These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#161 - 2014-01-17 00:48:16 UTC
Faydhe wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base tracking stats of all capital turrets alongside the expansion of heat to Tracking Computer modules.

I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one.

When expanding the ability to overheat to Tracking Computers, we investigated the effects that the change would have on different levels of turrets and the doctrines that use them. With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion.

In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.

This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster.

These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback.

Thanks!


Why nerf again? Only few % use owerload.


It is barely a noticable nerf. Use you brain and don't jump on the brainless wagon. Blaping dreads are just OP. There needs to be a penalty on the siege module so the Dreads can't even "look at" anything smaller than a BS.

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#162 - 2014-01-17 01:09:37 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
I made some graphs to demonstrate the effect of a 5% tracking nerf.

The first demonstrates the effect of the tracking nerf on chance to hit. The second demonstrates the effect of the nerf on expected dps, which is slightly different than the effect on chance to hit because :ccp:. The third shows the ratio of expected damage after the nerf to expected damage before the nerf. All three graphs assume that everything other than tracking is remaining unchanged--i.e., you are in the exact same ship, exact same fit, exact same skills, exact same target, exact same positions (optimal and falloff), etc. etc..

In the worst-case scenario, when the target's transversal is approximately 3.3x your tracking, you lose about 8.5% damage. However at that point you're only doing (pre-nerf) about 8% of your paper DPS anyway, so you should probably try to fix that. In more realistic cases the 5% tracking nerf results in a less-than-5% loss in damage, because of the way the damage formula works.

TL;DR: 5% tracking nerf is not nearly as big a deal as you think it is.


You're ruining what was a perfectly good rage thread with ~FACTS~

Thanks a lot Aebe. You had to go and be that guy with the graphs and everything
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#163 - 2014-01-17 01:47:52 UTC
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:
I made some graphs to demonstrate the effect of a 5% tracking nerf.

The first demonstrates the effect of the tracking nerf on chance to hit. The second demonstrates the effect of the nerf on expected dps, which is slightly different than the effect on chance to hit because :ccp:. The third shows the ratio of expected damage after the nerf to expected damage before the nerf. All three graphs assume that everything other than tracking is remaining unchanged--i.e., you are in the exact same ship, exact same fit, exact same skills, exact same target, exact same positions (optimal and falloff), etc. etc..

In the worst-case scenario, when the target's transversal is approximately 3.3x your tracking, you lose about 8.5% damage. However at that point you're only doing (pre-nerf) about 8% of your paper DPS anyway, so you should probably try to fix that. In more realistic cases the 5% tracking nerf results in a less-than-5% loss in damage, because of the way the damage formula works.

TL;DR: 5% tracking nerf is not nearly as big a deal as you think it is.


You're ruining what was a perfectly good rage thread with ~FACTS~

Thanks a lot Aebe. You had to go and be that guy with the graphs and everything


Well, to be fair those aren't exactly well scaled graphs. The last one (overall DPS) is particularly offensive in that regard.

Eg he talks about an 8.5% damage difference - but nowhere on those graphs do I see what would visually represent 8.5% - that's a pretty big indicator that things are scaled funny/selectively.
Scarlet Thellere
Natasha Aleksejewa Republik
#164 - 2014-01-17 02:05:34 UTC
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
Faydhe wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base tracking stats of all capital turrets alongside the expansion of heat to Tracking Computer modules.

I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one.

When expanding the ability to overheat to Tracking Computers, we investigated the effects that the change would have on different levels of turrets and the doctrines that use them. With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion.

In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.

This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster.

These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback.

Thanks!


Why nerf again? Only few % use owerload.


It is barely a noticable nerf. Use you brain and don't jump on the brainless wagon. Blaping dreads are just OP. There needs to be a penalty on the siege module so the Dreads can't even "look at" anything smaller than a BS.


I think that ship that needs to work in team, have high cost and skill req, have low scan res and need to commit for 5 min can be expected to wreak small havoc on single ship that is being webbed and painted by multiple hostiles. What you think dreds should be used for? Just glorified pos removers?
Thead Enco
HR..
#165 - 2014-01-17 02:20:44 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.



Yes please do tell................9 pages later and still crickets.............
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#166 - 2014-01-17 02:22:07 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:

[snip]

Well, to be fair those aren't exactly well scaled graphs. The last one (overall DPS) is particularly offensive in that regard.

Eg he talks about an 8.5% damage difference - but nowhere on those graphs do I see what would visually represent 8.5% - that's a pretty big indicator that things are scaled funny/selectively.


The last graph is intentionally scaled from 0 to 1, which is the only reasonable scale when discussing a ratio which is bounded between 0 and 1. Anything else would be misleading.

The other two graphs are scaled according to the range of the function.

If you can suggest a better way to scale them, please do.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#167 - 2014-01-17 02:25:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:

[snip]

Well, to be fair those aren't exactly well scaled graphs. The last one (overall DPS) is particularly offensive in that regard.

Eg he talks about an 8.5% damage difference - but nowhere on those graphs do I see what would visually represent 8.5% - that's a pretty big indicator that things are scaled funny/selectively.


The last graph is intentionally scaled from 0 to 1, which is the only reasonable scale when discussing a ratio which is bounded between 0 and 1. Anything else would be misleading.


Erm. What?

Considering the actual plots don't even traverse below .85 on the y axis I would start by not rendering anything below that so that you can see finer resolution where it's relevant - as in relative gains/losses (if you're using Excel -- right click the Y-axis and click format axis, and force the minimum to a number closer to .8)

Again - you mentioned an 8.5% damage increase in a situation. Where do I see that 8.5% difference visually with these graphs?

Is it supposed to be emphasized by that poorly scaled slight hump where 85% of the graph is white space?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2014-01-17 02:53:24 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:

[snip]

Well, to be fair those aren't exactly well scaled graphs. The last one (overall DPS) is particularly offensive in that regard.

Eg he talks about an 8.5% damage difference - but nowhere on those graphs do I see what would visually represent 8.5% - that's a pretty big indicator that things are scaled funny/selectively.


The last graph is intentionally scaled from 0 to 1, which is the only reasonable scale when discussing a ratio which is bounded between 0 and 1. Anything else would be misleading.


Erm. What?

Considering the actual plots don't even traverse below .85 on the y axis I would start by not rendering anything below that so that you can see finer resolution where it's relevant - as in relative gains/losses (if you're using Excel -- right click the Y-axis and click format axis, and force the minimum to a number closer to .8)

Again - you mentioned an 8.5% damage increase in a situation. Where do I see that 8.5% difference visually with these graphs?

Is it supposed to be emphasized by that poorly scaled slight hump where 85% of the graph is white space?

Because his goal is to demonstrate the magnitude of the DPS change visually as well. A scale from 0.8-1.0 doesn't necessarily do that since it doesn't show a total range of possible reduction to compare to the actual data plotted.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#169 - 2014-01-17 02:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Because his goal is to demonstrate the magnitude of the DPS change visually as well. A scale from 0.8-1.0 doesn't necessarily do that since it doesn't show a total range of possible reduction to compare to the actual data plotted.


You're right.

They could have just scaled the all the damages right down to zero.

What was I thinking.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2014-01-17 03:05:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pinky Hops wrote:

You're right.

They could have just scaled the all the damages right down to zero.

What was I thinking.

You can bet that if he adjusted the axis as you suggest, someone would ignore the label and claim they had.

ED: Removed quote tree.
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#171 - 2014-01-17 03:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Pinky Hops wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:

[snip]

Well, to be fair those aren't exactly well scaled graphs. The last one (overall DPS) is particularly offensive in that regard.

Eg he talks about an 8.5% damage difference - but nowhere on those graphs do I see what would visually represent 8.5% - that's a pretty big indicator that things are scaled funny/selectively.


The last graph is intentionally scaled from 0 to 1, which is the only reasonable scale when discussing a ratio which is bounded between 0 and 1. Anything else would be misleading.


Erm. What?

Considering the actual plots don't even traverse below .85 on the y axis I would start by not rendering anything below that so that you can see finer resolution where it's relevant - as in relative gains/losses (if you're using Excel -- right click the Y-axis and click format axis, and force the minimum to a number closer to .8)

Again - you mentioned an 8.5% damage increase in a situation. Where do I see that 8.5% difference visually with these graphs?

Is it supposed to be emphasized by that poorly scaled slight hump where 85% of the graph is white space?


Scaling the graph as you suggest would be misleading, since depending on how much whitespace I leave below the curve I can make an arbitrarily small difference seem HUUUUGE. Which I'm sure would match some people's agenda here.

If you want a differently-scaled graph, the only reasonable alternative is to graph a different thing--e.g., graph the % of damage lost, rather than the ratio of post-nerf to pre-nerf damage. This graph would reasonable be scaled from 0 to x%, without a misleading lack of whitespace like you suggest.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Edit: Typo
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2014-01-17 03:40:00 UTC
So I guess this is kind of like a Phoenix buff. Cool
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#173 - 2014-01-17 03:50:01 UTC
I am disposable wrote:
So I guess this is kind of like a Phoenix buff. Cool

If their TP fleet support wasn't just nerfed, it could be.
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#174 - 2014-01-17 03:51:38 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
So I guess this is kind of like a Phoenix buff. Cool

If their TP fleet support wasn't just nerfed, it could be.


Good point.

The TP nerf is truly baffling.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#175 - 2014-01-17 03:55:19 UTC
wow how stupid...x of shame ccp holy cow..
Rahne Sentro
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2014-01-17 04:00:07 UTC
This is an awful idea and CCP seriously needs to reconsider what road they're going down here...
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#177 - 2014-01-17 04:17:47 UTC
@Fozzie/Rise/BalanceTeam

I am frankly shocked you think capital tracking needed to be nerfed unless your undeclared goal to balance titans is to just get them all to quit via boredom.

Or really for that matter, a dread, I mean they're just starting to see an upswing in use, so you instantly do everything you can to stomp on that?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
#178 - 2014-01-17 04:35:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Tronic
Thead Enco wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:
I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.



Yes please do tell................9 pages later and still crickets.............


No you see clearly the reason is a single module THAT YOU CAN ONLY OVERHEAT FOR A EXTREMELY LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME is going to make dreadnoughts OP so they must be nerfed.



Meanwhile carriers and domi sentry blobs get to roam free with the broken drone assist mechanic and the drone negative damage bug that allows you to instapop ships.

:CCP:
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#179 - 2014-01-17 04:43:07 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Why?

Seriously- this is the question we need answered first and foremost.


waa waa waa - big PL supercap blobber wants his guns to track subcaps again.

it is getting done because otherwise you could start tracking subcaps again which is not the purpose of a dread.
fin
Hanna Cyrus
Spessart Rebellen
#180 - 2014-01-17 04:55:31 UTC
I,m sorry to say this is no good idea. A dread should be possible to hit a carrier, with tracking nerf + TP nerf, i think my carrier can then speed tank a dread?
A battle is longer than a few seconds, maybe a few hours (thx to tidi). How much nanite paste is needed then? And wenn i'm repping my TC i can't use it.

I don't think that it will be game breaking, if someone that skilled it, can hit a bit better for a few seconds in a fight.