DUST Search - Tweaking Swarm Launcher parameters

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Tweaking Swarm Launcher parameters - with numbers and graphs!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1044	Posted - 2015.03.16 20:19:00 - [1] - Quote Hello, I'm here to suggest some tweaks to how Swarm Launchers work to improve the interaction with dropships, mostly. I'm sorry that this is going to get kind of technical, but we'll be discussing Swarm Launcher stats and their numeric effect on gameplay. The mission statement for this thread is: 1. Make it at least a theoretical possibility to dodge a swarm of missiles. 2. Reduce the amount of time missiles need to catch up to a DS. The fact that Swarms can only ever be outranged, but never dodged through pilot skill, has been a reason for annoyance for quite a while. It'd be great if at least ADS with ABs could do something else about missiles. A similar reason why Swarms can be annoying is because it takes forever to lose them. It takes over 8 seconds of flying away from the Swarmer before the last missile pops and you can go back to work. Count eight Mississippis in your head now - it's an annoyingly long stretch of time to fly straight towards the horizon instead of playing the game. I'll try to stick to the following limitations: - SLs should not be nerfed or buffed against DS or HAVs. - No new features, only parameter tweaks to existing mechanics. Here's the method: If we want Swarm Missiles to catch up with DS more quickly we need to increase their maximum speed and acceleration. In order to give DS a chance to survive we must also decrease their travel range. I've mocked up some calculations in Matlab and found the following data set suitable: - Missile Acceleration 15 m/s-¦ - Missile top speed 85 m/s - Missile travel range 250 m - Missile travel duration 5.1 seconds This may appear woefully fast, but the limited range gives the pilot the same amount of time to react as he currently has. You may remember Rattati's swarm missile calculations for hotfix delta from this thread. I took a look at them and fixed some issues (e.g. measuring the actual time between two missile launches in youtube videos of recent PCs). Here is a graph of the current situation with 400 meter range, here is a graph with the proposed situation with 250 meter range. In both graphs you can see that an ADS with an AB has to eat at least two volleys. If the pilot hits full acceleration within about 1.5 seconds he'll be out of range before the third volley hits. This is the same with the new numbers as before. But all of this now happens within 5.1 seconds of the last volley launch, so this goal is achieved. In the graphs above I used the following parameters: - DS acceleration 12 m/s-¦(with AB) - DS top speed 50 m/s - Current stock SL acceleration 12 m/s-¦ - Current stock SL top speed 60 m/s - Duration between two SL missile launches 2.3 seconds (I looked at several youtube videos of people using prototype Swarm Launchers in PCs. Nobody managed to launch 3 volleys in under 7 seconds.) With those numbers set out we can look at maneuverability or missile turn rate. For this next bit I will interpret "SL missile turn rate" as degrees/second. I haven't seen any alternative explanation that made sense. This used to be at 90, but was reduced to 70 with hotfix delta, without much noticeable effect. I analyzed the issue in Matlab and noticed that it is necessary to reduce turn rate to about 50 -¦/s in order to make it possible to evade a SL missile in an ADS by trying to orbit the missile. Here's a graph of what currently happens. We're looking top down on a Swarmer in the center of the picture and a DS being 125 meter north of him. Blue is the missile's trajectory, red the DS's trajectory. This is the situation as it generally happens with a Swarmer on top of a building. I avoided a 3D scenario to make visualization easier, but in 3D the math works out the same. What you see is the initially static DS trying to orbit the incoming missile counter-clockwise. Due to the high turn rate the missile just impacts the DS after 4 seconds. Here is what happens when you use a turn rate of 50 -¦/s. You may notice there not being any impact. That is because the missile doesn't hit the DS. The DS is taking a weird looking trajectory because it is programmed to maximize angular velocity. After the missile wizzes past coming from the swarmer (about 100 meters in front and 50 meters left from the swarmer's point of view) the DS slows down so the missile misses again on the way back. Afterwards the missile tries to complete the turn but runs out of range before reaching the DS again. The morale of the story is that with a turn rate of 50 -¦/s a current-day ADS with an AB has means to avoid being hit by a Missile other than flying away. The above graph has been achieved with the following parameters: - DS acceleration 12 m/s-¦ (with AB) - DS top speed 50 m/s - SL acceleration 12 m/s-¦ - SL top speed 60 m/s - SL turn rate 50 -¦/s - Impact occurs when the distance between missile and DS is lower than 10 meters (The graph looks very similar if you use the SL speed stats suggested in the paragraph above. I posted it this way so both changes can be discussed individually.) (To be continued in the next post. Wow, hasn't this become a wall of text?)
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1044	Posted - 2015.03.16 20:19:00 - [2] - Quote As a net effect of these changes I expect: - Some qualified ADS pilots will be able to evade SL missiles on purpose. - Some SL operators may once in a while miss a shot in certain situations (e.g. DS passing overhead at full speed). - I expect that the time between launching a missile and the +75 WP for doing damage will decrease significantly. - I don't expect any change in the SL's ability to kill shield DS. - Armor DS may have to eat 3 volleys in a slightly smaller timeframe than before (7 s vs. 10 s), if they decide to flee too late, and thus have less time to repair between the volleys. - I don't expect any change at all towards the SL's capability to kill HAVs as those will be too slow to notice the change. - I have no idea whether LAVs will be able to dodge missiles now. I wouldn't even know how to look at making an informed estimate here. I guess the only ones that can take a look at that are the devs on their test rigs. After that wall of text I assume there will be questions. If you'd like to comment on the goals, ask questions about my method or which way to go with parameters, feel free to ask. Please stay on topic, though. P.S.: You actually read that?
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2731	Posted - 2015.03.16 20:35:00 - [3] - Quote I agree with your premise. However, in an ADS we don't know missiles are inbound until we either see them coming or they hit us. By the time we know we are being attacked, the 2nd swarm is on the way already. And by shortening the range to 250m, it will be far easier to simply outrange the missiles rather than avoid them. In addition, it takes time for us to build up speed, especially if we are trying to go a direction other than straight forward. This would mean that evading missiles would require us to already be on the proper evasion trajectory prior to launch. If our dropships were far more maneuverable and the size of LAVs, this idea would be amazing. However, the ADS is currently a regular dropship with a gun rammed into the nose. I think it's too big and not maneuverable enough to build up a proper trajectory to dodge, meaning evasion would mostly consist of rocketing straight up and hoping you outrange them. Basically what we have now. If we had an incoming warning system and countermeasures, those would be the best option to helping us handle swarms. I do like the idea and work you put into this premise, but I feel like these changes wouldn't do much for ADS survival unless the ADS is already on the proper trajectory and speed to dodge the missiles once they are launched. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 947	Posted - 2015.03.16 20:38:00 - [4] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: P.S.: You actually read that? Yes i did, and kudos. I have the same ideas, but i don't have mathematical know how to accurately display it like you did. Working within the paramters of the system, instead of trying to indroduce new features and coding, makes this something that could be tweaked during any downtime of the working week. And toned down if need be. If we could try spaceboots for a while just to see what happens, I can't see why we can't try this. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1045	Posted - 2015.03.16 20:42:00 - [5] - Quote Thanks for actually taking the time to read. I agree with your conclusion that evading missiles isn't something you can do all day. At best, after an impact, you can set yourself up to dodge the third volley, hopefully with a shield booster ready so you can then face the Swarmer at full health. This limited usefulness is actually why I think it's a good idea. If the new standard way of dealing with SLs would be to dodge them continuously we'd have very unhappy SL users and a new FOTM. This seems like something very skillfull pilots could get an extra kick out. It also looks like something that will make SLs less thoughtless as you'll actually have to think about whether your missiles are going to make it to their target in this situation.
Grimmiers 817	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:00:00 - [6] - Quote I like the idea and had a similar suggestion a while back. The reason it works is because a dropship evading swarms means the swarmer isn't under attack. If ccp wants to get fancy they can add a module that further lowers missile turn tracking speed in the high slot. My suggestion was to have the missiles lock individually so you can fire 1 accurate missile, or 4 less accurate ones.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1585	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:08:00 - [7] - Quote What is the flight ceiling? I know I often can't lock on because DS are too high, that is 175 meters, if all the DS has to do is go 75-100 meters to outrange a swarm they are not going to be shot down. LAV's and HAV's can outrun swarms as it is, not tge first volley but the successive ones, reducing the range by 150 meters means any tank that runs, lives, and is 3 seconds from returning. The turn rate is something that needs to be considered. I'd be fine with swarms that make wide looping turns. Thanks for the work, it is great to see thibgs like this. Because, that's why.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1402	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:10:00 - [8] - Quote I applaud your efforts, and I love your workings out especially considering the lack of definitive information about the subject. Would it be possible to look at further narrowing the turn angle? My thinking is that dodging a Swarm volley needs to be reliable enough that it's a reasonable option for the pilot to choose, otherwise, as Alena said, the better option is always to retreat out of range of the lock-on and return again once fully repaired. So, what would 40 d/s look like? What about a higher initial velocity too? From the SDE over at Stuff514 Swarms have a 5m/s initial velocity. A higher initial velocity might space the volleys out enough that a pilot has a greater time to react to follow up volleys, making evasion a more likely course of action. Regardless, I always appreciate the time and effort you put in Stefan, so thank you for doing this :) Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood 194	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:19:00 - [9] - Quote (Phone dying) Speed up swarms by x, later or earlier response? Like have it overshoot a dropship? ^ Am i understanding the OP correctly Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1048	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:21:00 - [10] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: What is the flight ceiling? I know I often can't lock on because DS are too high, that is 175 meters, if all the DS has to do is go 75-100 meters to outrange a swarm they are not going to be shot down. Again, thanks for reading the wall of text. I specifically designed the acceleration and top speed numbers so that DS won't be able to escape any easier. This shouldn't change at all if I did my math right. (Any validation would be appreciated!) I recon HAVs will have an even harder time outrunning Swarms. The missiles will be faster after the change than before. That should actually help you. The trade-off is that in some situations you'll have to hold off launching a volley on a passing LAV or DS until the angular velocity is low enough for your swarms to get them. Kallas Hallytyr wrote: I applaud your efforts, and I love your workings out especially considering the lack of definitive information about the subject. Would it be possible to look at further narrowing the turn angle? My thinking is that dodging a Swarm volley needs to be reliable enough that it's a reasonable option for the pilot to choose, otherwise, as Alena said, the better option is always to retreat out of range of the lock-on and return again once fully repaired. So, what would 40 d/s look like? What about a higher initial velocity too? From the SDE over at Stuff514 Swarms have a 5m/s initial velocity. A higher initial velocity might space the volleys out enough that a pilot has a greater time to react to follow up volleys, making evasion a more likely course of action. Regardless, I always appreciate the time and effort you put in Stefan, so thank you for doing this :) First of all, thanks for the kind words. The lower the turn rate the better the chances for the DS. Qualitatively nothing changes, you just get more leeway as a pilot and the Swarmer ragequits faster. Personally, as a NDS pilot I'd love to also have the option to dodge, but I'm trying to be cautious here. I don't want a unreasonably large change to cause HAVs to become unhittable on uneven terrain or AB'd Pythons being able to dodge three consecutive volleys of missiles. My philosophy is taking many quick babysteps in the right direction rather than sweeping changes. (Such as buffing armor hardeners by 60% while simultaneously nerfing shield hardeners. ) [Edit] Here's the plot for 40 -¦/s. Also, I don't have any mathematical prove that maximizing angular velocity is the optimal way of dodging a missile. Through experimentation I found maneuvers that can in special cases evade missiles at higher missile turn rates, but I couldn't identify a generic rule to implement. That is another reason to be conservative with the turn rate. People will quickly identify optimal maneuvers that may be better than what I'm looking at.

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1402	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:32:00 - [11] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: First of all, thanks for the kind words. The lower the turn rate the better the chances for the DS. Qualitatively nothing changes, you just get more leeway as a pilot and the Swarmer ragequits faster. Personally, as a NDS pilot I'd love to also have the option to dodge, but I'm trying to be cautious here. I don't want a unreasonably large change to cause HAVs to become unhittable on uneven terrain or AB'd Pythons being able to dodge three consecutive volleys of missiles. My philosophy is taking many quick babysteps in the right direction rather than sweeping changes. (Such as buffing armor hardeners by 60% while simultaneously nerfing shield hardeners. ) Well, that's fair enough, though we are talking hypothetically since you do have the mock ups to do some relatively accurate tests. Still, if an ADS is using an AB to dodge Swarm shots, they are conversely reducing their own accuracy in exchange for defensive gains which can still be countered by a Swarmer holding lock for more opportune moments/for the AB to run out. As for HAVs dodging, I've found most of their evasion comes from interposing terrain rather than the potential for actually manoeuvring, though a Fuel Injected HAV perpendicular to the Swarmer might be able to cause misses but that's a specific module and a specific positioning situation. Anyway, it's a fair bit of caution. What about the initial velocity? How would a change to initial velocity affect lock/refire rate and reaction windows? My thought is that it would space them a little more, giving pilots a bigger reaction window between volleys. Oh, and quick question: how easy is it for you to knock out different simulations? Do you just need to modify a few numbers and bam, or do you need to rebuild each one? If the former, great, easier; if not, then I won't pester you about doing more simulations Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1402	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:36:00 - [12] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: [Edit] Here's the plot for 40 -¦/s. Interesting, thanks. You're probably right that that's too much. I may have missed it earlier in the thread, is that with the DS going at maximum speed? Or is it accelerating also? Anyway, 50 d/s does seem solid. 40 looks too good for the DS. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1052	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:47:00 - [13] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: [quote=Stefan Stahl]What about the initial velocity? How would a change to initial velocity affect lock/refire rate and reaction windows? My thought is that it would space them a little more, giving pilots a bigger reaction window between volleys. Oh, and quick question: how easy is it for you to knock out different simulations? Do you just need to modify a few numbers and bam, or do you need to rebuild each one? If the former, great, easier; if not, then I won't pester you about doing more simulations It's actually super easy. The longest part is saving the file, uploading it and writing a forum post about it. Here's the distance graph for the initial condition 50 m/s SL speed. In the other type of graphs above the DS starts hovering stationary and then attempts to orbit the missile as soon as it is launched. That's also the reason why the missile always impacts the DS when launched at high initial speeds. The travel time gets very small and the DS has no time to build up any angular velocity. It'd be difficult to ask a DS pilot to maintain angular momentum towards SL launchers he doesn't even know exist yet, so this isn't something that's easy to implement. It'd be awesome in conjunction with directional launching though (shameless plug), as it'd make hitting near targets difficult and hitting far away targets comparatively easy - very good behavior for a Caldari AV weapon.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7640	Posted - 2015.03.17 00:05:00 - [14] - Quote Instead of shortening the range, alter the turn radius to 20 degrees per second, forcingwide-angle turns that arelikely to result with terrain collisions and running out of flight time before they can rebound, while still qualifying as a "guided" missile. AV
Vulpes Dolosus molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 3198	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:35:00 - [15] - Quote One thing that might be a problem is how swarms actually track their target. Your models, I assume, show the swarms consistently tracking where the target is at the moment. However, and I'm not sure on the specifics, swarms seem to have a "tick" between changing directions. I've also heard it described that they will go to where ever your ship was and follow that path so long as they're able. (If someone else knows a bit more, I'd appreciate the additional input) Again, I'm not sure exactly how missiles operate, but it might change how we approach this problem. Your ideas are really good, and I appreciate the effort. Hopefully we can find some balance. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 451	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:49:00 - [16] - Quote I haven't had chance to look at the links as I'm on my phone, but if we're looking to change the swarm launcher whilst keeping to the same mechanics increasing turn radius is probably the way to do it. I am concerned that there could be 3 sets of swarms in the air before I know they're incoming, but if swarmers have to face the target when firing it could increase the time between the 1st and 2nd volleys. Could you model 2 swarmers in the new versus current setup? I wouldn't want that ttk to increase ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2738	Posted - 2015.03.17 06:09:00 - [17] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Thanks for actually taking the time to read. I agree with your conclusion that evading missiles isn't something you can do all day. At best, after an impact, you can set yourself up to dodge the third volley, hopefully with a shield booster ready so you can then face the Swarmer at full health. This limited usefulness is actually why I think it's a good idea. If the new standard way of dealing with SLs would be to dodge them continuously we'd have very unhappy SL users and a new FOTM. This seems like something very skillfull pilots could get an extra kick out. It also looks like something that will make SLs less thoughtless as you'll actually have to think about whether your missiles are going to make it to their target in this situation. But here's the thing: If I try to dodge the volley, I have a decent chance at making it, but also a decent chance at getting hit. And even if I dodge the swarm, by the time I have stopped my momentum and repositioned, the swarmer has reloaded and the process begins again. Or I can simply fly out of range and be clear of the threat of the swarmer. Running is still by far the best option. Honestly, the only way I see a way to handle swarms that doesn't involve running from them is to add countermeasures like flares or lock-on jammers. Other than that, running will always be a better option to preserve your dropship. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1055	Posted - 2015.03.17 09:20:00 - [18] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: I am concerned that there could be 3 sets of swarms in the air before I know they're incoming, but if swarmers have to face the target when firing it could increase the time between the 1st and 2nd volleys. Could you model 2 swarmers in the new versus current setup? I wouldn't want that ttk to increase With a single Swarmer those suggested numbers shouldn't change anything about how much damage you have to tank if you decide to flee. Two swarmers (right next to each other) firing at a hovering DS would also behave the same under the new and current speed parameters. You will eat at least 4 volleys of Swarms if you AB away after the first impact. So no change there. During one of the posted catmaDB dumps it was revealed that Swarm Launchers appear to have a parameter that dictates how far away you can look from a target after lock on before said lock is lost. It's currently at 90-¦. On top of that there was a parameter that appears to dictate how quickly the lock is lost after the first criteria is struck, which is at "1.0" if I remember correctly - I interpreted it as seconds when I read it. Fumbling with those parameters would surely help make SLs more logical to operate. I'm sorry but I don't have a link to that source right now. Maybe somebody else knows what I'm referring to. Vulpes Dolosus wrote: One thing that might be a problem is how swarms actually track their target. Your models, I assume, show the swarms consistently tracking where the target is at the moment. However, and I'm not sure on the specifics, swarms seem to have a "tick" between changing directions. I've also heard it described that they will go to where ever your ship was and follow that path so long as they're able. (If someone else knows a bit more, I'd appreciate the additional input) Again, I'm not sure exactly how missiles operate, but it might change how we approach this problem. Your ideas are really good, and I appreciate the effort. Hopefully we can find some balance. You're right, I assume accurate tracking at a rate of 20 ticks / second. From my limited experience with coding netcode I assume that many of the oddities of how Swarms appear to behave are down to discrepancies between the serverside simulation and the clientside simulation. This is however purely speculative. I don't think we have any means to actually figure out how Swarms behave in detail. Any additional knowledge would be very helpful though. Breakin Stuff wrote: Instead of shortening the range, alter the turn radius to 20 degrees per second, forcingwide-angle turns that arelikely to result with terrain collisions and running out of flight time before they can rebound, while still qualifying as a "guided" missile. The reduced range is mostly there to decrease the time between launching a missile and seeing whether the pilot or the swarmer won. The speed and range stats aren't immediately connected to the turn rate change. They interact a bit when looking at the DS-dodging-a-missile-graphs, but in a small way. I'm hesitant to reduce turn rate too far because I don't want to make SLs useless against LAVs. Maybe a SL should have trouble tracking a LAV going at full speed over rough terrain, but I didn't want to dive into that topic. If a dev finds some time to look at this on a test rig I'd definitely recommend looking at very low turn rates too. Alena Ventrallis wrote: But here's the thing: If I try to dodge the volley, I have a decent chance at making it, but also a decent chance at getting hit. And even if I dodge the swarm, by the time I have stopped my momentum and repositioned, the swarmer has reloaded and the process begins again. Or I can simply fly out of range and be clear of the threat of the swarmer. Running is still by far the best option. Honestly, the only way I see a way to handle swarms that doesn't involve running from them is to add countermeasures like flares or lock-on jammers. Other than that, running will always be a better option to preserve your dropship. I'd like to see what happens with this change. Maybe nothing changes - in that case we only lost the effort of changing a few parameters. Maybe pilots figure out a way to make dodging worthwhile - in that case we gained more interesting gameplay. However I'm not opposed to the having countermeasures and stuff like that at all. The above suggestion is just a minimum-effort way of improving gameplay. That doesn't mean you can't do other things additionally.
Francois Sanchez Prima Gallicus 337	Posted - 2015.03.17 09:42:00 - [19] - Quote Nice. It's great that good pilots can dodge swarms. I also think that good swarmers may be able to trap the DS by anticipating the move, so both sides are rewarded by skill which is way better than now (landing swarms shots requires nearly no skill and AB away neither)
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1588	Posted - 2015.03.17 15:00:00 - [20] - Quote In my opinion, swarms versus ADS is not that imbalanced. The imbalance comes because the ADS has to deal with multiple swarmers, plus other things trying to bring him down. The real issue is the ease of switching in and out of swarm fits. Swarm fits have some disadvantages which makes them balanced in the overall gameplay, but when you can easily switch at a supply depot then you get all the advantage without the disadvantages to balance it. That is what should change. If you want AV, you should have to choose AV and take the consequences. Because, that's why.

Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1063	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:05:00 - [21] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: In my opinion, swarms versus ADS is not that imbalanced. I agree there. That's why evasion of missiles shouldn't be something that happens often enough to change the balance between AV and ADS. Just something that rewards excellent skill or punishes launching swarms at really inopportune moments. If this turns out to not have any negative side effects - e.g. on hitting LAVs with swarms - one could then further reduce turn rate, but that'd be something for a second step.
Denchlad 7 Negative-Feedback. 1832	Posted - 2015.03.18 02:13:00 - [22] - Quote My only thoughts would be the true method of how swarms track vehicles, which I too believe is based on where your vehicle travels. For example, if I am attacked by swarms in a Python, due to its high mobility I execute a 360-¦ flip across both x and y axis, whilst flying one way along the z axis; assisted by an Afterburner; and I tend to change trajectory very rapidly, decreasing the time I have to accelerate to full speed to escape the swarms. What I tend to notice is that I escape the swarms more often. I can only presume this is due to the swarms accurately following my trajectory, thereby increading the distance the swarms also have to travel to above 400m allowing me to escape. However, based upon your assumptions this could work, it would just require a dev to test this on a Dev Build. Excellent Post +1s. "Dench stop hitting your head you Caldari pinball" - m621 zma Currently on Dust hiatus.
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 453	Posted - 2015.03.18 02:28:00 - [23] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: I am concerned that there could be 3 sets of swarms in the air before I know they're incoming, but if swarmers have to face the target when firing it could increase the time between the 1st and 2nd volleys. Could you model 2 swarmers in the new versus current setup? I wouldn't want that ttk to increase With a single Swarmer those suggested numbers shouldn't change anything about how much damage you have to tank if you decide to flee. Two swarmers (right next to each other) firing at a hovering DS would also behave the same under the new and current speed parameters. You will eat at least 4 volleys of Swarms if you AB away after the first impact. So no change there. During one of the posted catmaDB dumps it was revealed that Swarm Launchers appear to have a parameter that dictates how far away you can look from a target after lock on before said lock is lost. It's currently at 90-¦. On top of that there was a parameter that appears to dictate how quickly the lock is lost after the first criteria is struck, which is at "1.0" if I remember correctly - I interpreted it as seconds when I read it. Fumbling with those parameters would surely help make SLs more logical to operate. I'm sorry but I don't have a link to that source right now. Maybe somebody else knows what I'm referring to. That assumes people use an AB, (and I understand that is the meta) but I don't think it should be something we base future proposals on If you ignore the whole 'killed by the redline' thing this video explains what I mean, quicker swarms would mean they would have killed me as I'm using the reps over the distance travelled Against 2 swarmers ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 697	Posted - 2015.03.18 05:42:00 - [24] - Quote Absolutely great work Stefan. I commend you in your efforts on this topic. Just like many others, I have wanted the ability to scrub (that is the term) missiles since I took to the sky. In the last months though, after many threads on the topic, I've sort of accepted that it wouldn't happen. Seeing you go through all this gives me new hope, though, and for that I am grateful to you. Now for a little test of spirit: Imagine the world of Dust514 as it was intended. This includes VTOL jets as well as bikes and bipedal exoskeletons, all of which were planned at the beginning. If we had all of that, do you think it would make sense for the dropship to be able to dodge the swarms meant to catch up to, and destroy, the jets? I am just curious and want an honestly thought out answer to help me suspend disbelief if this becomes a reality. Is the answer truly that -just- because we don't have jets, we're going to pretend the assault dropship is the fastest, most agile, airborn vehicle in the atmosphere? Regardless of how you answer the above, you get all my +1s for the wonderful thread. You really brought my hope back after I'd pretty much given up. Look forward to reading ! Know what cannot be known.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 697	Posted - 2015.03.18 05:50:00 - [25] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: [...] It'd be difficult to ask a DS pilot to maintain angular momentum towards SL launchers he doesn't even know exist yet, so this isn't something that's easy to implement. It'd be awesome in conjunction with directional launching though (shameless plug), as it'd make hitting near targets difficult and hitting far away targets comparatively easy - very good behavior for a Caldari AV weapon. I'm also giving you 48 hours to necro your own thread / remake it or else I will do it for you, because that is the best swarm launcher operation model I've seen so far suggested. I missed it the first time around. I honestly don't know why the swarm launcher wasn't designed to work that way off the bat, as the swarm launcher in similar games (starhawk, missile launcher and Homing Missile) work JUST as you describe there, and can indeed overshoot. The downside to the idea, though, is a complete reprogramming of the weapon's behavior. Something we know is not to be taken lightly at this stage. Know what cannot be known.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1069	Posted - 2015.03.18 13:12:00 - [26] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: I'm also giving you 48 hours to necro your own thread / remake it or else I will do it for you, because that is the best swarm launcher operation model I've seen so far suggested. I missed it the first time around. Thanks for the kind words. I don't think I'm going to revive it though. I came up with an idea. I detailed how it should work. I validated the effect. I published in in the right place. I'm sure the devs read it. Either they implement it or they don't. shrugs The Swarmlauncher has been working like this ever since this game became public. Personally I assume it works this way because in the first implementation of Swarmlaunchers the constructor for swarm missiles was of the type "SLMissile SLMissile(Vector3d StartPosition, Entity* PointerToTarget)" instead of "SLMissile SLMissile(Vector3d StartPosition, Vector3d Direction, Entity* PointerToTarget)" (there's probably an overwrite where the PointerToTarget is a 3d vector that was originally used for dumb-fire mode). There is a limited chance that it'd actually be a very complicated change, but I find it much more believable that it's about a day's work from checking out the sourcecode to checking it back in after debugging, but nobody's bothered to do it in the past 3 years. (Yes, I have a slightly negative outlook - but in my defense I'm not being nonconstructive with my feedback, hence the above suggestion that only requires simple parameter changes.) [Edit] I will necro this thread though after Fanfest so maybe Rattati may be able to take a look at it.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1094	Posted - 2015.03.30 08:12:00 - [27] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: I'm also giving you 48 hours to necro your own thread / remake it or else I will do it for you, because that is the best swarm launcher operation model I've seen so far suggested. I missed it the first time around. Thanks for the kind words. I don't think I'm going to revive it though. I came up with an idea. I detailed how it should work. I validated the effect. I published in in the right place. I'm sure the devs read it. Either they implement it or they don't. shrugs The Swarmlauncher has been working like this ever since this game became public. Personally I assume it works this way because in the first implementation of Swarmlaunchers the constructor for swarm missiles was of the type "SLMissile SLMissile(Vector3d StartPosition, Entity* PointerToTarget)" instead of "SLMissile SLMissile(Vector3d StartPosition, Vector3d Direction, Entity* PointerToTarget)" (there's probably an overwrite where the PointerToTarget is a 3d vector that was originally used for dumb-fire mode). There is a limited chance that it'd actually be a very complicated change, but I find it much more believable that it's about a day's work from checking out the sourcecode to checking it back in after debugging, but nobody's bothered to do it in the past 3 years. (Yes, I have a slightly negative outlook - but in my defense I'm not being nonconstructive with my feedback, hence the above suggestion that only requires simple parameter changes.) [Edit] I will necro this thread after Fanfest though so Rattati may be able to take a look at it. This is the promised post-fanfest bump from vacation. Please don't expect a fast response during the next two weeks.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 876	Posted - 2015.03.31 19:57:00 - [28] - Quote This idea is very well thought out and deserves some attention. Also Stefan, check my first post where I asked a specific question, I'd be very interested in hearing your answer. Know what cannot be known.
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix 776	Posted - 2015.03.31 21:56:00 - [29] - Quote Can you explain why you think swarms need to be changed? The only time ADSs die is if they sit there too long. Incubus needs looking at but I'm not sure what it is like with the 40% hardener. I don't think swarms should be touched until vehicles are properly looked at, cos LAVs are crap and standard dropships are just meh.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 882	Posted - 2015.04.01 20:34:00 - [30] - Quote I don't think the proposal that is being made is really about increasing the survivability of drop ships so much as it is about making the struggle between a dropship and a swarmer more interactive. Know what cannot be known.

Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1104	Posted - 2015.04.12 12:04:00 - [31] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Can you explain why you think swarms need to be changed? The only time ADSs die is if they sit there too long. As Kaeru said it's really about being Swarms vs. vehicles being more fun than "be unkillable if you hit the AB quick enough or be doomed if you hit it too late". I'd like there to be more options and this suggestion aims to introduce some fringe cases where you might be able to dodge missiles. The above suggestion only allows dodging in a limited amount of scenarios. You never have to dodge, you can also just run away after the impact as we currently do. As such I don't think this will change the Swarms vs ADS balance at all. The aim is rather to see whether we can make dodging missiles a thing. If that works out we can then - in a second stage - think about things like increasing SL range while further reducing SL maneuverability so ADS can be threatened by SLs at a great range but are unlikely to be killed by them. That's actually how Forgeguns work and it's much better gameplay than SLs are right now. A Forgegun could potentially kill you at up to 300 meters if you're a stupid pilot, but if you keep moving it will barely scratch you. With a SL right now no amount of pilot skill will keep you alive as long as you are within lock-on range. That's what I'd like to change. Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Also Stefan, check my first post where I asked a specific question, I'd be very interested in hearing your answer. Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Imagine the world of Dust514 as it was intended. This includes VTOL jets as well as bikes and bipedal exoskeletons, all of which were planned at the beginning. If we had all of that, do you think it would make sense for the dropship to be able to dodge the swarms meant to catch up to, and destroy, the jets? I originally skipped this question because it's extremely speculative. But since you seem to have an interest, here are my two cents: 1. A current day ADS with the AB on is already pretty nippy. At an acceleration of 12 m/s-¦ it takes an ADS 2.3 sec to accelerate from 0-100 km/h in any horizontal direction. Any vehicle that accelerates much faster than that will really stretch the player's suspension of disbelief as it'd look - quite frankly - ridiculous. Thus I don't think there'd be weapons that are effective against ADS with AB but ineffective against jets. 2. The less the number of categories of weapons the better. What I mean by that is that it wouldn't be enjoyable to have anti-scout guns, anti-medium guns and anti-heavy guns on our dropsuits with each being ineffective towards the other types. In a similar vein it wouldn't be fun to have anti HAV weapons, anti DS weapons and anti jet weapons. While it could be made to make sense from a lore perspective I really think gameplay trumps lore in such questions. On the general topic though, I'd like to make some further suggestions on Swarm parameters, but I can't validate whether my model is correct, so I don't know whether the effort would be worth it. Most importantly I still don't know whether swarm missile maneuverability is actually measured in -¦/sec. I assume so, but at this point I can't continue until I know. If anyone had any pointers towards that, that'd be great.
Apocalyptic Destroyer L.O.T.I.S. 452	Posted - 2015.04.30 03:22:00 - [32] - Quote Bump because swarms are he'll of annoying right now. Something seriously needs to be done. True Amarr In Disguise Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body. In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
bogeyman m Minmatar Republic 430	Posted - 2015.04.30 13:47:00 - [33] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: I don't think the proposal that is being made is really about increasing the survivability of drop ships so much as it is about making the struggle between a dropship and a swarmer more interactive. I think this point is often confused: it is not a struggle between a dropship and a swarmer, it is between a dropship and it's teammates and a swarmer and it's teammates - there is a distinct difference. As an avid swarmer, I am far too frequently killed by an infantry mate of my DS target while I am distracted. I have no AB or SH option to escape a shotgun to the head from a Scout. Duct tape 2.0 ... Have WD-40; will travel.
bogeyman m Minmatar Republic 430	Posted - 2015.04.30 14:11:00 - [34] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: With a SL right now no amount of pilot skill will keep you alive as long as you are within lock-on range. You had me until this statement. This is just not true when referring to a SINGLE swarmer. If referring to multiple swarmers, then yes... But do not skew the issue. As a solo swarmer, I can reliably get two volleys in the air before a DS inevitably hits it's hardeners (after the first volley hits) and flys away, regens and returns. The battle generally continues as a stalemate until the DS screws up, another swarmer joins, or I receive a shotgun to the head. Additionally, if there are taller structures around, a DS can also try to scrub missiles by ducking around a building - which seem fairly magnetic, in my opinion. Duct tape 2.0 ... Have WD-40; will travel.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1140	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:31:00 - [35] - Quote bogeyman m wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: With a SL right now no amount of pilot skill will keep you alive as long as you are within lock-on range. [...]As a solo swarmer, I can reliably get two volleys in the air before a DS inevitably hits it's hardeners (after the first volley hits) and flys away, regens and returns.[...] With "as long as you are within lock-on range" I meant to imply "... and stay there". As in: Either you hit the magic AB-button early enough and always survive or don't and always lose. I don't think swarms are in any way too powerful against DS or ADS right now. They are just boring gameplay. Hence the above suggestion. Also, thanks to Mr. Apocalyptic Destroyer for the bump.
Apocalyptic Destroyer L.O.T.I.S. 455	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:45:00 - [36] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: I am concerned that there could be 3 sets of swarms in the air before I know they're incoming, but if swarmers have to face the target when firing it could increase the time between the 1st and 2nd volleys. Could you model 2 swarmers in the new versus current setup? I wouldn't want that ttk to increase With a single Swarmer those suggested numbers shouldn't change anything about how much damage you have to tank if you decide to flee. Two swarmers (right next to each other) firing at a hovering DS would also behave the same under the new and current speed parameters. You will eat at least 4 volleys of Swarms if you AB away after the first impact. So no change there. During one of the posted catmaDB dumps it was revealed that Swarm Launchers appear to have a parameter that dictates how far away you can look from a target after lock on before said lock is lost. It's currently at 90-¦. On top of that there was a parameter that appears to dictate how quickly the lock is lost after the first criteria is struck, which is at "1.0" if I remember correctly - I interpreted it as seconds when I read it. Fumbling with those parameters would surely help make SLs more logical to operate. I'm sorry but I don't have a link to that source right now. Maybe somebody else knows what I'm referring to. That assumes people use an AB, (and I understand that is the meta) but I don't think it should be something we base future proposals on If you ignore the whole 'killed by the redline' thing this video explains what I mean, quicker swarms would mean they would have killed me as I'm using the reps over the distance travelled Against 2 swarmers The only way to evade swarms is with an AB. That's another problem I find is that both Dropships, the Incubus and Python must use an afterburner. So in reality the incubus only has 3 Lows and the Python 3 Highs. With the python you're even more restricted because you have to use a PG upgrade True Amarr In Disguise Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body. In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
Apocalyptic Destroyer L.O.T.I.S. 455	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:48:00 - [37] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: bogeyman m wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: With a SL right now no amount of pilot skill will keep you alive as long as you are within lock-on range. [...]As a solo swarmer, I can reliably get two volleys in the air before a DS inevitably hits it's hardeners (after the first volley hits) and flys away, regens and returns.[...] With "as long as you are within lock-on range" I meant to imply "... and stay there". As in: Either you hit the magic AB-button early enough and always survive or don't and always lose. I don't think swarms are in any way too powerful against DS or ADS right now. They are just boring gameplay. Hence the above suggestion. Also, thanks to Mr. Apocalyptic Destroyer for the bump. Not a problem. Me and Dead Cavino have been discussing Dropships and AV frequently now and have concluded that swarms are just ridiculously too fast. They get the third lock on too fast and not only that but there are restrictions as I mentioned above concerning the ADS. True Amarr In Disguise Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body. In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix RUST415 799	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:50:00 - [38] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: I am concerned that there could be 3 sets of swarms in the air before I know they're incoming, but if swarmers have to face the target when firing it could increase the time between the 1st and 2nd volleys. Could you model 2 swarmers in the new versus current setup? I wouldn't want that ttk to increase With a single Swarmer those suggested numbers shouldn't change anything about how much damage you have to tank if you decide to flee. Two swarmers (right next to each other) firing at a hovering DS would also behave the same under the new and current speed parameters. You will eat at least 4 volleys of Swarms if you AB away after the first impact. So no change there. During one of the posted catmaDB dumps it was revealed that Swarm Launchers appear to have a parameter that dictates how far away you can look from a target after lock on before said lock is lost. It's currently at 90-¦. On top of that there was a parameter that appears to dictate how quickly the lock is lost after the first criteria is struck, which is at "1.0" if I remember correctly - I interpreted it as seconds when I read it. Fumbling with those parameters would surely help make SLs more logical to operate. I'm sorry but I don't have a link to that source right now. Maybe somebody else knows what I'm referring to. That assumes people use an AB, (and I understand that is the meta) but I don't think it should be something we base future proposals on If you ignore the whole 'killed by the redline' thing this video explains what I mean, quicker swarms would mean they would have killed me as I'm using the reps over the distance travelled Against 2 swarmers The only way to evade swarms is with an AB. That's another problem I find is that both Dropships, the Incubus and Python must use an afterburner. So in reality the incubus only has 3 Lows and the Python 3 Highs. With the python you're even more restricted because you have to use a PG upgrade How is having an instant out a problem? pythons and incubi need an extra slot each ( hhigh for the incubus and a low for the python) and more fitting room. That's the problem with ADSs not swarms or an afterburner.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8302	Posted - 2015.04.30 17:53:00 - [39] - Quote Faster swarm travel means more time between impacts to react oddly, But the faster the swarms, the less degrees-per-second turn radius they should have. at 85 m/s I'd actually recommend dropping the turn radius to 30 degrees/sec so that dodging the swarms is not only possible, but if a rebound shot is made by the warheads they don't get to pull it more than once. The warheads need to be seekers that home in on the target. they do NOT need to be boomerangs that come back multiple times for seconds and thirds. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2916	Posted - 2015.04.30 19:48:00 - [40] - Quote Honestly I'm just adding my two cents after reading the surface of the thread (and not delving deeply into the numbers or connotations that they might have) but in its current form, I loathe the swarm launcher, the amount of player skill required to use it is practically non-existent. Now I certainly believe that there should be 'easier' options for av for some people, but with the swarm the vast majority of the work is done for you by the gun you just need to hold it on target for a little bit. What I would like to see is the swarm functioning like the plasma cannon with a dumbfire round bit a single change of 'if the swarm round gets to within $value meters of target, the projectile homes in like an AV grenade". Perhaps the values could be something like 25m for a standard swarm, and 40m for an assault swarm. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1505	Posted - 2015.04.30 19:51:00 - [41] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: What I would like to see is the swarm functioning like the plasma cannon with a dumbfire round bit a single change of 'if the swarm round gets to within $value meters of target, the projectile homes in like an AV grenade". Perhaps the values could be something like 25m for a standard swarm, and 40m for an assault swarm. MINA, these are the posts you're looking for! Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2917	Posted - 2015.04.30 19:54:00 - [42] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: What I would like to see is the swarm functioning like the plasma cannon with a dumbfire round bit a single change of 'if the swarm round gets to within $value meters of target, the projectile homes in like an AV grenade". Perhaps the values could be something like 25m for a standard swarm, and 40m for an assault swarm. MINA, these are the posts you're looking for! I've seen that thread and posted my idea independently as well. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 1062	Posted - 2015.04.30 19:59:00 - [43] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Also Stefan, check my first post where I asked a specific question, I'd be very interested in hearing your answer. Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Imagine the world of Dust514 as it was intended. This includes VTOL jets as well as bikes and bipedal exoskeletons, all of which were planned at the beginning. If we had all of that, do you think it would make sense for the dropship to be able to dodge the swarms meant to catch up to, and destroy, the jets? I originally skipped this question because it's extremely speculative. But since you seem to have an interest, here are my two cents: 1. A current day ADS with the AB on is already pretty nippy. At an acceleration of 12 m/s-¦ it takes an ADS 2.3 sec to accelerate from 0-100 km/h in any horizontal direction. Any vehicle that accelerates much faster than that will really stretch the player's suspension of disbelief as it'd look - quite frankly - ridiculous. Thus I don't think there'd be weapons that are effective against ADS with AB but ineffective against jets. 2. The less the number of categories of weapons the better. What I mean by that is that it wouldn't be enjoyable to have anti-scout guns, anti-medium guns and anti-heavy guns on our dropsuits with each being ineffective towards the other types. In a similar vein it wouldn't be fun to have anti HAV weapons, anti DS weapons and anti jet weapons. While it could be made to make sense from a lore perspective I really think gameplay trumps lore in such questions. On the general topic though, I'd like to make some further suggestions on Swarm parameters, but I can't validate whether my model is correct, so I don't know whether the effort would be worth it. Most importantly I still don't know whether swarm missile maneuverability is actually measured in -¦/sec. I assume so, but at this point I can't continue until I know. If anyone had any pointers towards that, that'd be great. Forgive me, Stefan, allow me ask this again differently: Swarm launchers should be able to destroy jets. The dropship cannot maneuver like one. Is it "right" for dropships to have the means to dodge swarms, just because we will never get jets, in the game?? I'm all for function > lore, but I feel this falls out of tolerance. Just to make sure context isn't lost, I DO want to be able to dodge swarms, and in thinking about it for such a long time, this is the hardest question I've found to help justify the idea. EDIT: Apologies for the late response, my subscription notifier must've gotten flooded and I failed to double check since my last post. Know what cannot be known.
bogeyman m Minmatar Republic 438	Posted - 2015.04.30 22:13:00 - [44] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: bogeyman m wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: With a SL right now no amount of pilot skill will keep you alive as long as you are within lock-on range. [...]As a solo swarmer, I can reliably get two volleys in the air before a DS inevitably hits it's hardeners (after the first volley hits) and flys away, regens and returns.[...] With "as long as you are within lock-on range" I meant to imply "... and stay there". As in: Either you hit the magic AB-button early enough and always survive or don't and always lose. I don't think swarms are in any way too powerful against DS or ADS right now. They are just boring gameplay. Hence the above suggestion. Also, thanks to Mr. Apocalyptic Destroyer for the bump. Understood and agreed. A DS hanging around within lock range has no one to complain to but that Dude in the mirror. Regarding boring game play, us ground-based folk still need to keep and eye out for shotguns, "la-zors" and such... Duct tape 2.0 ... Have WD-40; will travel.
bogeyman m Minmatar Republic 438	Posted - 2015.04.30 22:20:00 - [45] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Faster swarm travel means more time between impacts to react oddly, But the faster the swarms, the less degrees-per-second turn radius they should have. at 85 m/s I'd actually recommend dropping the turn radius to 30 degrees/sec so that dodging the swarms is not only possible, but if a rebound shot is made by the warheads they don't get to pull it more than once. The warheads need to be seekers that home in on the target. they do NOT need to be boomerangs that come back multiple times for seconds and thirds. I would really like one of those boomerang swarms... That's Swarm Launcher Operations level 6, right? Duct tape 2.0 ... Have WD-40; will travel.
Apocalyptic Destroyer L.O.T.I.S. 456	Posted - 2015.05.01 21:05:00 - [46] - Quote bogeyman m wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Faster swarm travel means more time between impacts to react oddly, But the faster the swarms, the less degrees-per-second turn radius they should have. at 85 m/s I'd actually recommend dropping the turn radius to 30 degrees/sec so that dodging the swarms is not only possible, but if a rebound shot is made by the warheads they don't get to pull it more than once. The warheads need to be seekers that home in on the target. they do NOT need to be boomerangs that come back multiple times for seconds and thirds. I would really like one of those boomerang swarms... That's Swarm Launcher Operations level 6, right? Actually Swarms go boomerang around your vehicle. It's a glitch. True Amarr In Disguise Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body. In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
Apocalyptic Destroyer L.O.T.I.S. 482	Posted - 2015.05.07 18:07:00 - [47] - Quote Bump cause this thread has numbers and graphs and is constructive True Amarr In Disguise Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body. In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 1086	Posted - 2015.05.08 01:52:00 - [48] - Quote Something sorely missed in feedback section ! Double bump. Know what cannot be known.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 1099	Posted - 2015.05.09 11:40:00 - [49] - Quote @Rattati, hoping you are indeed still following this thread. Here are 3 videos showing swarm behavior, notice how the flight path gets updated at very "opportune" moments. Please help us out by telling us what the rotation speed value on the swarms means. please view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ketBHUqy-HE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVDmZCz_KzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2JxcjwT5R8 Thank you for reading / watching !! Know what cannot be known.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8473	Posted - 2015.05.09 12:00:00 - [50] - Quote bogeyman m wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Faster swarm travel means more time between impacts to react oddly, But the faster the swarms, the less degrees-per-second turn radius they should have. at 85 m/s I'd actually recommend dropping the turn radius to 30 degrees/sec so that dodging the swarms is not only possible, but if a rebound shot is made by the warheads they don't get to pull it more than once. The warheads need to be seekers that home in on the target. they do NOT need to be boomerangs that come back multiple times for seconds and thirds. I would really like one of those boomerang swarms... That's Swarm Launcher Operations level 6, right? Watch how swarms engage against vehicles when they miss. They literally flip-turn and accelerate back to the target they missed like a boomerang returning to sender. That is one of the actual issues with the weapon, and I have seen a dropship dodge the same four missiles three times in a row. Each time they came right back like a dog playing fetch. The missiles impacted despite the insane maneuvering. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1523	Posted - 2015.05.09 12:35:00 - [51] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: @Rattati, hoping you are indeed still following this thread. Here are 3 videos showing swarm behavior, notice how the flight path gets updated at very "opportune" moments. Please help us out by telling us what the rotation speed value on the swarms means. please view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ketBHUqy-HE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVDmZCz_KzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2JxcjwT5R8 Thank you for reading / watching !! Good examples Kaeru. Mr Rattati, please watch. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 1133	Posted - 2015.05.11 20:57:00 - [52] - Quote Thanks for the vouch, Kallas! Break'n I think those 3 vids will interest you as well, take a look ! Know what cannot be known.
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game RUST415 436	Posted - 2015.05.11 23:11:00 - [53] - Quote soo after a lot of forum posts, can we safely conclude that we need to have a threat matrix system for the dropship? I.E some sort of indication where a shot is coming from before it hits you... after all, infantry are tiny from the sky and dropships are huge from the ground "If there is a strafe nerf in this game, remove hit detection"- manboar 2014

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 22312	Posted - 2015.05.12 10:00:00 - [54] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: P.S.: You actually read that? I did, and this is my favorite post of the month. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8654	Posted - 2015.05.12 10:05:00 - [55] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: P.S.: You actually read that? I did, and this is my favorite post of the month. I don't actually understand a lot of the mechanics utilized in swarm tracking. Could you elaborate on why you like this thread and break what you found useful down shotgun style? Even with everything in the past there's a lot of misconceptions about swarms. I find myself having to correct a previously held viewpoint on them at least once a month. Does this post help you proceed forward with swarms somehow? C'mon rattati, share! We like you more when you share than when you're all coy. So come on. Expose yourself. Full Frontal Nerdity. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1175	Posted - 2015.05.12 11:07:00 - [56] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: P.S.: You actually read that? I did, and this is my favorite post of the month. Of which month? March, April, or May? Humor aside - if you'd like more detailed feedback please give us more technical info on how swarm missiles (and the launchers) work. Most importantly (to me): What is swarm missile turn rate? Degrees/second? Radians/frame? Flips/pancake?
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 59	Posted - 2015.05.12 13:20:00 - [57] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: P.S.: You actually read that? I did, and this is my favorite post of the month. Success !!!!!!!!!!!! \o/
Imp Smash Molon Labe. RUST415 834	Posted - 2015.05.12 23:31:00 - [58] - Quote Like plus friendly bump. Great post OP.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 353	Posted - 2015.06.16 16:57:00 - [59] - Quote I think I'll bump this OP thread ! =ƒÿÄ
Jenni Welsh Reincarnation Incorporated 2	Posted - 2015.06.16 21:59:00 - [60] - Quote The swarm debate has raged on endlessly... Question, has anyone proposed maybe making the Swarm Launcher a Anti-Air only weapon??? (Yes this would hurt 2 of my characters and a ton of my suits by quite a bit, but honestly the Plasma Cannon is only very good at taking out ground targets anyway and that leaves the Forge Gun and vehicles as the only ones able to do both but at the cost of either speed and a light weapon or ISK respectively.) Well, anybody???

DUST Fiend 17	Posted - 2015.06.17 02:24:00 - [61] - Quote Your mission statement fits perfectly with what I've been calling for for a very long time now, so it should be interesting to see some numbers alongside that idea.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 353	Posted - 2015.06.17 03:07:00 - [62] - Quote This post is amazing !
Nirwanda Vaughns 1	Posted - 2015.06.17 09:56:00 - [63] - Quote i've mentioned additional specialization skills for SL's for years now. instead of buffing this and nerfing that i'd rather put an extra 2m sp into some skills to get extra lock range/missile flight speed/missile flight time. just as my eve pilot has. it allows people to be truly specialized. gives us 90-100m sp vets extra crap to train and if DS pilots moan then AV'ers have the arguement that they've invested so much time to get their weapon to be that powerful they should be able to take vehicles down with some ease You'll never have enough ISK to buy my C-II BPO
DUST Fiend 17	Posted - 2015.06.19 00:21:00 - [64] - Quote Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: it allows people to be truly specialized. gives us 90-100m sp vets extra crap to train and if DS pilots moan then AV'ers have the arguement that they've invested so much time to get their weapon to be that powerful they should be able to take vehicles down guaranteed with literally no personal effort what so ever. Went ahead and fixed your typo for you.
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1	Posted - 2015.06.19 05:50:00 - [65] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: it allows people to be truly specialized. gives us 90-100m sp vets extra crap to train and if DS pilots moan then AV'ers have the arguement that they've invested so much time to get their weapon to be that powerful they should be able to take vehicles down guaranteed with literally no personal effort what so ever. Went ahead and fixed your typo for you. You hit the nail on the head. BTW, 2M? What a joke, I have mid 90's friends that have 6M+ unspent. So that will take three minutes to solve, including booting up Dust. My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
Loyal Glasses G.L.O.R.Y 73	Posted - 2015.06.20 18:37:00 - [66] - Quote I am sorry but the topic does not interest me. The only reason I am here is due to the fact that I read the title as twerking swarm launcher parameters. Good day. Glasses of the Loyal Variety > "The dead are notoriously unproductive "
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.06.20 19:40:00 - [67] - Quote Loyal Glasses wrote: I am sorry but the topic does not interest me. The only reason I am here is due to the fact that I read the title as twerking swarm launcher parameters. Good day. This is my favorite reply so far.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 673	Posted - 2015.07.18 22:28:00 - [68] - Quote Bump !
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.18 22:56:00 - [69] - Quote Ignoring dropships, what effect would these changes have on Swarms vs HAV engagements? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.07.19 07:56:00 - [70] - Quote Thanks for the bump, Apocalyptic Destroyerr. @Adipem: Most likely none. I don't think HAVs need the ability to dodge missiles effectively and their limited speed and acceleration won't allow for that with any useful set of numbers for the parameters in the original post.

Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 697	Posted - 2015.07.21 19:53:00 - [71] - Quote Hi Use it ----> Abuse It ----> Nerf !!! a¦á_a¦á Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 1	Posted - 2015.07.27 12:01:00 - [72] - Quote bumped. This is too good of an idea to die. Month 4. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me. "I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati vote Tesfa for CPM2
Apocalyptic Destroyer Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 502	Posted - 2015.08.06 07:37:00 - [73] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: bumped. This is too good of an idea to die. Month 4. Month 5 True Amarr In Disguise Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body. In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 841	Posted - 2015.08.06 07:39:00 - [74] - Quote :D Use it ----> Abuse It ----> Nerf !!! a¦á_a¦á Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 973	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:57:00 - [75] - Quote . Use it ----> Abuse It ----> Nerf !!! a¦á_a¦á Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Wheezy Wes Anal Intruders 11	Posted - 2015.08.19 06:29:00 - [76] - Quote I use Swarm Launcher as my primary source for AT/AA. In PC battles is very difficult to destroy both tanks and ads mostly because of the skill of the pilots/drivers of said vehicles. The stats you mentioned are very technical if I understand correctly you're saying a ds shouldn't have to fly for as long to escape the missiles. Sounds cool but in my experience its already difficult to land enough hits to do more than chase a ds away. I do pretty well as an av guy in PC but frequently it takes 2-3 AV personnel to score a kill, unless the pilot is super rookie. Regardless, I enjoyed your post and how much you put into it. Thanks o7 "In that a$$ with k-pot, tac light, and a barb wire flak vest"-Hutch, Delta-26, 1/506th 101st Airborne, Ramadi 05-06'
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:00:00 - [77] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: As a net effect of these changes I expect: - Some qualified ADS pilots will be able to evade SL missiles on purpose. - Some SL operators may once in a while miss a shot in certain situations (e.g. DS passing overhead at full speed). - I expect that the time between launching a missile and the +75 WP for doing damage will decrease significantly. - I don't expect any change in the SL's ability to kill shield DS. - Armor DS may have to eat 3 volleys in a slightly smaller timeframe than before (7 s vs. 10 s), if they decide to flee too late, and thus have less time to repair between the volleys. - I don't expect any change at all towards the SL's capability to kill HAVs as those will be too slow to notice the change. - I have no idea whether LAVs will be able to dodge missiles now. I wouldn't even know how to look at making an informed estimate here. I guess the only ones that can take a look at that are the devs on their test rigs. After that wall of text I assume there will be questions. If you'd like to comment on the goals, ask questions about my method or which way to go with parameters, feel free to ask. Please stay on topic, though. P.S.: You actually read that? Tell me where you live so that I can come to your house and give you money. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 456	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:07:00 - [78] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: As a net effect of these changes I expect: - Some qualified ADS pilots will be able to evade SL missiles on purpose. - Some SL operators may once in a while miss a shot in certain situations (e.g. DS passing overhead at full speed). - I expect that the time between launching a missile and the +75 WP for doing damage will decrease significantly. - I don't expect any change in the SL's ability to kill shield DS. - Armor DS may have to eat 3 volleys in a slightly smaller timeframe than before (7 s vs. 10 s), if they decide to flee too late, and thus have less time to repair between the volleys. - I don't expect any change at all towards the SL's capability to kill HAVs as those will be too slow to notice the change. - I have no idea whether LAVs will be able to dodge missiles now. I wouldn't even know how to look at making an informed estimate here. I guess the only ones that can take a look at that are the devs on their test rigs. After that wall of text I assume there will be questions. If you'd like to comment on the goals, ask questions about my method or which way to go with parameters, feel free to ask. Please stay on topic, though. P.S.: You actually read that? Tell me where you live so that I can come to your house and give you money. Someone give a job with the dev team. We need devs like this. Purifier. First Class.
shanatak Prima Gallicus 19	Posted - 2015.09.09 19:53:00 - [79] - Quote Really many thanks for your works Stefan. Great job.
Apocalyptic Destroyer KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 537	Posted - 2015.12.01 07:36:00 - [80] - Quote I'm going to just bump this thread here True Amarr In Disguise Vehicle Expert In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.

Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2016.01.07 02:13:00 - [81] - Quote Bump Use it ----> Abuse It ----> Nerf !!! a¦á_a¦á Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood 569	Posted - 2016.01.07 02:54:00 - [82] - Quote Mmhm. Bump. To pilot skill!! And well.. Speaking of pilots... :D Potential Pilot Proposal? Yes!
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 9	Posted - 2016.01.17 04:31:00 - [83] - Quote bogeyman m wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Faster swarm travel means more time between impacts to react oddly, But the faster the swarms, the less degrees-per-second turn radius they should have. at 85 m/s I'd actually recommend dropping the turn radius to 30 degrees/sec so that dodging the swarms is not only possible, but if a rebound shot is made by the warheads they don't get to pull it more than once. The warheads need to be seekers that home in on the target. they do NOT need to be boomerangs that come back multiple times for seconds and thirds. I would really like one of those boomerang swarms... That's Swarm Launcher Operations level 6, right? yep the Lai Dai Boomerang Swarm Launcher "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2016.01.17 09:49:00 - [84] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: bogeyman m wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Faster swarm travel means more time between impacts to react oddly, But the faster the swarms, the less degrees-per-second turn radius they should have. at 85 m/s I'd actually recommend dropping the turn radius to 30 degrees/sec so that dodging the swarms is not only possible, but if a rebound shot is made by the warheads they don't get to pull it more than once. The warheads need to be seekers that home in on the target. they do NOT need to be boomerangs that come back multiple times for seconds and thirds. I would really like one of those boomerang swarms... That's Swarm Launcher Operations level 6, right? yep the Lai Dai Boomerang Swarm Launcher That's actually exactly what happens when you do dodge missiles right now. You can dodge the first impact, but the missiles just turn around and hit you right back. That's because hotfix foxfour implemented the turnrate-changes without the changes to missile speed and duration. At least the deployment of 50-¦/s max turnrate showed that we're not having a problem with LAV tracking. If there ever will be another hotfix discussion I'll propose a further reduction to 40-¦/s and a change to missile life-time and speed.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 18	Posted - 2016.01.17 13:34:00 - [85] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The warheads need to be seekers that home in on the target. they do NOT need to be boomerangs that come back multiple times for seconds and thirds. They also need to do more to HAVs than scratch the paint. Especially with current range limitations. Perhaps rewire them to home in on the HAV's weakspot when engaged from flank ... you'd get more effect vs HAVs without impacting ADS interplay. Also, separating Swarms into anti-ground and anti-air variants would make balance passes much more productive. Dropsuit Usage Rates


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

"If there is a strafe nerf in this game, remove hit detection"- manboar 2014