These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Titan changes - update

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
DelightSucker
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-03-27 16:15:07 UTC
Theres alot of test and goons in here. Sup`?
EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-03-27 16:15:10 UTC
Max Butched wrote:
i think its time to say something like :
umad ?
:smug:
king of space
tears
and so on


Not really.
Aryndel Samson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-03-27 16:16:56 UTC
Max Butched wrote:
i think its time to say something like :
umad ?
:smug:
king of space
tears
and so on


What a wonderful contribution.
BBJ Shepard
#44 - 2012-03-27 16:18:45 UTC

tityn

  1. e
?4ehBlink

?(:
BBJ Shepard
#45 - 2012-03-27 16:19:02 UTC
BBJ Shepard wrote:

tityn

  1. e
?4ehBlink

???????

?(:
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#46 - 2012-03-27 16:19:09 UTC
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
Greyscale,

Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.


I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further.


In the current formula, if target transversal is zero and the target is within falloff range, then the exponent in chancetohit = 0.5^(exponent) will be zero and the chancetohit will be = 1.

However, if you added a new term in the exponent (or as a prefactor), then you could have it so chancetohit is less than 1 if the turretsigres is much larger than the targetsigrad. For example, add a third term to the exponent where the value of the term is zero if targetsigrad > turretsigres, and a large number when targetsidrad is zero. This value would have to be added, not multiplied (as is done in the first term in the exponent). If you wanted to do this as a prefactor, you would have a smoothly decaying function where if targetsigrad > turretsigres the function = 1, but if targetsigrad = 0 then the prefactor = 0. This is often done in classical molecular dynamics for cutoff or switching functions. I could write up a couple example formulas for either case if you're interested, (but it may take me a bit, I have work too!).


Basically, make them work the same way that missiles do regarding sig radius. A citadel torp will never do full damage to a rifter, for example.


This is necessary because as much as the pro-blapping crowd likes to crow about "just keep transversal up", twenty titans on the field are not a point source of fire and keeping transversal up against all of them is a difficult proposition. You will frequently be at zero transversal to at least one of them, and that's all it takes.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Rebnok
Dependable Delinquents
Fraternity.
#47 - 2012-03-27 16:20:04 UTC
check your paypal, thanks again!
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#48 - 2012-03-27 16:20:33 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
Greyscale,

Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.


I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further.


In the current formula, if target transversal is zero and the target is within falloff range, then the exponent in chancetohit = 0.5^(exponent) will be zero and the chancetohit will be = 1.

However, if you added a new term in the exponent (or as a prefactor), then you could have it so chancetohit is less than 1 if the turretsigres is much larger than the targetsigrad. For example, add a third term to the exponent where the value of the term is zero if targetsigrad > turretsigres, and a large number when targetsidrad is zero. This value would have to be added, not multiplied (as is done in the first term in the exponent). If you wanted to do this as a prefactor, you would have a smoothly decaying function where if targetsigrad > turretsigres the function = 1, but if targetsigrad = 0 then the prefactor = 0. This is often done in classical molecular dynamics for cutoff or switching functions. I could write up a couple example formulas for either case if you're interested, (but it may take me a bit, I have work too!).


It seems like it'd be just as easy just to introduce a sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets, which takes you to approximately the same expected DPS in most situations but in a more consistent (ie, less burst-prone) manner, and with the advantage that we can use much simpler math (linear/quadratic scaling) so the average user has a better chance of being able to estimate the likely outcomes. In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
#49 - 2012-03-27 16:20:50 UTC
pmchem wrote:
Greyscale,

Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.


Definitely the way to go.

Though I think "a matter of hours" is a little small of an estimate. You sure that those three would be able to behave long enough to get any work done if they were locked in a room together? Lol

Morwen Lagann

CEO, Tyrathlion Interstellar

Coordinator, Arataka Research Consortium

Owner, The Golden Masque
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#50 - 2012-03-27 16:22:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
By far the easiest and simplest to Titans blapping subcaps would be to remove or restrict supercap ewar immunity. Then the players can solve the problem of the tracking-Titan themselves, simply by using Tracking Disrupter I (or possibly a slightly better meta mod, lol).

You could leave in an immunity to ECM I suppose though, after all, multiple TDs have a stacking effect. I'd get rid of the warp disruptor/scrambler immunity though, having penalty-free warp core stabilisers on combat ships is absurd.

Quote:
and in any case the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing.


Well, this is one "special case" that should be deleted.
La Dasha
#51 - 2012-03-27 16:24:48 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
Greyscale,

Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.


I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further.


In the current formula, if target transversal is zero and the target is within falloff range, then the exponent in chancetohit = 0.5^(exponent) will be zero and the chancetohit will be = 1.

However, if you added a new term in the exponent (or as a prefactor), then you could have it so chancetohit is less than 1 if the turretsigres is much larger than the targetsigrad. For example, add a third term to the exponent where the value of the term is zero if targetsigrad > turretsigres, and a large number when targetsidrad is zero. This value would have to be added, not multiplied (as is done in the first term in the exponent). If you wanted to do this as a prefactor, you would have a smoothly decaying function where if targetsigrad > turretsigres the function = 1, but if targetsigrad = 0 then the prefactor = 0. This is often done in classical molecular dynamics for cutoff or switching functions. I could write up a couple example formulas for either case if you're interested, (but it may take me a bit, I have work too!).


It seems like it'd be just as easy just to introduce a sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets, which takes you to approximately the same expected DPS in most situations but in a more consistent manner, and with the advantage that we can use much simpler math (linear/quadratic scaling) so the average user has a better chance of being able to estimate the likely outcomes. In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.


If that was really the case, then Leviathans would be used for subcap blapping with TP/web support.
Calmoto
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-03-27 16:24:59 UTC
can someone please tell me why citadel torps cant do full damage to a rifter when its got 0 transversal???

wait are you actually telling me CCP doesnt want things that shoot citadel torps to apply that huge dmg to smaller things????

THIS IS UNPOSSIBLE
Joe D'Trader
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2012-03-27 16:26:13 UTC
Basically the damage calculation should, must?, be changed so there is a maximum damage any weapon class can do to a class say 2-3 sizes below it. So capital weapons should never ever be able to do full damage to an interceptor. How this is done is up to you to figure out. But regardless of tracking, http://i.imgur.com/4naK9.png, kinda explains that you can never keep transversal on all ships as fleet sizes scale. So some capital weapons will always be able to track sub caps. If this is your intention fine, it's your game and we just play in it, but no amount of nerfing tracking will fix the issue that if there are ships on all sides of you, some of them will have low transversal and so be able to alpha you.
Hareka Darine
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2012-03-27 16:26:21 UTC
DelightSucker wrote:
Theres alot of test and goons in here. Sup`?


Seems they are only one who have problems with titans

(how is possible that 1500 sig mwd drakes can be hit by titan oh noes)
Katrina Bekers
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2012-03-27 16:27:10 UTC
Make *any* weapon upgrade effect every turret on titans.

For example, gyrostabs on hybrids...

*rimshot*

<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#56 - 2012-03-27 16:28:37 UTC
La Dasha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
Greyscale,

Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.


I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further.


In the current formula, if target transversal is zero and the target is within falloff range, then the exponent in chancetohit = 0.5^(exponent) will be zero and the chancetohit will be = 1.

However, if you added a new term in the exponent (or as a prefactor), then you could have it so chancetohit is less than 1 if the turretsigres is much larger than the targetsigrad. For example, add a third term to the exponent where the value of the term is zero if targetsigrad > turretsigres, and a large number when targetsidrad is zero. This value would have to be added, not multiplied (as is done in the first term in the exponent). If you wanted to do this as a prefactor, you would have a smoothly decaying function where if targetsigrad > turretsigres the function = 1, but if targetsigrad = 0 then the prefactor = 0. This is often done in classical molecular dynamics for cutoff or switching functions. I could write up a couple example formulas for either case if you're interested, (but it may take me a bit, I have work too!).


It seems like it'd be just as easy just to introduce a sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets, which takes you to approximately the same expected DPS in most situations but in a more consistent manner, and with the advantage that we can use much simpler math (linear/quadratic scaling) so the average user has a better chance of being able to estimate the likely outcomes. In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.


If that was really the case, then Leviathans would be used for subcap blapping with TP/web support.


I suspect the larger problem for missile-blapping is that the target has plenty of time to warp out, and you end up firing a lot of missiles at not very much.
Spiff O'Tool
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-03-27 16:29:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...

We're aware that this is going to reduce the overall efficacy* of the changes, but we feel that the scan resolution reduction had too much of a negative impact on the titan's other options, and we're not happy with any of the other possible changes we'd previously considered.

...


Are you still planning on fixing the Titan blob vs subcaps "somehow", just not in this way? Or are you reversing your entire position on Titan blobs?
Oliver Duncan
B0rthole
#58 - 2012-03-27 16:29:27 UTC
Calmoto wrote:
can someone please tell me why citadel torps cant do full damage to a rifter when its got 0 transversal???

wait are you actually telling me CCP doesnt want things that shoot citadel torps to apply that huge dmg to smaller things????

THIS IS UNPOSSIBLE


It's this way for all missiles. There is a factor of the targets sig radius involved. As your guns begin to outclass the target ship, they become less effective.
EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-03-27 16:30:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
pmchem wrote:
Greyscale,

Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.


I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further.


In the current formula, if target transversal is zero and the target is within falloff range, then the exponent in chancetohit = 0.5^(exponent) will be zero and the chancetohit will be = 1.

However, if you added a new term in the exponent (or as a prefactor), then you could have it so chancetohit is less than 1 if the turretsigres is much larger than the targetsigrad. For example, add a third term to the exponent where the value of the term is zero if targetsigrad > turretsigres, and a large number when targetsidrad is zero. This value would have to be added, not multiplied (as is done in the first term in the exponent). If you wanted to do this as a prefactor, you would have a smoothly decaying function where if targetsigrad > turretsigres the function = 1, but if targetsigrad = 0 then the prefactor = 0. This is often done in classical molecular dynamics for cutoff or switching functions. I could write up a couple example formulas for either case if you're interested, (but it may take me a bit, I have work too!).


It seems like it'd be just as easy just to introduce a sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets, which takes you to approximately the same expected DPS in most situations but in a more consistent (ie, less burst-prone) manner, and with the advantage that we can use much simpler math (linear/quadratic scaling) so the average user has a better chance of being able to estimate the likely outcomes. In either case though, it seems like a lot of effort to go to just to force people to fit target painters to their supercarriers; furthermore, the decision we've made is based partly on a desire to avoid special-casing so this sort of approach isn't really on the table right now.


If this were so then Leviathans would be also blapping things with Target Painter/Webbing support.

Too bad that doesn't happen ever.
Zuratul
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2012-03-27 16:31:14 UTC
pmchem wrote:
Greyscale,

Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.


Pmchem: The word of reason