Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Revinance Rycon
Abstimental Enterprises Border World Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 00:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was reading this:
Traits Caldari Cruiser skill bonus per level: 12.5% bonus to Shield Transporter boost amount 5% reduction in Shield Transporter capacitor use
Traits Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level: 10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity 5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile explosion radius per level
this didn't really seem right, to use reduction as opposite to bonus when it should be bonus/malus or increase/reduction(decrease?)
should it not be this:
Traits Caldari Cruiser skill bonus per level: 12.5% increase to Shield Transporter boost amount 5% reduction in Shield Transporter capacitor use
Traits Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level: 10% increase to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity 5% reduction to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile explosion radius per level
I actually got quite confused at what they meant with bonus at some point. I am quite new to eve but its a minor fix for something that will give more consistency in the game itself.
At some point i was thinking that they maybe gave it a bonus to radius because of the major boost in damage the faction drake cruiser has over the normal one.(my opinion)
This will also help newer players learn that a big explosion radius is actually bad.
English isn't my first language so I am not 100% sure |
hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
160
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 06:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Revinance Rycon wrote: I actually got quite confused at what they meant with bonus at some point. I am quite new to eve but its a minor fix for something that will give more consistency in the game itself.
In my understanding CCP uses, quite reasonably, the word "bonus" to mean "a change which benefits the player". Which means increasing those attributes which are the better the bigger, like missile velocity, and increasing those which are best when small, like missile explosion radius. As opposed to "penalty".
In the example you have provided the 5% reduction in shield transfer cap use is at odd.
Also mind you that confusion can be either way. If you rename everything to increase/reduction, some new players will be lost whether it's for good or for bad.
It's just the game is complicated and there's no way around learning mechanics. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
42
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 06:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
No, you're right, their usage of bonus, penalty, increase, and reduction/decrease is very haphazard. I think most of us have just gotten used to it by now, though.
One of the ones that makes me chuckles the most are the confusions of increases with decreases. For example, the bonuses that are "X% increase in rate of fire", which actually means "X% decrease in cycle time", which translates to a 1 / (1 - X%) increase in rate of fire (rate being defined as events per time period, not time per event).
The other one that gets me sometimes is the description for Target Navigation Prediction. It reads:
"10% decrease per level in factor of target's velocity for all missiles."
What this actually does is increase the effective explosion velocity of the missiles. The implication of the text of the skill is that the target's effective velocity is half of it's actually velocity, when in fact this skill makes it two-thirds of it's actual velocity (by increasing the effective explosion velocity by 50%).
Basically, descriptions are all over the place. Part of that I blame on inconsistent teams working on it. Part I blame on CCP being Icelandic (and thus not natively English, even though a fair number of their dev speak it rather fluently, if not as a primary language). Part of it I blame on their just being flat bigger things to worry about. |
hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
160
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 16:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
That's why I personally prefer bonus/penalty wording. At very least it's unambiguous regarding the intention. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1052
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 16:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
yes "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
297
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 16:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
There was another wording issue with bonuses like this. I think it was between a mod and rig where they had something like "5% shield recharge bonus" but the mod was a beneficial change and the rig was a negative change. (The rig's negative change was an attribute of the rig, not a drawback.) |
Revinance Rycon
Abstimental Enterprises Border World Enterprises
4
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 18:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:There was another wording issue with bonuses like this. I think it was between a mod and rig where they had something like "5% shield recharge bonus" but the mod was a beneficial change and the rig was a negative change. (The rig's negative change was an attribute of the rig, not a drawback Edit: Here's the thread with the poorly worded attributes. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3580764#post3580764It's about the Purger and Processor Overclocking rigs. They both say "Recharge Rate Bonus -xx%" but one gives a beneficial effect and the other gives a detrimental effect. To clarify, these attributes are NOT drawbacks. I give several solutions for fixing this contradiction. CCP just needs to hire me for a week and let me go through and fix all the wordings of these attributes. Seriously though, I see that older thread of mine was locked. I'd love some Dev feedback of when they could clear up these simple little errors.
yours is even worse then mine, I wouldn't know the difference |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
43
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 23:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:CCP just needs to hire me for a week and let me go through and fix all the wordings of these attributes.
I've always felt that smaller game development studios would benefit from having a forum with the basic theme of "I have a good idea, and here's why you should pay me to make it happen for your company." Sure it'd attract a lot of crap, but that's what bans are for. Sure, they'd have to pay someone (or someones) to monitor and filter it. It opens up the talent pool, though, and lets players with really good ideas actually get access to the ability to add them.
It's kinda based on Valve's acquisition practices. They find indy studios doing good work, making awesome games, and basically just buy out the company. However, unlike other companies, part of their "buy out the company" is offering most or all of their senior developers jobs at Valve to continue working on the newly Valve-owned software.
That's where both Portal and Portal 2 came from. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |