|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a mistake. If you're dead-set on removing this, add a role to the titan (like the old one for destroyers) that causes -50% tracking in addition to the current nerf. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Or the formula fix, that's good too. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
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
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
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. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
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. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
213
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Shadoo wrote:BTW -- just to be clear, a titan with turrets removed and DD dmg/cycle boosted would massively benefit entities with significant number of titans to a point of being fairly broken from overall game mechanics perspective
If I fielded 50 titans + 200 carriers w/sentries in that model, there's not a whole lot of anything anyone in EVE could do about it -- unless they brought more titans themselves. The supercarrier role would in that model be fairly limited to structure-only game, since a few titans would just DD blap a SC fleet fairly efficiently given the massive alpha from DDs.
So I'm not suggesting it's a good change, but it would accomplish the currently stated objective for the titan to be purely anti-capital combat ship.
I'd just wish that the proper resources are dedicated to Greyscale and the team to put he 2-3 devs on this to rework the ship completely and just move it out of the combat role because no matter how you twist this -- the ship just will always be OP given the number of them that exist and their concentration in few alliances in EVE.
Don't boost damage: reduce cycle. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
What about simply putting in the "can't target subcaps" until the long-term fix is in? It's a hamhanded fix, yes, but there's wide agreement that they simply should not be blapping subcaps, and it allows a firm barrier to titans doing so until a more elegant solution can be implemented? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:There needs to be a capital ship that can 'blap' subcaps. It just can't have 30 million EHP. . There is, a carrier. The issue is a supercap doing it. |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:There needs to be a capital ship that can 'blap' subcaps. It just can't have 30 million EHP. . There is, a carrier. The issue is a supercap doing it. Carriers are more Swiss army knife support then specifically anti- subcap. Sure but that's also because they're incredibly outclassed in their anti-subcap role. But yes, they are not pure anti-subcap blappers. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Kaj'Schak wrote:There is also the question, if you field 50 Ships worth 70b each, you should be somehow able to vaporize an enemy fleet, that has only the value of one or two of these ships "i should be able to buy victory" |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 15:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
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. Since it is possible to permit assistance but not hostile ewar (like they were before this was changed), it must also be possible to reverse this. The supercap ewar immunity is separate from their inabillity to receive ewar assistance in the code because they were done separately. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
262
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 16:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't want to balance turrets around the *assumption* of TPs, and we don't want to do a wider nerf to TPs just to solve this one case.
you aren't nerfing TPs per se, just stacking TPs on one target. i am not aware of a situation where this is a valuable strategy, except in a mission golem (which honestly is already unviable, unless you want to be a snowflake). also, how is it a bad idea to make a titan dependant on subcap support whenever it encounters subcaps? You put the TPs on supercarriers, not subcaps. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 15:45:00 -
[15] - Quote
Vheroki wrote: Since when the changed are done to save battleships ? The changes are done to "balance" something that you are unable to counter. You see is not enough you are putting this forward , but in your ******** way you want to get away with your 3k sig radius battleships, that is wrong. If we as titan pilots need to adapt i sugest you do the same.
it is true, we could not counter raiden titans which is why raiden is firmly planted in tenal and never going to leave |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 15:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Battleships and sig radius: our current thinking is that all those sig radius penalties are there for sound balance reasons, and the only thing they really open up a vulnerability to right now is cap ships. Ignoring them for the purposes of cap ship guns just makes passive shield tanking even more desirable than it is right now. If you're finding that your 2000m drake or 4000m maelstrom are still taking huge amounts of damage from capitals, and that this is causing you problems, that's an issue with your choice of fitting rather than with overall game balance. What damage do you expect a titan to do to a non-mwding abbadon if it hits? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
Pmchem made a mistake by focusing on Huggin TPs: the proper assumption is that these ships will be painted by supercarriers using the best TPs that exist (domination iirc). The question then becomes what ships take close to full damage so they get alphaed by a lucky shot (vs. take something like 25% ehp damage)?
I think it's a mistake to allow MWDing battleships to get alphaed: the MWD sig bloom is intended to prevent the battleship from using the MWD to speed tank. It is not intended as a random penalty. Since you can't effectively speedtank a titan (the transversal issue with blobs that is such a pain) it is not a good idea to allow titans to more severely damage MWDing ships: this is a penalty the mod wasn't designed to have. A MWD's sig bloom makes it so your mwding battleship can't speedtank guns that should hit it, it's not supposed to make it take more damage.
While I can see how you think that the shield penalties should effect passive shieldtanking battleships it's worth pointing out that the armor buffer penalties (lower velocity) are likewise entirely irrelevant for a fleet battleship. Making the shield sigradius penalty more severe while ignoring the armor velocity penalty isn't keeping things balanced: it's penalizing shieldfits. If you want to do that, that's one thing: but you're making a mistake that you're keeping it balanced by doing this. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
steave435 wrote: It should still be theoretically possible to hit smaller ships for SOMETHING if they **** uo and don't mind transversal at all, so please go with the 17% option then. That would mean roughly BS level DPS being applied to a BS, but only if you can track it. That's not a problem IMO, and if it were to turn out to be, you can iterate on it later and reduce it even more.
I think you've forgotten the fundamental problem with a titan blob, and the reason we can't just nerf tracking: when fighting a titan blob it is not possible to maintain transversal to everyone. This is a bad argument that has been dismissed a long time ago and should stay in the rubbishheap of titan balancing principles. Anyone who speaks about "maintaining transversal" as relevant to if a ship should survive vs. titab blobs is making as much sense as someone demanding to measure skull shapes to determine personality traits. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
So with the assumption that a battleship has four domination TPs on it, and it's getting shot at, what percentage of theirehp will a standard fleet fit abaddon and standard fleet fit maelstrom lose if they get hit (with MWDs, and without)? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
steave435 wrote: No, I haven't. They can hit sometimes, but do way less damage. If they do 3% damage VS a battleship, imagine what it'd be like against a BC, or a cruiser if he's stupid enough to let you land the shot on him. I'm a titan pilot myself atm, so I know perfectly well what they're capable of, and cruisers and below ARE able to avoid getting hit by not being ********. With the tracking nerf, BCs should be right around that limit as well.
Everything you're saying has been systematically disproven over and over again. We've all seen the proof titans routinely blap dictors, hictors, and even rifters just for the hell of it. I would appreciate it if you'd refrain from making us reprove the sky is blue since it's been done in this thread and other threads to death. |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:23:00 -
[21] - 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. Goonswarm is easily able to do this and has been doing it for some time: scorpions are an essential part of alphafleet doctrines. So yes, coordinating EW isn't all that tricky, it's a solved problem, and as a result we can safely assume that it will immediately be solved for titan blobs as soon as it is relevant to their interests (blapping subcaps like mad). |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:27:00 -
[22] - Quote
Staeve appreciate the sincerity of your belief you should be able to blap subcaps, but I'm not interested in reproving the sky is blue. Everyone else is aware that transversal is not an excuse for blapping subcaps and there's really no reason to try and convince you as well. You like blapping subcaps, and I can't fault you for that: I too like abusing the **** out of broken mechanics to cause trouble and do it whenever I can. But it's no excuse for pretending that's not what you're doing. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.
Could you just double-check that with your proposed formula, a titan hitting a hictor or a dictor (and here the dictor DOES need to be balanced around having an mwd) does very little? That's really important to ensure titans can't clear their tackles without support.
Working on some numbers to see what that would do in effect to battleships - thanks for the info. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
steave435 wrote: With a linear scaling it would get hit for 25% damage, or 4% if the values are squared..and the MWD is only used for a short period while approaching anyway, once you get there you turn it off since it does absolutely nothing with the bubble up anyway. With it off, it would be about 1% or 10% depending on method chosen.
Ignoring Steave's incorrect notion that you don't use an mwd after dropping the bubble, and assuming the 4% number is correct, that's 2400 raw damage per volley: that seems high for a titan shooting at a dictor.
In addition, given that an abaddon, properly target painted, has a sig of ~1300 (while not MWDing, so it's doing everything right), I think titans still doing 50% damage around that area is a little high: two erebuses will kill it in six seconds. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:51:00 -
[25] - Quote
Yeah after discussing that's really bad: that means titans will reliably kill dictors, and it's really important they not be able to do that. Titans being unable to clear dictors by themselves is critical to balancing them: otherwise, you just start alphaing the dictors and cyno out even if you're completely beaten. I think you need to tweak the numbers so a titan hitting a dictor is basically scratching the paint. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:13:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: MWDing Broadsword takes about 10% damage, MWD Sabre 3.5%, normal Broadsword around 0.45% and normal Sabre around 0.1%.
Yeah that's a really big problem, I think you'll regularly see titans blapping dictors with that 3.5%. I think that's another good reason to not factor in sig radius changes. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:34:00 -
[27] - Quote
Kralin Ignatov wrote: Against a double bubble, cloaky sabre w/ no invulns, about 900 dmg, which is about 1/2 the shield (w/ a shield extender)
and, mind you, these are wrecking shots (in optimal, in tracking, and lucky shot)
Your math is wrong. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Are people actually running x-instinct/halo carriers? I see the theoretical problem, and it's something we may want to look into at some point, but I don't want to do a lot of running around for something that's largely theoretical.
He's actually saying he's not using x-instinct or halo or anything else theoretical. The basic point is that given EVE's mechanics you can't balance against a modified sig radius battleship AND not touch carriers: a carrier will get the benefit of the DPS reduction. I don't think you can manage to make this work using modified sig radius: I think you've got to go unmodified. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:12:00 -
[29] - Quote
Two step wrote: You statement about painting would be true, if you could paint stuff in siege/triage. The issue is that a Halo'd up triage carrier is now really, really hard to kill with a dread, even with some cap pressure. A possible solution to this is to add a sig radius penalty to triage/siege, which seems like it would be a reasonable thing to do.
Yeah but with all this crap trying to patch this system, it seems clear that just going with unmodified sig radius is the thing to do. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:21:00 -
[30] - Quote
Two step wrote:
Unmodified sig will just make people yell more. I should always have tradeoffs for something that has become as OP as passive shield tanking, and making people unable to impact the damage reduction amount is a bad thing in a game that is supposed to be about choices.
There's no good reason to think that shields should be balanced based on titan blapping: if it's an issue it needs a much more systemic fix than "well, you might get blapped by a titan". More importantly though, the shield sig radius effect simply isn't that big: it's not really harder to blap abbadons than it is to blap maels with this fix. |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:27:00 -
[31] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:
It should be noted though that after looking at some more values, and considering the counter with some target painters... 4xTarget Painter II from a ship like a rapier (tp bonused) that same dread would reach 2548 m signature
you can't paint things in siege
Using modified sig radius is just forcing you into more and more changes you don't want to make: simply do it based on unmodified, slap an appropriate rate damage diminishes, and call it a day, leaving balancing shield tanks and MWDS for another day |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
Two step wrote: Dude, we get it, you like to fly MWD drakes and Maels.
I don't think you understood my earlier points, and the math backs me up: using modified means you blap armor battleships and dictors. I couldn't care less if shields affected it because it's a relatively minor difference. You need to actually do the math and realize it's not shields that matter, it's target painters (and in the case of dictors, MWDs). Using modified sig because it balances shields is a dumb way to balance shields, and causes significant problems for the small amounts of nerfing shields you get. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 17:24:00 -
[33] - Quote
Our tests show a titan can still easily blap a mwding dictor, which is...not good. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:51:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: 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?
It's game breaking. The problem is titans can easily blap their tackles and jump out. Hictors are still terrible for tackling supercaps, they've never been particularly good at that role and there's a reason people use regular dictors instead. Allowing titans to kill their tacklers prevents titanfleets from dying. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:59:00 -
[35] - Quote
This isn't a theoretical concern: it's fairly common for a titan or groups of titans to be tackled and blap all of the dictors while the fleet is on its way to kill it and escape. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 16:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote: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 :) Yeah, though obviously a HIC rebalance shouldn't hold up fixing titans now. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 16:33:00 -
[37] - Quote
I admire the effort you're putting into making your ship stay broken, but you make many obvious and basic errors, such as assuming a loki for every dictor ever, claiming you ought to be required to fit deadspace mods on a ship that is essentially a suicide vest, and (as usual) trying to pretend that you ought to balance based on a single titan in isolation which is what you do when you try to pretend tracking matters. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 16:33:00 -
[38] - Quote
Magnifikus Erzverwirrer wrote: how about fixing artilleris and maelstroms? ohwait they work well
and your hic bla bla hic was introduced to tackle supers in lowsec
thank you for your coherent and well constructed post, you are a credit to your alliance |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
275
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 17:37:00 -
[39] - 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. I mean, don't get me wrong: all of these changes are good and appreciated. It's just that dictors are critically important to titan balance because of their ewar immunity: you can't be flexible and tackle them with something else (as mentioned, it is technically possible to tackle them with hics but not really practical). |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:23:00 -
[40] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Some people here are very bad at maths... Or are they Steave is showing numbers based on the formula used by the system and tests he made, and some still maintain that they manage to kill dictors without arguing, without explaining how they did or anything It's either very bad argumentation or hypocrisy and lying I'm Down, please, start by telling us how you killed these dictors, and argue, and explain ; yelling "no, it don't work, and steave never flown a titan" is none of these Damn, you seem to don't even read what he wrote Same for Vile rat. Staeve is posting things that have been repeatedly disproven and is so embarassingly wrong even his own alliance is telling him he's an idiot.
We've conducted tests and they perfectly back up what we're saying. Staeve is deliberately fudging the numbers and using assumptions he knows will never pan out in order to keep his titan broken. There's only so many times you can correct him and have him ignore the corrections before it becomes apparent he's deliberately lying, so there's nothing left to do but call him out on the lies and remember everyone else has done the math and seen the results and also knows he's lying. |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
steave435 wrote:Titans are generally not spread out over 100k (or at least not the majority of them) because that causes issues with rep range etc, and as I showed, that Sabre can take 50 full titan volleys while having 0 transversal and still survive, I'd just like to point out that based on your inability to properly calculate the signature of a raven that's painted, we can safely assume this is utter nonsense. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:51:00 -
[42] - Quote
"a dictor trapping supercaps will, of course, have a loki in system, three scimitars, high-grade halos, and strong x-instinct. it will also somehow work without a propulsion mod. in addition, the target painter skills will all be at I"
thanks staeve thats some brilliant efting there
edit: lawl didn't notice the tengu as well |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:54:00 -
[43] - Quote
"in addition somehow i have calculated a raven's sig topping out in the 900s despite every person who can work excel coming up with 1400+, so my math is trustworthy" |
|
|
|