|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
497
   |
Posted - 2015.10.13 00:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Stefan Stahl wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:@Stefan: I also think the turning changes are a step in the right direction, they let you artificially increase the distance Swarms have to travel, which helps you actually leave the fight.
I do think Swarms need the variants looked at: having the base SL function like a 'Breach' with high damage but longish lock-on times (for HAV work) and the Assault having lower damage (probably a little lower than the current SL) but with longer lock range, faster lock-on and more shots in the clip.
That would go a long way towards solving SL balance by making them actually balance-capable, instead of OP vs one and UP vs the other. I'm receptive to the idea of separating SLs into long and short range versions. However I advise against separating them too far for several reasons. Most importantly, once we get into a territory where the two variants are separated into "anti-DS SL" and "anti-HAV SL" the utility of each individual SL will be greatly reduced. It's a good idea to have one SL that does long range supressive damage to both DS and HAV and a short range SL that can kill HAVs and forces DS to immediately flee out of range. But the long range SL needs to be able to deter an HAV that is rolling up to your face and the short range SL needs to be able to keep a DS away. Otherwise people won't use either of them unless they perform so well at their respective jobs that it'll be an unfair fight for the HAV or DS pilots. would love to have these thoughts spelled out in actual before and after numbers per each swarm variant. Question for theorycrafting...can missile speed and/or flight range be adjusted between variants? or just lock range? consider everything to be adjustable. I just need to create a different projectile type if we would do a faster one. It is also possible to do one missile per swarm, if that's something interesting.
Here we have the conversation tree that started it.
So let's get a discussion of the swarm launcher stats going...with any/all variables apparently up for debate/change for different variations.
How do you feel about:
- The Job that Vanilla Swarm Launchers should be doing, and how well they are doing that job?
- How Swarms are doing vs Dropships
- How Swarms are doing vs ADS
- How Swarms are doing vs HAVs
- How Swarms are doing vs LAVs? (Lol)
- Does anyone actually use the Assault Variant(s) (Or ISK 'Specialist' variant), and/or be adversely affected by their current functionality being changed?
- What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should a General Purpose Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS? And should a variant in this style exist?
- What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should an Anti-Aircraft Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS/Lock-Range? And should a variant in this style exist?
- What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should an Anti-Tank Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS/Lock-Range? And should a variant in this style exist?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
497
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 00:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
I've done some intitial theorycrafting on my own.
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
500
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 12:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Stefan Stahl wrote:I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render.
Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary.
If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS.
To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs"
I think it's that and Vice Versa..."how can you have a weapon that is good at killing tanks, that won't just obliterate a Dropship immediately, and how can you have a weapon good at killing dropships that an HAV operator has a chance to escape from?"
That's why I'm in favor of a general purpose one that is OK vs both, but doesn't excel and than 2 specialty variants for each specific purpose.
@Stefan Stahl: I'll go ahead and add your idea onto the spreadsheet.
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
500
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 12:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote:I think everyone forgets about the assault swarm launcher.
That thing could really use a buff.
The assault swarm launcher is a swarm launcher that can lock onto two targets at once...for increased fitting and isk cost, and no increase in any other statistic...using its advantage eats your magazine too quickly, so it's only really useful vs unfit LAV spam as-is xD
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
500
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 12:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:I just want Gallente Swarms. i mean ffs just reskin a PLC and use the swarm animation/mechanic and have them higher damage vs shields.
When it comes to Vehicles and AV we'll never have true balance until we get shield based AV more valid than the standard PLC, when 80% of AV is vs armour you simply can't get true balance. same with a gallente forge, reskin/colour a standard forge, make damage +10% shields -10% armour shorter range perhaps -50m, standard charge time but slightly higher damage than breach FG.
as for SL varients, make the assault swarms longer lock range, perhaps back upto 300m but bring damage down and it should be balanced
While I agree with the sentiment here...considering our problem(s) with V/AV right now are primarily being expressed on Armor Vehicles...I mean...you realize that, until FoxFour, Gunnlogis have been out of luck for some time...still going to wait for an oppurtunity to try them out again now that they have a bit of a buff...but I don't think it'll help them much where they really need it.
But...in regards to Anti-Shield AV...Why not a swarm launcher made by Khanid Innovations, and give it a +20/-20 profile...call it Mjolnir Swarm Launchers...
Although...in Eve one line of Gallente ships did have launcher hardpoints...but that was abandoned a few years ago (I think they where the Roden Shipyards line of ships).
Although...the lack of AV Laser would make someone very unhappy xD
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
505
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 22:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
JIMvc2 wrote:Give the tanks the HP they had before 1.7 uprising. Its embarrassing how today's tanks are weak as paper.
That nerf was completely no just no.
When are we getting the Enforcer tank!!??
While I tend to agree with you...that wouldn't do much to help with balance between swarms/HAVs with respect to swarms/dropships, which is part of what this thread is about.
Also, as far as I know the answer to when we are getting Tech II Havs back (Marauders and/or Enforcers...BlOps?) would be after the racial reskins are in and all the HAVs are playing nice with respect to each-other and V/AV.
@Jett It: So, how would you change swarms or make a swarm variant to make them more effective against dropships? or do you feel that Swarm Launchers should only be able to do anti-tank anti-LAV effectively?
@Ghost Kaisar: That situation is certainly annoying...haven't really thought about specific kind of situation myself...however, consider that one of the main phrases when balancing vehicles is that 1 player should always equal 1 player, an issue that has plagued HAVs (and DS/ADSs to some extent) in many past and in some respects current iterations. In other words, it should be taking an equal number of forge gunners or Swarmers to effectively neutralize 4 transport dropships...(as keep in mind, all it takes to destroy 1 HAV worth 1.5 million ISK is one very determined, skilled, and lucky 32k ISK suit, and that's OK...even if I don't like HAVs being so expensive)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
505
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 22:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
@Ghost Kaisar: That situation is certainly annoying...haven't really thought about specific kind of situation myself...however, consider that one of the main phrases when balancing vehicles is that 1 player should always equal 1 player, an issue that has plagued HAVs (and DS/ADSs to some extent) in many past and in some respects current iterations. In other words, it should be taking an equal number of forge gunners or Swarmers to effectively neutralize 4 transport dropships...(as keep in mind, all it takes to destroy 1 HAV worth 1.5 million ISK is one very determined, skilled, and lucky 32k ISK suit, and that's OK...even if I don't like HAVs being so expensive)
I am aware of the n+1 theory. I was simply defending my corp mates after that guy said they were bad shots. If they got 4 dropships coming in, they can't defend it. I would still like some way of combating spam like that though. Too many infantry in one area get a mass driver, but what about AV? The assault swarm seems like the appropriate answer, but it just deals far too little damage.
combating spam, on the list it goes (although my personal opinion is that combating vehicle spam is/should be one of the roles filled by the HAV)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
508
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 03:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Avallo Kantor wrote:IceShifter Childhaspawn wrote:Thought that was why they reduced the explosive velocity (DUSTs sig rad counterpart) in the first place.
Namely to make swarms less effective against fleeing dropships. That's a different part of the EVE missile calculation. Quoted from Evelopedia: EVElopedia wrote:
The important factor in this scenario is the speed of the target ship. When a missile hits a target, the speed of the target is compared to the Explosion Velocity of the missile. For example, if when a Scourge Heavy Missile - which has a base Explosion Velocity of 81m/s - is fired, the Explosion Velocity is much lower than the target's speed, then damage is significantly reduced as the target is outrunning most of the missile's damage.
The other factor that will decrease missile damage is Signature Radius. The Scourge Missile previously used has a Explosion Radius of 125m - if this missile is fired against a target with a smaller Signature than its Explosion Radius, damage will again be reduced, as only a small portion of the explosion is affecting the target. Although if your missile hits a target whose signature radius is greater than the explosion radius of your missile then the explosion velocity of your missile is increased by the same multiple.
As you can see we seem to be using half the damage formula for missile like weapons, but do not seem to be using the other half. The second half is important in this case as it allows us to create a situation where a Swarm Missile will ALWAYS do more damage against a same speed Dropship vs a same speed HAV.
Eve-style missile calculations are fun...but I don't know/think we are using any part of the calculation(s) (Neither sig/velocity are taken into account for missile damage). As far as I know the factors that where recently changed where the knockback affects that swarm missiles have, to make it easier to regain/maintain flight control in a dropship...(although, if Rattati or another dev could weight in on this that would be greatly appreciated)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
508
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 03:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aidualc wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs"
Normal Swarm Launcher (vs Derpships), Clip = 4, range 175m, damage per missile 65 X 4... damage per swarm 260, total damage 1040hp Lock Timer = 1 seg. Assault Swarm Launcher (vs HAVS), Clip = 3, Range 120m, damage per missile 120 X 4... damage per swarm 480, Total Damage 1440hp lock timer = 1.7 seg. With that derpships are "safe" vs Assault Swarm Launcher and assault is more efective vs HAVS.
Added your numbers to the spreadsheet as I understand them (Numbers being at STD Tier)...and I'm noticing something:
The proposed numbers don't have the DPS to actually destroy much of anything, let alone for most vehicles to care much about them...the DPS is either less than half, or hovering right around half current DPS totals
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
508
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 12:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:Stefan Stahl wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Easy enough to solve. In the "damage-per-volley versus lock-on-duration versus clipsize" design space you can dial in the size of the alpha-strike that can be delivered to an escaping DS and the sustainable DPS on a static target HAV. Here are some logical sanity-checks for a potential solution: - A short range SL must be able to scare off a DS further than 150 meters, otherwise a DS with a gunner can rain missiles on the swarmer with impunity. The launched missile must travel to 200-250 meters at least, otherwise the DS can just dip out of range to recover and be back 10 seconds later. - A long range SL must be able to break the reps on a hardened dual-rep Madrugar, otherwise it isn't an AV weapon. That's 425 DPS to armor minimum. Better add some margin, otherwise the HAV won't be impressed. I'd like to follow up on this with some numbers, but I'm unsure on the design goals. Should ADS have a harder time in the future? We just pulled in the range on the SL, so that indicates the intent is to make it easier on ADS, but the quote by Rattati above indicates ADS have it too easy now? Should SLs become more competent against HAVs? Rattati's quote seems to indicate that HAVs have it too tough against SLs right now. Banter on the forum seems to go both ways. I don't have enough data to come up with good design goals. My experience as a pilot doesn't give me a clear direction to go. I know my NDS can sustain a single swarmer for quite a while, on the other hand it takes two people to operate a NDS, so that seems fair. [Edit] By the way, for future DPS calculations for the current SL you can use a time between two volleys of 2.3 seconds. Back then I wrote this thread I actually measured the time it takes PC players to launch three volleys from a couple of youtube videos. The best SL operator took 7 seconds to lock on and launch 3 volleys. That makes about 2.3 seconds per volley.
I also got some footage of my corpmate Grimcrimm getting swarms off in 1.8 seconds...it is highly variable, and I think we're aware of this (hence why it has noticeably higher DPS than other AV Weapons), but I'm still going to record the theoretical values for now (before proficiency should help with the variability a bit, but the max theoretical values are important...)
I'm open to changing it, but I'd need a better sample size of expert players to determine the average (sample size would need to be about 25ish players, 3-6 trials each)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
520
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 16:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
knight guard fury wrote:Sanchez Rivera wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Stefan Stahl wrote:I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render.
Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary.
If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS.
To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Is It A Bad Idea To Make Specific Swarm Launchers To Specific Vehicles...? Like For Example: ADS Swarm Launcher: Will Have More Efficiency On ADS (100%-110%) Less Efficient On Any Other Vehicles(75%) Tank Swarm Launchers: Will Be More Efficient On Tanks (100%-110%) Less Efficient On Any Other Vehicle(75%) Numbers Could Be Different, But 2 Different Vehicle Types In Battle Would Be A Challenge For One AV User (As Always) And LAVs Would Feel A Bit Buffed Good Day People! i like this idea. basically making two types of ammunition types, Armor Piercing and HE variant missiles. AP for tanks and HE for dropships, and just adding something to the names to make it clear which types do what and etc.
Certainly is an interesting idea
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
|
|
| |
|