These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1081 - 2012-04-22 05:44:08 UTC
Tehg Rhind wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Tehg Rhind wrote:
ok I don't get teh argument against Grayscale on the signature resolution vs turret tracking thing. The formula is pretty straightforward. If the formula is actually correct, he's right, since the tracking term is in radians and every term is independent. This isn't "PhD" level math. This is basic ******* algebra. Doubling the top of a fraction is the same as halving the bottom.

Quote:
tracking grows with range and therefore is not a static variable


This is wrong and is the entire source of your problem. In the formula tracking is in radians, and is a static variable. Maybe you should...I dunno....spend 30 seconds actually looking at the formula before you take a dump on yourself in public next time.


Radians are used so that tracking is not static. If tracking were static such as I can track 500 m/s always, then your arguement would be correct.

But when you use radians, It means that a ships velocity has to increase for the tracking to have the same effect. For a ship that has 0.02 tracking, this means at 10km of range, he can track 200 m/s of speed. But at 20km range, he can track 400 m/s of speed. Therefore, it's not a static number.

It's been tested and proven time and again on both the live and test server.

As for the denominator being 0, there's a huge difference in a calculation between a denominator being close to 0, and a denominator being 0. When a denominator is 0, the computer can't physically compute the number as there is no limit on infinity.

And yes, it was 100% that made the difference:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/29/eve-wormhole-exploit-is-fixed/


Ok. Tracking, as represented in the equation, is in terms of radians. It is independant of range. Hence why range is a seperate variable.

All your evidence to the contrary is meaningless, as you are trying to refute deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning. The failure of inductive reasoning, and your argument, is that there are other possible explanations for the results. The discovery of quantum mechanics was not used to refute calculus, it wad used to refute classical dynamics.

If you cannot accept that there is a fundamental equation behind this, I don't know what to tell you. Honestly I don't know how someone as thick headed as yourself was able to lead the NC to victory. Oh. Wait.


Playing the game tells the story bro. Apparently you don't play the game.
Kadesh Priestess
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#1082 - 2012-04-22 09:11:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadesh Priestess
I'm Down wrote:
Playing the game tells the story bro. Apparently you don't play the game.
Apparently you don't know what angular speed is Roll

I'm Down wrote:
And yes, it was 100% that made the difference:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/29/eve-wormhole-exploit-is-fixed/

Quote:
This prevented players from pushing the effectiveness of tracking disruptors over the magic 100% mark that caused the bug.
Quote:
over the magic 100% mark

Dude, you're so fat. Stop poasting pls. Or show me how balmer TD can have exactly -50% tracking speed modifier :)
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1083 - 2012-04-22 10:07:47 UTC
[quote=I'm Down
Playing the game tells the story bro. Apparently you don't play the game
[/quote
Look ! This is the tracking formula
Tracking part is : (transversalSpeed / (rangeToTarget * trackingSpeed)) * (turretSigRes / targetSigRad

Range to target mitigate tracking speed because you can see it in the formula next to eachother
So, mathematically, doubling turretSigRes or halving trackingSpeed is exactly the same

If you want to say that caping damages is odd for turret, you're absolutely right, but you *really* should read about 30 pages ago, because this has already been said. We also already showed some modifications of the formula which would make the signature to be significant whatever the rangeToTarget, and we did it in an elegant way

If you think tracking speed should have been halved instead of turret sig res doubled, you should just go back to school learn some mathematics

FYI, transversal speed in m/s is equivalent to range (m) * angular velocity (rad/s) ; maybe that is the point you missed ?

Thread is gingo round in circles though...
Vheroki
Tranquility Tavern
Pandemic Horde
#1084 - 2012-04-22 14:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Vheroki
If you do not believe me run the tests yourself. regarding the dmg from dd

And why a raven with 7k sig radius gets less dmg then a carrier with 2k sig radius ?

The test were done with in optimal range and 0 transversal , stationary.

Can you stop screwing this game up ? And do some solid and good stuff ? Cause when titan pilots will see this if they didn't allready is gonna be bad.
ilammy
Amarr Empire
#1085 - 2012-04-22 15:54:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ilammy
Vheroki wrote:
...
Can somebody who tested this check the fittings, the resists, the skills, confim the stationariness and that the shield/armor/structure were full and equal before the shots? I can troll with random numbers too.

I can't suggest anything about the raven – this definitely could be borked with new formula. But with the titans check that they had exact same resists and exact same amount of shield before they hit each other. The second one could hit another one for less damage because the first one had less shield and more raw damage went to armor.

However, concerning the numbers, you used shieldtanked avatars. Then still check the resists, the fleetbonuses, everything.
Vheroki
Tranquility Tavern
Pandemic Horde
#1086 - 2012-04-22 17:21:21 UTC
ilammy wrote:
Vheroki wrote:
...
Can somebody who tested this check the fittings, the resists, the skills, confim the stationariness and that the shield/armor/structure were full and equal before the shots? I can troll with random numbers too.

I can't suggest anything about the raven – this definitely could be borked with new formula. But with the titans check that they had exact same resists and exact same amount of shield before they hit each other. The second one could hit another one for less damage because the first one had less shield and more raw damage went to armor.

However, concerning the numbers, you used shieldtanked avatars. Then still check the resists, the fleetbonuses, everything.


About the Raven the raven fit was 2 lse 2 invulns and 1 em hardner , stationary with in optimal , 0 transversal and 3 target painters on it from a rapier. No fleets, no boosts, no nothing, individual players. The titan used was an avatar tests were done with both hardness and without them active - anyways the sig radius was around 7k dmg with hardners around 14k dmg without 18k. Then we did the tests on an thanatos same condition except no target painters , and is had 2k sig radius the hits on 0 rezist were of 50k. How can CCP explain me their ******* formula is so good , is this the way it should be working ?
SO if it is a sub give it a brake but if it is a supercap breake it in 2 ? This is stupid and this will backfire.
ilammy
Amarr Empire
#1087 - 2012-04-22 17:44:41 UTC
Vheroki wrote:
the raven fit was 2 lse 2 invulns and 1 em hardner

dmg with hardners around 14k dmg without 18k

tests on an thanatos

the hits on 0 rezist were of 50k.
Well... alphastrike of an avatar with 3 x heat sinks is about 37.9k of EM + 27.1k of thermal damage.

A naked thanatos has 0% EM resist and 20% thermal resists. This brings expected 37.9 + 27.1 * (1 – 0.2) = 59.58k damage maxinum.

A raven with 2 x Invulnerability field and 1 x EM ward has 72.4% EM resist and 58.6% thermal resist (and still 32.4% EM, 40.9% thermal with inactive hardeners due to compensations bonuses). That gives maximum damage of 37.9 * (1 – 0.724) + 27.1 * (1 – 0.586) = 21.68k. Titan just can't hit that raven with active resists for more even with omfg-painting.

Do Raiden. pilots suck at resists or are just so fat? Ugh
Tehg Rhind
Atlantic Innovations
#1088 - 2012-04-22 21:13:47 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Thread is gingo round in circles though...


Yes but the question is CAN WE TRACK IT.
BrownBattleship
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1089 - 2012-04-23 06:11:08 UTC  |  Edited by: BrownBattleship
Tracking/Sig Radius/formulas...its all maths and missing the simple point, at the end of the day all i know is this will not end well. From what I've seen and heard, the changes are way too radical. A titan will be dead in the water against anything smaller than a planet. Titans can now only be used if supported by a large support fleet and some corps/alliances will struggle to come up with the numbers to do this thus excluding the smaller alliances from the game when it comes to using their big shiny ships. The changes as they stand effectively almost completely discount titans being used at all. The conern with that is that the majority of titans are flown by older players who have been loyal to the game from the beginning and owning and flying a titan is their end game. These players and the knowledge that comes with them will fade into the background and find something else to do.

I completely get the changes and why they are needed but not to this extent. The carrier/falcon thing is very concerning and all I hope is that numbers are looked at before this is all put in place. All the training and isk used to get us to this level will amount to a complete waste of time as titans will now be restricted to expensive taxis staying safely in a pos.

Right off to the 'For Sale' Ads...Anyone want a Maxed Skill Titan Pilot (2 years training) and an Avatar?SmileP
Max Teranous
Reign of Steel
Brave Collective
#1090 - 2012-04-23 08:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Teranous
I'm Down wrote:
Tehg Rhind wrote:
ok I don't get teh argument against Grayscale on the signature resolution vs turret tracking thing. The formula is pretty straightforward. If the formula is actually correct, he's right, since the tracking term is in radians and every term is independent. This isn't "PhD" level math. This is basic ******* algebra. Doubling the top of a fraction is the same as halving the bottom.

Quote:
tracking grows with range and therefore is not a static variable


This is wrong and is the entire source of your problem. In the formula tracking is in radians, and is a static variable. Maybe you should...I dunno....spend 30 seconds actually looking at the formula before you take a dump on yourself in public next time.


Radians are used so that tracking is not static. If tracking were static such as I can track 500 m/s always, then your arguement would be correct.

But when you use radians, It means that a ships velocity has to increase for the tracking to have the same effect. For a ship that has 0.02 tracking, this means at 10km of range, he can track 200 m/s of speed. But at 20km range, he can track 400 m/s of speed. Therefore, it's not a static number.

It's been tested and proven time and again on both the live and test server.

As for the denominator being 0, there's a huge difference in a calculation between a denominator being close to 0, and a denominator being 0. When a denominator is 0, the computer can't physically compute the number as there is no limit on infinity.

And yes, it was 100% that made the difference:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/29/eve-wormhole-exploit-is-fixed/



Yaay, your issue here is that what you consider "tracking" and what the formula (and most other posters) consider tracking are 2 different things.

The formula is here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage but the important bit for this point is this bit:

(TransversalSpeed x TurretSigResolution)
-------------------------divided by---------------------------------------
(RangeToTarget x TrackingSpeed x TargetSigRadius)

When this bit of the formula trends to zero, hit chance trends to 1, or always hitting.

You keep talking like TransversalSpeed/RangeToTarget is tracking, when it's not, it's the angular velocity part. "TrackingSpeed" is the value on the gun.

TurretSigResolution, TrackingSpeed and TargetSigRadius are all "static", as they are parameters of the gun or the target. They do change due to skills, bonuses, modules, etc, but they are all levers that game design can fiddle with to achieve what they want. This is what Grayscale (and his phd buddy) is saying, it doesn't matter if you double a value (TurretSigResolution) on the top of this bit of the formula or half a value on the bottom (TrackingSpeed), the overall effect is identical.

That leaves TransversalSpeed and RangeToTarget as dynamic variables. This is where you are correct, when TransversalSpeed trends to zero, that sends this entire bit of the formula to zero, and hence to always hitting. In the past (3+ years ago now) if you remember when RangeToTarget went to zero (like shooting a station very close) your shots always missed. That was because it sent this part of the formule to infinity, and thus hit chance to zero. They fixed that particular bug years ago somehow in the code, but in the raw formula you can see how it happened. But that is not an issue with the tracking of the gun itself, it's the way the formula is put together that does it. The only way to stop this is to rewrite the formula, which is fine, and something that CCP are gonig to look at in the future, but Greyscale took this off the table right now due to time constraints.

The upshot of this? Currently, halving TrackingSpeed (by changing the gun parameter, or by a -50% bonus on the ship) has the exact same effect as doubling TurretSigResolution, it just does not matter which you do.

And don't even bother bringing the wormhole bug into it. What happens in code when you take things outside their expected ranges has no relevence to anything, as we don't have access to the actual code, we can only guess what happens.

Max Cool
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1091 - 2012-04-23 10:19:44 UTC
Tehg Rhind wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Thread is gingo round in circles though...


Yes but the question is CAN WE TRACK IT.


I have to admit, I laughed pretty hard at this.
Didona Carpenito
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1092 - 2012-04-23 11:41:22 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Tehg Rhind wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Thread is gingo round in circles though...


Yes but the question is CAN WE TRACK IT.


I have to admit, I laughed pretty hard at this.


I am not tracking, thank goodness my rifter always hits in my lvl 1 missions.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#1093 - 2012-04-23 12:01:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
I don't know if has come up yet, but instead of just trying to balance all the stats of the guns themselves, how about modifying the tracking formula instead? Else you just keep coming back to the same balancing issues over and over again.

Simplified: Chance to hit = (shipsig / turretsig)^2 * (transversal / tracking) * [fall-off modifier]

It will need linear constants and some tweaking of the exponent to ease its potential sting against same-class ships.

I'm not sure the the exponential factor is already in the current formula or not (but 1400mm tornados easily insta-popping frigates at long range suggest it's not), and if not, I think it adding it would completely fix the problem of big ships using big guns to blap much smaller ships, without having to add new arbitrary tracking stats for Titans or whatever the plan is (they shouldn't be combat ships but mobile stations anyway)

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1094 - 2012-04-23 16:13:25 UTC  |  Edited by: MisterAl tt1
Quote:
Ships

Titans can now lock a maximum of three targets.
XL turrets have had their signature resolution set to 2000m.
Capital Turrets that are fitted to titans now have a new damage-scaling attribute; targets with a signature radius smaller than this size will take reduced damage from these turrets. This does not apply to dreadnaughts.
Siege modules have had their tracking penalty removed.

So, what are the effects for dreads? Increased tracking in siege (it is not written, that XL turrets get their tracking nerfed) but on the other hand - lesser chance to hit due to sig.res. ? Anyone calculated how will it change the sutuation?

Or CCP again forgot to write some things into patchnotes?

OK. Seems like soe clever guy wrote it right:
[16:35:06] Fatyn > dreads out of siege nerfed but who cares
[16:35:13] Fatyn > the patch notes say
[16:35:16] Fatyn > in siege
[16:35:27] Fatyn > tracking doubled, Turret Sig Res doubled
[16:35:45] Fatyn > these two effects cancel each other out in the tracking formula
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1095 - 2012-04-23 16:47:54 UTC
MisterAl tt1 wrote:
Quote:
Ships

Titans can now lock a maximum of three targets.
XL turrets have had their signature resolution set to 2000m.
Capital Turrets that are fitted to titans now have a new damage-scaling attribute; targets with a signature radius smaller than this size will take reduced damage from these turrets. This does not apply to dreadnaughts.
Siege modules have had their tracking penalty removed.

So, what are the effects for dreads? Increased tracking in siege (it is not written, that XL turrets get their tracking nerfed) but on the other hand - lesser chance to hit due to sig.res. ? Anyone calculated how will it change the sutuation?

Or CCP again forgot to write some things into patchnotes?

OK. Seems like soe clever guy wrote it right:
[16:35:06] Fatyn > dreads out of siege nerfed but who cares
[16:35:13] Fatyn > the patch notes say
[16:35:16] Fatyn > in siege
[16:35:27] Fatyn > tracking doubled, Turret Sig Res doubled
[16:35:45] Fatyn > these two effects cancel each other out in the tracking formula



Yup. Consequences are halved tracking out of siege and identical tracking in siege. We could've just gone with a tracking nerf, but kicking the sig res up to a more capital-normal range seemed like a more intuitively acceptable adjustment, and gives the advantage that for titans both values (sig res and damage reduction) sit at 2k, reinforcing their role as anti-capital ships.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1096 - 2012-04-23 18:34:08 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Quote:

The sig/sig ratio is multiplied by the transversal/tracking*range ratio.


Per Greyscale, this would mean that when tracking hits 0, the ratio becomes undefined. K, thx, cya.

Dreads got boosted vs sub caps, Titans have virtually no nerf, just slightly more effort required from fleets, This really is the most idiot change in the history of CCP.

PS, this formula would mean that tracking is modified by range exactly as I stated before. It's not static, it's multiplied over range.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#1097 - 2012-04-23 20:24:43 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Quote:

The sig/sig ratio is multiplied by the transversal/tracking*range ratio.


Per Greyscale, this would mean that when tracking hits 0, the ratio becomes undefined. K, thx, cya.

Dreads got boosted vs sub caps, Titans have virtually no nerf, just slightly more effort required from fleets, This really is the most idiot change in the history of CCP.

PS, this formula would mean that tracking is modified by range exactly as I stated before. It's not static, it's multiplied over range.

Tracking can never reach 0 within normal game mechanics, tracking is the tracking stat of your guns.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1098 - 2012-04-23 20:49:24 UTC
steave435 wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Quote:

The sig/sig ratio is multiplied by the transversal/tracking*range ratio.


Per Greyscale, this would mean that when tracking hits 0, the ratio becomes undefined. K, thx, cya.

Dreads got boosted vs sub caps, Titans have virtually no nerf, just slightly more effort required from fleets, This really is the most idiot change in the history of CCP.

PS, this formula would mean that tracking is modified by range exactly as I stated before. It's not static, it's multiplied over range.

Tracking can never reach 0 within normal game mechanics, tracking is the tracking stat of your guns.


It could in wormholes a while back, which is what that was addresing
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#1099 - 2012-04-23 21:05:01 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
steave435 wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Quote:

The sig/sig ratio is multiplied by the transversal/tracking*range ratio.


Per Greyscale, this would mean that when tracking hits 0, the ratio becomes undefined. K, thx, cya.

Dreads got boosted vs sub caps, Titans have virtually no nerf, just slightly more effort required from fleets, This really is the most idiot change in the history of CCP.

PS, this formula would mean that tracking is modified by range exactly as I stated before. It's not static, it's multiplied over range.

Tracking can never reach 0 within normal game mechanics, tracking is the tracking stat of your guns.


It could in wormholes a while back, which is what that was addresing

"within normal game mechanics"
As has been discussed, different failsafes and error check things can start to kick in if it goes outside normal values, so you can't draw any conclusions from it.
Greyscale has the exact formula, you don't. Now stop making yourself look like even more of an idiot.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1100 - 2012-04-24 05:21:15 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
MisterAl tt1 wrote:
Quote:
Ships

Titans can now lock a maximum of three targets.
XL turrets have had their signature resolution set to 2000m.
Capital Turrets that are fitted to titans now have a new damage-scaling attribute; targets with a signature radius smaller than this size will take reduced damage from these turrets. This does not apply to dreadnaughts.
Siege modules have had their tracking penalty removed.

So, what are the effects for dreads? Increased tracking in siege (it is not written, that XL turrets get their tracking nerfed) but on the other hand - lesser chance to hit due to sig.res. ? Anyone calculated how will it change the sutuation?

Or CCP again forgot to write some things into patchnotes?

OK. Seems like soe clever guy wrote it right:
[16:35:06] Fatyn > dreads out of siege nerfed but who cares
[16:35:13] Fatyn > the patch notes say
[16:35:16] Fatyn > in siege
[16:35:27] Fatyn > tracking doubled, Turret Sig Res doubled
[16:35:45] Fatyn > these two effects cancel each other out in the tracking formula



Yup. Consequences are halved tracking out of siege and identical tracking in siege. We could've just gone with a tracking nerf, but kicking the sig res up to a more capital-normal range seemed like a more intuitively acceptable adjustment, and gives the advantage that for titans both values (sig res and damage reduction) sit at 2k, reinforcing their role as anti-capital ships.


Well, you guys really seem stuck on this approach. Supers have not been balanced in the last several years, and they will never be balanced with this way of thinking.

Some predictions: Cap fleets will continue to be 95% supers. Fewer people will maintain interest in regular caps. Everyone will continue to blame you for supers being unbalanced. Your "I win" Titan button will continue to fly in the face of the traditional Eve "every strategy has a counter" philosophy. How to win strategy: Bring more Titans than the other side. I am a Thanatos pilot, but I do not risk it in fights where Titans may become involved because it has zero chance of survival. What exactly does CCP hope to see in 0.0 cap battles? Strategy or 95% Titan blob cyno drops?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein