These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Turret Damage linked to sig radius!?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chuc Morris
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-04-19 14:56:18 UTC
fab24 wrote:
So first you make them unable to DD subcaps (k, that's pretty normal)
Then you cut their tank.
Then you remove their targeting abilities.
Then you remove their tracking.
Then you remove their damage.

I mean... Seriously?



Seems legit to me Lol
ivar R'dhak
Deus est Mechanicus
#22 - 2012-04-19 17:49:40 UTC
Not a big fan of Titans but this is getting ridiculous.

Just take away the damn gun slots and make them all missile slots. Give them a new "mini doomsday" mod so they can instead fit multiple of those(properly nerfed compared to the regular d.day) to use for guns.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-04-20 18:59:25 UTC
sig and turrets have always been related. Though was target resolution, the ability to hit accurately when tracking. Not sure the xl change, but target resolution has always been there.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#24 - 2012-04-21 16:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
fab24 wrote:
So first you make them unable to DD subcaps (k, that's pretty normal)
Then you cut their tank.
Then you remove their targeting abilities.
Then you remove their tracking.
Then you remove their damage.

I mean... Seriously?


They should never have been combat ships, the simple fact CCP continuously need to nerf them further proves that. Titans should have been POS-like operated mobile stations from day 0.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
Xeyena wrote:
Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"...


If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers.


So why not do something about low-sig-radius carriers instead. Dreads should be anti-structure and anti-cap (and they're great at it) not roflstomping battleships as well. That's what fighters should be for.

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!
Izuru Hishido
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-04-22 03:43:18 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
They should never have been combat ships, the simple fact CCP continuously need to nerf them further proves that. Titans should have been POS-like operated mobile stations from day 0.


Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. The titans never deserved to be a combat ship, they deserved to sit in the damn towers and just issue out bonuses. When CCP saw that enough titans were able to AOE DD carriers instantly, they should have realized 'wait, this is completely broken' and pulled all their combat capabilities. Give them a limited jump range, yes, but a longer bridge range, a major bonus to links (and don't tie it down to only armor or shield or any of that crap per titan) and so on, then this problem solves itself.

Titan - Guns - DD = Fixed.

Titans should have just been super-sized command ships, i.e. triple-quadruple the size of the SMA's and corp hangars, give them role bonuses as FLEET BOOSTERS since they get the natural bonuses to that **** already, and just nuke their guns and remove the DD. Yes, people would *****, but it'd be far less than this catastrostorm of complaining that we've got now.

That said, there's one factor that most people seem to be missing in this thread. XL turret tracking is being cut in half, but as a consolation prize, siege tracking penalties will be removed. I don't know if any or all of you missed that memo, but as far as I know, that will be happening. It might not be active on sisi right now, but it probably will be either later this mirror or at the latest, next mirror.

As for the people worried about being tracked by a dreadnought, if you're on the field with a dread and you get hit for full damage, you're doing something wrong. Fix it, there's an insanely easy solution that doesn't involve forums.

Oh, and for the record, it was always possible to have 'super tracking dreads' Xeyena, they just never got used on TQ because the fits gimped the dread horridly.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#26 - 2012-04-23 08:34:52 UTC
Last time I checked, all turrets have a signature resolution which is compared to the signature radius of the target in the damage formula. So, working as intended. I will grant that it is entirely possible the actual numbers may have been tweaked.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Copine Callmeknau
Callmeknau Holdings
#27 - 2012-04-23 17:39:54 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
I don't get it, wouldn't all of this be solved with sub system targeting for capital ships?

For instance you want that titan or dread with XL guns to do less damage? Take out it's targeting array. Then it does damage based on sig radius as well, until the timer is done and the ship can self repair the part.

The catch? the sig radius of the targeting array is so small only cruiser and smaller can hit it.

You take this to it's extreme and capitals have 3/4 subsystems to target. Each of them taking out some core function making smaller ships useful in battle verus cap ships. The main counter to these new OP cruisers? Battleships will deal with them.

In which case how do you deal with the frigate which are hitting the even smaller sub systems? easy, get some destroyers and cruisers to take out the frigates. Give every class class a role versus capital ships and all of these capital ship balance issues would be finished.

Sure I'll just code that right up for you, ready for testing it in 30 min yeh? Roll

There should be a rather awesome pic here
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-04-24 11:23:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Demon Azrakel
Dreads are completely unchanged if you ignore out of siege DPS. To copy my reddit post:

Chance to hit = .5^((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)2)

From: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage

Basically, they just multiplied the top and bottom of a fraction by 2

Current: (Turret Tracking x 2 and Signature Radius by 2). Ignoring the rest of the equation, chance to hit = .5(Turret Signature RadiusTarget Radial Velocity/(Tracking SpeedTarget Signature Radius))

New (Turret Tracking x 2 and Signature Radius by 2): Ignoring the rest of the equation, chance to hit = .5(2Turret Signature RadiusTarget Radial Velocity/(2Tracking SpeedTarget Signature Radius))

The 2's cancel out.
So dreads only lose DPS out of siege.

Also for all the dread on BS haters, your Megathron should never hit a webbed and painted thorax, especially while you essentially warp scramble yourself and sit still for 5 minutes.

Dreads still take forever to lock (that nerf did not go through on titans from what I read), still hit like old dreads (not old titans, the things everyone had a problem with), and still have to deal with siege. That "forever to lock" bit means a lot more given the limit on locked targets (2 or 3, depending on skills) for dreads than it does for titans (3, but you can lock a ton faster).

I still think that Titans should be given XXL weapons, so you can try to follow a general "1 size down and webbed" rule, with the definition of "webbed dread" being sitting still and little transversal.
ViRUS Pottage
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-04-24 18:53:02 UTC
TheButcherPete wrote:
Hey, don't blame the Titan. Blame the fact that powerblocs obtain them so easily.


It's not the power blocs fault that CCP can't properly maintain the game. If they kept supers and titans tracked and did something about it BEFORE 80 titans could be fielded by a single alliance we wouldn't have this problem right now.
ViRUS Pottage
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-04-24 18:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: ViRUS Pottage
Tobiaz wrote:
They should never have been combat ships, the simple fact CCP continuously need to nerf them further proves that. Titans should have been POS-like operated mobile stations from day 0.


1/10
OlRotGut
#31 - 2012-04-25 22:16:50 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Xeyena wrote:
Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"...


If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers.



There should be some sort of mechanic to make a 'minimum signature radius' for capital ships, so as to prevent people from reducing their sig radius of these types of ships through buffs like implants, warfare links, boosters, etc.

Or perhaps any ship with a 'jump drive' could never go below xxxx sig radius.

Seems unrealistic that a Carrier can reduce its sig radius so much as to not get hit by titans. ya know you guys should introduce 'flak cannons' for titans. ;o)
Leysritt
The Last Remnant
#32 - 2012-04-25 22:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Leysritt
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with Dreads.

They take a long time to lock targets (titans did not get a scan res nerf that was originally planned for them). They cannot move or warp when in siege mode. They cannot be remote repaired or cap transfered (neuts work on dreads in siege mode). They are pretty much stuck and mostly defenceless for 5 minutes.

It takes a Dread 30 seconds to lock a Battleship, 50 seconds to lock a cruiser, and an eternity to lock a frigate.

They have only 1/10 the EHP of Super Capital Ships and without the ability to get remote reps while in siege means they are going to die if a Fleet primary them.

They are forced to survive by Local Active tanking that scales poorly in fleet battles.

Dreads can be oneshot killed by Doomsdays, unless the Dread fits a heavy tank, but its DPS drops as a result.

If you're sitting still in a ship for a long time and allow a Dread to lock and Kill you. Then your piloting skills are terrible and I recommend you quit this game.

If you try to make the Dreads the same as Titans, you pretty much make them obsolete since Titans and Super Carriers do not have as much weakness as Dreads have, and can perform the same role better.

If you apply Sig radius damage to all turrets then Smaller ships will pretty much have their EHP drastically increased against larger ships. There would be almost no point in using Battleships.
Izuru Hishido
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-04-25 23:33:57 UTC
ViRUS Pottage wrote:
TheButcherPete wrote:
Hey, don't blame the Titan. Blame the fact that powerblocs obtain them so easily.


It's not the power blocs fault that CCP can't properly maintain the game. If they kept supers and titans tracked and did something about it BEFORE 80 titans could be fielded by a single alliance we wouldn't have this problem right now.


There is absolutely nothing that CCP could do mechanically or logistically to prevent power blocs from building titans at the rate they currently are. Any ideas to the contrary would have to be thought up by either someone who doesn't even play the game or a five year old that believes that the titan spawning tree only blooms once a year.

If a power bloc wants a titan, it will obtain it. It doesn't matter the size of the bloc, the amount of space held, so on. If they can't build them on their own, they'll just buy them from blocs that can build the titans and supers.

Titans have always been a problem, the only realistic solution at the moment is to remove all titan offensive capability. That is the only measure short of removing them from gameplay that would curb the rate of acquisition for power blocs. I don't really give a damn if you agree or not, but it is the only feasible solution that could be implemented that would have a drastic effect on titans in any shape way or form.

Apologies for detracting from the topic at hand.
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#34 - 2012-04-26 14:41:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
CCP Masterplan wrote:
In the current version on sisi, the damage reduction against smaller targets applies to all XL guns. We've a slightly newer version where the damage reduction only applies to XL guns when mounted on a Titan. This should be getting on to sisi later today.

The balancing discussion has been happening in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1149893#post1149893


I believe it's a huge mistake to continue special casing things. Make the change to the tracking/damage formulae as a whole. We need more separation between weapon system sizes/tiers so that a high tier, large weapon system is not effective vs. smaller hull sizes (ie. Mega Pulses not very effective vs. BC's and Cruisers).

Further adjust the sig radii of the various hull sizes to solidify this change.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Xeyena wrote:
Why should dreads be able to blap subcaps either? All XL guns should have the same penalty, or we're just going to get "tracking dreads"...


If we apply it to dreads as well, it becomes very hard to deal with low-sig-radius (x-instinct+halo set+warfare links) carriers.

This can be dealt with by changing the sig radii of capitals, maybe an increase in sig radius of 500-750. Additionally, if a pilot chooses to swap out his implant set for another (thus destroying one for the other) then there should be a benefit for doing so.
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#35 - 2012-04-26 20:14:00 UTC
^ Changing the entire turret mechanics will be nothing but a big hassle for everyone including CCP.

Changing the turret mechanics to your suggestions will make flying Battleships even more useless and make everything eschewed to favor Battlecruisers and Cruisers even more.

This game is Battlecruisers Online, where everyone and their grandma flies one and mainly PVP in them while other ships are largely forgotten or ignored.
OlRotGut
#36 - 2012-04-26 20:40:09 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
^ Changing the entire turret mechanics will be nothing but a big hassle for everyone including CCP.

Changing the turret mechanics to your suggestions will make flying Battleships even more useless and make everything eschewed to favor Battlecruisers and Cruisers even more.

This game is Battlecruisers Online, where everyone and their grandma flies one and mainly PVP in them while other ships are largely forgotten or ignored.



I think that's just because in large, battleship damage output just doesnt cut it overall.

Battlecruisers are mobile, put out DPS that can take down a battleship all the while tanking almost like one, at least imo.

There should be no way in hell a titan mega extra large gun should be able to rotate fast enough on its turret platform to track anything smaller than a carrier, unless that target was stopped at 0 speed.
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#37 - 2012-04-26 23:58:42 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
^ Changing the entire turret mechanics will be nothing but a big hassle for everyone including CCP.

Changing the turret mechanics to your suggestions will make flying Battleships even more useless and make everything eschewed to favor Battlecruisers and Cruisers even more.

This game is Battlecruisers Online, where everyone and their grandma flies one and mainly PVP in them while other ships are largely forgotten or ignored.


Just because it's hard work, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if it's good for the game.

It wouldn't make anything useless.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#38 - 2012-04-27 22:04:30 UTC
Quesa wrote:
Parsee789 wrote:
^ Changing the entire turret mechanics will be nothing but a big hassle for everyone including CCP.

Changing the turret mechanics to your suggestions will make flying Battleships even more useless and make everything eschewed to favor Battlecruisers and Cruisers even more.

This game is Battlecruisers Online, where everyone and their grandma flies one and mainly PVP in them while other ships are largely forgotten or ignored.


Just because it's hard work, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if it's good for the game.

It wouldn't make anything useless.


"Good for the game"

Whose game perhaps yours maybe?

In general Battleships(with a few exceptions like pirate bs) are not worth using for several reasons.

They are slow, poor agility, expensive, Big sig radius, expensive, weapons have poor tracking, heavy skill requirements compared to many other classes of ships, large mass unfavorable for wormholes, etc.

Battleships don't really bring much to the table for their higher costs and advantages compared to Battlecruisers.

This sig radius/resolution scaling with make smaller ships overpowered over large ships. Not only does larger ships have trouble hitting these targets and cannot hit once they get under the guns, but the EHP of smaller ships gets boosted against larger ships. There would be even less of a reason to use Battleships since majority of players fly BC, Cruisers, and Frigate sized ships.

Trying to make turret sigs radius based is trying homogenize it with missiles is a dumb and bad idea.

Turret and Missiles need to have distinct differences and making them more of a same to each other ruins gameplay.
Just Alter
Futures Abstractions
#39 - 2012-04-28 00:00:30 UTC
I for one have never been satisfied by how turrets and missiles scale dmg based on sigs.

In real life there's not a single instance of something like this ever happening.

Larger is better, there's nothing to do about it.

Speed and sig tanking should just be removed and changed to a normal tank.

Little would change in the end result, things would just look cleaner.
Miss New York
Space Templar Alliance
#40 - 2012-04-29 16:19:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss New York
Capitals and supers have never been as vulnerable as the vast majority of he players ( i.e. the ones that cannot afford to field one ) would like. They have been nerfed from day one for the only reason that "some can afford them". Nobody is bothered by 2000+ drake fleets that have been locking the servers for years, those are never "too many", but everybody is vociferating against a 80-titans fleet.

Doesnt matter that no real-life situation would make a fleet of aircraft carriers vulnerable against 10-20 fishing boat captains with .45 guns and 10 bullets. No nerf is enough. So, to make that vast majority of players happy, i propose to make those ships museum pieces. Make them unable to track or target ANY ship, reduce their tank to something that will make any crappy frigate pilot happy to put one out of the misery, and generally convert them to something similar to the trousers that you can buy at the GOLD market with more isk than you spend for a 2-mile-long ship.

This game is full of stupid things already, and there will always be people asking for more.
Previous page123Next page