These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon 1.1] Capital Turret Tracking Changes in Conjunction with Heat Iteration

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2014-01-17 14:23:53 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps...


As I understand it increasing sig size ratio is roughly equivalent to reducing tracking by the same factor.

Turrent damage explanation on Eve Uni web site

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#242 - 2014-01-17 14:26:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
iskflakes wrote:
but seriously, titans are so useless right now it's not even funny.

Rubicon 1.2, Duel role for Titan - Bridge subcaps, make pos look perdy by having a big shiny jump portal inside.

Rubicon 1.3, New bonuses for titans - 750m Drone bay, 500m drone bandwidth (your guns are useless but you can deploy 20 sentries)
NB; Leviathan is the exception, it will receive 250m Drone bay, 125m Drone Bandwidth (don't want Caldari pilots thinking drones are for them) + Leviathan has capital missiles and torpedos, what more do you need.

Seriously, it not like they are the biggest ship in game, take years to train for to get good skills, cost an arm and half a leg to buy. Then you want them to be useful as well? Wow, asking for much? RollBlink


**Sarcasm intended**


I wonder - coincidence that 1 month before these changes are officially announced by CCP, a major nulsec coalition comes up with a new dread doctrine?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#243 - 2014-01-17 14:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps...


As I understand it increasing sig size ratio is roughly equivalent to reducing tracking by the same factor.

Turrent damage explanation on Eve Uni web site



Then increase it even more, who cares, capital shouldnt Hit subcaps? Ok fine, but missing other Capitals is just silly.
Reducing damage, fine, but missing? Really?

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#244 - 2014-01-17 14:37:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
With this change, the upcoming T3 nerf and the the lack of any substantial content being added to the game, i see 2014 being the year i stop playing EVE.

It's not a massive nerf but frankly, i'm tired of training up for something only for it to be nerfed again and again. For what i use it for, the moros has gone from being a awesome endgame ship to a complete ******* joke.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#245 - 2014-01-17 14:38:54 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps...


As I understand it increasing sig size ratio is roughly equivalent to reducing tracking by the same factor.

Turrent damage explanation on Eve Uni web site



Then increase it even more, who cares, capital shouldnt Hit subcaps? Ok fine, but missing other Capitals is just silly.
Reducing damage, fine, but missing? Really?


Increasing turret sig resolution is exactly equivalent to nerfing tracking. There is literally no difference between the two.
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2014-01-17 14:39:12 UTC
so, will BS still be easily hit by dreads?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#247 - 2014-01-17 14:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
This graph shows why nerfing it is still dumb, and why not nerfing the tracking would not break anthing
And so does this one.
Yes ladies and gents, allowing your dreadnoughts to overheat two TPs without the tracking nerf results in a whopping 3% greater DPS, in optimal conditions.
Clearly this is broken and a 5% nerf to dread tracking was needed to avert this horror.

(My prior graphs were actually calculated using the wrong value for turret signature resolution, but that only changes the width of the x-axis, not any of the y-axis values on any of the graphs).

So there you have it. I may have been arguing that Aebe's math was right (and it was) but that doesn't mean he looked at the whole picture. I don't think, as a result, he arrived at the right conclusion.
The first graph also demonstrates that with two overheated tracking computers you almost make up for the nerf... you get like 99.2% of the chancetohit that you had before.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#248 - 2014-01-17 14:40:56 UTC
Also seriously buff the Phoenix.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Khan Farshatok
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#249 - 2014-01-17 14:41:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Khan Farshatok wrote:
its an unfair boost unless you boost the passive boost of tracking links.


Tracking links are receiving the same boost as tracking computers in 1.1, by gaining the ability to overheat.


so a mod that has been passive for ever is now going to be activated and given OH. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#250 - 2014-01-17 14:45:42 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
I am curious why CCP wont increase the signature size of capital weapons and ships instead of lowering the tracking, so subcaps would be save and Capital Weapons would be still useful against other moving caps...


As I understand it increasing sig size ratio is roughly equivalent to reducing tracking by the same factor.

Turrent damage explanation on Eve Uni web site



Then increase it even more, who cares, capital shouldnt Hit subcaps? Ok fine, but missing other Capitals is just silly.
Reducing damage, fine, but missing? Really?

What's this shouldn't be able to hit subcaps baloney?
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#251 - 2014-01-17 14:51:30 UTC
Step in the wrong direction I would say. Not only are dreads going to suck a lot more, but when you NEED to overheat, its going to be in a situation where you are already at 10% tidi and module activation is already not working well. You can't even activate/deactivate overheating reliably in these conditions.

Not to mention having the abiltiy to overheat and script all these new modules is going to have a much bigger impact on node cpu useage. Especially with scripts being switched, burned out modules being replaced regularly on the field, etc.

Before, you could field 300 archons and use up the same node cpu as nearly 3300 players (10x sentries each). I'd say this brings that 'high load' scenario closer to crashing an unreinforced node a lot sooner than it would have before.
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#252 - 2014-01-17 14:56:42 UTC
nerf the worst capitals moreso, LOGIC!

But i guess excessive tracking would cause problems, but really: fix capitals next. forget the other ships, this is what we want now. not 2016.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#253 - 2014-01-17 14:58:25 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
But i guess excessive tracking would cause problems

An at most 3% buff to DPS with two overheated TCs is not what I'd consider excessive. See my post above (that goes for everyone, especially Fozzie).

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#254 - 2014-01-17 15:20:59 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
This graph shows why nerfing it is still dumb, and why not nerfing the tracking would not break anthing
And so does this one.
Yes ladies and gents, allowing your dreadnoughts to overheat two TPs without the tracking nerf results in a whopping 3% greater DPS, in optimal conditions.
Clearly this is broken and a 5% nerf to dread tracking was needed to avert this horror.

(My prior graphs were actually calculated using the wrong value for turret signature resolution, but that only changes the width of the x-axis, not any of the y-axis values on any of the graphs).

So there you have it. I may have been arguing that Aebe's math was right (and it was) but that doesn't mean he looked at the whole picture. I don't think, as a result, he arrived at the right conclusion.
The first graph also demonstrates that with two overheated tracking computers you almost make up for the nerf... you get like 99.2% of the chancetohit that you had before.


I'm not really invested in either side of this argument, since I don't fly dreads (and prefer not to fly where there are dreads, for that matter)--It's been months since I've flown anything larger than a cruiser. I absolutely agree that not nerfing the tracking would not be a big deal. Just like the nerf would not be a huge change, your graphs show that the slight boost when overheating without the nerf would also not be a big change.

Many people on both sides of this argument seem to think that there's some kind of phase change in the tracking equation, where at x tracking you can track other dreads reliably and at 0.95x tracking you cannot (or, on the other side, at 1x tracking you can't track battleships reliably and at 1.05x tracking you can). CCP/CSM seem to have had some of this thinking when they decided that they better nerf tracking or else dreads would be OP because of overheating, and many of the counterarguments in this thread take similar positions on the opposite side, as if a 5% nerf is going to make their dreadnaughts useless all of a sudden. I think both sides are severely overestimating the magnitude of the effect.
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#255 - 2014-01-17 15:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Khan Farshatok wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Khan Farshatok wrote:
its an unfair boost unless you boost the passive boost of tracking links.


Tracking links are receiving the same boost as tracking computers in 1.1, by gaining the ability to overheat.


so a mod that has been passive for ever is now going to be activated and given OH. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal


You and Fozzie are talking about different modules. The mod you are thinking of is the tracking enhancer, not the tracking link.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#256 - 2014-01-17 15:25:40 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Many people on both sides of this argument seem to think that there's some kind of phase change in the tracking equation, where at x tracking you can track other dreads reliably and at 0.95x tracking you cannot (or, on the other side, at 1x tracking you can't track battleships reliably and at 1.05x tracking you can). CCP/CSM seem to have had some of this thinking when they decided that they better nerf tracking or else dreads would be OP because of overheating, and many of the counterarguments in this thread take similar positions on the opposite side, as if a 5% nerf is going to make their dreadnaughts useless all of a sudden. I think both sides are severely overestimating the magnitude of the effect.

Yeah, I definitely agree. That mentality is stupid. However I subscribe to the school of thought that says "if I gain the ability to overheat, I should never have to do so just to get the same benefit I had before".

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#257 - 2014-01-17 15:30:58 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Khan Farshatok wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Khan Farshatok wrote:
its an unfair boost unless you boost the passive boost of tracking links.


Tracking links are receiving the same boost as tracking computers in 1.1, by gaining the ability to overheat.


so a mod that has been passive for ever is now going to be activated and given OH. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal


You and Fozzie are talking about different modules. The mod you are thinking of is the tracking enhancer, not the tracking link.

Except that's not Fozzie's fault, because this moron specifically said "tracking links".

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Khan Farshatok
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#258 - 2014-01-17 15:36:05 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
you're right i did say tracking links and meant tracking enhancers, *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#259 - 2014-01-17 15:39:20 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
I'm not really invested in either side of this argument, since I don't fly dreads (and prefer not to fly where there are dreads, for that matter)--It's been months since I've flown anything larger than a cruiser. I absolutely agree that not nerfing the tracking would not be a big deal. Just like the nerf would not be a huge change, your graphs show that the slight boost when overheating without the nerf would also not be a big change.


Subjective nonsense bolded. I also am not invested in either side, but to claim an understanding of the magnitudes involved without looking at particular situations that actually happen is useless.

If there's a transition point (hint: phase change is not the proper term usage) then I think that's what we want to know about.

Most people just asked for a proper explanation - expecting to see an edge case of some kind where **** hits the fan, mandating a slight reduction in tracking.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#260 - 2014-01-17 15:58:04 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Also seriously buff the Phoenix.
Phoenix just got a buff by association - capital turret tracking nerf = missiles "seem" better. Blink

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.