|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
539
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Shadoo wrote: In the meanwhile absent a proper re-evaluation of the Titan combat role and refocus to something cool & unique -- if you really wanted a purish anti-capital role for the titan without the slightest chance of being in any sort of anti-support role -- have you considered removing the ability to fit turrets/launchers altogether and instead buffing the Doomsday Device cycle/dmg to match the overall DPS vs. capitals while making the DD module able to activate in low-sec (since really -- why would it today still be limited to null sec?)
plagiarist!
But yeah that's probably our best option at this point. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
543
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
edit: these forums apparently can't process their own BB code.
Reposting this here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=963662#post963662
CynoNet Two wrote: Fully agree with your assessment of the situation. The core of the problem lies deep in the current signature / targeting / tracking mechanics, and there is no solution that allows Titans to keep using turrets without rethinking these in detail.
Although on the other hand, your suggested 'fix' is so far from being balanced I'm surprised the forums haven't tipped over. We're way past the point where Supercap fleets can't be effectively neuted without some form of new AoE neut weapon (or a real boost to Void Bombs). Even if halved, a typical supercap fleet is going to contain over 5 million cap in addition to the additional energy generated from insured 'waterboy' triage carriers (that are effectively disposable). Even in an optimistic case, a fleet of 50 neuting BS will barely manage to cap out a single supercap before being wiped out by the rest if this is the extent of your proposed nerf.
As the devs have indicated that any short-term nerf to titans would involve a minimum of work - so a role repurpose is off the table - here are my suggestions (take some or all of them to preference):
1) Keep the current proposed nerfs in place, but allow Electronic Attack Ships (and possibly Recon cruisers) to bypass supercap ewar immunity. The current changes make it all but impossible for supercaps to fend off these tiny ships without support, provides a role for those frigates outside of alliance tournaments, and brings tracking disruptors and sensor damps to centre stage for ewar. Titans will find it hard to keep up with their little painting/webbing teams with the sensor boosters negated, or weapon range reduced to nearly nothing.
2) If the Titan is intended to be a real anti-capital platform, make it one: Keep the current nerfs, but amend them like so: a) All capital class ships (and large structures intended to be shot by capitals) have their sig radius increased heavily. This allows titans to lock them in a reasonable amount of time. b) Reduce the number of XL turret/launcher slots on all titans to 4. c) Reduce Doomsday base damage to 1 million, reduce fuel use by 75%, reduce cap use by 75%. d) Change Doomsday Operation to reduce DD cooldown by 5% per level (to 7.5 mins at level V). e) Allow the racial Titan skill to online 1 additional Doomsday module per level.
Titans are now able to do a similar amount of DPS against capital-class targets as before, and have more flexbility to deal with DD-tanked vessels. They still have XL weapons, but that capabilty is reduced making the issues with tracking less of an issue until Titans can recieve a new role.
3) More ewar options to counter the lazy balancing that is supercap ewar immunity: Increase the range of void and lockbreaker bombs, reduce the damage they do to themselves so more can be fired at once. Allow lockbreaker bombs to affect supercaps. Allow Remote ECM Bursts to fit a focus script that jams a supercap for XX seconds. Allow regular ECM Bursts affect supercaps.
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
543
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: I realize this is a surprise to a lot of people, but I do actually understand how turret and missile damage work
I think their point was more that you aren't aware of the methods people use min/max and abuse the limits of these respective systems. Sure you may know the forumulae involved, but being aware of the combinations of ships/fittings deployed daily to stretch these limits is another matter.
Also please read my hugeass post above. I'm a good poster don't you know. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
544
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote: b) Reduce the number of XL turret/launcher slots on all titans to 4. c) Reduce Doomsday base damage to 1 million, reduce fuel use by 75%, reduce cap use by 75%. d) Change Doomsday Operation to reduce DD cooldown by 5% per level (to 7.5 mins at level V). e) Allow the racial Titan skill to online 1 additional Doomsday module per level.
This has a decent chance of being a good long-term fix (we'd have to think about it some more), but it's too large in scope for this release, unfortunately.
What about just these points? I'm p sure that's 10mins work. Maybe five if you're quick at typing. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
544
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 12:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Killerhound wrote:Clone Vat Bay is horribly broken or well absolutely worthless, due to following Problems:
- makes you immoblie (no warp, move, jump) - has a duration of 3 mins and needs to be activated - installation process is horribly complicated (needs pilot to invite "customer") - costs something - Usage is a oneway process, because it works only to jump to it not from it, therefor the clones in there have no imps unless carried with the titan. Horrible work if 75 dudes need there specific imps (Warfare imps, Hardwirings, ....) - Module needs to be active to jump to titan - You pop out of the titan around it, you have to board your ship and put in your imps before you can start the engagement.
All this makes this module only useful for Interdictor pilots or similar roles but in a very specific case....
It's almost certainly outside the scope for a near-future patch, but revisting Clone vats is definitely on the list for giving titans a non-combat frontline role. Consider this:
a) Scrap the current clone-installation method for clone vats. Make it so that they no longer contain jump clones in their current form. Remove the 'max clone limit' too. b) Prevent use of Clone Vat Bay inside a starbase shield. c) Allow pilots to instantly clone-jump from a station to an active clone vat module on a ship in the same fleet as them, appearing in a pod next to the capital ship. This jump is not affected by jump clone timers or the player's max jump clone limit. d) Change the Clone Vat skill to affect how many people can use the module per cycle, so it is worth skilling up. E.g. 10 people per cycle at level 1, up to 50 people per cycle at level 5. e) Increase Titan SMA capacity by at least 100% so that they can hold substantial numbers of spare ships for people cloning into a fight.
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
545
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 16:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Camios wrote:I think that anyway you should balance titans on the assumption that they will have the right support, since AFAIK one of the design goal is to have them fielded with support and not alone. Oh really? hint: flying them alongside nothing but (super)carriers should not be considered 'support'
Camios wrote:Anyway history has shown that titans are killable with dreads in big numbers achieving economical victory, so probably dreads are the way to go and people will understand it; the problem is the structure of alliances that can't reimburse them. This titan in question died because it was fit without a tank so that it could perma-smartbomb a gate without a support fleet. It crashed when attempting to refit on a nearby carrier. The reinforcement fleet landed on grid moments after it exploded. If the titan had no crashed, or had been fitted with even a slightly better tank, it would have survived.
This is a terrible example of titan balance, and more an example of a titan being flown by a moron. An admittedly unlucky moron.
Also for those of you still rehasing the titan role / cost effectiveness thing:
CCP Greyscale wrote: Dreads are mainly antistructure, with a bit of anti-cap. Carriers still do pretty decent damage against subcaps AFAIK. Supers can switch between anti-cap and anti-subcap depending on their choice of fighter drone. Titans are pure anti-cap.
With regard to the cost and effort of getting into a super, the general design intent of EVE is that you get diminishing returns for progressively higher investments. If you look at module progression, from T1 up to high officer, you'll see that how it generally pans out is that you get a roughly linear increase in power for a roughly exponential increase in cost. Similarly with ships, a T1 cruiser is not equivalent to ten T1 frigates, and a T1 battleship is not equivalent to twenty T1 cruisers. This makes stepping into a larger more powerful ship an interesting cost-benefit decision rather than an obvious no-brainer. Supercaps should continue this trend.
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 10:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Innominate wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Harotak wrote:I personally like the idea of completely removing supercap ewar immunity. This is actually something we're evaluating at the moment, alongside a large built-in WCS bonus. The big issue is that it also makes it possible to use assistance modules on them (tracking links etc) which potentially undoes all the benefits. How big of a WCS bonus? The whole reason that the ewar immunity removal can work is that it would force supercaps to control the field in order to leave, rather than being able to simply clear a few dictors and bail. +2 to stop one random rifter from catching a titan is one thing, while +10 would effectively be a supercap boost as the size of existing titan blobs makes jamming all of them impractical. Yeah, there's no reason for supercaps to have any WCS bonus. These are combat ships designed for PVP, they're not haulers or miners. Supercaps aren't special; no ship is. Promoting stabbed PVP in this fashion is absurd and fundamentally against not only the stated aim for supercaps to act as support to subcapitals, but it's also against one of the core tenets of Eve - that one newbie in a frigate really can make a difference.
I'd like to hear a CCP response to these points. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 11:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Not a a bonus to WCS, but rather a built-in thing like Blockade Runners have, so they're more vulnerable to tackling but can't be tackled by a single rifter, because that would be too big a balance swing for us to be comfortable with right now, particularly on top of the mooted already-huge EW-immunity removal. The reason we're considering immunity-removal is that it allows you to tracking-disrupt or sensor-damp titans, rather than to make them hugely vulnerable to warp disruption. Even if we gave them a built-in strength of 50, it's still a pretty sizable numeric nerf as we go from needing infinity MWDing rifters to ~13 to tackle a titan, and the infinite-strength point from bubbles, dictors and hictor points still work as currently.
Also, most ships are special in some regard, and titans more than most. That's why ship selection is interesting.
If removal of the ewar immunity means they can be remote-boosted again (tracking links, etc) and warp strength is as crazy high as 50, then this would be a buff for titans. The level of coordination needed to hold a single titan with over a dozen ships would be hugely offset by the titan's ability to blap them with ease, and only needing to kill one or two to break free.
10 would be a more reasonable figure, and it would allow for either coordinated long-range warp disruptors or a handful of scrams to hold down titans. Having each additional 'spare' tackler add 50% of this rather than 10% makes a huge difference in the ability for titans to break themselves free. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 12:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Also, further clarification:
This EW-immunity stuff is something we're *exploring*. This discussion is part of that exploration.
The specific benefits I'm hoping it might yield at this time aren't really to do with warp scrambling, they're to do specifically with tracking disruption. You can get four -62% TDs on an Arbitrator, each of which cancels out four Shadow Serpentis tracking computers. Even if you assign 2x TDs to each titan, this ought to let you significantly mitigate a 30-titan blapfleet with 15 T1 cruiser hulls, which is pretty decent scaling IMO. Sure, in EVE Online the RTS game we can do this. My micro is pretty good, I know all the keyboard shortcuts and can psi-storm marines like mad. Oh wait, Sony hasn't released that game yet.
In EVE Online the MMPORG game our 15 arbitrators didn't fare so well. See, by the time all the coordination was done they missed a couple titans, which blapped them with their remote sensor-boosted lock times and tracking-linked guns. This freed up some more titans to insta-pop one of the 13 rifters holding him down, letting the Titans escape before their support fleet could even put their shoes on and jump in.
**** this thread I'm going back to play starcraft. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 12:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Fair enough. Is the ineffectiveness of EW in these situations something that there's a potential easy fix for? It's a decent on-paper solution to the problem, and it'd be nice if we could make it scale properly. If not, oh well, we look at something else.
It's not so much that EW is ineffective, it's the fact that we shouldn't need to rely solely on high-numbers of perfectly coordinated and fairly fragile EW to achieve anything. This falls back to the warp core strength debate... providing that value isn't too high it provides a fallback option for when EW fails. Having a warp core strength of below 10 opens up many more possibilities to kill groups of unsupported titans, simply because you can continue to hold them down within the windows when EW isn't available. |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Raivi wrote:Also, longshot I know, but would there be a way to do the base sigres thing without having it effect dreads? :prettyplease: It's possible. We'll look into it (My current favored implementation of a spool-up timer is just to tie spool length to jump distance, so if you want a fast hot-drop you have to base your caps nearby, which in turn makes it at least reasonably possible in principle to scout them. It's not a quick enough change to get it into Escalation, though.)
yo
CynoNet Two wrote:Balancing caps / hotdropping is p simple.
Give all caps a base spool-up time for their jump drive, eg: Carrier/Dread: 5 seconds Supercarrier: 20 seconds Titan: 30 seconds
Then have different sizes of cynogen like guns (with appropriate fitting reqs) that modify the spool up time:
Small: 5x Med: 3x Large: 2x XL: 1x
Voila. Now small disposable cyno ships force a longer spool-up for jumps and aren't as useful for hotdrops. Instead someone trying to hotdrop needs to risk a larger ship to reduce the delay
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
547
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 10:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?
*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
547
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 12:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?
*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in. Hence the bit about potentially adjusting the current balance between optimal and falloff. We already have a mechanic to make you hit less at long range; if that's not working, I'd prefer to fix that mechanic rather than introduce another one alongside it. If we don't like that you can do 70k optimal on pulses, we have the technology to just reduce that number to a range that we do like, and kick the falloff up to compensate. If we don't like the way damage drops off as a result, we can adjust the falloff formula to do whatever we want it to do
You told me at the weekend you didn't want to put any damage cap on turrets because it would 'make them too much like missiles', and now you're talking about turning all XL turrets into projectiles - relying on falloff for damage.
Can we go back and revisit dropping ewar immunity? While not perfect, EW is the logical solution to this issue provided supercaps don't recieve too high a bonus to warp core strength. The issue was not so much that coordinating EW is too hard, but that coordinating EW alongside coordinating 50+ points of tackle was impossible. With a warp core strength in the region of 5-10 it becomes viable to need fewer ships holding down titans while more ships focus on EW. It also means that temporary loss of EW does not immediately compromise the tackle.
Remove EW immunity, Set max targets to 3, Keep the -50% tracking change. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
549
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 11:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Removing EW immunity - sell it to me hard
Proposal:
- Limit titans to 3 max targets
- No scan-res changes
- Remove ewar immunity flag from titans (even if it allows remote boosting)
- A -75% tracking nerf on XL guns to compensate for remote links
- Give titans a warp core strength bonus of 1 per level of racial titan*
Reasoning:
- It's by far the easiest change on the table, just requiring removal of the ewar flag and tweaking of existing stats that were already planned.
- Forces players to control the sub-capital battlefield or take a severe risk with their supercaps.
- Supercapital fights no longer rely on simply killing all hostile dictors to remove the risk to titans, although titans can't be tackled by a single opportunistic frigate.
- Creates far more options to counter titans than just "more titans" or "enough suicide dreads to crash the node".
- Encourages more experimental fleet compositions as there are now multiple avenues to counter titans, via various options to tackle or ewar them.
- ECM, tracking disruption and sensor damping become alternative tools against titans, especially the latter two which are currently underused in fleet combat.
- *The max warp core strength of 5 is based on the fact that many supercaps will be able to easily smartbomb away most ships with warp scramblers. Taking this value any higher massively increases the number of ships needed to tackle a several dozen strong titan fleet and reduces the pool of available pilots for EWAR ships.
- We can revist the balancing at a later date when more resources are available. For example: giving EAS better bonuses for this role, or having the programming resources needed to prevent remote assistance on titans in exchange for another boost.
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so the approach we're currently considering is:
- Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles - Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted - Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this - Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC) - Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list
The damage scaling guarantees that we solve the problem we're trying to solve, which is why we're currently favoring that approach. It also stops people from ratting in titans so effectively, which is considered a significant plus. Finally, it's likely laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive tracking adjustment at some possible time in the future maybe TBC perhaps you see how I'm being non-committal here right.
Stopping mid-fight refitting is a "cute" solution that may or may not end up contributing to this in practice, but it's not behavior we want to support anyway so removing it now seems reasonable.
The tracking nerf on XL weapons may or may not still be needed, we'll see how that pans out.
The tracking formula is now very much on my radar; as above I make no predictions about when we might look at it but it does warrant another look I think.
Criticisms?
<3
How much of this is likely for Escalation and/or Inferno? |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I mentioned a while ago the idea of a fuelled module for Titans and Supercarriers that both enables EWAR immunity and disables jumping/warping, plus other potential benefits. That being said, EW immunity seems to be off the table for now. The changes seem good, especially if it applies to all ships and not just caps. I always found it ridiculous that destroyers in missions are minor annoyances. That's actually a really fair compromise. Let supercaps keep ewar immunity if they fit a special siege module like a dread (which can also increase max targets and/or gives massive local rep/HP bonuses), or stay out of siege and be vulnerable to ewar and retain the ability to move around. Damage is unchanged in either case. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
Raivi wrote: -Ths use of unmodified sig radius isn't ideal since it doesn't take into account choices relating to sig radius like MWD use, shield extenders and skirmish bonuses. But it's an effective change you can make in the limited time available to you, so it'll do for now.
He does say that it will only apply to XL guns (at least initially). This is fine as the whole signature hierarchy is broken anyway. The MWD sig bloom was only intended to make sub-caps easier to hit by other subcaps while moving at a higher velocity. It should never have made them effectively the 'same size' as a carrier. Ideally we should see the numbers for capital and structure sig radiuses more widely distributed to accomodate factors like this.
Raivi wrote:The change to refitting while targetted is going to have a significant effect on current triage carrier doctrines. I would consider this to be undesirable collateral damage as triage carriers in my opinion are both fun and balanced at the moment. But it may be nessesary collateral damage, and if so then it's not the end of the world.
True, but on the other hand it's now a stealth buff for T2 triage.
Raivi wrote:Once you have nerfed in combat refitting could you look at removing the mechanic that prevents refitting with a lot of other carriers around you? There shouldn't be anymore balance considerations and that message is annoying as hell when you just want to refit your carriers at a safespot. Hell yes. That mechanic is so dumb. Bunch of corp mates AFK in a pos shield? No refitting for you, sir. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
steave435 wrote: Yeah, coordination of that kind of stuff is super easy. That's why EW is used so much in large fleet battles, everyone knows exactly who everyone else is using their EW on and is thus able to apply their own to the best possible target.
Remind me to show you my neat Erebus/Aeon/Archon ISBoxer setup. Did I mention it was neat? |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
Vheroki wrote: So you are saying this is the way it should work ? So when a Tank hits a motocycle does only 10 % ok the dmg ? :)
You're playing a game about Internet Spaceships.
Let me repeat that, as it's important; Internet Spaceships.
You do not get to make parallels to real-life physics over game balance. Know why? Because the door that opens leads down a path to things like real-life collision physics. Which means everyone explodes the minute they undock from Jita 4-4. While that would be hilarious, and although it pains me to say, it makes for a very broken game.
Now please stop being ridiculous in a legitimate balancing thread. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 10:37:00 -
[20] - Quote
Creat Posudol wrote:First of all, please don't use unmodified sig. There are penalties to sig in the game for a reason, even if it isn't as big a penalty as it possibly should be. There still should be some effect to it. Also keep in mind that with squared-over-squared damage scaling (like it is proposed at the moment) the effect would be bigger than in all other cases. Yes, it's still kind of a niche as far as penalties go, but it should still be a penalty nonetheless
For everyone saying this in regards to MWDs - please please keep in mind that the MWD sig bloom was not intended to make sub-cap ships the same 'size' as capitals. The whole point was to stop speed-tanking being broken - the capital-ship size signature on battleships is just incidental.
Providing you definte 'unmodified sig' as: a) Including all passive effects (halos, shield extenders, istabs, etc) and b) Not including all active effects (MWD, target painters, etc) I think that definitely should be the temporary solution until all target signatures and tracking can be rebalanced. Long term we need a more balanced foundation that makes ship sizes actually distinct, serving as a basis for future balance:
Frigate is less than Cruiser / MWD Frigate is less than Battleship / MWD Cruiser is less than MWD Battleship with 3 TP's is less than Capital with 3 TP's is less than Supercapital
Then capital weapons and scan resolution can be properly balanced for their intended targets, with role bonuses as required by future roles. |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 10:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
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? |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 11:18:00 -
[22] - Quote
Vheroki wrote:What exactly are you fixing apart ghimping titans ?
They're fixing the brokeness of titans.
Please stop shitting up the thread. Tenal won't defend itsel... oh wait. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
552
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
Hi Greyscale!
After some testing we've found that dictors are still hilariously vulnerable to being picked off, especially since the tracking and target painter situations are unchanged. Current supercap fleet setups can still shake off their tacklers without any change to fitting, and without any support ships required.
With this in mind, (and the fact it only applies to titans now) the formula should be changed to either: a) Use unmodified sig (with no MWD or TP effects), or b) Use a cubed formula: sig_radius^3/new_attribute^3 to scale down damage more sharply.
May I direct you to this very exciting spreadsheet that shows these effects:
>>>>>>>>>> http://i.imgur.com/B3EOC.png <<<<<<<<<<<
edit: FYI a typical fleet dictor has 3-5k EHP, dropping below 3k if it fits no buffer tank. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
552
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:Hi Greyscale! After some testing we've found that dictors are still hilariously vulnerable to being picked off, especially since the tracking and target painter situations are unchanged. Current supercap fleet setups can still shake off their tacklers without any change to fitting, and without any support ships required. With this in mind, (and the fact it only applies to titans now) the formula should be changed to either: a) Use unmodified sig (with no MWD or TP effects), or b) Use a cubed formula: sig_radius^3/new_attribute^3 to scale down damage more sharply. May I direct you to this very exciting spreadsheet that shows these effects: >>>>>>>>>> http://i.imgur.com/B3EOC.png <<<<<<<<<<< edit: FYI a typical fleet dictor has 3-5k EHP, dropping below 3k if it fits no buffer tank. Where does this fall on the "game breaking" to "inconvenient" scale? Am I correct in assuming that this just gives a strong incentive to supers with hictors rather than dictors?
Dictors are most logical counter to titans as-is. They favour a hit+run style of fighting using their small size to survive, and are easily dealt with by support fleets. HICs are a relic from the AoE doomsday days, and need fairly significant numbers to be survivable against supercaps. Without sufficient pilots around they will find themselves permanantly on zero cap by multiple officer neuts and unable to tackle, or to tank well. One HIC will rarely make the difference against typical supercap fleets.
So yeah it's hugely game-breaking because dictors are required for the initial tackle to initiate a fight (catching titans sieging a tower without support). HICs are needed to prolong that tackle during a larger engagement. Both should have a degree of survivability, when deployed against unsupported supercaps, especially the dictor.
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
552
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 15:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cid Tazer wrote:pmchem wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:Without sufficient pilots around they will find themselves permanantly on zero cap by multiple officer neuts and unable to tackle, or to tank well. Yeah, even with cap-injected fits, hictors are hilariously short on cap. They need to perma run prop mods, run their point/bubble, run their active tank, and are the #1 target for neuts on field. Just not enough cap to go around. They're just not good at their job in big fleet engagements (compared to dics). CCP, please do not expect people to rely on hics for tackle in their current state. Wouldn't this be an issue that CCP Ytterbium/CCP Tallest needs to be aware of when doing ship line balancing?
Perhaps, but personally I think it's more elegant to let regular dictors serve as the primary supercap nemesis and balance HICs for tackling subcap fleets as their primary role. This avoids any nastiness where buffing HICs vs supercaps makes them overpowered in sub-cap scenarios.
With a cubed formula or unmodified sig the first half of this will have been achieved.
Vheroki wrote: We need to start bitching like goons posting 6 times 1 line in 6 different posts like, that smart ass Andski, per page so we get noticed. This seems to work.
This may be just a wild stab in the dark, but maybe it's because we're posting feedback to proposed changes backed up by valid math and practical obeservations. You're whining about not getting bugs fixed in a balancing thread, which is rather like complaining that your supermarket won't fix your car. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
552
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 15:54:00 -
[26] - Quote
Cid Tazer wrote:I think I understand what you view the roles as hictor dealing with subcaps and dictor dealing with caps+/mobile bubbler. Unfortunately I don't think CCP Greyscale agrees with you. My reading of CCPs view is dictor for more mobile fleets and hictor for heavy hitting/more stationary fleets. Unfortunately I think due to cap/active tank issues since the bubble disabling remote repping, the hictor doesn't perform the role of heavy bubbler as effectively as a dictor does with its speed tank.
Yeah we need to correct this misconception. HICs were heavy bubblers back in the days of AOE doomsdays (hell, AOE DD's are the whole reason HICs were introduced). Unfortunately things were never rebalanced for Dominion-era supercaps and now we have titans blapping everything. And as we rebalance it makes sense to review ship roles at the same time :) |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
554
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 18:14:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm honestly reluctant to push this change any further at this point, and we're reasonably hopeful that the combination of the locked-targets reduction, the damage reduction and the tracking nerf will give people enough wiggle room to fly a dictor through without touching the sides. Obviously it'd be nicer to know for sure, but we feel that the changes as-is are the best balance of effectiveness and risk right now. We'll keep an eye on developments on TQ and see where we go from there, but we'd very much like to see these changes actually get properly explored in practice before making them more extreme.
This is especially relevant here:
CynoNet Two wrote: So yeah it's hugely game-breaking because dictors are required for the initial tackle to initiate a fight (catching titans sieging a tower without support)... without which many fights would not begin in the first place.
Titans are still killing regular MWDing dictors on sisi right now, with no change to their fleet composition or fitting. The tracking nerf did little, and the max target limit has utterly no effect in these situations where dictors are trying to get an initial tackle on unsupported supercaps. If anything, increase the ratio on the new tracking formula and relax the target limit for all the good it does - the target limit was a counterpart to the scan res nerf afterall.
We'll be on SiSi again testing this as soon as the current reboot completes, and I encourage you to come see the effects in practice. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
554
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 23:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
steave435 wrote:Massive wall of text wasting alot of time explaining how tracking works while ignoring something absolutely fundemental that has been posted on every page in this thread.
Apparently we can't adjust text size on these forums, so you get your own special image. I hope it helps clear things up. Although considering you haven't read the last 50 pages I don't expect you to get this, despite the larger text size and nice friendly font.
Enjoy! http://i.imgur.com/bnlZZ.jpg |
|
|
|