These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Malcanis for CSM 8 Vote till you drop

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#441 - 2013-02-27 11:05:28 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


The horrible state of missions in hisec. The solution in my opinion is a complete rewrite to allow for a more incursion like approach that rewards those who want to train up logistic frigs and cruisers or be a specific role in a fleet. Also providing a way for newer players to experience group play in EVE...


Missions are bad, and their inclusion into EVE was really a failure of imagination; incorporating the lowest level of themepark gameplay into what should be the flagship sandbox MMO is just disappointing.

If we're asking for a "complete rewrite", I'm not sure whether it would be better to make missions more like incursions, or just make missions a part of an expanded incursion/plex system.

However I rate our chances of persuading CCP to do either of those things pretty low. PrismX has said (see earlier in this thread) that CCP aren't happy with the state EVE's dull, predictable, unchallenging PvE, and nor should they be. I just don't anticipate them devoting the required resources to make it genuinely good anytime soon. There are too many player-focused projects clamouring for attention first - POS, Sov, mining, ship balancing, lo-sec... that's a 3 year worklist right there.

Reworking PvE into something genuinely fun, dynamic and challenging would be a massive project, and providing gameplay (as opposed to tools for player interaction) has historically been something that CCP are dreadful at doing.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#442 - 2013-02-27 11:30:03 UTC
Wey'oun wrote:
Hi there

So, What is your view on how Nullsec alliances interact with lowsec via force projection. Take asakai for example. Started as a brawl between My alliance and some Cal mil duders, escalated into a race from all over eve (literally) to get there. Furthest fleet came from southern impass (60 jumps ish?). and arrived after 30 mins (real time),( in eve time 30 mins was the lengh of the fight).


Does it differ from the way that lo-sec entites interact with each other via force projection? I'm given to understand that lo-sec groups are no strangers to titan bridging and hotdrops. I certainly don't think there's a problem with lo-sec hosting massive fights, particularly when they only happen once a year or so. The chance that a fight may escalate unexpectedly is one of the defining characteristics of EVE PvP.

Wey'oun wrote:
Also with moon mining, what is your opinion on why it cant be done in a 0.4 system. should it be allowed? same for assigning fighters ect.


0.4 systems are a pointless anomaly. If the fighter and moon mining restrictions were part of a revised sec system, one that had a smoother slope between 0.1 and 1.0, then I might be willing to accept them. In the current LO/HI binary system then they're just pointless, and I suspect that they're little more than an artefact of the rounding off the trusec value for the individual system to make sure that no hi-sec system accidentally has any lo-sec features.


Wey'oun wrote:
Finally, As an alliance who likes to fight vs the blob and do stupid **** regularly (usually drunken), we use blapping moros regularly. now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics. So my final question is this, what is your opinion on how the Signature / tracking foruma interact. does it need changing? Why does everyone who fights as part of the blob complain about things that can beeat the blob!!!


I have no issue with "blap dreads". Dreads are explicity intended to blap things, and they accept some huge vulnerabilities to be able to do so.

As for the sig/tracking formula, frankly I lack the technical chops to comment properly on it.

People complain about blobs because they've been conditioned by the gameing industry to expect to win most of the time. When people talk about "balance" or "fairness" what they mean is that they should win 75-80% of the time. I personally think that only scrubs complain about blobs, and I have done ever since 2007, when 1 of my corpies was attacked by two guys in a lo-sec system, and 3 of us warped in to help him and were called "blobbers" by the two guys who were attacking 1.

A "blob" in my experience is any fleet with 90% or more of the firepower of the one the complainer is in.



Wey'oun wrote:
EDIT: i was going to fix the terribad grammar in this post but then realised that despite being English all my life i cant spell or speak it and thus to lazy to fix it. so your final test for the vote is understanding the above riddle :P


In that respect, you're probably in the middle rank of posters in this forum. There are much worse than you, my friend.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#443 - 2013-02-27 12:34:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Wey'oun wrote:
now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics.
Malcanis wrote:
As for the sig/tracking formula, frankly I lack the technical chops to comment properly on it.
The key issue here is Vindi webs more than the tracking formula. If a dreadnought was unable to track a strategic cruiser that had 2 vindi webs on it, it would also have difficulty tracking drifting capital ships.

The bonus to web speed reduction is not mathematically sound. At skill 5, it increases the web amount by 50%. A tech 1 web (base 50%) slows targets 75% and a tech 2 web (base 60%) slows them 90%. Just as a percent or two can make a huge difference in EHP to a high resistance type, so too can an extra percent or two off the target's velocity go a long way to allow capital weapons to hit them, because they have only a few percents remaining. Thus, with a level 5 web bonus, the tech 2 web makes a world of difference over the tech 1. Two t2 webs then slow the target FOUR TIMES AS MUCH as two t1 webs with the same bonus.

A more reasonable and mathematically sound calculation would be to have the 50% "increase" in webbing be a reduction in the webbing that the module doesn't have, ie: the tech 1 50% webber lacks 50%, and the tech 2 60% webber lacks 40%. Thus a 50% increase would lead to webs having a slowing value of 75% (tech 1) and 80% (tech 2). Thus, two fully bonused tech 2 webs now would web a target 42.9% better than two fully bonused tech 1 webs. The two fully bonused tech 1 webs are unchanged but they weren't what pirate faction ships were using to make dreads able to blap small ships.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#444 - 2013-02-27 12:42:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
The tracking formula itself is fine I think. A dreadnought has around 1/50th of the tracking of a battleship but still has no problem hitting capital ships. Capital ships aren't terribly slower than battleships, but they can shoot farther and more than anything have a far greater signature radius. This is key to how capital weapons work. The listed tracking amount on capital weapons is in the vicinity of 10% of battleship weapons, but due to having 5 times the signature resolution, they actually track the same targets much slower. What's actually happening here is that a dreadnought gets about a tenth of the tracking against a dreadnought/carrier/rorqual as a battleship/attack BC gets against a battleship, but if the dreadnought tries to shoot a battleship, it has much more difficulty tracking it due to the battleship's smaller signature radius.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#445 - 2013-02-27 12:51:45 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Wey'oun wrote:
now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics.
Malcanis wrote:
As for the sig/tracking formula, frankly I lack the technical chops to comment properly on it.
The key issue here is Vindi webs more than the tracking formula. If a dreadnought was unable to track a strategic cruiser that had 2 vindi webs on it, it would also have difficulty tracking drifting capital ships.

The bonus to web speed reduction is not mathematically sound. At skill 5, it increases the web amount by 50%. A tech 1 web (base 50%) slows targets 75% and a tech 2 web (base 60%) slows them 90%. Just as a percent or two can make a huge difference in EHP to a high resistance type, so too can an extra percent or two off the target's velocity go a long way to allow capital weapons to hit them, because they have only a few percents remaining. Thus, with a level 5 web bonus, the tech 2 web makes a world of difference over the tech 1. Two t2 webs then slow the target FOUR TIMES AS MUCH as two t1 webs with the same bonus.

A more reasonable and mathematically sound calculation would be to have the 50% "increase" in webbing be a reduction in the webbing that the module doesn't have, ie: the tech 1 50% webber lacks 50%, and the tech 2 60% webber lacks 40%. Thus a 50% increase would lead to webs having a slowing value of 75% (tech 1) and 80% (tech 2). Thus, two fully bonused tech 2 webs now would web a target 42.9% better than two fully bonused tech 1 webs. The two fully bonused tech 1 webs are unchanged but they weren't what pirate faction ships were using to make dreads able to blap small ships.


What you say sounds reasonable on the face of it, although no doubt people who've bought Serpentis ships would disagree. I'm trying to remember how that bonus worked when T2 webs were 90%. Did Serp ships just get 95% webbing? (I'm almost certain the didn't get 140% webs :p )

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#446 - 2013-02-27 12:53:02 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The tracking formula itself is fine I think. A dreadnought has around 1/50th of the tracking of a battleship but still has no problem hitting capital ships. Capital ships aren't terribly slower than battleships, but they can shoot farther and more than anything have a far greater signature radius. This is key to how capital weapons work. The listed tracking amount on capital weapons is in the vicinity of 10% of battleship weapons, but due to having 5 times the signature resolution, they actually track the same targets much slower. What's actually happening here is that a dreadnought gets about a tenth of the tracking against a dreadnought/carrier/rorqual as a battleship/attack BC gets against a battleship, but if the dreadnought tries to shoot a battleship, it has much more difficulty tracking it due to the battleship's smaller signature radius.


I understand that much. By "technical chops" I mean my calculus skills are far too weak to be able to properly evaluate the current tracking formula vs alternative.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#447 - 2013-02-27 13:00:28 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The tracking formula itself is fine I think.

Except for the fact that when the transversal is low enough, the formula always yields a hit. It doesn't take distance (and by inference the relative sigradius, hitting a penny at 1 yard is "moderately" harder than hitting the same penny at 1000 yards, even if it doesn't move) into account when calculating whether or not you hit, only when calculating how much damage you should deal.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#448 - 2013-02-27 13:10:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Lord Zim wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The tracking formula itself is fine I think.

Except for the fact that when the transversal is low enough, the formula always yields a hit. It doesn't take distance (and by inference the relative sigradius, hitting a penny at 1 yard is "moderately" harder than hitting the same penny at 1000 yards, even if it doesn't move) into account when calculating whether or not you hit, only when calculating how much damage you should deal.
You're absolutely correct, and this is something I've been aware of for quite some time. I guess I should have been more specific in that I think the tracking formula is fine when factoring in the ability for dreads to hit subcaps.

I have long been bothered that a battleship can blap a frigate that turns the wrong way (and loses too much radial velocity for a split second) even though it is very far away, while a battlecruiser orbiting the battleship at 500m with no prop on can't be touched even though you'd think it would be easy to hit with capital weapons simply by aiming them in front of its path and firing 3-4 volleys as it drifted slowly past.

Yes I feel that is an annoyance and possibly a problem. Solving it is easy, but I'm not convinced it needs solving. CCP and many PVPers seem to feel that the "getting under the guns" tactic is something that is good about EVE.
P.S. the correct term is radial velocity, not transversal velocity. However, in a fixed system that more closely followed gunnery logic, transversal would be almost exactly the factor in tracking ability, rather than at current, in which radial is exactly the factor.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#449 - 2013-02-27 13:19:39 UTC
New thread rule: all further discussion of the tracking formula must be conducted in haiku format.

Thank you.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#450 - 2013-02-27 13:23:05 UTC
tracking ships is fine
tracking ships with dreads is fine
bugged webs not so much

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#451 - 2013-02-27 13:23:29 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The tracking formula itself is fine I think.

Except for the fact that when the transversal is low enough, the formula always yields a hit. It doesn't take distance (and by inference the relative sigradius, hitting a penny at 1 yard is "moderately" harder than hitting the same penny at 1000 yards, even if it doesn't move) into account when calculating whether or not you hit, only when calculating how much damage you should deal.
You're absolutely correct, and this is something I've been aware of for quite some time. I guess I should have been more specific in that I think the tracking formula is fine when factoring in the ability for dreads to hit subcaps.

I have long been bothered that a battleship can blap a frigate that turns the wrong way (and loses too much radial velocity for a split second) even though it is very far away, while a battlecruiser orbiting the battleship at 500m with no prop on can't be touched even though you'd think it would be easy to hit with capital weapons simply by aiming them in front of its path and firing 3-4 volleys as it drifted slowly past.

Yes I feel that is an annoyance and possibly a problem. Solving it is easy, but I'm not convinced it needs solving. CCP and many PVPers seem to feel that the "getting under the guns" tactic is something that is good about EVE.
P.S. the correct term is radial velocity, not transversal velocity. However, in a fixed system that more closely followed gunnery logic, transversal would be almost exactly the factor in tracking ability, rather than at current, in which radial is exactly the factor.


Tracking formula
Opaque as an autumn mist
Precision shines through!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#452 - 2013-02-27 14:34:43 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:

Overpowered passive cloaking. It is now to the point where people are now beyond AFK cloaking but running Twitch.tv streams of enemy stations and systems! Would you support balancing cloaking to punish those who go AFK (Eventually able to be scanned down for decloak) while maintaining the benefits to people actively cloaking (Remaining at their keyboard)


Cloaking is discussed at some length earlier in this thread. The tl;dr is that I'd support removing the ability to scan or probe whilst cloaked, and I don't think that ships using non-covops cloaks should recharge shield or cap, but I don't see any need for further nerfs after that.


You've heard my opinion on cloaking nerfs, but cloaking nerfs + automatic d-scan updating would be beyond obnoxious. We're not frantically mashing dscan blindly in an attempt to mimic local. Sometimes you don't want it to update so you can get a good long look at that one guy whom you caught uncloaked for a second. You're proposing breaking our cloaks and our ways of hunting cloakies. Unless you want a dscan history to go with the automatic updating, you're needlessly making life difficult in w-space so people in k-space can feel safer.

I'd rather see k-space given more tools for group play or incentives to defend their PvE grounds to counter the scary cloakers. Right now it isn't cost-effective to defend yourself the way w-space does in k-space, and that's just ridiculous. Putting in the effort to make your system(s) inhospitable to any intruders in ways that aren't "not blue pos up" should be rewarded.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#453 - 2013-02-27 18:45:28 UTC
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:

Overpowered passive cloaking. It is now to the point where people are now beyond AFK cloaking but running Twitch.tv streams of enemy stations and systems! Would you support balancing cloaking to punish those who go AFK (Eventually able to be scanned down for decloak) while maintaining the benefits to people actively cloaking (Remaining at their keyboard)


Cloaking is discussed at some length earlier in this thread. The tl;dr is that I'd support removing the ability to scan or probe whilst cloaked, and I don't think that ships using non-covops cloaks should recharge shield or cap, but I don't see any need for further nerfs after that.


You've heard my opinion on cloaking nerfs, but cloaking nerfs + automatic d-scan updating would be beyond obnoxious. We're not frantically mashing dscan blindly in an attempt to mimic local. Sometimes you don't want it to update so you can get a good long look at that one guy whom you caught uncloaked for a second. You're proposing breaking our cloaks and our ways of hunting cloakies. Unless you want a dscan history to go with the automatic updating, you're needlessly making life difficult in w-space so people in k-space can feel safer.

I'd rather see k-space given more tools for group play or incentives to defend their PvE grounds to counter the scary cloakers. Right now it isn't cost-effective to defend yourself the way w-space does in k-space, and that's just ridiculous. Putting in the effort to make your system(s) inhospitable to any intruders in ways that aren't "not blue pos up" should be rewarded.


Have you seen this? Sounds like you might find it useful.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#454 - 2013-02-27 20:27:22 UTC
BTW it should be pretty trivial to ad a "manual update" mode even to a real time DSCAN. Thanks for pointing out that this would be a desired feature in this scenario.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#455 - 2013-02-28 14:14:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
....When you have ~60-70% of the game population crammed into a zone that's only ~15% of the game area, then there's a prima facia case for rebalancing right there. More specifically, when 95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec, then it's even more obvious that there's a straight up imbalance. The situation we have now is that making hi-sec too good has ended up badly for 0.0, and that imbalance needs to be addressed....

While I believe you have some good ideas on many areas of EVE, I won’t be voting for you. I believe a fundamental part of your position amounts to little more than ‘Nerf’ Highsec.

People are not crammed into 15% of the game area, they choose to stay out the other 85%. Individual choices that 85% of the game area does not offer them what they want or need.

If “…95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec…”, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesn’t fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is level… it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer.
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#456 - 2013-02-28 14:18:13 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Have you seen this? Sounds like you might find it useful.


Interesting. It is pretty, though I could probably parse the results in the time it would take me to use the tool. I'll give it a whirl sometime.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#457 - 2013-02-28 15:24:32 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
....When you have ~60-70% of the game population crammed into a zone that's only ~15% of the game area, then there's a prima facia case for rebalancing right there. More specifically, when 95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec, then it's even more obvious that there's a straight up imbalance. The situation we have now is that making hi-sec too good has ended up badly for 0.0, and that imbalance needs to be addressed....

While I believe you have some good ideas on many areas of EVE, I won’t be voting for you. I believe a fundamental part of your position amounts to little more than ‘Nerf’ Highsec.

People are not crammed into 15% of the game area, they choose to stay out the other 85%. Individual choices that 85% of the game area does not offer them what they want or need.

If “…95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec…”, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesn’t fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is level… it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer.


The part of your post I highlighted is exactly my position. I've said it before, many times, and I'll say it again: I'm not about nerfing hi-sec for the sake of "punishing people for playing EVE the wrong way". The ONLY reason that I would support a nerf to high sec production is for the sake of balancing with sov 0.0 where no further 0.0 buff is possible. In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can, and only then would I want them to start looking at the necessity of nerfing high sec with respect to, for instance, slot fees which are currently so low that there simply isn't the margin to compensate for the inherent costs of 0.0 production.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#458 - 2013-02-28 17:12:44 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
If “…95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec…”, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesn’t fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is level… it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer.

Tell us more about what CCP could possibly do to nullsec industry to make it compete with f.ex a maelstrom costing 2k isk in fees in total safety, and within 2 jumps of jita. By making the stations pay us for using them? Make refinery yield more minerals than hisec? Make minerals pop up out of thin air?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#459 - 2013-02-28 18:20:19 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
If “…95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec…”, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesn’t fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is level… it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer.

Tell us more about what CCP could possibly do to nullsec industry to make it compete with f.ex a maelstrom costing 2k isk in fees in total safety, and within 2 jumps of jita. By making the stations pay us for using them? Make refinery yield more minerals than hisec? Make minerals pop up out of thin air?


In essence, this. The situation for R&D, Invention, etc is similar. EVE won't die if NPC stations charge a couple of mill to build a battleship, but it might make industry in player sov competitive.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Josef Djugashvilis
#460 - 2013-02-28 19:01:10 UTC
I have said before that I would be concerned that improving null-sec production to compete favourably with hi-sec might lead to the development of self-contained Eve 'bubbles' with little need for interaction between them.

Would it not be better to come up with a radical solution to the problems of null-sec rather than, in some respects, copying hi-sec?

Do you have any thoughts what could be done to improve null-sec apart form improving production?

I ask this not to be awkward in any way Malcanis, I am simply wondering if you have any ideas for radical solutions to the issues of null-sec.

This is not a signature.