 Limited Mega Ion (21 km optimal) does 10172 dps according to EFT. Wow. The Aurora DD does 5000 dps. Until the DD is removed from the game or restricted to structures, can we give it an optimal and fall-off too?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#908 - 2012-04-17 03:45:11 UTC
DelightSucker wrote:
Damage scaling is just BAD Sigh,

hey i am sitting completely still here in my house size Cruiser, and now the Car size projectile hits the house, and all it did was braking the class in the bedroom window,

that's just sad, so damn sad

if you sit still and dont move at all you need to DIE. this is EVE not WOW.

Are you not getting the fact that moving in even mid scale engagements does absolutely nothing for you (or at least much less than you suggest)? You can't keep transversal up against everyone, depending on how spread out they are. Why are there never any frig/cruiser sized hulls in fleets? Because they are bloody useless, which is just BAD Sigh!

Go scroll up just a few posts and read what Kadesh Priestess wrote.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#909 - 2012-04-17 04:06:43 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Are you serious? I would absolutely love such adjustment to be applied to subcaps - look at modern fleet compositions, they tend to exclude smaller ships if there's bigger & fatter replacement for them (taking desired gang mobility into consideration). AFs and EAFs are good example, it's impossible to fix them without taking some role from bigger ships (e.g. by granting their 'target audience' with partial resistance to bigger-sized guns, bigger/smaller-sized ewar and stuff - be it skill-dependent or not). If you want to see AFs taking part in fleet engagements - you should make cruiser-sized and bigger hulls inefficient when it comes to killing frigates. Same applies to long-ranged cruiser hulls & modern tier3 BCs - even if ccp will nerf logis/LR webs/points somehow, so that LR HACs dps will be enough to break some skulls - they're already obsoleted by tier3 bcs in most of their roles.

And if your primary concern is absence of skill - what do you think about EHP attribute of ship, which is absolute no-brainer in this regard too and tends to increase as ship size increases? Plain signature-based damage reduction looks like EHP's lesser brother, be it good or bad.

Active tank probably falls into this category as well, tho it still needs some manual control & is vulnerable to neuting, unless ccp introduces these new shield boosters.


I can't even describe how little I want to play your game.
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#910 - 2012-04-17 05:11:55 UTC
Rythm wrote:
normal players as same isk/hour can be gained from incursions in highsec (taking all the interrupts from scanning into account) or even better isk/hour from lowsec incursions.


High-sec having the same profits as high-danger w-space. Hillarious!
Calsys
Monks of War
#911 - 2012-04-17 05:34:52 UTC
MisterAl tt1 wrote:

high-danger High-sec having the same profits as safe w-space. Hillarious!


fixed for a great justice! Big smile

CCP you're fixed (=boost ) dreads in some of old patches and now you'll just kill dreads such as is
lol
you're cool guys!
move in the same directions \o/
Opfer
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#912 - 2012-04-17 05:55:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Opfer
Mr. Greyscale, one of the ways to fix possible problems for WH-citizens - is to boost sleeper battleships signature. Now it`s 400m, make it 800 or 1200. Side effect is faster lock-time from dreads, so you can slightly nerf it (dreads natural scan resolution). As for killing another capitals from dreads - well, we will kill them mostly by neuts, but not clear DPS
Calsys
Monks of War
#913 - 2012-04-17 06:03:53 UTC
Opfer wrote:
Mr. Greyscale, one of the ways to fix possible problems for WH-citizens - is to boost sleeper battleships signature. Now it`s 400m, make it 800 or 1200. Side effect is faster lock-time from dreads, so you can slightly nerf it (dreads natural scan resolution). As for killing another capitals from dreads - well, we will kill them mostly by neuts, but not clear DPS

what?
why?

problem is not in pve-style use dreads
problem is in use dreads in everywhere including their main purpose - anticapital ships with heavy dps
Blink
Opfer
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#914 - 2012-04-17 07:04:24 UTC
Calsys wrote:
Opfer wrote:
Mr. Greyscale, one of the ways to fix possible problems for WH-citizens - is to boost sleeper battleships signature. Now it`s 400m, make it 800 or 1200. Side effect is faster lock-time from dreads, so you can slightly nerf it (dreads natural scan resolution). As for killing another capitals from dreads - well, we will kill them mostly by neuts, but not clear DPS

what?
why?

problem is not in pve-style use dreads
problem is in use dreads in everywhere including their main purpose - anticapital ships with heavy dps
Blink


I don`t see problem with it. Carriers with perfect skirmish links have signature 1893m. Not extremely low signature for great damage reduction. With strong x-intinct booster and full halo set - 1250m, yes, damage reduced about by 2.5 times, but hell - where did you see halo-set on carriers pilot and consumed x-instinct instead exile or mindflood. As for large capital fight (dozens of dreads and carriers on battlefield) - your dread damage to hostile dread will be reduced, but hostile damage is reduced too. Parity here, capital fights just will go a little longer than now. In wh (wolf-rayet for exapmle), when not much capitals usually on battlefield will be needed just more neuts. And the same reason - hostile dreads will be dps your capitals worse too.

P.S. I wrote about sleeples signature just as one of many ways. Give bonus for siege - is better desicion. But boost sleeper signatute is simplest way, don`t take many time for proggrammist and it cheaper for CCP.
Calsys
Monks of War
#915 - 2012-04-17 07:23:40 UTC
Opfer wrote:

I don`t see problem with it.


but i see problem

why nerf one ship (exactly xl-turrets.. oh wait... this thread called "TITAN CHANGES" lol) makes nerf other ships?

its wrong i think

give titan nerf bonus on xl-turrets and dont touch other things =))
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#916 - 2012-04-17 07:24:15 UTC
Opfer wrote:
Calsys wrote:
Opfer wrote:
Mr. Greyscale, one of the ways to fix possible problems for WH-citizens - is to boost sleeper battleships signature. Now it`s 400m, make it 800 or 1200. Side effect is faster lock-time from dreads, so you can slightly nerf it (dreads natural scan resolution). As for killing another capitals from dreads - well, we will kill them mostly by neuts, but not clear DPS

what?
why?

problem is not in pve-style use dreads
problem is in use dreads in everywhere including their main purpose - anticapital ships with heavy dps
Blink


I don`t see problem with it. Carriers with perfect skirmish links have signature 1893m. Not extremely low signature for great damage reduction. With strong x-intinct booster and full halo set - 1250m, yes, damage reduced about by 2.5 times, but hell - where did you see halo-set on carriers pilot and consumed x-instinct instead exile or mindflood. As for large capital fight (dozens of dreads and carriers on battlefield) - your dread damage to hostile dread will be reduced, but hostile damage is reduced too. Parity here, capital fights just will go a little longer than now. In wh (wolf-rayet for exapmle), when not much capitals usually on battlefield will be needed just more neuts. And the same reason - hostile dreads will be dps your capitals worse too.

P.S. I wrote about sleeples signature just as one of many ways. Give bonus for siege - is better desicion. But boost sleeper signatute is simplest way, don`t take many time for proggrammist and it cheaper for CCP.

Ofcourse you don't see any halo x-instinct carriers now - there's no reason to have those. If this change go trough though, they'll start showing up.

So again, simply add a role bonus to dreads reducing their gun sig to 1000 again and the problem is gone. I don't think there's any way to get the sig below that, and even if you do, it should be insignificantly low.
Kadesh Priestess
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#917 - 2012-04-17 07:38:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadesh Priestess
Ganthrithor wrote:
I can't even describe how little I want to play your game.
"Titan pilots can't even describe how little they want to play цith the XL-turrets nerfed.". ha-ha. Or "Battleship pilots can't even describe how little they want to play game with current titan-sphere fleets". Or even "Nano-age vaga pilots can't...." I hope you do realize how poor argument is it. Put some real logic (besides your opinion) into there and we'll have something to talk about.

Still, you see, when issue with gun tracking was escalated to XL vs L and even M size, CCP noticed this problem - and i'm perfectly happy with it.

MisterAl tt1 wrote:
Rythm wrote:
normal players as same isk/hour can be gained from incursions in highsec (taking all the interrupts from scanning into account) or even better isk/hour from lowsec incursions.


High-sec having the same profits as high-danger w-space. Hillarious!
Well you asked to base formula on modified signature - you got it Roll
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#918 - 2012-04-17 08:02:02 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
]Well you asked to base formula on modified signature - you got it Roll

Let's say that when I wrote about modified signature being used there was no information about the increased sig radius for guns themselves.
Oxandrolone
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#919 - 2012-04-17 08:02:35 UTC
why cant they just nerf titan tracking again so they cant hit subcabs rather than the actual guns themselves so that dreads cant hit anything either?

its like saying bridging ships without a jump drive with a titan is too strong so were removing jump bridges and black ops from the game.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#920 - 2012-04-17 08:09:23 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
I can't even describe how little I want to play your game.
"Titan pilots can't even describe how little they want to play цith the XL-turrets nerfed.". ha-ha. Or "Battleship pilots can't even describe how little they want to play game with current titan-sphere fleets". Or even "Nano-age vaga pilots can't...." I hope you do realize how poor argument is it. Put some real logic (besides your opinion) into there and we'll have something to talk about.

Still, you see, when issue with gun tracking was escalated to XL vs L and even M size, CCP noticed this problem - and i'm perfectly happy with it.

MisterAl tt1 wrote:
Rythm wrote:
normal players as same isk/hour can be gained from incursions in highsec (taking all the interrupts from scanning into account) or even better isk/hour from lowsec incursions.


High-sec having the same profits as high-danger w-space. Hillarious!
Well you asked to base formula on modified signature - you got it Roll

Like someone said earlier, the problem is things like T3s - ships that have tank and DPS close or superior to larger ships. If damage scaling like this was implemented in everything, those ships would be the only ones ever worth flying. I used to like the idea before that argument was brought up (in fact - I even suggested it myself), but due to cases like that it won't work.