| Author |
Topic |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 09:00:00 - [ 1]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 14/12/2010 10:38:16
Ok, 1st some back story for those of you out there not following this story for the past 3 years.
Everyone knows that part of why CCP hasn't really seriously looked into blasters is because they WANT them to be close range high dps weapons. But they also know they aren't working as well since the web and speed nerfs of the past. But, CCP has gone on record saying if they increase range it will no longer be a "get in their face" weapon, and if they increase damage they don't want to make a situation where it is too overpowered they feel the need to actually reduce tracking, thus making it useless again. If they increase tracking or falloff too much and reduce damage now it's an autocannon that needs cap. So what to do?
I think that after talking about with my eve friend circle, I have found a good proposal to change blasters completely without them spilling over and fulfilling the role of an other weapon type, a real "in your face" style of combat.
Blasters as supercharged energy release
1st the rp. Blaster work on the idea that you can get more damage out of a hybrid shell by super charging the energy and releasing it violently. This technique however severely reduces effective range. The reason for this is the energy in a super charged state dissipates quickly.
However, the larger the target your shooting at, the farther away you can hit them with the full force of the weapon. Like a shotgun!
Blasters as shotguns
Ok now the technicals behind this approach.
Blaster would have more damage with a slower rate of fire.
Blasters would be unaffected by optimal+falloff when checking hit% relying only on tracking. Instead trading a decrease in accuracy based on range, to a decrease in damage. So in the old system if you had a 50% chance to hit you would miss or hit. Now you'll deal about 50% of your total damage per shot, because 50% of the shotgun spread would contact the ship.
Sigradius and range would be the calculated at an exponential rate to find the sigradius of the weapon when it hits. Rate of exponential decay would be based on your optimal/falloff. At close range the weapons sigradius would be start small enough to hit a frigate for full damage. At longer ranges it would be larger, dealing a % of the weapons total damage, based on the size of the target.
Small blaster 5,000m Optimal range / 5,000m falloff / 31 sigradius /shooting at a small frigate, 35 sigradius in size
1st in row is range, 2nd in row is the blasters sigradius at that range, 3rd is rate of decay(how quickly damage decreases), 4th is damage output on frig sized target.
0-3000m //////////////31 sig //////////// 0 decay rate (optimal) ////////////////////////// 100% of total damage taken frigates has a sigradius of 35
3,000m-7km/////////// 45.5 sig ////////// 0.5 decay rate (fallout) //////////////////////// 76.92%
7km-11km /////////////76.5 sig ////////// 1.0 decay rate (fallout2) /////////////////////// 45.75%
11km-15km ////////////122 sig /////////// 1.5 decay rate exponential at this point*//////// 28.68%
15km-19km ////////////199.5 sig ///////// 2.5 decay rate ////////////////////////////////// 17.54%
19km-23km ///////////339 sig /////////// 4.5 decay rate/////////////////////////////////// 10.32%
see the damage is based on how big the spread is, which gets bigger as you get farther away. at 19km, you simply take the radius of the attack *339* and compare it to the size of the target *35* for a frigate or *400* for a battleship. Bigger targets will still take full damage even at extreme ranges, since the shotgun blast has more to hit. In fact you would always do some small amount of damage as long as you can lock the target. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 09:03:00 - [ 2]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 15/12/2010 19:27:17So as you can see damage to a small target goes downs pretty fast, but unlike current blasters, you'll at least be able to hit! with the knowledge that if he cuts to close, or you overheat your AB/web and get within 5,000m you'll really start bringing the pain. This is part of the reason for the rof nerf, so if under blaster fire you would have time between cycles. Also if you have some good logic, you'll notice these new weapons have the added benefit of being able to hit larger ships with smaller weapons for full damage at longer range. For example, the small blasters as shown above would deal full damage to a battleship at 25km, while only dealing 10% to a smaller target. And large Blasters would be awesome. There would be a great reason to have the web bonus on a blaster ship, not for hit%, but just so you can close range.The closer you are, the more of your blasters plasma will beat his hull! Note the numbers I used to show my math are only for concept. I do not claim to have any idea how to balance anything. I just noticed that without some kind of increasing decay rate, you would be able to hit ships at 50km with blasters for 50% damage without missing :P well, what do you guys think?  Originally by: LordElfa
I don't get the math but I get the concept.
man it must be a good idea if my terrible math skills don't stop support. I think it's time after some final I just draw this up visually. Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
If this is all you want to do, just give blasters a massive tracking boost (or, equivalently, a sig res boost). Far simpler.
see, this does 1 of two things, makes them fit into the same weapon type as autocannons, but they cost cap for some more dps. And suddenly medium blasters, and large blasters are tearing up ships that are smaller than what they should be allowed to hit. Like someone else put it, internet grapeshot is the idea here. So even if your one meter away, your large shotgun blast will mostly go around a frigate/cruiser. but, at the same time, it will hit them. So maybe you could get some target painters, and go buck wild. Instead of making it easier to hit a target, painters would just straight up make blasters deal more damage to smaller targets. Also I tried to keep the weapon to stick to the same skills and stats of current turret weapons, because while it would be easier to design a weapon system from the ground up, that would mean all blaster pilots would suddenly have millions of wasted sp. And that's never going to happen, so I tried to work within the confines of the current variables. Originally by: Ephemeron
so basically you sacrifice ability to do great damage against small targets that aren't moving much (traverse matched or strong webbed), but gain ability to do better damage to large targets outside 10km? Quote:
great damage against small or equal sized targets.
Quote:
Seems like blaster frigs would benefit most, blaster cruisers possibly a little better off, and blaster battleships get totally shafted.
you're forgetting, it would be an unthinkable boost to damage versus capital ships, and battleships have never had a good track record verses frigates when using main guns. at least now they could get a hit in. In fact as someone pointed out this might make battleships do too much damage to smaller targets since the hit chance would be 100% if they were slow enough, just at 10% of your max damage.
plus, blaster battleships are already shafted 
Quote:
Either way, it's hard to anticipate full impact of such game changing ideas without seeing working prototype on SiSi. There are just too many variables that with some tweaking produce significantly different results.
agreed
Also, I don't believe this is the type of idea on which CCP cares to act. The changes are too radical.
I agree CCP might not go this far. but that's why if people like it enough, it can be brought up to the CSM |
Black Dranzer
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 10:06:00 - [ 3]
I won't lie, some of the math is a bit hard to follow; You may want to go over your post and simplify it or you won't get a lot of support. Also, try to stay away from exact numbers and instead talk about basic concepts. I think CCP's designers get jealous when people try to do their jobs for them.
That said.. the idea of blasters being "shotguns" that have their damage instead of their accuracy reduced by range is actually a really neat idea. It even fits the name. "Blasters".
Supported! |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 10:12:00 - [ 4]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 16/12/2010 05:06:12 Originally by: Black Dranzer
I won't lie, some of the math is a bit hard to follow; You may want to go over your post and simplify it or you won't get a lot of support. Also, try to stay away from exact numbers and instead talk about basic concepts. I think CCP's designers get jealous when people try to do their jobs for them.
That said.. the idea of blasters being "shotguns" that have their damage instead of their accuracy reduced by range is actually a really neat idea. It even fits the name. "Blasters".
Supported!
heheh, I'm a terrible writer, but a great concept guy/artist. thanks for your positive feedback. I wish I could get the math across and make it simple to understand. Maybe someone would be willing to help me out? *if only tarminic was around* edit: I like how you got it all in one sentence. Quote:
the idea of blasters being "shotguns" that have their damage instead of their accuracy reduced by range
thanks for your feedback! your spot on. Quote:
Then again while the average DPS mathematically comes out the same either way
' well that's true for missiles vs.turrets as well. in the end raw dps needs to be balanced. What makes this idea interesting is it opens new tactics for how to get said dps, or negate it. Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Nice idea. Might want to take a look into Moros blasters vs structures though... Would need some serious tweaking for balance, but sounds nice. At the very least the idea of blasters as short range artillery - MASSIVE damage with low RoF.
hmm... NAH, this would just be a good reason to rebuff it's drone abilities, and reintroduce some variety in the dread lineup. |
Nischara
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 12:12:00 - [ 5]
Edited by: Nischara on 14/12/2010 12:14:49
support anything that will make ccp take a look at blasters
but if i understand you, you didnt do anything here, just changed the numbers a bit
your idea: dmg is directly dependant on range ans sig.
current starus: when shooting in fallof you sometimes miss reducing your damage over time.
on your example, a blaster with 5k+5k range misses 50% of the time at 10km, so that means it does 50% it's total damage... your calculation is exactly the same, only it never misses, but does 50% less dmg each shot.
so you didnt change anything
and since you made the "decay rate" exponential, using smaller guns against bigger targets dosent realy give you longer range
also under current mechanics the sig radius determines the damage output, not directly like you suggests but target sig radius influences the chances of wrecking shots, perfect hits, and light hits or barely hits (whatever the name), and by changing chances you change dmg output over time
so actualy i dont see what change you propose, that cant be done using current mechanics, just by playing around and tweaking the numbers
so my summary:
pros: blasters make more RP sence
cons: a lot of programing required by ccp, by making a third weapon math system, and no game change at the end |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 13:20:00 - [ 6]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 14/12/2010 15:44:08 Originally by: Nischara
smart stuff
Ok, I know I'm really bad at explaining. :P with current weapons, sig radius is like a multiplier for radians per second. ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2) Baiscly I want to take (Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius) and have that be fore damage instead. But the blasters Signature Resolution is based on range. Quote:
and since you made the "decay rate" exponential, using smaller guns against bigger targets doesn't really give you longer range
A small blaster has a total range, including falloffx2, of about 13km. with the decay rate I used, it takes up to about 23k range your small blaster will still do full damage to a large target. Quote:
on your example, a blaster with 5k+5k range misses 50% of the time at 10km, so that means it does 50% it's total damage... your calculation is exactly the same, only it never misses, but does 50% less dmg each shot. so you didnt change anything
your 100% right. However the issue with blaster come when your IN optimal range. or outside of x1 falloff. When in perfect optimal range blaster boats have a hard time hitting the target. it's not 100% dps. it's based on the calculation I posted above. the closer you are the more the sig radius effects radians per second. I might not be 100% right on this, but my idea is to make blaster boats that catch a target and can close to 3000m, full damage potential, 100% of the time. your right it's not very different. Maybe the iidea should be more to really push the optimal range in. it's about being able to deal more damage with blasters than current, but only if you can get close enough that your whole shell hits. Currently there is always a 50% chance built in to miss, making blaster seperate form this, and making them the one system based on just getting to your target based on his size I think would be neat. but your right my idea might be a lot more RP, and makes more sense than function, I'm really tired to think right now ;P I swear I'm missing something :P but as far as hitting at longer ranges, my change does work. It's basically like saying the weapons optimal range changes based on the size of the target. that at least, is what I was going for in a nutshell. edit: ok so I've thought about it more and basicly the math I'm using doesn't quite get the intended result, it needs more maths! It needs to do less than 50% when hit rate would of been 50%, but do 100 "shotgun" damage when the other ship is large enough. Meaning, as long just the tranversal is right, and the range is right compared to his size. you do more damage then current. Another fun ide would be blasters increase heat on the targets they shoot, but that's more of a pipedream :P |
Shiho Weitong
Caldari
Koa Mai Hoku
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 14:52:00 - [ 7]
Edited by: Shiho Weitong on 14/12/2010 14:51:59
Ed: Click support
Heh, this reminds me of a similar idea I had a while back.
Supported. |
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 16:47:00 - [ 8]
Edited by: Crazy KSK on 15/12/2010 23:48:20
edit : I do support this idea fully however gallente ships will still need to be made the fastest ships in game and get buffed by large amounts in other areas for example in fitting space (cpu grid slots etc) also gallente e-war sensor dampers need to be brought to 75% base damp amount but with increase stacking so that you can't get a 90% with two or three on one ship however 90% (per dampener) should be able on specialized ships like lachesis arazu and keres |
Ogogov
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 17:45:00 - [ 9]
This is a good idea. |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 18:08:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: MotherMoon
...my idea is to make blaster boats that catch a target and can close to 3000m, full damage potential, 100% of the time.
If this is all you want to do, just give blasters a massive tracking boost (or, equivalently, a sig res boost). Far simpler. |
ARES 003
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 19:45:00 - [ 11]
|
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 20:26:00 - [ 12]
Edited by: King Rothgar on 14/12/2010 20:26:35Love the idea but not too sure on the ranges. But that is something to be deterimined on SISI I think. The overall concept is perfect. Space cannon grapeshot is win.  Edit: Forgot to support. |
LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 20:43:00 - [ 13]
I don't get the math but I get the concept. |
fukier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Flatline.
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 04:29:00 - [ 14]
Edited by: fukier on 15/12/2010 04:52:28Dude!  awesome idea... now blasters are like the plasma torps from original Star Trek episode "Balance of Terror" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuY0O3cRu98 Example of Plasma blast effect... notice how the damage dissipates with range... Though Gallente still need to be boosted (getting close is still hard when your ship is heavy as sh&t and slow as my name.... Here is a link to a thread i started in fid that has some simular ideas... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1424543 |
Jahpahjay
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 12:10:00 - [ 15]
I really like the concept, primarily because while it doesn't increase raw dps, it increases the usability of blasters. I also think it would give blasters (and hopefully similarly fixed railguns) a real niche to work in as hybrids would become the only turret system that doesn't miss (or at least not very much).
It makes sense for the type of gun it is, and it makes sense for gameplay. Supported.
Btw, my only possible concern about it is that it makes motion prediction seemingly obsolete for blasters unless I'm missing something, but then again that's not really a downside so much as it would simply be part of the new mechanics. ;) |
Axon Atom
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 12:29:00 - [ 16]
Quote:
Btw, my only possible concern about it is that it makes motion prediction seemingly obsolete for blasters unless I'm missing something, but then again that's not really a downside so much as it would simply be part of the new mechanics. ;)
I think the idea is it removes sigradius and chance from the tracking equation. So if your tracking is 30 radians per second, and they are moving faster than that, you will miss. If they are moving sower than that, then you hit 100% of the time. So instead of a % chance to hit, it's either hit or miss. Which is kinda awesome. supported. |
Ogogov
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2010.12.15 15:17:00 - [ 17]
Originally by: Axon Atom
Quote:
Btw, my only possible concern about it is that it makes motion prediction seemingly obsolete for blasters unless I'm missing something, but then again that's not really a downside so much as it would simply be part of the new mechanics. ;)
I think the idea is it removes sigradius and chance from the tracking equation.
So if your tracking is 30 radians per second, and they are moving faster than that, you will miss.
If they are moving sower than that, then you hit 100% of the time. So instead of a % chance to hit, it's either hit or miss. Which is kinda awesome.
supported.
Another way of looking at it would be a directional smartbomb. After all, if you let off a blunderbuss or a shotgun, it doesn't matter how fast something is moving, it's still going to get swiss-cheesed if it flies through the general arc of effect. So no, either hitting or missing and removing the hit chance from the equation would not be a good idea. The problem with this approach is that large blasters would be devastatingly effective point defense guns all of a sudden, which would lead to Gallente ships being suicide to attack in frigates and cruisers. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 16:33:00 - [ 18]
You have my shotgun.
|
Alara IonStorm
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 16:42:00 - [ 19]
Please gimmie a reason to train Blasters.
|
Mica Swanhaven
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 18:54:00 - [ 20]
Edited by: Mica Swanhaven on 15/12/2010 18:57:16 Originally by: Ogogov
Originally by: Axon Atom
Quote:
Btw, my only possible concern about it is that it makes motion prediction seemingly obsolete for blasters unless I'm missing something, but then again that's not really a downside so much as it would simply be part of the new mechanics. ;)
I think the idea is it removes sigradius and chance from the tracking equation.
So if your tracking is 30 radians per second, and they are moving faster than that, you will miss.
If they are moving sower than that, then you hit 100% of the time. So instead of a % chance to hit, it's either hit or miss. Which is kinda awesome.
supported.
Another way of looking at it would be a directional smartbomb.
The problem with this approach is that large blasters would be devastatingly effective point defense guns all of a sudden, which would lead to Gallente ships being suicide to attack in frigates and cruisers.
just commenting on this part of your post. Your forgetting that the weapons start at their base sig resolution. so a battleship could never hit a frigate for more than 10% of max damage. And it would also have to able to track you. the closer you are, the faster your transversal is. And your forgetting that small blasters would be able to hit a battleship outside of web range. and the farther away you are, the less damage you take. So the numbers should be balanced to make it so a frigate webbing a battleship at 10km would take 5-10% of the battleships guns, but only if the frigate is moving under the battleships tracking. I would trust CCP to actually balance the math right, but I think the idea is that small ships could avoid most of the large weapons fire, even if they were sitting still. edit:also maybe a tracking disruptors could be made to have a greater effect on just blasters? |
GIGAR
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 19:15:00 - [ 21]
Heck yea, that would be awesome :D
(Sniper Shotgun Rokh... Do want!) |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 19:17:00 - [ 22]
so basically you sacrifice ability to do great damage against small targets that aren't moving much (traverse matched or strong webbed), but gain ability to do better damage to large targets outside 10km?
Seems like blaster frigs would benefit most, blaster cruisers possibly a little better off, and blaster battleships get totally shafted.
Either way, it's hard to anticipate full impact of such game changing ideas without seeing working prototype on SiSi. There are just too many variables that with some tweaking produce significantly different results.
Also, I don't believe this is the type of idea on which CCP cares to act. The changes are too radical. Tho they have been known to do radical ideas that come from their own people - The Great Nano Nerf. But I never seen any significant player ideas get implemented. We have to settle for minor tweaks or something completely new that doesn't replace core parts of the game. |
Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 20:04:00 - [ 23]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 15/12/2010 20:10:23
I like your idea, but I dont think CCP will go for it. Why? This might give blasters an absolute DPS chance vs. frigates. This is a HUGE advantage. Even if it is only 10%, 10% of a 5000k volley is 500 damage vs. a frig who's eHP is around 5000 at best. Cruisers and Battleships will tear frigates to shreds. Ideally, the mechanics of the game would stay the same, but rather evolve Blasters more into artillery. Blasters become a really high-volley, low ROF, weapon for the short range zone. This'd give blasters atleast some advantage as they can fire off their whole damage before popping (due to the other inherent fallacies of Gallente ship design principles post speed nerf). Fixing the ships is needed either way.
Sidebar:
Sooo, a while back before they fixed the 0% chance to hit at 0km, I did a bunch of math on how the tracking formula works. I found that CCP did an excellent job with their current formula because it perfectly encapsulates to hit % and DPS vs. range. That said, I was rather dismayed by the exponentials and the lumping together of to-hit calculations, tracking, and falloff, primarily because it unnecessarily complicates things for players. Theoretically, you should ALWAYS hit with a weapon should your tracking beat their transverse velocity. Period. End of story. However that is not how the current system works...
The entirety of the tracking formula is used only to calculate the To-Hit boundary. Transversal, Range, Turret speed, signatures, falloff and optimal are all lumped into the chance calculation. A random number is then generated, and if it is in the to-hit range, the actual damage is determined by a simple addition and multiply:
IF: (Randnum < chance)
THEN: DMG = (randnum + .5) * turret multiple * ammo dmg)
Coincidentally, this is one of the reasons why CCP is in love with weapon grouping: the damage formula is simple while tracking is painful and complex. Performing the calculation once for 8 turrets is a huge time saver.
If your idea is to be implemented, you'd be moving a large portion of the calculation away from the To-Hit chance portion, and adding more math to the DMG calculation. Personally, Id enjoy this. Basing to-hit on the falloff etc is really dumb. If you beat tracking, you should ALWAYS hit, but this is not how CCP sees it and nor is how it is calculated. Then again while the average DPS mathematically comes out the same either way; just pray you are lucky.
|
Linna Excel
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 20:45:00 - [ 24]
Edited by: Linna Excel on 15/12/2010 20:44:50
If I've followed you right
-make damage more dependent on size of the ship you are trying to hit
I think that would work out okay, but they still have problems with both fitting and cap issues. |
Thyme Waster
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:24:00 - [ 25]
This is such an awesome idea. |
Elana Dyson
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:26:00 - [ 26]
Genius.
Please CCP, make blasters good! |
Doctero
Aperture Harmonics
K162
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:29:00 - [ 27]
Gallente have been nerfed to uselessness already by having to rely on drones (which NEVER worked right) and blasters being utterly fail, making cross-training to Amarr or the Minnies inevitable.
It's about time they got fixed. Give people a reason to cross-train Gallente for once! |
Professor Bunsen
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:31:00 - [ 28]
Supported. |
Ryan Starwing
Gallente
Cryptonym Sleepers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:34:00 - [ 29]
This with a slight buff to tracking and a medium net buff to dps (enough alpha to overcome slower rate of fire and still do more dps) Will help blasters alot. Also lowering fitting requirments will help. This also makes sence; why would a frigate miss a titan 10-20km away. |
The Darkkness
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:37:00 - [ 30]
Best thing about this proposal is that it preserves the idea of blasters, while keeping them unique and distinct from the other weapon systems.
Yes, it will require intensive testing, but for the love of EVE, it's worth it.
Supported! |
|
All Channels
Assembly Hall
