Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Stratosfear
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 21:47:00 -
[61]
Of course shin ra didn't do anything wrong. It's just that some people wanted to keep w1n setups for themselves.
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 22:09:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Karazaan There is only one way to see this, you should be banned from the forum for a few months, to think about it.
You are truly transforming the truth to achieve your goal, worse, you are now sacrificing all of Eve balance to reach it.
What's next? A massacre in Jita?
You have become an annoyance for the devs and the community.
This is my feeling and I'm sharing them.
grats - you just won Sarmaul's Retard of the Day award. It was reserved to the covert ops I managed to snag as he decloaked on the otherside of the gate today, but you not only demonstrate true stupidity, but blind ignorance and excessive hyperbole as well.
|
Hanns
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 22:23:00 -
[63]
I think CCP needs to give Shin Ra a BH position.
|
Farjung
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 22:37:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Farjung on 22/01/2006 22:38:30
Originally by: j0sephine "But anyway, I spent quite a while on sisi trying to come up with a setup that could really take advantage of this and the results were a bit meh to be perfectly honest. You have to give up quite a lot of slots to make it work, it generally makes more sense to just go for a cap injector and free up a bunch of slots anyway."
Well, i kind of like this one:
* 2x invul field II, 2x shield amp, large booster II + medium booster II, cap relays.
... cap neutral, equivalent of x-large tech.2 booster running non stop with 48% or so to all resists, but without grid / cpu issues --can fit tech.2 sieges easily-- ... and not limited to short tanking time offered with cap booster (plus, the extra space to fit ammo due to no room taken by cap charges is nice)
It's possible to swap parts a bit there and make room for target painter / sensor booster / scrambler while maintaning the tank ability... would be a tad bit more expensive, though, and more demanding on the skills.
Damage is obviously lesser than the gank setup will dish out, but the extra tank ability can quite make up for it in certain cases...
Yeah, I was playing with something like this but didn't really see the application for PvP, except maybe as bait or something. Injector + ballistics would kill it in (meaningless) 1 v 1, it'd die just the same as any other ship to focussed fire if the fight involved more than 5 or 6 damage dealers a piece and in that situation the slots would probably be better served for EW. Other possibilities I thought about were nos domi, and maybe the resurrection of the shield tanked 1400 II poc, but the fact that you have to give up 2 mids to shield amps means it's not quite the same overpowered setup that led to the introduction of the penalty on the cprs in the first place imo.
aeti was having interesting results on a phoenix, with faction cprs it might actually be fairly decent ¼_¼.
|
Farjung
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 22:45:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Hanns I think CCP needs to give Shin Ra a BH position.
Clear proof that BE are in fact Devs out to take their frustrations out on the playerbase - my thread on this was moderated within 20 minutes of posting ;p.
|
krendos
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 23:11:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Karazaan
There is only one way to see this, you should be banned from the forum for a few months, to think about it.
You are truly transforming the truth to achieve your goal, worse, you are now sacrificing all of Eve balance to reach it.
What's next? A massacre in Jita?
You have become an annoyance for the devs and the community.
This is my feeling and I'm sharing them.
Way to go making yourself look rather daft.
All I see is that Shin Ra has done us all a favour, but all you do is see his name and BE and then flame.
This whole stacking situation needs a re-think/patch.
|
Zakgram
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 23:19:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Zakgram on 22/01/2006 23:23:16 Doesn't do much for my Ferox; with a Large Shield Booster 2 and 2 x amps I only work it out to be ~96 hp/s.
My passive Ferox can do the same without any new funky methods. The advantage to the amp method is that it's a constant 96 hp/s but the disadvantage is that you need to have cap and you reduce your overall shield from 12000 to 3000 or so. Attempt to put much damage (e.g. 3 x bcs) and you lose the ability to use the amp method but the spr method still works - just not as strong - so you can choose the damage vs. tank.
|
Ravenal
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 23:21:00 -
[68]
this might be fixed yeah... but whats it got to do with remote sensor damps and tracking disruptors...? . -Fate is what you make of it. -Make your own fate using T2 items produced by The Fated
|
Zakgram
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 23:23:00 -
[69]
Originally by: krendos
This whole stacking situation needs a re-think/patch.
Good god no. Can you imagine how much more complicated it could become if it gets tinkered with even more.
*If* any changes are made then the whole thing should be scrapped. Change it so that we can only fit 1 of a "power" module per ship instead of complex stacking rules that need a degree in maths and obviously several in Computer Science to be able to maintain.
Simplicity is key. KISS. Remove complexity. Dumb it down. Just like us...
|
Lanu
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 23:44:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Lanu on 22/01/2006 23:43:56 This is getting silly IMO, CCP should fix these kind of VERY serious bugs with a hotfix right now or atleast in the next downtime.
The Exotic Dancer will not survive intact, if transported in a giant secure container. |
|
Inspiration
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 23:46:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Inspiration on 22/01/2006 23:52:53 I am waiting on the ultimate passive tank using this interesting new twist ;). Anyway, workable solution to this issue is very simple. Just sort the negative and positive bonuses in seperate list, the possitive in descending order, the negative in ascending order. Then apply them seperatly like two unstacked modules by means of multiplication.
Consequence would be that the the biggest penalties are applied first, then ones following however will get less and less severe (just as the bonus for the possitive ones decreases).
If this 'side effect' is not what CCP wants, they can simple remove the stacking rules on the negative bonusses, and let those be applied in full force. ANd since all this is done server side, I wonder why the issue is still around....
|
Farjung
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 23:46:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Farjung on 22/01/2006 23:52:30
Originally by: Ravenal this might be fixed yeah... but whats it got to do with remote sensor damps and tracking disruptors...?
It's like this: certain attributes are affected by stacking penalty, for example
"targeting range bonus"
and
"shield boost bonus"
Any mod that affects either of these two attributes is subject to the stacking penalty. Since RMR the method that was used to calculate what the penalty is has been changed in the following way:
say you've got 6 modules that affect a particular attribute, one increases it by 50%, one by 30%, one by 20%, one by -10%, one by -35%, one by -95%. The effects are ordered from biggest to smallest in the calculation, and then each successive effect is hit by the stacking penalty more and more. So, the 50% module will not be penalised, the 30% will be penalised mildly, the 20% will be penalised quite a bit more, the -10% will be penalised more, the -35% more still, and the -95% module might as not be there for all the effect it's having.
Stick it in the formula and you get:
With 50%, 30%, 20%, -10%, -35%: net result of +97.1%
With 50%, 30%, 20%, -10%, -35%, -95%: net result of +91.5%
When applied to sensor boosters, you've got sensor boosters that add ~50% to the attribute "targeting range bonus" (and "scan resolution bonus"), and remote sensor dampers which (with skills) can get over -50% effect on those attributes. Because the effects are ordered from most positive -> most negative like I said above, if you've got a couple of sensor boosters running, those are hardly penalised, but then if someone tries to damp you, the -50% effect from each damp is penalised hugely. So you get
+50% (not penalised) +50% (mildly penalised) -50% (quite penalised) -50% (strongly penalised) -50% (completely useless). Net result, having two sensor boosters running makes you pretty much immune to the effects of any number of damps.
In the same way, for the shield boost bonus attribute, you've got modules that have a strong positive effect (shield boost amplifiers) and modules that have a mild negative effect (cap power relays). Having 2 shield boost amplifiers (+30% each) will mean that the -10% from each cap power relay you have fitted will be penalised into non-existence.
Pre-RMR: 2 shield boost amplifiers w/ 5 cap power relays would bring your final shield boost bonus to 0.999 or -0.01%
Post-RMR: 2 (30%) shield boost amplifiers would bring your final shield boost bonus to 1.639 or +63.9%
Post-RMR: 2 shield boost amplifiers w/ 5 cap power relays would bring your final shield boost bonus to 1.4804 or +48%
Post-RMR: 2 shield boost amplifiers w/ 6 cap power relays would bring your final shield boost bonus to ... 1.4802 or +48%
Both this shield boost bonus phenomenon and the damps/tracking disruptor phenomenon result from the same change in the stacking penalty mechanics.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 23:59:00 -
[73]
Nice. I just set up a battlebadger to boost 50 per second forever with 2 hardeners -- Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
|
Lithiani
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 00:19:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Inspiration Edited by: Inspiration on 22/01/2006 23:52:53Anyway, workable solution to this issue is very simple. Just sort the negative and positive bonuses in seperate list, the possitive in descending order, the negative in ascending order. Then apply them seperatly like two unstacked modules by means of multiplication.
Consequence would be that the the biggest penalties are applied first, then ones following however will get less and less severe (just as the bonus for the possitive ones decreases).
If this 'side effect' is not what CCP wants, they can simple remove the stacking rules on the negative bonusses, and let those be applied in full force. ANd since all this is done server side, I wonder why the issue is still around....
You can't just remove the stacking penalty from negative effects. The Sensor Damps negative effects were what prompted the change to stacking in the first place Your first suggestion is close to ideal, but it'd be better if you figured out the total bonus (with stack adjustment) and total penalty (with stack adjustment) and cancelled the two out to leave one final modifyer, rather than multiplying by both. Odd fractions happen and tend to favour the negative, otherwise - and I think we can all agree that the maths would be best kept as simple as possible.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 00:21:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Hanns I think CCP needs to give Shin Ra a BH position.
CCP couldn't pay me enough.
This is well and truely out in the open now. I've started the ball rowling and that was my intention. Next stop, TomB's house...
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 00:44:00 -
[76]
------------- Please fix the stacking algorythm, it's a disgrace!
|
Tobiaz
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 00:46:00 -
[77]
Just tested this on my Raven
1x XL Shieldbooster T2, 3x Shield Amp, 5x Cap Relay
I have pretty much all the relevant shield and energy skills to at least 4.
I had a boost of a bit over 220HP/second and I could keep it running continuously for 150 seconds.
So much for shield tankers being 'powerful but shortlasting'.
Good job Shin Ra, for finding something that will finally twist CCP's wrist and force them to fix this ridiculous new stacking system NOW and not in the next stupid 'all-at-once-and-keep-fingers-crossed' patch.
I'd rather have the old system back then this travesty, but what CCP should do is simply separate the positive from the negative modifiers and give them a separate stacking penalty.
RMR hiatus |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 00:52:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Tobiaz I'd rather have the old system back then this travesty, but what CCP should do is simply separate the positive from the negative modifiers and give them a separate stacking penalty.
Which is what we all said should be done in that 1st fateful thread in the game dev section... what was it... oh, 2 months ago now?
Yeah. The EVE devs are usually pretty good about communicating with players, but pointedly ignoring these threads... well... lets just say im none too impressed. Et tu, denial? ------------- Please fix the stacking algorythm, it's a disgrace!
|
Peppo
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 01:15:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Peppo on 23/01/2006 01:15:55 Tob made me do it
Peppo's Paintshop with galleries coming soonÖ |
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 01:27:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Shin Ra on 23/01/2006 01:27:59
Originally by: Peppo Edited by: Peppo on 23/01/2006 01:15:55 Tob made me do it
Quality
|
|
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 01:43:00 -
[81]
Originally by: keepiru
Originally by: Tobiaz I'd rather have the old system back then this travesty, but what CCP should do is simply separate the positive from the negative modifiers and give them a separate stacking penalty.
Which is what we all said should be done in that 1st fateful thread in the game dev section... what was it... oh, 2 months ago now?
Yeah. The EVE devs are usually pretty good about communicating with players, but pointedly ignoring these threads... well... lets just say im none too impressed. Et tu, denial?
I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack. It is obvious that damage mods and resist mods should stack. some other modules maybe also. but some (like CPRs) should not (or pds).
Btw do sensor backup arrays stack ? Did anyone test it ? maybe that's also a problem ... ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well ... |
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 01:53:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Btw do sensor backup arrays stack ? Did anyone test it ? maybe that's also a problem ...
No. We fitted out a raven with 1370 Gravimetric sensor strength. The worrying thing was my scorp with a str 6 multispec managed to jam him a couple of times.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 02:00:00 -
[83]
"I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack."
Think it's not something easily doable, as it appears the stacking is applied per-attribute rather than per-module. It makes sense (allows different modules affect the same attribute easily) but at the same time you can't have something like stacking penalty on booster amplifier but no penalty on boost amount reduction from the cap relay o.O;
|
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 02:13:00 -
[84]
Originally by: j0sephine "I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack."
Think it's not something easily doable, as it appears the stacking is applied per-attribute rather than per-module. It makes sense (allows different modules affect the same attribute easily) but at the same time you can't have something like stacking penalty on booster amplifier but no penalty on boost amount reduction from the cap relay o.O;
you can ... just have to decide is the stacking modules have precedence over the non-stacking. basicaly the non-stacking are just stacks with only one module applied separately. ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well ... |
SATAN
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 02:15:00 -
[85]
Can we get someone in Iceland to read this to TomB so he can take a look at it. Or is he too bussy making snow balls for next year?
|
Farjung
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 02:57:00 -
[86]
Originally by: j0sephine "I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack."
Think it's not something easily doable, as it appears the stacking is applied per-attribute rather than per-module. It makes sense (allows different modules affect the same attribute easily) but at the same time you can't have something like stacking penalty on booster amplifier but no penalty on boost amount reduction from the cap relay o.O;
The curious thing is that damage controls appear to do precisely this, somehow.
E.g. a dread guristas magnetic scattering amplifier (40% EM resistance) and a damage control I (7.5% EM resistance) gives you an EM resistance of 44.5% on a base resistance of 0%. Damage controls are rather curious beasts, but I wonder if the same could be carried over to cap power relays somehow so that they always give -10% shield boost bonus regardless of how many shield boost amps are fitted ¼_¼.
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 02:58:00 -
[87]
Just from a historical perspective, the dual AB/ dual MWD ships were never considered exploits, as they used freely avaliable game mechanics to function. It can be argued they were unbalanced as was the justification for their removal, but they were all within the rules in which the game was written.
This is very much a similare situation. These are the rules in which the game is written; merely because it causes a serious imbalance does not make it an exploit. Game killing, but not an exploit.
Exploits are using methods to alter the game mechanics in way not within the permited rules. Things such as the speed hacks prevelant in other games fall under that catagory, because they use no ingame function to achieve their purpose.
This is, at its core, a game breaking imbalance, created by the dev team not fully considering the ramifications of their choices, and it can be fixed only by that said same dev team repairing the system they broke.
Until they do that, I'm out. This is to serious an imbalance to allow a functional game, so long as it exists.
Harry Voyager ____________________ I'm not an idiot; I just play one on the forums. |
Doc Brown
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 03:03:00 -
[88]
Shin Ra, I know we've had fights in the past (and I still would like to kill you again)....
That said, thanks for not only finding these bugs but for pointing them out to the community at large. At least it'll let people know what might be comming at them and help level the field a bit.
btw: I'm sure you guys will pop one of my Black Mamba's one of these days.
Doc Brown
_________________________________________________
There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations. |
Doc Brown
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 03:09:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Doc Brown on 23/01/2006 03:14:15
Originally by: Joerd Toastius You selfish immature [expletive]
1) Naughty Boy and myself figured this one out about two weeks ago 2) We both self-censored ourselves when we realised the magnitude of the problem, and NB bugreported it 3) Shin Ra obviously read it and continued to post about it in that thread 4) We had to get a mod in to deal with what is obviously publishing an exploit
Grow up or get lost. This kind of thing IS NOT CLEVER OR FUNNY. This cannot be fixed quickly; I'm sure CCP are working on it as they're aware of this problem and will want this hole plugged. By publishing this again you're not only causing unnecessary and untold headaches, you've probably delayed a proper fix while CCP rush to close what is now a public loophole, quite possibly with a special-case exception for this case which reduces the urgency of fixing damps and disrupters.
Be thankful I'm not a developer because I would ban you outright with no appeal for pulling something like this.
Keeping information this damaging to yourselvs is greedy and almost an exploit in it self. Even though you bugreported it, you now had a defense from banning if you used it to your advantage (i.e: used a bug to gain an unfair advantage against other chars).
The exact reason why this can't be fixed quickly is why it should be common information that everbody can adapt to while CCP does their job and fixing it.
Calling Shin Ra names is totally uncalled for.
What's not clever or funny is keeping bugs that could be exploited to your own personal 'click' of friends, even if those bugs were reported. I'm willing to bet that it'll be at least a month before it's fixed so in that time you would almost have free reign to use the bug to your advantage.....and if somebody ever petitioned you had your bug report to fall back on.
Mind you, I'm not saying that you have used this setup yourself or even considered what I implied in above statement. However, with your direct attack on Shin Ra I could only assume the worst.
Doc Brown
_________________________________________________
There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations. |
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 03:13:00 -
[90]
They need to fix or revert the stacking penalty itself, not duct tape every hole.
They also broke all forms of logistics.
When we were trying to put together the formula, I kept saying it needed to have certain properties, like commutability, because they are what keeps the system in balance - CCP wouldn't put something in that treated the 5% modules vastly differently than the 10% modules, because that wouldn't make sense... But CCP did, and now we have a situation where it doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |