These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#941 - 2012-04-17 12:15:42 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.


Very nice. I had been operating under the assumption that this would be too technically difficult for this release, but if it can be done it would be a very good way of minimizing unintended side effects.

Also loving the mentions of a more general fix down the line. This kind of continued iteration is exactly what a lot of us have been hoping for.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#942 - 2012-04-17 12:18:57 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
So:

- The reason I'm asking about whether the x-instinct/halo setup is an actual problem is that, while it's often the case that EVE players will abuse any mechanical loopholes to the fullest extent possible, it's not always the case.


Halos and X-instinct may be relatively rare, but mindlinked Lokis with the sig radius link (and Ragnoraks with their sig bonus) are both pretty common. So it seems sensible to balance with them in mind at least.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#943 - 2012-04-17 13:02:49 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
So:

- The reason I'm asking about whether the x-instinct/halo setup is an actual problem is that, while it's often the case that EVE players will abuse any mechanical loopholes to the fullest extent possible, it's not always the case.


Halos and X-instinct may be relatively rare, but mindlinked Lokis with the sig radius link (and Ragnoraks with their sig bonus) are both pretty common. So it seems sensible to balance with them in mind at least.


Yeah i don´t think he balanced the titan tracking with a ceptor full gixt and loki skirmish and ragnarok also...Because if he did and they diead lol..
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#944 - 2012-04-17 13:06:17 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works.


Great :)
And considering that stuff like mindflood and exile/blue pill are already in use by carriers today, it's definitely the right call - getting x-instinct wouldn't be any harder then getting the other boosters, but I do admit that halos would probably be pretty rare.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#945 - 2012-04-17 13:19:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
this needs to only apply to titans.
the easy alternative would be to make XXL guns for titans, then give them whatever stats you want.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Hathrul
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#946 - 2012-04-17 13:27:55 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
So:

- The reason I'm asking about whether the x-instinct/halo setup is an actual problem is that, while it's often the case that EVE players will abuse any mechanical loopholes to the fullest extent possible, it's not always the case. Example: the "one tower per corp per day per system" rule is in principle hugely exploitable by having lots of corps anchor towers and then join the alliance. In practice and AFAIAA, it didn't get abused much because it was just too much hassle. In the case of carriers, I'm somewhat skeptical that it'd become de rigueur for fleet fights because carriers are relatively cheap, and both x-instinct and halos would likely become pretty expensive if alliances started buying them in that sort of volumes. I would lean towards expecting it to become cost-ineffective very quickly.

- That said, the case where this breaks down is small-scale engagements with single handfuls of carriers, where the investment is likely to be very much worth it. We're not happy with removing the ability of dreadnaughts to deal with carriers effectively, and while adding a sig radius penalty to siege/triage is the simplest fix, it's opening us up to further potential problems and it doesn't deal with non-triage carriers at all.


What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.



Also, for the record, I don't do private chats; I deal with too many bits of high-end gameplay to risk (plausible) accusations of bias. If you're not a CSM delegate, a volunteer or a fanfest attendee, the forums are your only point of contact. Sorry, that's just how it has to be.


thanks for listening greyscale :)

2 points: over the last pages you had a lot of feedback from wormhole pilots about the dread changes and the x-instinct halo'd carriers that cant be hit. you are right that the prices for halo's would go up a lot and wonder if it would be viable for those flying the carriers to buy them. Please remember that wormhole pilots tend to fly what has the highest mass efficiency, not isk efficiency. With such a massive advantage, i can assure you that a lot of halo sets would be brought to wormholes to give an edge.

1 tower per corp per day? i can rell you with 100% certainty that this is 5 towers per day per corp. recently one of our main corps had to reform and reanchor all the towers, and ran into this limitation.
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#947 - 2012-04-17 13:34:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Bubanni
CCP Greyscale wrote:
So:

- The reason I'm asking about whether the x-instinct/halo setup is an actual problem is that, while it's often the case that EVE players will abuse any mechanical loopholes to the fullest extent possible, it's not always the case. Example: the "one tower per corp per day per system" rule is in principle hugely exploitable by having lots of corps anchor towers and then join the alliance. In practice and AFAIAA, it didn't get abused much because it was just too much hassle. In the case of carriers, I'm somewhat skeptical that it'd become de rigueur for fleet fights because carriers are relatively cheap, and both x-instinct and halos would likely become pretty expensive if alliances started buying them in that sort of volumes. I would lean towards expecting it to become cost-ineffective very quickly.

- That said, the case where this breaks down is small-scale engagements with single handfuls of carriers, where the investment is likely to be very much worth it. We're not happy with removing the ability of dreadnaughts to deal with carriers effectively, and while adding a sig radius penalty to siege/triage is the simplest fix, it's opening us up to further potential problems and it doesn't deal with non-triage carriers at all.


What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.



Also, for the record, I don't do private chats; I deal with too many bits of high-end gameplay to risk (plausible) accusations of bias. If you're not a CSM delegate, a volunteer or a fanfest attendee, the forums are your only point of contact. Sorry, that's just how it has to be.


It's not a problem now, but I would imagine that people will start using them if there was a change that they could reduce the incomming damage from titans/dreads on their carriers/dreads/supercarriers/other capitals by using ragnorok+loki skirmish booster + halo implants + x-strinct booster.... as the total damage would be reduced quite alot then, and only countered back to normal if 4x rapier webs are put on that same capital, in other words, if you make it so people can use those signature reduceing ships and implants + boosters to reduce total damage a capital can recieve from a titan... then people will (maybe not everyone, but the rich will)

edit: all that said, a nyx can only get down to about 3281m signature with all those signature reduceres... so it wont get reduced damage from the nerf.

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#948 - 2012-04-17 13:42:09 UTC
Hathrul wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
So:

- The reason I'm asking about whether the x-instinct/halo setup is an actual problem is that, while it's often the case that EVE players will abuse any mechanical loopholes to the fullest extent possible, it's not always the case. Example: the "one tower per corp per day per system" rule is in principle hugely exploitable by having lots of corps anchor towers and then join the alliance. In practice and AFAIAA, it didn't get abused much because it was just too much hassle. In the case of carriers, I'm somewhat skeptical that it'd become de rigueur for fleet fights because carriers are relatively cheap, and both x-instinct and halos would likely become pretty expensive if alliances started buying them in that sort of volumes. I would lean towards expecting it to become cost-ineffective very quickly.

- That said, the case where this breaks down is small-scale engagements with single handfuls of carriers, where the investment is likely to be very much worth it. We're not happy with removing the ability of dreadnaughts to deal with carriers effectively, and while adding a sig radius penalty to siege/triage is the simplest fix, it's opening us up to further potential problems and it doesn't deal with non-triage carriers at all.


What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.



Also, for the record, I don't do private chats; I deal with too many bits of high-end gameplay to risk (plausible) accusations of bias. If you're not a CSM delegate, a volunteer or a fanfest attendee, the forums are your only point of contact. Sorry, that's just how it has to be.


thanks for listening greyscale :)

2 points: over the last pages you had a lot of feedback from wormhole pilots about the dread changes and the x-instinct halo'd carriers that cant be hit. you are right that the prices for halo's would go up a lot and wonder if it would be viable for those flying the carriers to buy them. Please remember that wormhole pilots tend to fly what has the highest mass efficiency, not isk efficiency. With such a massive advantage, i can assure you that a lot of halo sets would be brought to wormholes to give an edge.

1 tower per corp per day? i can rell you with 100% certainty that this is 5 towers per day per corp. recently one of our main corps had to reform and reanchor all the towers, and ran into this limitation.

It's 1 tower/corp/day, but if that corp is in an alliance, the limit is replaced by the alliance limitation of 5/alliance/day.
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#949 - 2012-04-17 14:19:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.


...and, we've come almost full circle to post #63 in thread on page 4, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1015248#post1015248 , but instead of rebalancing sigrad of capitals and POS mods we're special casing titan vs dread XL guns. That works too!

I look forward to testing this on sisi.

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Oxandrolone
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#950 - 2012-04-17 14:40:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.



thanks for listening greyscale. it would be a shame to inadvertently nerf dreadnoughts when titans are the ship that needs balancing ^^
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#951 - 2012-04-17 15:03:15 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly


I am glad that you are trying to unhitch dreads from these titan changes. I know people have been throwing around phrases like intended roles and dreads shouldn't be doing this or that. But I can't say I have seen anyone complaining about dreads as they are now and I feel like the more specialized and single use a ship becomes the less likely it will leave the hanger.

In truth I worry that more ship classes could be shackled to a ridged and narrow predefined role based on some perceived expectation. That to me would be like scooping sand out of the sand box. How much can you scoop out until we are left with red ships can only kill blue ships and blue ships can only kill green.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#952 - 2012-04-17 15:17:08 UTC
Oxandrolone wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.



thanks for listening greyscale. it would be a shame to inadvertently nerf dreadnoughts when titans are the ship that needs balancing ^^



This nerf to titans was also to nerf their ability to farm anoms , because they arent ment to, so mate your dreads will be nerfed eventually.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#953 - 2012-04-17 15:36:09 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CynoNet Two wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Example: the "one tower per corp per day per system" rule is in principle hugely exploitable by having lots of corps anchor towers and then join the alliance. In practice and AFAIAA, it didn't get abused much because it was just too much hassle.

Off-topic I know, but why does this limitation still exist? It was implemented to stop alliances spamming dozens of towers pre-DT in old-style sov wars. What reason is there for it to continue?


We've got a defect open on removing it, because it's a totally unnecessary restriction right now Smile


Masterplan closed the defect just now, should be fixed on TQ in Escalation.

Krell Kroenen wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly


I am glad that you are trying to unhitch dreads from these titan changes. I know people have been throwing around phrases like intended roles and dreads shouldn't be doing this or that. But I can't say I have seen anyone complaining about dreads as they are now and I feel like the more specialized and single use a ship becomes the less likely it will leave the hanger.

In truth I worry that more ship classes could be shackled to a ridged and narrow predefined role based on some perceived expectation. That to me would be like scooping sand out of the sand box. How much can you scoop out until we are left with red ships can only kill blue ships and blue ships can only kill green.


Yeah, I agree with this concern - we don't want every ship to have super-narrow applications. That doesn't mean though that we can ignore actual balance issues, and it also doesn't mean that just because a ship *can* be used for something at any particular point in time, it always has to be able to be used for that thing. There are cases where this is more or less of a problem, but it can't be a blanket rule otherwise we'd never be able to fix anything.


[edit] Oh, the other thing I meant to say: the titans-only thing seems to be working and should be on SiSi tomorrow. Today's build has the damage restriction applied to all XL guns, so titans will be the same tomorrow as today, but dreadnaughts will be different.
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics
#954 - 2012-04-17 15:43:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Ampoliros
CCP Greyscale wrote:
- That said, the case where this breaks down is small-scale engagements with single handfuls of carriers, where the investment is likely to be very much worth it. We're not happy with removing the ability of dreadnaughts to deal with carriers effectively, and while adding a sig radius penalty to siege/triage is the simplest fix, it's opening us up to further potential problems and it doesn't deal with non-triage carriers at all.


What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.


Thanks greyscale, you rock.

I will say that even if you have to apply the scaling to dreads partially, it should be fine; my casual EFT warrioring suggested that even setting scaling at ~800m for dreads would probably leave them completely intact vs capitals in everything but absolute-worst-case scenario (c6 wolf rayet with max skirmish bonuses, halos, x-instinct).

edit: well nevermind, turns out you guys did it anyway. GJ. Cool
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#955 - 2012-04-17 15:54:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
so thats like 4 and a half hour between bringing up and issue and fixing it (doubt anyone cared about the defect since dominion)

pretty impressive :)

i hope he broke something really weird by doing so Twisted, just because i love how software works, nothing against you guys :)
Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#956 - 2012-04-17 15:59:53 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

[edit] Oh, the other thing I meant to say: the titans-only thing seems to be working and should be on SiSi tomorrow. Today's build has the damage restriction applied to all XL guns, so titans will be the same tomorrow as today, but dreadnaughts will be different.



I'm excited to test this. I'm glad Dreads aren't getting the full beatdown of the Titan nerf. While I agree that maybe the tracking Moros might track a little bit too well compared to the Rev its not something that can't be reasonably countered with some intelligent usage of staggering logisitcs range.

I'm glad the Dreadnaught is starting to see some use again after well over two years of uselessness.

Glad to see CCP being creative again. Always nice to see.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#957 - 2012-04-17 16:40:33 UTC
Greyscale, any chance you can let us know what formula the current iteration uses for the damage reduction? Saves us the effort of reverse engineering it on sisi. :)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#958 - 2012-04-17 16:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Raivi wrote:
Greyscale, any chance you can let us know what formula the current iteration uses for the damage reduction? Saves us the effort of reverse engineering it on sisi. :)


Simple area comparison: damage is multiplied by sig_radius^2/new_attribute^2, where new_attribute is set to 2000 for all turrets on titans.

[edit] With a maximum value of 1, obviously.
james1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
#959 - 2012-04-17 17:17:58 UTC
Some data from sisi with the changes that are on there

4 webs 0 tps

16:57:57 Combat Your group of Dual Modal Giga Pulse Laser I lightly hits Talek Miriden <K162>(Raven), doing 403.6 damage.

4 webs 4 tps

17:02:39 Combat Your group of Dual Modal Giga Pulse Laser I is well aimed at Talek Miriden <K162>(Raven), inflicting 4355.5 damage.


0webs 0tps mwd on

16:55:30 Combat Your group of Dual Modal Giga Pulse Laser I lightly hits Talek Miriden <K162>(Raven), doing 14632.6 damage.

XD


Armor fit raven orbiting a t2 fitted rev at 10km


Couldn't hit a cruiser at all unless it was sat still and then only

17:12:05 Combat Your group of Dual Modal Giga Pulse Laser I is well aimed at Talek Miriden <K162>(Caracal), inflicting 620.2 damage.


Looks pretty dam balanced to me..........

Long as the x-instinct carrier thing is patched this does look pretty sexy.....

....
Kralin Ignatov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#960 - 2012-04-17 17:23:30 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Raivi wrote:
Greyscale, any chance you can let us know what formula the current iteration uses for the damage reduction? Saves us the effort of reverse engineering it on sisi. :)


Simple area comparison: damage is multiplied by sig_radius^2/new_attribute^2, where new_attribute is set to 2000 for all turrets on titans.

[edit] With a maximum value of 1, obviously.


ahhh, ok

So damage will now be:
rawTurretAlpha(charge dmg * multiplier) * damage modifier (from ChangeToHit) * max(1,(targetSigRad^2 / new^2)), yes?

what will the new_attribute be on other guns / ships? Or will this be capital specific?