These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-03-27 16:31:33 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


This is incorrect. Missiles have to deal with their explosion radius and the target's sig radius, which is effectively the same as modifying Turret damage via sig radius.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#62 - 2012-03-27 16:33:27 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.

No, it's not. Not even close. Missiles do negligable damage to subcaps.
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2012-03-27 16:34:04 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.


Sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets (basically making that damage calculation partially similar to how missiles are handled) would also be a fine solution. For more discussion about my suggestion and other sigrad based talk, please see cynonet two's thread in jita speaker's park ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=55493 ). That OP is very good.

In regards to target painters, there is a stacking limit to target painting effects and it would be possible -- and hopefully not difficult -- to rebalance both XL turret sigres and capital/supercap sigrad to further differentiate those massive ships from tiny little subcaps. It would be entirely possible to have it so no number of TPs would help XL turrets hit a battleship. I haven't run the numbers (I'm away from EFT) but the changes required may be minor or even non-existent, if a proper sigrad function was chosen.

I understand the desire to avoid special-casing. But, I would counter that the amount of adjustments made to both XL tracking and Titans so far in an effort to balance them make this worth it. It's a problem which must be addressed, and tracking nerfs have proven to be an ineffective path. Besides, who says XL guns aren't special? These are huge, massive turrets and it's just really hard for them to accurately target such a small ship. It fits right in with player understanding of how turrets _should_ work -- big turrets have a real hard time hitting small things. Once you get to a massive differential with XL turrets shooting subcaps, this difficulty would be made explicit (regardless of transversal).

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Calmoto
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2012-03-27 16:34:06 UTC
Hareka Darine wrote:
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)


titans kill everything from mwding maelstroms to abing rifters

titans are broken and no amount of fly perpendicular will save your fleet from dying in a fire
XxTheKmanxX
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2012-03-27 16:34:25 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.



not empty quoting
Haul Moxtain
Meep Beep Logistics
Meep Beep Empire
#66 - 2012-03-27 16:34:56 UTC
goon tears after PL/raiden "tears" Big smile
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#67 - 2012-03-27 16:35:07 UTC
EnderCapitalG wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


This is incorrect. Missiles have to deal with their explosion radius and the target's sig radius, which is effectively the same as modifying Turret damage via sig radius.


Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2012-03-27 16:35:10 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.

Can I ask why leaving titans in an unbalanced state that causes serious distortions in 0.0 gameplay is not serious enough to create a temporary special-casing approach while you fix an admittedly broken ship (when it can then be removed)?
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#69 - 2012-03-27 16:36:18 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".

Fire up EFT and look at the actual damage caused by that cruise missile hit.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#70 - 2012-03-27 16:36:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
As OP as titans are, can we not all just admit it's the fact tracking is broken with turrets in general?

The tracking equation is such that if transversal drops to zero, one half the equation solves to zero regardless, and then the only effecting attributes are optimal and falloff; signature radius is removed.

With a tracking speed of 0.000000000000000000000001 and a weapon signature radius of 40,000km a Titan will still hit a frigate heading in a direct line to it for full damage, whereas missiles in the same scenario would apply a fraction of their potential.

You simply need to input the signature radius of guns onto both sides of the equation.

Yeah, this is a lot of work (a lot of things will need re-balancing) but the current system of a 50% nerf will just mean there are fewer targets to shoot at any one time; Titans spread about the grid will still blap targets with a low enough transversal.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Shandir
EVE University
Ivy League
#71 - 2012-03-27 16:36:45 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.


The new damage scaling should be based on the ship's actual sig radius, not the modified sig radius caused by shield mods/TPs. Otherwise you risk severe unbalance in favour of armour fleets.

Also, removing EWAR immunity would be interesting.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#72 - 2012-03-27 16:36:47 UTC
No battleship is going to warp out because a leviathan shot a cruise missile at it because the cruise missile will barely scratch the paint.
Calmoto
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2012-03-27 16:38:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
EnderCapitalG wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


This is incorrect. Missiles have to deal with their explosion radius and the target's sig radius, which is effectively the same as modifying Turret damage via sig radius.


Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".


um the missile isnt going to hit for much because it actually follows CCP's remit of "what is the size of this ship" before applying its damage
Mo'Chuisle
The Executives
#74 - 2012-03-27 16:38:48 UTC
First the ME3 endings and now this! Roll

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.


Please do this!
EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-03-27 16:39:07 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
EnderCapitalG wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


This is incorrect. Missiles have to deal with their explosion radius and the target's sig radius, which is effectively the same as modifying Turret damage via sig radius.


Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".


Are you screwing with me?

Citadel Cruise missiles hilariously low amounts of damage due to their explosion velocity and radius against subcapitals.
Delegado Cero
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2012-03-27 16:40:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
EnderCapitalG wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


This is incorrect. Missiles have to deal with their explosion radius and the target's sig radius, which is effectively the same as modifying Turret damage via sig radius.


Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".


Make all XL ammo velocity ~4k/s then.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#77 - 2012-03-27 16:41:18 UTC
pmchem 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.


Sigrad-based damage scaling on XL turrets (basically making that damage calculation partially similar to how missiles are handled) would also be a fine solution. For more discussion about my suggestion and other sigrad based talk, please see cynonet two's thread in jita speaker's park ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=55493 ). That OP is very good.

In regards to target painters, there is a stacking limit to target painting effects and it would be possible -- and hopefully not difficult -- to rebalance both XL turret sigres and capital/supercap sigrad to further differentiate those massive ships from tiny little subcaps. It would be entirely possible to have it so no number of TPs would help XL turrets hit a battleship. I haven't run the numbers (I'm away from EFT) but the changes required may be minor or even non-existent, if a proper sigrad function was chosen.

I understand the desire to avoid special-casing. But, I would counter that the amount of adjustments made to both XL tracking and Titans so far in an effort to balance them make this worth it. It's a problem which must be addressed, and tracking nerfs have proven to be an ineffective path. Besides, who says XL guns aren't special? These are huge, massive turrets and it's just really hard for them to accurately target such a small ship. It fits right in with player understanding of how turrets _should_ work -- big turrets have a real hard time hitting small things. Once you get to a massive differential with XL turrets shooting subcaps, this difficulty would be made explicit (regardless of transversal).


Yeah, fair enough. We'll have another look into this, although I'm concerned that the amount we'd have to add to sig radii (and not just all caps, but all starbase mods as well) to put XL turrets safely north of TP-stacking limits might end up being problematic.





Also, can you guys please stop +1ing - if you're under the impression that we're doing balance work based on how many posts there are in a thread you're barking up the wrong forest never mind the wrong tree. I'd hate to have to get someone to come in and clean the thread.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#78 - 2012-03-27 16:43:15 UTC
EnderCapitalG wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".


Are you screwing with me?

Citadel Cruise missiles hilariously low amounts of damage due to their explosion velocity and radius against subcapitals.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
La Dasha wrote:

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.



Yay context.
Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#79 - 2012-03-27 16:43:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Citadel cruise has a velocity of ~4k/s, so at say 50km you've got 12.5 seconds between "hey that titan has a blinky red box around it I wonder what's up with that" and "oh god I got hit by a missile I totally did not see that coming".


Yep, you have plenty of time to warp out. No reason to bother though because they don't hurt.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2012-03-27 16:43:33 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Yeah, fair enough. We'll have another look into this, although I'm concerned that the amount we'd have to add to sig radii (and not just all caps, but all starbase mods as well) to put XL turrets safely north of TP-stacking limits might end up being problematic.


Bear in mind that even if you can get around this with enough supercarriers with target painters, you've significantly improved 0.0 combat: titan blobs require proper fleet composition and more skill to do what they do now. That makes the game more interesting, if nothing else.