These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

bastion module turret projection tweak
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#21 - 2014-01-13 07:11:41 UTC
Gustav Mannfred wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
2 suggestions surrounding bastion's turret projection bonuses.

A) Set the falloff bonus to twice the optimal bonus like tracking comps and enhancers, possibly adjusting the base values at the same time. Optimal and falloff are not equal. The vargur in particular gets screwed on this untraditional 1:1 setup.

B) Remove the stacking penalty in conjunction with lowering the bonus values. It's very easy to reach the point as which bastion offers insignificant projection increases. If these ships' specialization surround tanking and projection as mention in the rebalancing thread, it would be nice to receive meanful projection from bastion regardless of the fit


i would choose of one of the proposed ideas, double the falloff bonus and remove stacking penalty is a bit OP (especially vargur and kronos)

i would choose B.

I would also like to see a missile flight time bonus, because turrets have 2 rangebonus, missiles only one.

Yeah, but the turrets have a 25% range increase overall, just like the Golem does. Optimal+Falloff can be considered total range, so you have (Opt+Fall)*1.25, and for missiles total range can be considered FlightTime*MissileVelocity, so total range would be (FT*1.25)*MV which could also be shown as (FT*MV)*1.25. Same ****, different pile. In both situations you're multiplying total range by 25%.
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#22 - 2014-01-14 02:24:56 UTC  |  Edited by: chaosgrimm
hmskrecik wrote:

That would be correct if other things were equal. But they are not, as we both know it. You're talking Vargur vs. Paladin aren't you? You conveniently ignored that the Paladin has non-selectable damage profile while the Vargur has almost twice the tracking to compensate for shooting in falloff.

Mind you, I am not strictly against having moar falloff. I occasionally fly Vargur and my Kronos would benefit from it too. I'm just not convinced that this bonus asymmetry is that important to have. Especially when considering that both of those ships are already being flown while stacked to roof.


I think you're breaking off topic toward the balance between weapon systems and not the balance of the bastion module... things like selective damage types are balanced within the inherent properties of the weapon.... really doesnt have much of anything to do with the balance of the bastion module. While tracking plays a role in balance between weapon system, it still doesnt change the fact that optimal has more value than falloff and is weighed that way is just about all areas of the game. If you are really trying to say that bastion is okay 1:1 because pulse tracking makes up the difference. then why arent you complaining about 1:2 on tracking computers and tracking enhancer. Hull bonuses for optimals @ 7.5 while falloff is at 10%?

Just for comparison:
@ lvl V
Vargur w/ 1 TE II, 2 TC II w/ opt range, 1 ambit I
bastion adds:
~0.6+3 to HAIL / FUSION
~1.3+6 to BARRAGE

Kronos w/ 1 TE II, 2 TC II w/ opt range, 1 ambit I
bastion adds:
~1.7+1 to VOID
~0.9+2 to AM
~3+3 to NULL

Paladin w/ 1 TE II, 2 TC II w/ opt range, 1 locus I
bastion adds:
~3+2 to CONFLAG / MF
~10+2 to SCORCH

It's not just the pally, it's the kronos as well. I choice the numbers I did to make the difference in utility value of opt and falloff more apparent. Alvatore reminded us in this thread that the paladin's range with pulses as well as the kronos' range with null play a significant role in the attributes of the bastion module....

:( devs werent really concerned at all about the vargur. reworking the bonus such that the total range bonus was weighted more heavily in falloff would help add balance IMO, and a smaller bonus w/o a stacking penalty would help ensure that the module focused on the marauders' T2 specialization: tanking and projection, would provide significant tank and projection regardless of fit.
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#23 - 2014-01-14 12:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: hmskrecik
(General note: I don't touch Golem. At all. I have no missile skills nor experience)

chaosgrimm wrote:
I think you're breaking off topic toward the balance between weapon systems and not the balance of the bastion module...


In a way, I do. The bastion doesn't operate in vacuum. It is a module which use is limited to certain set of ships, each of them having certain attributes, certain bonuses and utilising certain weapon systems. You cannot balance the bastion, or any other module for that matter, in isolation from those considerations.

Quote:
[....] optimal has more value than falloff and is weighed that way is just about all areas of the game. If you are really trying to say that bastion is okay 1:1 because pulse tracking makes up the difference. then why arent you complaining about 1:2 on tracking computers and tracking enhancer. Hull bonuses for optimals @ 7.5 while falloff is at 10%?


Well, personally I try to not complain at all. I understand the difference of value of optimal vs. falloff and I don't know internal CCP's process of balancing stuff but look closer at numbers you have provided. They are marginal at best. To me it's an indicator that maybe this module isn't supposed to have that much influence in this regard. Or is supposed to be used in different way, in which this influence becomes significant.

Quote:
It's not just the pally, it's the kronos as well. I choice the numbers I did to make the difference in utility value of opt and falloff more apparent. Alvatore reminded us in this thread that the paladin's range with pulses as well as the kronos' range with null play a significant role in the attributes of the bastion module....


Let's recap. We are talkin' about SHORT RANGE weapons. Each of them having in this case more than 50km of effective operational range. Which is more than unbonused optimal of long range variants. And you want to push it further into the land of ridiculous?

Or put it another way. What exact bonuses in your opinion would be appropriate? Gather support of pilots of EACH of ships receiving them and also gather acceptance of pilots potentially facing them or competing with each of those ships. Only when you do this you will sound different than as crying "I want $MY_FAVOURITE_SHIP to be overpowered like heeeeeeeel".

Quote:
:( devs werent really concerned at all about the vargur. reworking the bonus such that the total range bonus was weighted more heavily in falloff would help add balance IMO, and a smaller bonus w/o a stacking penalty would help ensure that the module focused on the marauders' T2 specialization: tanking and projection, would provide significant tank and projection regardless of fit.

Because, let me repeat, Vargur was already very good. Other ships were improved to match it so yes, relatively the Varg lacks some luster and okay, in Rubicon it got mobility nerfed but otherwise it's still the same kickass ship, having the same tankability and firepower. Meanwhile you talk like if your ticks have dropped through the floor.

If you want the Vargur to be back the best marauder in town, have decency of admitting it openly. But if you want to talk about game balance, please try to be a little less one sided.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against wanting to have more power. My personal favourite is Kronos and I sure would like it to be powerful to the point of game breaking. But in such moments I don't pretend I'm talking about game being balanced.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2014-01-14 14:21:18 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Gustav Mannfred wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
2 suggestions surrounding bastion's turret projection bonuses.

A) Set the falloff bonus to twice the optimal bonus like tracking comps and enhancers, possibly adjusting the base values at the same time. Optimal and falloff are not equal. The vargur in particular gets screwed on this untraditional 1:1 setup.

B) Remove the stacking penalty in conjunction with lowering the bonus values. It's very easy to reach the point as which bastion offers insignificant projection increases. If these ships' specialization surround tanking and projection as mention in the rebalancing thread, it would be nice to receive meanful projection from bastion regardless of the fit


i would choose of one of the proposed ideas, double the falloff bonus and remove stacking penalty is a bit OP (especially vargur and kronos)

i would choose B.

I would also like to see a missile flight time bonus, because turrets have 2 rangebonus, missiles only one.

Yeah, but the turrets have a 25% range increase overall, just like the Golem does. Optimal+Falloff can be considered total range, so you have (Opt+Fall)*1.25, and for missiles total range can be considered FlightTime*MissileVelocity, so total range would be (FT*1.25)*MV which could also be shown as (FT*MV)*1.25. Same ****, different pile. In both situations you're multiplying total range by 25%.


Doe snto work like that.


If you increase your falloff by 100% you increased the range where you do X damage by 50%.

If you increase range by 100% you increase the range where you do X damage by 100%.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2014-01-14 14:23:35 UTC
hmskrecik wrote:
(General note: I don't touch Golem. At all. I have no missile skills nor experience)

chaosgrimm wrote:
I think you're breaking off topic toward the balance between weapon systems and not the balance of the bastion module...


In a way, I do. The bastion doesn't operate in vacuum. It is a module which use is limited to certain set of ships, each of them having certain attributes, certain bonuses and utilising certain weapon systems. You cannot balance the bastion, or any other module for that matter, in isolation from those considerations.

Quote:
[....] optimal has more value than falloff and is weighed that way is just about all areas of the game. If you are really trying to say that bastion is okay 1:1 because pulse tracking makes up the difference. then why arent you complaining about 1:2 on tracking computers and tracking enhancer. Hull bonuses for optimals @ 7.5 while falloff is at 10%?


Well, personally I try to not complain at all. I understand the difference of value of optimal vs. falloff and I don't know internal CCP's process of balancing stuff but look closer at numbers you have provided. They are marginal at best. To me it's an indicator that maybe this module isn't supposed to have that much influence in this regard. Or is supposed to be used in different way, in which this influence becomes significant.

Quote:
It's not just the pally, it's the kronos as well. I choice the numbers I did to make the difference in utility value of opt and falloff more apparent. Alvatore reminded us in this thread that the paladin's range with pulses as well as the kronos' range with null play a significant role in the attributes of the bastion module....


Let's recap. We are talkin' about SHORT RANGE weapons. Each of them having in this case more than 50km of effective operational range. Which is more than unbonused optimal of long range variants. And you want to push it further into the land of ridiculous?

Or put it another way. What exact bonuses in your opinion would be appropriate? Gather support of pilots of EACH of ships receiving them and also gather acceptance of pilots potentially facing them or competing with each of those ships. Only when you do this you will sound different than as crying "I want $MY_FAVOURITE_SHIP to be overpowered like heeeeeeeel".

Quote:
:( devs werent really concerned at all about the vargur. reworking the bonus such that the total range bonus was weighted more heavily in falloff would help add balance IMO, and a smaller bonus w/o a stacking penalty would help ensure that the module focused on the marauders' T2 specialization: tanking and projection, would provide significant tank and projection regardless of fit.

Because, let me repeat, Vargur was already very good. Other ships were improved to match it so yes, relatively the Varg lacks some luster and okay, in Rubicon it got mobility nerfed but otherwise it's still the same kickass ship, having the same tankability and firepower. Meanwhile you talk like if your ticks have dropped through the floor.

If you want the Vargur to be back the best marauder in town, have decency of admitting it openly. But if you want to talk about game balance, please try to be a little less one sided.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against wanting to have more power. My personal favourite is Kronos and I sure would like it to be powerful to the point of game breaking. But in such moments I don't pretend I'm talking about game being balanced.


Bastion mode is useles on vargur. VArgur tanks with mobility and the falloff bonus of bastion is less than of a track computer. While on other battleships the bonus is LARGER than of a track computer.

Vargur doe snto amtch with current bastion design. Bad design and bad game development.

I have all 4 between my characters (havvving trained golem recently). There is no competition Paladin and Golem >>> Kronos>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Vargur.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#26 - 2014-01-14 14:28:28 UTC  |  Edited by: chaosgrimm
hmskrecik wrote:

The bastion doesn't operate in vacuum. It is a module which use is limited to certain set of ships, each of them having certain attributes, certain bonuses and utilising certain weapon systems. You cannot balance the bastion, or any other module for that matter, in isolation from those considerations.

Well, personally I try to not complain at all. I understand the difference of value of optimal vs. falloff and I don't know internal CCP's process of balancing stuff but look closer at numbers you have provided. They are marginal at best. To me it's an indicator that maybe this module isn't supposed to have that much influence in this regard. Or is supposed to be used in different way, in which this influence becomes significant.


... There is no way you can argue that a km of optimal provides an equal lvl of effectiveness as a km of falloff, even considering tracking differences.

I mean your arguement is:
tracking + dmg profile, therefore, optimal gains == falloff gains in marauders; this is all the while recognizing that optimal gains are treated as a better gain than falloff nearly everywhere in the game (which also maintain differences in tracking and dmg profile), but that's not a problem because u don't understand balance.

hmskrecik wrote:

Let's recap. We are talkin' about SHORT RANGE weapons. Each of them having in this case more than 50km of effective operational range. Which is more than unbonused optimal of long range variants. And you want to push it further into the land of ridiculous?

.... No. You missed the point...

[Edited out some ridiculousness about surveying the eve population and making everyone agree on what balance should be]

hmskrecik wrote:

Because, let me repeat, Vargur was already very good. Other ships were improved to match it so yes, relatively the Varg lacks some luster and okay, in Rubicon it got mobility nerfed but otherwise it's still the same kickass ship, having the same tankability and firepower. Meanwhile you talk like if your ticks have dropped through the floor.

If you want the Vargur to be back the best marauder in town, have decency of admitting it openly. But if you want to talk about game balance, please try to be a little less one sided.


Im not wanting the vargur to be the best marauder... I was a long time vargur user and have since switched to the kronos. Something about an AC ship losing overall mobility and gaining the special ability to become immobile, all while gaining the least in benefits from projection, doesn't sit right. Vargur has gone from awesome to dust collector. I don't care if its awesome or not, I just don't like the dust collector status
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#27 - 2014-01-14 14:49:49 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
[On Vargur] the falloff bonus of bastion is less than of a track computer. While on other battleships the bonus is LARGER than of a track computer.

Then seemingly my tracking computer is bigger than yours.

Or maybe try to script it and fly in less stacked configurations.
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#28 - 2014-01-14 15:00:28 UTC  |  Edited by: hmskrecik
chaosgrimm wrote:
... There is no way you can argue that a km of optimal provides an equal lvl of effectiveness as a km of falloff, even considering tracking differences.

I'm not trying to argue that. Conversely, I'm opposing blind valuation that for each km or percent of optimal, 2 km/% of falloff should be granted for proper balance.

Quote:
hmskrecik wrote:

Let's recap. We are talkin' about SHORT RANGE weapons. Each of them having in this case more than 50km of effective operational range. Which is more than unbonused optimal of long range variants. And you want to push it further into the land of ridiculous?

.... No. You missed the point...

Fair enough, I'm not omniscient. So again, what in your opinion are bastion bonuses which would be fair? And since you don't want to resort to players' survey (how otherwise do you evaluate if something is balanced or not?) then make theoretical case that those bonuses would not be giving excessive power to or nerfing anything.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#29 - 2014-01-14 15:25:25 UTC
why not give it +25% dmg to torps too cause they are broken and cruise missles outperform torps now.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#30 - 2014-01-15 05:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: chaosgrimm
@hmskrecik
Im am getting a post / proof-in-concept together to fully answer your questions. Kinda long and lots of number formatting stuffs that's difficult to do from a cellphone, so it prolly wont be posted til late week / w/e depending on my schedule. I do enjoy these discussions xD

Seranova Farreach wrote:
why not give it +25% dmg to torps too cause they are broken and cruise missles outperform torps now.

Possibly because this is a thread about the bastion module and projection, not torp rebalance and damage. Changing bastion wont fix Torps, they were lack luster compared to cruise before the bastion module surfaced, just sayin xD
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#31 - 2014-01-15 16:54:42 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
@hmskrecik
Im am getting a post / proof-in-concept together to fully answer your questions. Kinda long and lots of number formatting stuffs that's difficult to do from a cellphone, so it prolly wont be posted til late week / w/e depending on my schedule. I do enjoy these discussions xD

Sentiment returned. Take your time. :)
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2014-01-15 16:57:57 UTC
hmskrecik wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
[On Vargur] the falloff bonus of bastion is less than of a track computer. While on other battleships the bonus is LARGER than of a track computer.

Then seemingly my tracking computer is bigger than yours.

Or maybe try to script it and fly in less stacked configurations.



Are you mentally challenged you you simply did not read what I wrote?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#33 - 2014-01-16 07:04:35 UTC  |  Edited by: hmskrecik
Kagura Nikon wrote:
hmskrecik wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
[On Vargur] the falloff bonus of bastion is less than of a track coher shipsmputer. While on other battleships the bonus is LARGER than of a track computer.

Then seemingly my tracking computer is bigger than yours.

Or maybe try to script it and fly in less stacked configurations.



Are you mentally challenged you you simply did not read what I wrote?

If you tried to insult me, try again and try harder.

As to the rest, what I read, defies interpretation. It could have been:

"on Vargur 25% is less than 30% while on other ships 25% is more than 30%"

or

"on Vargur 25% is less than 30% while on other ships 25% is more than 15%"

or

"on Vargur 25% is less than 15% while on other ships 25% is more than 15%".

(the fourth combination totally doesn't make sense to the point of not being fun to pick on). If I read something wrong or did not understand something, I 'm open for an explanation.
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#34 - 2014-01-19 02:08:23 UTC
So as promised, here is a proof-in-concept as to how it could work.

Bastion 7.5% / 15% non stacking

@ all V
Paladin (2 TC IIs rng, 1 TE II, 1 Locus I) -> 89787.477 + 18259.889 Scorch
Bastion Current: 99986.5 + 19787.277 gain of ~10.2 + 1.5
Bastion Above: 96521.538 + 20998.87 gain of ~6.7 + 2.7

Kronos (2 TC IIs rng, 1 TE II, 1 ambit I) -> 17313.596 +49966.609 Null
Bastion Current: 19873.906 + 52767.418 gain of ~2.6 + 2.8
Bastion Above: 18612.116 + 57461.6 gain of ~1.3 + 7.5

Vargur (2 TC IIs rng, 1 TE II, 1 ambit I) -> 4122.2847 + 68525.633 RF Plasma
Bastion Current: 4731.8823 + 72366.742 gain of ~0.6 + 3.8
Bastion Above: 4431.4561 + 78804.478 gain of ~0.3 + 10.2

Why is this more balanced?
Value of Optimal. The benefit of Optimal is greater than the benefit of Falloff. Also, falloff synergizes with mobility. Ships that have weapon systems with significant falloff are generally quicker. Bastion causes the ships to be immobile which increases the value of optimal even further. The current projection bonus favors the paladin a little too much.

Null on the Kronos is kind of like a better version of RF Phased Plasma in terms of damage/projection (out to about 65km give or take) while in bastion. The above reduces the Kronos' optimal which starts the falloff penalties slightly sooner, but deceases the falloff penalty by increasing falloff. The difference in falloff gained between the vargur and kronos is also slightly widened, which also helps spread these weapon systems / pulls back the distances in which their dmg is equal a bit.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2014-01-19 02:48:58 UTC
If the falloff bonus gets doubled, don't anyone get butthurt when I start popping frigates at 100km with autocannons.

I think falloff is overall just as good as optimal, as long as you aren't a DPS whor e. Optimal is good for when yoou can dictate your range, falloff is good when you can't, And if the peeps on here assume to be dictating range with their marauders while using the bastion module, I think that reveals things about the way these marauders are being used.

pee vee eee

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."
Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-01-19 04:13:39 UTC
+1
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#37 - 2014-01-19 09:31:36 UTC  |  Edited by: chaosgrimm
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

...
I think falloff is overall just as good as optimal, as long as you aren't a DPS whor e. Optimal is good for when yoou can dictate your range, falloff is good when you can't
...


Lemme rephrase what you said there.

Sentence 1:
If you don't take dps into account, optimal == falloff. Or, if you do take dps into account, optimal is better.

Sentence 2:
Falloff is good only if you can't use optimal.

Both of these sentences seemingly say: optimal > falloff
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2014-01-19 10:30:59 UTC
actually what I said was you have to be blinded by an inability to lose a bit of DPS to not see the benefit of falloff. Hitting for less damage is still hitting. If you're within optimal, you're still hitting at full damage, but as soon as you step past that your DPS is gone--unless you have falloff to pad that. Optimal is more important on rails and lasers because they don't have much falloff--you need a big multiplier to get anywhere. Falloff is pretty important on blasters and artillery. Falloff is the only thing that matters on autocannons, as they have hardly any optimal. So it also depends what weapons you are using.

25% bonus to optimal and 25% bonus to falloff is a 25% bonus to everyone's range. Doubling the falloff bonus hands the largest advantage to the Vargur, while giving the Paladin the smallest bonus.

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."
Scarlett Wesson
Doomheim
#39 - 2014-01-19 13:00:56 UTC
hmskrecik wrote:
Edit: contrary to many voices, in this and other threads, that it doesn't make sense, it actually does. Barring drone speed upgrades, ALL modules improving ship's force are being stack penalized and as of now I haven't seen any good justification why the bastion module should be an exception.


Is the damage bonus on the Siege Module stacking penalized with Weapon Upgrades/rigs ?
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#40 - 2014-01-19 16:58:16 UTC
Scarlett Wesson wrote:
hmskrecik wrote:
Edit: contrary to many voices, in this and other threads, that it doesn't make sense, it actually does. Barring drone speed upgrades, ALL modules improving ship's force are being stack penalized and as of now I haven't seen any good justification why the bastion module should be an exception.


Is the damage bonus on the Siege Module stacking penalized with Weapon Upgrades/rigs ?

OK, I stand corrected.

Soo... Bastion's bonuses should be unstacked because of Siege, right?