Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Ms Grape Drink
Build A Bear Workshop
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:07:17 -
[211] - Quote
JanSVK wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:JanSVK wrote:Expaded Cargohold II Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%) Old: -20 27.5 -10 New: -23 27.5 -18
Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module. My proble is the following. If this gets implemented after the patch I need to spend alot more isk on my hauler/freighter to perform the way it is now. The more expensive the fitting the higher chance of suicide ganking. Also it is well know that PVE modules are alot more expensive and more rare by choice of CCP (Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I is average around 150 mil !!!). What is the planned price for ORE expander? There is another solution. Keep t2 expanders as they are now and modify all the other modules to be in line.
The planned prices are quite high unfortunately. They are way too much LP and ISK as I've made note of in the Proteus Test Server Feedback thread. Even at an almost insanely low ISK/LP ratio, you're still looking at around 200 mil for each Cargohold. And I think 150 for the bulkheads. Not going to be worth it unfortunately. I would know, I'm one of the few people out there doing missions XD But I guess it's not a big deal as I've gotten no reply on the topic :( |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1713
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:33:02 -
[212] - Quote
This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too.
I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1421
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:04:13 -
[213] - Quote
Zappity wrote:This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too.
I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative.
It was a goal of the ship tiericide initiative. There are still Rifter, Drake and Hurricane pilots who are sore from that.
The goal is that nothing is unambiguously better than anything else. Cost, performance, fitting, availability: pick any two.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Cledus Snowman Snow
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:04:13 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:JanSVK wrote:Expaded Cargohold II Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%) Old: -20 27.5 -10 New: -23 27.5 -18
Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.
So not only is T2 not getting buffed to the better meta4 where that is the case. You are making them worse than pre-patch when they do not suck enough for you as is? You are making the T2 mods you don't like WORSE? How many ways is ccp going to to stick it to haulers? I do not understand the 'Haulers are the new Step headed red childs of EVE'?
The new and future of T2 mods not only will they not be getting rolled into the better meta4 stats as is the case, we will be lucky if you don't add more negative effects? Once again T2 already has built in drawbacks (cost, higher skills, take more DAMAGE from Over Heating even the passive mods take more passive damage from rack Heat, and are hard to make cause of the MESSED UP T2 Invention and Production). Do you think by making all mods below faction suck so much we will be forced to use Faction or higher? |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
564
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:17:48 -
[215] - Quote
Just skimmed the patch notes...
So, apparently no changes to the T1 BPO's, nor to the reprocessing of the metas, nor to the NPC drop rates? And, by aggregating most of the metas, in most cases, you just created a massive pool of cheap meta 1 modules? Which will be further aggravated by the fact that they drop from NPCs at meta 1 rates (ie. very frequently)?
Thus, still no reason to build or use most T1 modules - meta 1's will be better, cheaper and always available.
If you are not going to fix the situation with T1 modules, why don't you just remove them from the game?
A second round of failure for module tiericide... :P |
MBizon Osis
State War Academy Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:31:03 -
[216] - Quote
Try this Make dropped mods meta0 (former meta1-4) in the different fitting flavors Ample Scoped Restrained Enduring
And make Tech1 the new meta1 with a slightly better over all stats or just a combo of 2 of the lower mods enhanced stats. That would have the advantage of making T1 manufacturing useful again once the massive inventory was worked off.
Not perfect, but better
And crown T2 with the same stats as now or best M4 current stats. How is this for a re-alignment?
Meta 0 : is dropped mods in the different fitting flavors (Names provided by CCP) Ample Scoped Restrained Enduring Each one has an edge over the others in one stat (CPU,PG,CAP,or CYCLE TIME).
Meta 1 is also Tech 1 player made. Have a combo of 2 of the lower mods enhanced stats.
Meta2 is Tech2 with the same stats as now or best M4 current stats. Or all 4 of the meta 0 enhanced stats.
Then Story Line/COSMOS mods take Meta 3. Faction Meta4 on up the chain no gaps and no BS, simple easy to understand. That's why this is the last direction CCP will go.
Fine tuning would of course be required in some cases But for 15 min of work makes more sense that what ccp has been doing for the last year in Mod Re balance and these stupid biennial name changes.
Every Mod would have some value to the fitting needs of all the players. Low skilled and High SP vets alike. Make it worth the time for new players to MAKE T1 mods and not take a loss. and the flexibility in fitting needed for tight fits. Take a look ccp.
PS: When ccp changed the refine efficiency they cut the value on the market in HALF of a lot of modules. Seriously, go look at the market and see how many things dropped 50% in value over night because of that change. You need to stop pretending we are in a pre-crius EVE. Of the few mods still worth much are usually meta 4. All that will go away. All rats will drop exactly the same generic stuff, no chance of ever finding anything especially valuable or interesting. Probably most mods will be worth about 10-15K ISK. Making Tech1 meta1 with better stats over low meta dropped mods is that shot in the arm low lvl manufacturing has needed for ever. Players want to BUILD modules for a profit. Not every one wants to have to skill in to T2 lvl indi skills to make a profit. If you even can competing with T2 BPOs.
|
Akemon Numon
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 10:02:53 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:JanSVK wrote:Expaded Cargohold II Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%) Old: -20 27.5 -10 New: -23 27.5 -18
Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.
To get the same amount of cargohold on my freighter I now must fit 3 expanded cargoholds, which will lower structure HP by -60%. Thanks for the Low slots....
#216 - 2014-05-13 21:53:31 UTC | 9 After some thinking over the feedback in this thread and discussion with the CSM, we've decided to switch the penalty for the hull hp rigs to cargo capacity.
We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time." Thanks a lot CCP Fozzie
Jump fatigue...thank you soo much.
And now This? Will the ass **** ever stop? Ganksters you win gratz! I give up. You can't fight city hall. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1459
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 10:37:47 -
[218] - Quote
I suggest that this thread is immidiately moved to features and ideas so that players can actually find it!
Although probably waiting until it is all "discovered" on the live server after proteus is the plan!
After all, what could possibly go wrong when players discover that their industrials are only of use for directly warping from gate to gate if they are carrying cargo AS HAULERS ARE MEANT TO. They now have no role if they actually have to move in space.
Blockade runners will no longer be able to have any chance to burn out of bubbles, no industrial unless stripped of expanders will be able to burn back to a gate or wormhole ( mass spawn changes just keep on giving! ) , landing short of a station will be a death sentence, and those misguided people who auto pilot will simply be made extinct (after dying of boredom.)
I wonder if the devs have realised just how long a 18% +18% +18% +18% +18% actually adds up to on an iteron V?
Whilst we have long Joked and ridiculed those BAD PVP players and gankers who have Demanded CCP Nail their targets to the ground as they are incapable of killing anything otherwise, we never actually expected CCP to do it!
So our options for fitting are Die like a sacrificial goat, fly near empty multiple times, or Black Frog to replace blockade runners, or red frog for HS. Wormholers are just expected to die.
Thanks a bundle.
I do not know what worries me more, the thought that you have not thought this through, or that you have and have decided that this is desireable.
This will not end well.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Nalha Saldana
Shattered Void Spaceship Samurai
874
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 10:47:18 -
[219] - Quote
To make cargo fit interesting we dont need more different cargo expanders, what we need is a buff to base cargo hold and stacking penalty to cargo expanders so we can fit other things in our lows (Like armor tank?) and still carry a lot. |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
66
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 14:49:36 -
[220] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Just rename the deep space transport to the "Useful transport", and completely remove all the other transport ships that need cargo expanders to carry a useful load, that will simplify the number of ships in the game! Job done! Off to the Pub! I do not know what worries me more, the possibility that you have not thought this through, or that you have and have decided that this is desireable. The thing that most people are passing by is that they always had a penalty, but just not quite as high. So it isn't changing terribly much from before the patch.
Regardless you are right, with those penalties in place, there really only is one option for safe-highsec transport of non-freighter sized runs, the transport ships. They hold way more than a hauler ever could and tank better than most (though you can get a pretty beast buffer on a badger atm, but with that tank comes only 4.5k cargo).
Pretty much they are further encouraging the few intelligent pilots out there into the only 2 options for safest hauling, a triple web hyena escorted freighter... or a massive tanked transport ship. Why fly T1 haulers anymore if not to bait tank and troll the gankers with?
|
|
Aliventi
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
806
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:11:53 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort. In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group. I am curious as to what changes that people request a lot would require coding. For example there is a huge disparity between missile and gunnery training times. Something CCP Ytterbium said would be a good thing for module tiericide to look at. What about making faction and officer turret/missile able use T2 ammo? That would make faction and officer turrets and missile launchers worth it to use over T2. Would either of those require coding and be outside of your scope? Are there things you would like to see done in the module tiericide process that you won't get done because it requires coding? If there are would there possibly be a new team formed to tackle these tasks? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1715
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:29:03 -
[222] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Zappity wrote:This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too.
I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative. It was a goal of the ship tiericide initiative. There are still Rifter, Drake and Hurricane pilots who are sore from that. The goal is that nothing is unambiguously better than anything else. Cost, performance, fitting, availability: pick any two. Yes, that is true and I am all for interesting choices. However, ships are balanced around the current weapons and modules. Balancing the modules is also balancing the ships and will need to be done carefully with a close eye kept on the module usage.
For example, let's say that an 'interesting choice' is introduced in which T2 blasters now have a tracking penalty so you can choose between either high tracking in the meta or high damage in the T2. The knock on effect is that blaster boats have now been seriously nerfed because they currently have both.
Better to limit the tiericide changes to fitting and existing stats I think.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1461
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:51:11 -
[223] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Zappity wrote:This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too.
I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative. It was a goal of the ship tiericide initiative. There are still Rifter, Drake and Hurricane pilots who are sore from that. The goal is that nothing is unambiguously better than anything else. Cost, performance, fitting, availability: pick any two. Yes, that is true and I am all for interesting choices. However, ships are balanced around the current weapons and modules. Balancing the modules is also balancing the ships and will need to be done carefully with a close eye kept on the module usage. For example, let's say that an 'interesting choice' is introduced in which T2 blasters now have a tracking penalty so you can choose between either high tracking in the meta or high damage in the T2. The knock on effect is that blaster boats have now been seriously nerfed because they currently have both. Better to limit the tiericide changes to fitting and existing stats I think.
Yes, quite right, when omnidirectional tracking enhancers were nerfed, it was a deliberate action, designed to change the overall balance of sentry drone boats.
All of the modules have equally wide ranging effects to one degree or another, and when comments are issued saying no one uses this version or this stat doesn't matter much to people then I hear loud alarm bells ringing.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
MuppetsSlayed
Great White North Productions Northern Associates.
18
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 10:01:54 -
[224] - Quote
I get most of my minerals from reprocessing and have a fairly big pile of modules to reprocess, I need a few weeks before my skills max for it so have been stockpiling.
Out of the tiericide'ed modules will I get more or less minerals if I reprocess them before the patch? I have read through everything and I cant see any mention if the mineral content of the changed modules is more or less than the original mineral value.
|
MuppetsSlayed
Great White North Productions Northern Associates.
18
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 11:26:20 -
[225] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:..... For a quick example... http://imgur.com/cuXSYN1, you tell me which one those are, and yes, they are all different modules/metas. I can understand some people might be concerned about the "lore" of an item, then why not just put the "lore" into the description. If they really care about the lore they can read about it there, instead of cluttering up my interface with additional info that pushes out the info I actually need or am looking for.
He has a point here.
I am looking at my hanger now in icon view and the part of the name that makes a module unique must be at the beginning.
The search needs to be looked into so we can search for "compact itemtype" and find the item were looking for despite the lore name being in between compact and itemtype in the name. |
MuppetsSlayed
Great White North Productions Northern Associates.
18
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 13:11:34 -
[226] - Quote
I have just read every single post in this thread because I was interested in the new faction cargo expanders.
Of the 3 ships I own that I was considering them for:
Nomad: I think its worth spending the 600 to 900 mill on 3 of them. I undock and jump to a cyno, would never go gate to gate anyways.
Rorqual: I think its worth spending the 600 to 900 mill on 3 of them. I undock and jump to a cyno, I would never go gate to gate anyways.
Prowler: OMGWTFBBQ :: How much have you just nerfed my blockade runner? I live deep out in 0.0 and spend time daily in one of my blockade runners moving items around.
Absolute max fit currently is 16657m3 :: 2 x T2 Expander Rigs, 3 x Expander Cargo Hold 2's, 4 x GSC's for extra 9090k m3 each.
Travel fit when moving empty is 7200 m3 :: I have 3 of the gsc's packaged and fit a couple warp stabs and inertia stabaliser. The 3 packaged GSC's negate the 900 m3 gained from the expanded one.
Obviously as I load up at different stations I move towards the max space from the travel fit. Its scary how much of a nerf you have done to this ship and are only calling it minor???.
|
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:28:57 -
[227] - Quote
MuppetsSlayed wrote:I have just read every single post in this thread because I was interested in the new faction cargo expanders.
Prowler: OMGWTFBBQ :: How much have you just nerfed my blockade runner? I live deep out in 0.0 and spend time daily in one of my blockade runners moving items around.
Absolute max fit currently is 16,657 m3 :: 2 x T2 Expander Rigs, 3 x Expander Cargo Hold 2's, 4 x GSC's for extra 900k m3 each. The largest single item I can carry is only 3,900 m3 and I cant move some things like mobile depots.
Travel fit when moving empty is 6,300 m3 :: I have 3 of the gsc's packaged and fit a couple warp stabs and inertia stabaliser. The 3 packaged GSC's exactly negate the 900 m3 gained from the expanded one.
Obviously as I load up at different stations I move towards the max fit from the travel fit. Its scary how much of a nerf you have done to this ship and are only calling it a minor tweak???
This whole class of ship now needs to be rebalanced to undo your minor change.
I fly Blockade Runners as well, so I'm also interested in the Cargohold Expanders.
I'll happily admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, which means I may well be missing something, but having looked at the Patch Notes and the Dev Blog I don't understand where the nerf is. Everything you've stated is the way things are at the moment. The changes to T2 Cargohold Expanders only affect velocity and structre, not capacity, so as I understand it things will be exactly the same after the patch, except that the ORE Expander is being introduced, which gives the same structure and velocity nerfs as the current T2 expander, but with an cargohold bonus of 29% instead of 27.5%
Can you explain as I really don't want to be missing something! |
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:33:45 -
[228] - Quote
Anyway, now that I've finished being distracted by the above, the question I really came here to ask!
The Patch Notes say that the Marked Modified SS Inertia Stabs are going to become Type-D Inertia Stabs. Is this correct as all the other Marked Modified modules are becoming Basic? |
MuppetsSlayed
Great White North Productions Northern Associates.
18
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:48:02 -
[229] - Quote
Waylon Skorlin wrote: I fly Blockade Runners as well, so I'm also interested in the Cargohold Expanders.
I'll happily admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, which means I may well be missing something, but having looked at the Patch Notes and the Dev Blog I don't understand where the nerf is. Everything you've stated is the way things are at the moment. The changes to T2 Cargohold Expanders only affect velocity and structre, not capacity, so as I understand it things will be exactly the same after the patch, except that the ORE Expander is being introduced, which gives the same structure and velocity nerfs as the current T2 expander, but with an cargohold bonus of 29% instead of 27.5%
Can you explain as I really don't want to be missing something!
What I am expecting is that with the nerf to velocity and HP being so big it isn't going to be practical for me to use the max m3 and move stuff around in zero as I currently do. |
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 15:14:48 -
[230] - Quote
MuppetsSlayed wrote: What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??).
Expanded Cargohold II GÇô Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%, GÇô Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%
I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it: 9.27% reduction in structure 25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08)
The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot.
Thanks for explaining - I see what you mean now.
If you're interested, the current structure reduction is 20% per module, which works out as 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.512, which is a 49.8% drop in strusture HP. 23% works out as 0.77 * 0.77 * 0.77 - 0.4565, which is a 54.35% reduction in structure HP.
Similary, the current 10% reduction in velocity works out as 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729, i.e. a 27.1% reduction, whereas 18% works out as 0.82 * 0.82 * 0.82 = 0.5514, i.e. s 45.84% reduction.
I suppose the only way round that is to upgrade to the Archiver or the ORE Expander, which are probably going to be mahoosively expensive, or to downgrade from T2 to Meta 1, which stills drops cargo capacity and increases velocity reduction.
Definitely less than good. |
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
140
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 11:39:33 -
[231] - Quote
Waylon Skorlin wrote:MuppetsSlayed wrote: What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??).
Expanded Cargohold II GÇô Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%, GÇô Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%
I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it: 9.27% reduction in structure 25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08)
The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot.
Thanks for explaining - I see what you mean now. If you're interested, the current structure reduction is 20% per module, which works out as 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.512, which is a 49.8% drop in strusture HP. 23% works out as 0.77 * 0.77 * 0.77 - 0.4565, which is a 54.35% reduction in structure HP. Similary, the current 10% reduction in velocity works out as 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729, i.e. a 27.1% reduction, whereas 18% works out as 0.82 * 0.82 * 0.82 = 0.5514, i.e. s 45.84% reduction. I suppose the only way round that is to upgrade to the Archiver or the ORE Expander, which are probably going to be mahoosively expensive, or to downgrade from T2 to Meta 1, which stills drops cargo capacity and increases velocity reduction. Definitely less than good. You numbers quoted are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced.
For example, using a Basic Expanded Cargohold (-20% Velocity currently and after patch) on an Iteron V (no skills):
Values if there were no stacking penalties: Velocity - Base: 110 m/s Velocity - 1 Mod: 88 Velocity - 2 Mod: 70 (70.4) Velocity - 3 Mod: 56 (56.32) Velocity - 4 Mod: 45 (45.056) Velocity - 5 Mod: 36 (36.0448)
Actual velocity values in game: Velocity - Base: 110 m/s Velocity - 1 Mod: 88 Velocity - 2 Mod: 73 Velocity - 3 Mod: 65 Velocity - 4 Mod: 61 Velocity - 5 Mod: 60 |
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
598
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 11:54:29 -
[232] - Quote
Perhaps penalties shouldn't stack like bonuses do.
Would make the restrained modules even better of a choice
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1463
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 15:11:53 -
[233] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Waylon Skorlin wrote:MuppetsSlayed wrote: What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??).
Expanded Cargohold II GÇô Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%, GÇô Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%
I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it: 9.27% reduction in structure 25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08)
The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot.
Thanks for explaining - I see what you mean now. If you're interested, the current structure reduction is 20% per module, which works out as 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.512, which is a 49.8% drop in strusture HP. 23% works out as 0.77 * 0.77 * 0.77 - 0.4565, which is a 54.35% reduction in structure HP. Similary, the current 10% reduction in velocity works out as 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729, i.e. a 27.1% reduction, whereas 18% works out as 0.82 * 0.82 * 0.82 = 0.5514, i.e. s 45.84% reduction. I suppose the only way round that is to upgrade to the Archiver or the ORE Expander, which are probably going to be mahoosively expensive, or to downgrade from T2 to Meta 1, which stills drops cargo capacity and increases velocity reduction. Definitely less than good. Your quoted numbers are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced. For example, using a Basic Expanded Cargohold (-20% Velocity currently and after patch) on an Iteron V (no skills): Values if there were no stacking penalties: Velocity - Base: 110 m/s Velocity - 1 Mod: 88 Velocity - 2 Mod: 70 (70.4) Velocity - 3 Mod: 56 (56.32) Velocity - 4 Mod: 45 (45.056) Velocity - 5 Mod: 36 (36.0448) Actual velocity values in game: Velocity - Base: 110 m/s Velocity - 1 Mod: 88 Velocity - 2 Mod: 73 Velocity - 3 Mod: 65 Velocity - 4 Mod: 61 Velocity - 5 Mod: 60
Would you like to plug your figures in a blockade runner before and after and then you will see why we consider it a significant rebalance?
The first three in any ship has the biggest effect, and whilst additional only reduce by a small amount the final speed is very very heavily reduced overall.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Valterra Craven
419
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 15:51:10 -
[234] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: You have stated we are not concerned by Velocity. When one is burning out of a bubble or burning back to a gate or a wormhole we are VERY concerned by velocity!
Whats ironic about this whole thing is that if they don't think velocity is a big deal to modify, then why do they see it as such a big deal to use as a balancing mechanic? |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1463
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 15:58:19 -
[235] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: You have stated we are not concerned by Velocity. When one is burning out of a bubble or burning back to a gate or a wormhole we are VERY concerned by velocity!
Whats ironic about this whole thing is that if they don't think velocity is a big deal to modify, then why do they see it as such a big deal to use as a balancing mechanic?
It will be interesting to hear the response, I believe the effect of the penalties in some cases have been seriously underestimated. Whilst in many circumstances they are not much of a problem, in others they are effectively rebalancing ships.
Module rebalancing is not a low impact excercise, When one changes primary stats and penalties.
Removing duplicate modules is one thing, this is something quite different.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Alex PROTOSS
The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 12:56:52 -
[236] - Quote
CCP Terminus, give a scythe +10 cpu. It can't fit t2 CPR so it was normal with m4 analog, and now it's nerfed. |
Nomago Cealey Garlinger
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 15:14:40 -
[237] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Also, is there anything preventing you readjusting the meta levels so that we have meta 0 for plain T1, then meta 1 for the "better" T1 modules, then meta 2 for T2, with 3 for cosmos, 4 for faction, and headspace/officer starting at 5 and up?
THIS PLS |
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
143
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 17:23:53 -
[238] - Quote
Nomago Cealey Garlinger wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Also, is there anything preventing you readjusting the meta levels so that we have meta 0 for plain T1, then meta 1 for the "better" T1 modules, then meta 2 for T2, with 3 for cosmos, 4 for faction, and headspace/officer starting at 5 and up?
THIS PLS When the Module Tiericide project is complete I suspect we will do something very similar to this. |
|
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 17:59:05 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote: Your quoted numbers are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced.
I wasn't aware of this - thank you for pointing it out.
Even taking that in to account, though, in the Rhea expansion a Viator with full L5 skills and a 10MN AB II had a max velocity of 537 with three Exp Cargo IIs. Now, in Proteus, the same Viator has a max velocity of 430 m/s, which is a 20% reduction.
That's still quite a nerf when trying to escape a bubble. |
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 18:16:16 -
[240] - Quote
I'm also confused now as to the point of T2 modules. In all of these changes, Meta 1 has resulted in greater boosts with reduced penalty whereas Tech 2, for which more skills are required, result in even greater boosts with greater penalties.
Taking Expanded Cargoholds as an example, the difference between Meta 1 and Meta 0 is a 28.61% increase in the boost percentage and a 25% and 13.33% reduction in penalty percentages (structure and velocity respectively).
Comparing Tech 2 with Meta 0, there is a 57.1% increase in the boost percentage but a 15% and 20% increase in the penalty percentages as well.
So, comparing Tech 2 with Meta 1, there is a 22.22% increase in the boost percentage but a massive 53.33% and 38.46% increase in penalty percentages!
So what's the point of training for Tech 2 when the relative differences in boost and penalty are so out of kilter? Shouldn't the concept of Meta 1 and Tech 2 be swapped over (i.e. Meta 1 => greater boost for greater penalty and Tech 2 => greater boost for less or same penalty) to compensate for the extra time required in training for them in the first place?
I'm all for module tiericide as I agree that the previous Meta 1 - Meta 4 modules were, for the large part, unnecessary, but the way it's been implemented just doesn't seem to make sense to me. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |