These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Readjust trackings mods?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Delphineas Fumimasa
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-11-23 01:33:06 UTC
What if Tracking Computer/Tracking Enhancers/Scripts were redone?

As it stands now, TEs give 30% falloff, which benefits Projectiles most, Lasers least, and Hybrid very little. They also give 15% Optimal which reverses the weapon types benefits.

TCs give a lot more tracking, which is a bit more situational, which also depends on your tank type and slots.

I may be wrong, but the weapon types and most beneficial upgrades are:
Lasers:Optimal/tracking
Projectiles: Falloff/Tracking
Blasters:Optimal/Falloff
Railguns: Tracking, Optimal


What if Tracking enhancers were broken down into three modules, each focusing on 2 stats?

What if there was a script that added a flat range bonus (5km) to blasters at the cost of racking from a TC? And as with the Tes, scripts that remove one stat, but buff the other 2 by 50% instead of the lose 2 stats, get 100% boost we have now?



Tracking Enhancer Alpha
15% Tracking, 15% Optimal

Tracking Enhancer Beta
15% Tracking, 30% Falloff

Tracking Enhancer Gamma
10% Optimal, 20% Falloff

One last thought would be Tcs have calibration points, and you cat setup the stats as you like for a given ship.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-11-23 01:36:10 UTC
I don't see a problem with them, falloff is worth 50% less then optimal so it sums up pretty good.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#3 - 2011-11-23 03:30:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Cambarus
Nalha Saldana wrote:
I don't see a problem with them, falloff is worth 50% less then optimal so it sums up pretty good.
No, it isn't.
EDIT: Copied from my post in the other thread:


Compare these 2 hypothetical guns: We'll call them a pulse laser and an AC.
The pulse laser has an optimal of 10km, a falloff of 1km
The AC has the 10 falloff and 1 optimal.
Assuming each has the same base DPS, the pulse will hold an advantage in damage out to 11km, as at this point each turret is in 1X falloff.
Beyond that however, the AC does more damage, as it will still be doing about 40% of its DPS at 12km, whereas the pulse will be doing no damage at all.
It ss, in my opinion at least, a well balanced idea, and is probably the reason why falloff works the way it does, instead of losing all your damage at 1X falloff (and just making the numbers bigger).


You trade DPS for range, falloff is certainly not worth half as much as optimal.
Delphineas Fumimasa
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2011-11-23 03:55:39 UTC
My numbers weren't calulated out. I just just tossing some out that might be marginally better for a given weapon type.

So was I on track fr the weapon systems preferred stats, or way off base?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#5 - 2011-11-23 04:06:39 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
I don't see a problem with them, falloff is worth 50% less then optimal so it sums up pretty good.
No, it isn't.
EDIT: Copied from my post in the other thread:


Compare these 2 hypothetical guns: We'll call them a pulse laser and an AC.
The pulse laser has an optimal of 10km, a falloff of 1km
The AC has the 10 falloff and 1 optimal.
Assuming each has the same base DPS, the pulse will hold an advantage in damage out to 11km, as at this point each turret is in 1X falloff.
Beyond that however, the AC does more damage, as it will still be doing about 40% of its DPS at 12km, whereas the pulse will be doing no damage at all.
It ss, in my opinion at least, a well balanced idea, and is probably the reason why falloff works the way it does, instead of losing all your damage at 1X falloff (and just making the numbers bigger).


You trade DPS for range, falloff is certainly not worth half as much as optimal.


Good lord man, keep it to one thread so that the responses don't get scattered everywhere. It makes navigating and responding in the forums a ******* nightmare. Also, you seem to assert in the other thread that 1 optimal really is worth 1 falloff, which is just patently silly.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#6 - 2011-11-23 04:10:59 UTC
Delphineas Fumimasa wrote:

I may be wrong, but the weapon types and most beneficial upgrades are:
Lasers:Optimal/tracking
Projectiles: Falloff/Tracking
Blasters:Optimal/Falloff
Railguns: Tracking, Optimal



I'm definitely thinking that your analysis of long range weaponry is off. The reason you fit range mods with them is for... range. I'm also a bit unsold on the idea that blasters are more interested in the optimal than the falloff and tracking. I am beginning to warm to the idea that TEs (specifically) are just doing too much... but I really don't want to nerf blasters in the process of hitting that particular nail.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Aamrr
#7 - 2011-11-23 04:31:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
Liang admits that the new TEs might in fact be a bit overpowered? May the wonders never cease.

Edit: Was it the fact that optimal-scripted TCs are 100% worse than TEs what tipped you off? (WAY higher CPU cost, capacitor draw, no tracking bonus, same optimal/falloff...)
Delphineas Fumimasa
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-11-23 04:32:16 UTC
The only turret I've used are rail guns. Thus why didn't split the ranges .

I was also basing my analysis on what 2 stats from the modules are most beneficial from < 20km, and 20 km out.

IE, rails get more benefit from optimal, and tracking helps hit at 20 km.( Based off my limited experience missioning in a rokh.)
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#9 - 2011-11-23 04:42:24 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

I'm definitely thinking that your analysis of long range weaponry is off. The reason you fit range mods with them is for... range. I'm also a bit unsold on the idea that blasters are more interested in the optimal than the falloff and tracking. I am beginning to warm to the idea that TEs (specifically) are just doing too much... but I really don't want to nerf blasters in the process of hitting that particular nail.

-Liang


That's funny. I've arrived at the 'Screw it. Let's see what they do to hybrids' point myself.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#10 - 2011-11-23 05:39:49 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm definitely thinking that your analysis of long range weaponry is off. The reason you fit range mods with them is for... range. I'm also a bit unsold on the idea that blasters are more interested in the optimal than the falloff and tracking. I am beginning to warm to the idea that TEs (specifically) are just doing too much... but I really don't want to nerf blasters in the process of hitting that particular nail.

-Liang

It wouldn't be a blaster nerf. Blasters benefit the least from range mods, so it would be bringing them closer to the others a bit.

Meanwhile rails still have the longest range, but not by as much....which is fine because nobody needs to shoot past the edge of the grid.

thhief ghabmoef
Goose99
#11 - 2011-11-23 05:57:02 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Delphineas Fumimasa wrote:

I may be wrong, but the weapon types and most beneficial upgrades are:
Lasers:Optimal/tracking
Projectiles: Falloff/Tracking
Blasters:Optimal/Falloff
Railguns: Tracking, Optimal



I'm definitely thinking that your analysis of long range weaponry is off. The reason you fit range mods with them is for... range. I'm also a bit unsold on the idea that blasters are more interested in the optimal than the falloff and tracking. I am beginning to warm to the idea that TEs (specifically) are just doing too much... but I really don't want to nerf blasters in the process of hitting that particular nail.

-Liang


It's never 1 to 1 - there's more falloff, which is what it's all about. And the difference of being slightly out of optimal range with almost no falloff, and being in falloff with almost no optimal, is absolute - doing dmg and not doing dmg. Add Winmatar speed to the mix, and it's perma-kitting. End result is still win, when you're faster and doing reduced dmg, while opponent is slower while doing zero dmg. The fact that you're doing reduced dmg in falloff does not change outcome, only how soon the inevitable arrives. Range is range, speed is speed. It's that simple. The idea that "it's falloff, therefore it doesn't count" is laughable.Roll
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#12 - 2011-11-23 06:08:45 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Liang admits that the new TEs might in fact be a bit overpowered? May the wonders never cease.

Edit: Was it the fact that optimal-scripted TCs are 100% worse than TEs what tipped you off? (WAY higher CPU cost, capacitor draw, no tracking bonus, same optimal/falloff...)


It's very simple:
- Before the projectile boost, I held the opinion that lasers were flat overpowered. The options were to nerf lasers (and probably torps) or buff projectiles, hybrids, and cruise.
- Since very shortly after the projectile boost I've held the opinion that TEs just did too much. I don't remember exactly who convinced me of this, but I think it was Kaileen Starsong. However, I've always been afraid of nerfing blaster ships when nerfing TEs. Yes, even back then I was flying shield blaster ships.
- Since the projectile boost, I've held the opinion that lasers and projectiles are roughly balanced - at least to the point that its probably better to adjust individual ships than the weapons platforms as a whole. I also hold the opinion that a metagame shift could easily push it one way or the other.

Right now, I am leaning very slightly towards the metagame favoring projectiles. I'm also somewhat confident that the metagame isn't going to shift away from blasters and hybrids right now. Thus, I'm somewhat warming to the idea that a TE nerf wouldn't be outright catastrophic for blasters as it would have been before. I'm also hardly sold that its necessary and I have absolutely no problems with the range or damage that people are putting out with projectile ships. If anything I think its ship fittings or weapon capacitor usage that shifts it, not range or damage or agility or speed.

But all of that's merely musing at this point, because it would be utter folly to nerf anything until we know exactly how the metagame is going to shift around the hybrid boosts.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#13 - 2011-11-23 06:12:39 UTC
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm definitely thinking that your analysis of long range weaponry is off. The reason you fit range mods with them is for... range. I'm also a bit unsold on the idea that blasters are more interested in the optimal than the falloff and tracking. I am beginning to warm to the idea that TEs (specifically) are just doing too much... but I really don't want to nerf blasters in the process of hitting that particular nail.

-Liang

It wouldn't be a blaster nerf. Blasters benefit the least from range mods, so it would be bringing them closer to the others a bit.

Meanwhile rails still have the longest range, but not by as much....which is fine because nobody needs to shoot past the edge of the grid.


Blasters benefit the most from range mods, actually - and the reasoning is actually pretty simple. There's a relatively narrow window that they have to stay in to do meaningful DPS, and range mods increase the width of that window and allow them to start doing damage earlier.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#14 - 2011-11-23 06:25:25 UTC
Goose99 wrote:

It's never 1 to 1 - there's more falloff, which is what it's all about. And the difference of being slightly out of optimal range with almost no falloff, and being in falloff with almost no optimal, is absolute - doing dmg and not doing dmg. Add Winmatar speed to the mix, and it's perma-kitting. End result is still win, when you're faster and doing reduced dmg, while opponent is slower while doing zero dmg. The fact that you're doing reduced dmg in falloff does not change outcome, only how soon the inevitable arrives. Range is range, speed is speed. It's that simple. The idea that "it's falloff, therefore it doesn't count" is laughable.Roll


Oh come off it. Its not that it doesn't count, but lasers just do more damage at pretty much all meaningful ranges. Fitting a Harbinger out with the same number of tracking mods nets almost twice the DPS at overheated gang bonused point range and the Zealot vs Vagabond is the same way.

Lasers are just flat superior at dealing damage - both up close and at range. Their ships are sturdier and more resiliant in a straight up brawl and Projectile based ships almost always need to run away. And this is ok.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
#15 - 2011-11-23 08:15:48 UTC
I dont do math, but I am confident that eve players will, given enough time, find a strength/weakness and abuse it to the fullest extent allowed. Projectiles (even on hulls not designed for them), and Minnie ships in general are over-used for a reason. Its because they are extremely powerful (not pure dps, but range, damage selection, fitting requirements, alpha,speed, slot layout, GTFO tank, etc) and Eve players exploit such things. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The pudding is decidedly rust-colored.

Not that I want them nerfed, but the other races need to be brought in line somehow. Gallente the most. The hybrid changes are a start, but after those settle in, the Gallente ship base stats and/or bonuses are going to need to be looked at.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-11-23 08:29:31 UTC
Emily Poast wrote:
I dont do math, but I am confident that eve players will, given enough time, find a strength/weakness and abuse it to the fullest extent allowed. Projectiles (even on hulls not designed for them), and Minnie ships in general are over-used for a reason. Its because they are extremely powerful (not pure dps, but range, damage selection, fitting requirements, alpha,speed, slot layout, GTFO tank, etc) and Eve players exploit such things. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The pudding is decidedly rust-colored.

Not that I want them nerfed, but the other races need to be brought in line somehow. Gallente the most. The hybrid changes are a start, but after those settle in, the Gallente ship base stats and/or bonuses are going to need to be looked at.



The math is relatively simple, its called an integral, and a falloff curve is fairly easy to model.

I don't have any simulation programs loaded on this machine, but averaged out I'd imagine matar falloff to be something like 60-65% (one falloff) of optimal DPS and the value only increases as you stack on TE enhancers. The really funny one is that Matar actually lose half of their optimal due to the targeting calculation, get a Maelstom within 1000 meters of another battleship and try to hit, if you even scratch its for a small fraction of damage.

Falloff would be exactly 50% of fall off if it was a linear progression from the end of optimal till 100% miss land...but it isn't, and I don't really feel like doing it at the moment.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#17 - 2011-11-23 12:22:40 UTC
Onictus wrote:
The math is relatively simple, its called an integral, and a falloff curve is fairly easy to model.


Be careful with these. Some ranges are more important than other ranges, so you have to provide some weighting mechanism to the integral to actually try to do this evaluation with math. Just remember that the integral of a Rail Rokh is actually pretty damn sexy next to blasters, but in reality its pretty useless.

I gave up on this approach, personally.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2011-11-23 12:53:17 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Onictus wrote:
The math is relatively simple, its called an integral, and a falloff curve is fairly easy to model.


Be careful with these. Some ranges are more important than other ranges, so you have to provide some weighting mechanism to the integral to actually try to do this evaluation with math. Just remember that the integral of a Rail Rokh is actually pretty damn sexy next to blasters, but in reality its pretty useless.

I gave up on this approach, personally.

-Liang


Agreed, like I said average value, you could of course play with the bounding for a specific range, but its largely an academic exercise.

As to you point with blasters, sure the average value would be decent, there just isn't bloody much of it.
Songbird
#19 - 2011-11-23 14:01:20 UTC
******* forum ate my post again.

TE's replace damage mods - it's why they do not do "too much"
TC's are better than TE's since when the situation requires it they can give you 30% better tracking.
AC's advantage over pulse lazors - no cap usage , low fitting reqs. Damage is less, tracking is similar.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2011-11-23 14:49:48 UTC
Lets make this simple

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5421/trackingdiff.jpg

One pic is with a TE, one is without.
425mm vs heavy pulse laser.
Do you see a difference in the shape between the two? no? And thats why its balanced.
123Next pageLast page