open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Attention on Deck - Cool Stuff Happening in Incursion
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic

Jag Kara
Gh0st Hunters
Sspectre
Posted - 2010.10.19 21:20:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Hasnpbeard
Edited by: Hasnpbeard on 19/10/2010 13:19:08
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The ship effects were the ones which were removed. This definitely will make them directly competitive with the faction variants for sure.


Uhm, sorry CCP Chronotis, but you are completely mistaken.

T2 short-range (turret) ammo is so bad because of its TRACKING PENALTY. The ship effects were just additional inconvenience, but certainly not a deciding factor.

Try flying a minmatar ship mate. You'll find that, with their speed, you can easily kite a target to negate the tracking penalty, but having 8 guns with each one causing -5%(hail l)/-7%(hail m)/-10%(hail s)/-12%(quake l)/16%(quake m)/-25%(quake s) cap regen, which stack, (without penalty I might add) makes it near impossible to survive in cap warfare or make a mission capable ship. For that reason I alway use faction or the range ammo to not take the hit.

Just for a number breakdown:
1 gun = 5.0/7.0/10.0/12.0/16.0/25.0 reduced cap regen
2 gun = 9.8/13.5/19.0/22.6/29.4/43.8 reduced cap regen
3 gun = 14.3/19.6/27.1/31.9/40.7/57.8 reduced cap regen
4 gun = 18.5/25.2/34.4/40.0/50.2/68.4 reduced cap regen
5 gun = 22.6/30.4/41.0/47.2/58.2/76.3 reduced cap regen
6 gun = 26.5/35.3/46.9/53.6/64.9/82.2 reduced cap regen
7 gun = 30.2/39.8/52.2/59.1/70.5/86.7 reduced cap regen
8 gun = 33.7/44.0/57.0/64.0/75.2/90.0 reduced cap regen

I dont know about you, but a 90% reduction in cap on my ship is quite a bit bigger of a loss than 50% of my tracking on a gun that is already the best at tracking.

The same argument could be made for the other ammos, but I think this one is the most clear on why this change is being done.

Patri Andari
Caldari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
Posted - 2010.10.20 01:23:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Patri Andari on 20/10/2010 01:30:30
I must admit i have not been on sisi to check this out but i have a questions:

All short range missiles (rockets, hams and torps) have a penalty to either ship speed (javlin) or ship signature radius (terror & rage) yet non of them were mentioned in the blog.

Will these be considered in the up coming T2 ammo boost or only turret ammo?

If not why?








Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2010.10.20 06:03:00 - [123]
 

I take it that with the 'fake' missile projectors considerations for use on player ships also hopefully led to a discussion about possibly adding missile turrets as models in the game since the two will no longer hargarble each other's faces anymore.

Also any possibility that negative effects get similar diminishing returns that alot of positive effects earn? this may make tech 2 ammos abit more desirable with ships with multiple weapon slots.

Finally with the fake missile additions to drones, can we finally see defender missile drones or possibly a fix to defender missiles since they dont have to actually act like a missile and could probably get away acting like a gun with its own special launcher?

Etil DeLaFuente
Posted - 2010.10.20 06:07:00 - [124]
 

Edited by: Etil DeLaFuente on 20/10/2010 06:08:42
Quote:
The side effect of this is that fighter bombers are the "spawn of evil" in server performance terms. Team Gridlock who are leading the war on lag effort identified them as a major contributor to fleet fight lag as is demonstrated below. Not only are they drones which usually come in packs of 20 per ship but they fire missiles which all have to be tracked in the inventory and physical scene within the game.


I'd like to know what's ccp internal process when it comes to give us new features, especially in terms of performance, server side impact etc.. It looks like no one in charge to me. This major drawback about SC could have been detected at design time.

What about regular fighters and/or drones ? Do they have the same kind of issue or is it just the fact that fighter bombers fire missiles ?

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.10.20 06:25:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Alara IonStorm
Any comments on the Omen?


We already have the Zealot and Omen Navy Issue - with the latter you can take a week-old character, stick them in a cruiser with battle-cruiser-sized firepower. The Omen is awesome just as it is - you just have to pick between tank or gank.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.20 06:54:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: Alara IonStorm on 20/10/2010 07:14:08
Originally by: Mara Rinn
you just have to pick between tank or gank.


Unlike the Thorax, Vexor, Rupture, Moa and Stabber who all can do both.

New players should be able to fit out an Omen the same way Gallente, Minmatar and Calsari can fit there turret boats. The Arby is a great drone platform but it doesn't lead to Harbinger the way the Omen should. As for a new player flying Faction... be nice and buy them all a plex!

FlameGlow
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2010.10.20 08:32:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Alara IonStorm

New players should be able to fit out an Omen the same way Calsari can fit there turret boats.


By same way you mean with fitting mod to get even guns to fit? And 2 or more if you want MWD and tank with those guns?

Zanaraxtarus
Posted - 2010.10.20 09:19:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Rhok Relztem

Three thumbs-up for CCP! (Three?!? Not sure where that extra one came from but may as well use it.)


That third one isn't a thumb... Thumbs are up a bit higher...

BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.10.20 14:42:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Kragaar
Good stuff, is there any plan in the future to add faction modules to the market along with the faction ships?


There is, it will naturally take longer to do since there is so many of them and with some modules *lots* of variations. For now, we just wanted the best stuff up there which was the most requested, being the other ships you can all fly.


WOOHOO! Can't wait to be able to sell everything on the market!

CCP Masterplan


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.10.20 17:10:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Etil DeLaFuente
Edited by: Etil DeLaFuente on 20/10/2010 06:08:42
Quote:
The side effect of this is that fighter bombers are the "spawn of evil" in server performance terms. Team Gridlock who are leading the war on lag effort identified them as a major contributor to fleet fight lag as is demonstrated below. Not only are they drones which usually come in packs of 20 per ship but they fire missiles which all have to be tracked in the inventory and physical scene within the game.


I'd like to know what's ccp internal process when it comes to give us new features, especially in terms of performance, server side impact etc.. It looks like no one in charge to me. This major drawback about SC could have been detected at design time.

What about regular fighters and/or drones ? Do they have the same kind of issue or is it just the fact that fighter bombers fire missiles ?

I can't speak about the original design process of Super-carriers, as I wasn't here at the time. However I am on Team Gridlock, which identified the specific load issues caused by Fighter-Bombers. The main reason FBs are so expensive is the way their load scales: One SC can launch 20 of them, each of which fires a torpedo every 15 seconds. Each torpedo has quite a long flight time. The end result is a small number of players can generate a disproportionately large number of items that must be tracked through the physics/inventory/damage systems. (Skills/modules can push the numbers even further, which has knock-on effects for load)
Regular fighters/drones don't scale in this way: Firstly their damage mechanism is an instantaneous effect that has little load on the physics system (it mainly needs just distance and transversal data). Secondly they don't add extra entities into space. Thirdly (in the case of regular drones) you can't launch so many of them.

This is actually the first example of Gridlock pushing the design team to make content changes aimed at reducing load. Everything else that we have released so far is behind-the-scenes optimisations which shouldn't have gameplay changes. Those kind of improvements are great due to the fact we can roll them out with minimal red-tape. There are some longer-term changes we are pushing, but those might require work from art, design, gameplay/UI programmers to complete to a releasable standard. Naturally this means a longer lead-time, but for potentially the greatest gains.

As for new brand-new features, our team makes sure that others are aware of load implications for their new ideas. Sometimes we'll ask them to go back and rethink a proposal. Combine this with the fact we can now do pre-emptive load-testing (thanks to the thin-client tech) and we hope to catch and prevent issues earlier.

Xpaulusx
Perkone
Posted - 2010.10.20 17:39:00 - [131]
 

Agree's with Supercaps needing a mega nerf.

Hasnpbeard
Posted - 2010.10.20 19:24:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Hasnpbeard on 20/10/2010 19:36:29

Well thanks for being active in replies, much appreciated.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The tracking penalty was reduced, we forgot to mention that

fair enough

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

The low tracking versions were designed with a purpose of attacking larger ship classes (where tracking matters less) and as a consequence do more damage to those targets.

IF the ammo WOULD do more damage, yes. Then we would have a tradeoff, disadvantage vs. advantage (what i suggested in my post). But it does not, and therefore the design purpose was never met.

T2 short-range does 1.5% more damage than the Faction equivalent. You can hardly call that "more damage" without kidding yourself. (didnt check all but seems 1.5% across the board).


Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Removing that drawback completely would be somewhat overpowered so, a reduced penalty but it has not disappeared.

RepFleetEMP M:
Damage: 27.6
Optimal -50%

Hail M:
Damage: 28.0 (theres the 1.5% again)
Optimal -50%
Falloff -50%
Tracking -50% (going lower)
CapRech +7% (going away)

Please elaborate how, even without ANY tracking penalty, would this ammo possibly be OVERPOWERED ? I am very curious.


Please forgive that i am getting a bit rough, but with the info provided so far the suggested change is just making it "less bad". Hardly a design goal i think you would be satisfied with yourself.

I hope there are other changes you did not put on this board for some reason and will wait until it hits SiSi before causing more unrest.

--------------

Originally by: Jag Kara
.... a 90% reduction in cap on my ship is quite a bit bigger of a loss......


I never actually tried it, but in EFT my common passive Tempest fit with all modules running is going from 1m17s to 1m14s (yes that's 3 seconds) if i change ammo from Faction to Hail.

So whats correct ?

Riftin
Posted - 2010.10.21 02:43:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Riftin on 21/10/2010 02:44:43
If the below is remotely close to what tech 2 ammo will look like I will still use RepFleet ammo all the time and never use tech 2. Why? -50% falloff in a mini ship for 1.5% damage increase are you kidding me? You are reducing your survival chances significantly by accepting that penalty.

RepFleetEMP M:
Damage: 27.6
Optimal -50%

Hail M:
Damage: 28.0 (theres the 1.5% again)
Optimal -50%
Falloff -50%
Tracking -50% (going lower)
CapRech +7% (going away)

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.10.21 12:28:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Raimo on 21/10/2010 12:32:44

TBH a better idea to balance Hail and Void would be to remove the tracking hit (and reduce the falloff hit) and *keep* the cap hit/ whatever you're now planning to remove, while upping the damage a bit...

Alternatively, do what you're doing now, but make falloff hit also smaller (and tracking hit significantly smaller) and up damage by, say, 5-10%.

Otherwise faction short range ammo will stay as the sane choice nearly everytime.

Gun Gun
Posted - 2010.10.21 15:34:00 - [135]
 

It would be cool if you fixed a bug in probing window where when you change the filter after a scan result, no dots show up so you have to close that window and reopen it.

Hentes Zsemle
Posted - 2010.10.21 16:31:00 - [136]
 

Edited by: Hentes Zsemle on 21/10/2010 16:32:00
If you don't make T2 ammos better at at least something, let it be tracking or damage whatever, than the faction ones, you will accomplish nothing with this change.
Note that this could also be a good opportunity to make blasters less suck.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2010.10.21 16:51:00 - [137]
 

Small idea Chronotis for t2 ammo:

damage +15-20% over faction ammo (so around 32-34 on Hail M)
50-75% tracking penalty

Here you go - situational, anti "larger target size" ammo. Similiar to missiles Rage/Fury progression (normal -> +15% -> navy -> +15% -> rage/fury).

Otherwise if it remains 1% better than faction but WITH penalties it will still be useless.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.21 18:32:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
damage +15-20% over faction ammo (so around 32-34 on Hail M)
50-75% tracking penalty

Here you go - situational, anti "larger target size" ammo. Similiar to missiles Rage/Fury progression (normal -> +15% -> navy -> +15% -> rage/fury).
You'd need to add an extra 0 to that damage bonus to make it worthwhile.

Just for the record, a 50% tracking penalty against a 1:1 tracking target means a reduction in DPS of ~85%. A 75% tracking penalty against a similar target means a DPS reduction of roughly 100%.

Also, the idea of "larger target size" ammo kind falls flat where a blaster fix is needed the most: in battleships. If you want to follow the missile progression, where furies do more damage at the cost projecting it worse, the tracking penalty should be somewhere in the region of 15–20%, not 50–75%.

It might work for projectiles and lasers, but certainly not for blaster ammo.

Twisted Mister
Posted - 2010.10.21 18:43:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
damage +15-20% over faction ammo (so around 32-34 on Hail M)
50-75% tracking penalty

Here you go - situational, anti "larger target size" ammo. Similiar to missiles Rage/Fury progression (normal -> +15% -> navy -> +15% -> rage/fury).
You'd need to add an extra 0 to that damage bonus to make it worthwhile.

Just for the record, a 50% tracking penalty against a 1:1 tracking target means a reduction in DPS of ~85%. A 75% tracking penalty against a similar target means a DPS reduction of roughly 100%.

Also, the idea of "larger target size" ammo kind falls flat where a blaster fix is needed the most: in battleships. If you want to follow the missile progression, where furies do more damage at the cost projecting it worse, the tracking penalty should be somewhere in the region of 15–20%, not 50–75%.

It might work for projectiles and lasers, but certainly not for blaster ammo.


Right now nothing would work for blasters if they got any penalties on it.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:30:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 21/10/2010 19:35:46
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
damage +15-20% over faction ammo (so around 32-34 on Hail M)
50-75% tracking penalty

Here you go - situational, anti "larger target size" ammo. Similiar to missiles Rage/Fury progression (normal -> +15% -> navy -> +15% -> rage/fury).
You'd need to add an extra 0 to that damage bonus to make it worthwhile.

Just for the record, a 50% tracking penalty against a 1:1 tracking target means a reduction in DPS of ~85%. A 75% tracking penalty against a similar target means a DPS reduction of roughly 100%.



Which part of "situational" you dont understand? Engaging double webbed (gang fight/rapier/whatever) target is enough to bring tracking back to its respective level. So would be engaging oversized targets (cruiser hulls in frigs, BS hulls in cruisers, caps in battleships). And 20% damage boost means around 200dps boost to most battleships, circa 100-150dps on cruiser/bc hulls and around 40dps on frig hulls. I wouldnt say that its small number.

Quote:

It might work for projectiles and lasers, but certainly not for blaster ammo.


It would work for all guns. Blasters too if pilot is smart enough to use "keep at 2500m" range button and gets enough webs on target (same target) OR engages larger sized targets. Plus afaik it is called "t2 shortrange ammo fix" not "blaster fix". In current version (proposed in blog) it doesnt help either: ammo sucks, blasters stay where they were.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:34:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
It would work for all guns. Blasters too if pilot is smart enough to use "keep at 2500m" range button and gets enough webs on target. Plus afaik it is called "t2 shortrange ammo fix" not "blaster fix". In current version (proposed in blog) it doesnt help either: ammo sucks, blasters stay where they were.
The point is, it would work worse for blasters than for anything else, making them fall even farther behind.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:36:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 21/10/2010 19:37:51
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
It would work for all guns. Blasters too if pilot is smart enough to use "keep at 2500m" range button and gets enough webs on target. Plus afaik it is called "t2 shortrange ammo fix" not "blaster fix". In current version (proposed in blog) it doesnt help either: ammo sucks, blasters stay where they were.
The point is, it would work worse for blasters than for anything else, making them fall even farther behind.


And whats the problem to balance it respective to weapons? -50% tracking on blasters, -75% on lasers (just a number from my ass, as i said its just idea not exact numbers)? You are creating problems where they dont exist/where they can be easily balanced between gun types.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:51:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
And whats the problem to balance it respective to weapons? -50% tracking on blasters, -75% on lasers (just a number from my ass, as i said its just idea not exact numbers)? You are creating problems where they dont exist/where they can be easily balanced between gun types.
You were the one who created this particular problem… Wink

Tracking is one of those stats you need to be very careful with, because the effects of even very small changes are quite drastic. As such, it's not a good choice to use as a balancing mechanic because chances are you will bork it.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:54:00 - [144]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 21/10/2010 19:58:54
When you want to create turret ammo that works only against bigger targets you can ONLY use tracking to enforce target selection. And as my general idea was: 'more damage vs bigger targets' there arent many options to discuss except damage and tracking.

And like i stated (and state again): its just random idea. Which even if bad is still better than what CCP proposes righ now: because its sometimes useful, wheras ammo with same damage as navy one with penalties is just flat out useless.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.21 20:16:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
When you want to create turret ammo that works only against bigger targets you can ONLY use tracking to enforce target selection. And as my general idea was: 'more damage vs bigger targets' there arent many options to discuss except damage and tracking.
There's also signature resolution… but that amounts to the same thing.

But again, the "bigger targets" idea becomes an issue when you consider that you quickly come to a point where there is no bigger target.

If we're tossing ideas, I'd like to see high rof ammo — less damage per shot, but vastly higher rate of fire, so you do tons more DPS… but only in, say, 30s bursts before it's time to reload. It would look sweet for ACs too — just one single massive long burst instead of a lot of small ones… Twisted Evil

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2010.10.21 20:24:00 - [146]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 21/10/2010 20:31:56
It can be done without touching rof (lag inducing, small ROF numbers are kinda bad) but by giving huge damage + increasing volume. Same effect, same DPS, same reload times. Problems? You still need to decide on effective DPS (including reload time). If it remains same as with other ammo - its kinda pointless (well, good for ganking stuff). If it gets larger - you run into risk of said ammo being always used instead of navy (aka: obsoleting it).

And idea itself was discussed somewhere around rocket fix (yeh that was one of rocket change ideas). Still, better than current "fix".

Hasnpbeard
Posted - 2010.10.21 21:34:00 - [147]
 

To balance two same ranged ammo types by tracking/damage - without making one obsolete like now - is very difficult if not impossible.

This is bound to fail and its not CCPs fault, its just how the formulas work.

So, whats left ? You could take range to the extreme, 1000m optimal, 0m falloff, +15% damage over faction. Notice the increase in damage, because thats really the only option you have left to play the balancegame with. It can be balanced vs. anything you can imagine, e.g. severe ship effects, that cause the ammo to be used situational, like extreme cap use but +15% damage and +20% optimal. Which seemed the initial design approach which sadly was not implemented very good, but was an excellent idea.

In any situation players deem the ammo to be USEFUL, the ammo WILL BE BETTER than its counterpart. Balancing is the process to control which situations these can be. This requires actual understanding of how the game works and it requires some real brainstorming and effort by CCP.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2010.10.21 21:51:00 - [148]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 21/10/2010 21:55:49
Originally by: Hasnpbeard

In any situation players deem the ammo to be USEFUL, the ammo WILL BE BETTER than its counterpart.


This is not true. Both navy ammo and rage ammo are used in PvP yet one is not better than the other. They might be better in one situation or another but you can not just say "this one is always better" because it will be a lie. They are just finely balanced against each other.

Similiar situation happens with autocannons - at some ranges there is a tie between barrage/close range ammos. With lazors its kinda different - scorch is always superior till you swap to Xray ranges (i think... forgot which close range ammo has similiar damage to scorch). But difference is kinda obvious: AC ammo has much more to it except range/damage. It also has different damage types and tracking bonuses (for mid-type ammo) which makes most of them useful in one or another case. With blasters/lasers there arent many choices. You will always pick highest damage ammo over distance you engage at - because you cant chose damage types or tracking bonuses (they dont exist).

So if anything both energy and hybrid guns should be moved a bit towards autocannons with better variability between ammo types. otherwise it will always be 2 ammo types: long and short range (with maybe 3rd mid range in some cases). Changing t2 shortrange ammo to "more damage no penalty" will just mean that it will be used over navy ammo. Changing towards "similiar damage plus penalties" will mean it will be still useless. There needs to be something more than plain damage vs range.

And my "theorycrafting" is easily shown via practise. If you fly say raven or drake in PvP you carry quite a few ammo types. Usually CN of each flavour + kinetic rages (i actually carry CN + rage of each type, at least 2-3 reloads of each). With minnie ships its similiar. You carry 3 shortrange ammos + barrage. Sometimes mid range ammo (especially in large/medium guns as small track well enough). With amarr? Scorch and multi. With gallente? Null + antimatter (i carry only AM tho, i dont even bother with null). More variety = better.

Hasnpbeard
Posted - 2010.10.21 22:39:00 - [149]
 

Edited by: Hasnpbeard on 21/10/2010 22:45:25
Edited by: Hasnpbeard on 21/10/2010 22:41:00
Im sorry Deva if i was not clear enough, this is exactly what i mean Smile

It will of course only be better under the specific circumstances you choose to utilize it, but then "always" in this situation. A bit confusing wording on my part Confused

Currently short-range T2 vs. faction is not situational, faction is simply better at anything. This problem will not go away with what CCP has suggested in this thread so far.


Twisted Mister
Posted - 2010.10.21 23:22:00 - [150]
 

The new ammos could have a big tracking bonus tho. I don't really see any other viable alternative. There is already one for long range, the navies are for high damage, i really doubt that ccp is going to raise the damage bonus so much that its going to worth the tracking penalty(and possibly other penalties), which at extremely close range would mean no damage most of the time outside EFT.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only