Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
voidvim
Minmatar Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 23:50:00 -
[31]
I like the idea target painter as E-war tool need to be more useful. I was thing of a resistance decreasing ablity as a logistics tool of sorts but it would work just as well for target painters.
|
Isonkon Serikain
Gallente Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 23:52:00 -
[32]
Interesting idea... Although I do aggree, the numbers you suggest are pretty low, when you consider that 1 damage mod can increase your DPS by 20%... But theo nly way to balance such a thing would be to drop it in game... Pity the fool |
Isonkon Serikain
Gallente Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 23:56:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Problem with this is that it makes it even easier for smaller ships to pwn larger ones, while at the same time taking away one of the remaining tools for larger ones to pwn smaller ships. As a new module this might be good. Heck it could be the missing beneficial property of ECCM. But to replace painters? Thats just another disguised battleship nerf.
Good point... tho you could mitigate the effect by making it applicable only to the ship who is using the painter, ie, the resist nerf only affects the guns of the ship who has the target painter mounted? Pity the fool |
Max Hardcase
Art of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 00:02:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 26/10/2006 00:03:19
Originally by: Tasty Burger
Originally by: Max Hardcase As to my idea, just about everything in the game gets a stacking penalty so so should TP. My Bellicose example with 2x TP assumes 80% effectiveness for the 2nd TP (which is very close to the stacking formula).
Calculation of the new resists is pretty easy actually say the numbers come up for 5% reduction of resists. Old resist = 0.60 New resist = ((100-5)/100)*0.60 = 0.57
a 3% drop is crap, it needs to be higher
Thats 3% absolute for a crappy T1 TP with max skills. Keep in mind it applies to everyone that shoots at that target. I do not think we want a repeat of the "everyone bring a Multi II scenario" again.
You want bigger effect ? Point more TP at the target or bring a dedicated TP ship. Sigil with 2 TP I's = 11.25% reduction or 0.6 > 0.5325 Sigil with 2 TP II's = 14.06% reduction or 0.6 > 0.5156
Pretty effective I think.
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 00:06:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 26/10/2006 00:07:47
Originally by: Tasty Burger
Originally by: Max Hardcase
a 3% drop is crap, it needs to be higher
That is a 5% increase to damage taken, on a 0.0 resist it would end up as -5% resist. And Max is not including signature focusing skill right now, nor bellicose(and offshoots)'s bonus. *edit: I looked at OP and saw T2 TP as 5% so I assumed you used that* With just skill it becomes 6.25% increase and with bellicose bonus on top it goes up to 8.59% damage increase per painter. 2 maxed belli painters is something like a 16.71% increase to damage inflicted. I rather think his suggested amount is pretty decent, not *too* strong but not weak either.
Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug |
Nebuli
Caldari Art of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 00:09:00 -
[36]
The main problem I see is this idea is far to good to be put in the game
CEO - Art of War
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 00:20:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 26/10/2006 00:24:56
Originally by: Reatu Krentor Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 26/10/2006 00:07:47
Originally by: Tasty Burger
Originally by: Max Hardcase
a 3% drop is crap, it needs to be higher
That is a 5% increase to damage taken, on a 0.0 resist it would end up as -5% resist. And Max is not including signature focusing skill right now, nor bellicose(and offshoots)'s bonus. *edit: I looked at OP and saw T2 TP as 5% so I assumed you used that* With just skill it becomes 6.25% increase and with bellicose bonus on top it goes up to 8.59% damage increase per painter. 2 maxed belli painters is something like a 16.71% increase to damage inflicted. I rather think his suggested amount is pretty decent, not *too* strong but not weak either.
The 5% figure is the T1 crappy TP with max skills ( so 4% >5% ) Thats the effect it would have on any ship that doesnt have TP% bonus. Vigil gets a 5%/lvl bonus and Bellicose gets 7.5%/lvl. a Tech2 TP would be 5%*1.25 = 6.25% as you said.
Effects of the relevant ship skills on target painters is calculated in my first post.
To the people who like the sig radius effect as it is, we could fabricate a different EW modules that also falls under TP bonus for certain min ships ( ans skills). ( Its probably missile users that like the old effect ).
Gives you a little more choice as to what you want.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 00:53:00 -
[38]
It would also be interesting to have different individual resist modules and then a lower value "multispec". Puts a more tactical spin on it.
Originally by: Isonkon Serikain
Good point... tho you could mitigate the effect by making it applicable only to the ship who is using the painter, ie, the resist nerf only affects the guns of the ship who has the target painter mounted?
That doesn't really fit the nature of EWar. It should be a small bonus for each module, but benefitting more than just one's own ship.
Otherwise it really would be nothing more than a "midslot damage mod".
* * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Scordite
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 00:55:00 -
[39]
We're on the verge of getting a huge boost to tanking. Do you really think it's fitting to start suggesting ways to counter it already? I mean, wouldn't it be more constructive to argue the armor boost before it goes live instead? Devs will likely not be too keen on the whole resist reduction idea right now.
I'm not opposed to the idea in itself, I'm just saying it comes at a really bad time.
On a side note, fixing target painters will cause, you guessed it, amarr whines. Tracking disrupters are effective at what they do, but if target painters were changed this way, tracking disrupters would be the only situational EW type left (only useful against turret boats). Every other EW type would have some beneficial effect no matter what ship you're in and what ship you fight. On top of that, resist reduction, people will say, hits the tanking race the hardest.
But those are just random thoughts.
----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead. |
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 00:58:00 -
[40]
i tought about something similar a bit ago (actually direct damage boost and not lower res)
but imo the problem is that even if a module will add just around a 3% it can be extremely overpowered in situations where capital ships are used...
even if a ship will add just 10% of damage (not that good for small groups) it can have a huge impact in bigger fleets/dread damage...
just with 10 dread such ship will have the dps power of a single dread with the cost and skill of normal, eventually fully insurable ship.
more these ships are, better will be the result (to the point to nullify the res, then additional ships will be useless)
to extremize the situation even more... let's say we have 20 dreads and 5 10% tp ships
everyone of these ships will do 2 times the damage of a dread and the overall damage will be split in something like, 66% from the dreads and 33% from the tp ships, a huge part considering the nature and the number of these tp boats.
|
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 01:00:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 26/10/2006 01:00:34 Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 26/10/2006 01:00:11
Originally by: Scordite
On a side note, fixing target painters will cause, you guessed it, amarr whines. Tracking disrupters are effective at what they do, but if target painters were changed this way, tracking disrupters would be the only situational EW type left (only useful against turret boats). Every other EW type would have some beneficial effect no matter what ship you're in and what ship you fight. On top of that, resist reduction, people will say, hits the tanking race the hardest.
It's getting rather far afield, but I'd support TDs having a negative explosion velocity effect.
* * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 01:07:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Max Hardcase
Totally negating a ships shields in EVE is a bad thing so I had to go for something more subtle. And then it hit me, why not let a TP in eve remove a small% of the enemies resistances (shield/armour/hull) since you know the targets shields harmonics/armor integrity fields/hull integrity fields....
....Pretty decent, no ? This benefits both missiles and guns equally since it works directly on damage.
I Like the current idea of increasing sig radius with TP but this doesnt benefit Turrets as much as it does missiles.
Possible we could leave a smaller sig rad increasing effect on TP's.
Discuss.
just when i thought you couldn't cram anymore useless ideas and crap suggestions onto the forums.... YOU go and do this....
....AND TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!! (just a little dumb&dumber humor for the ppl)
excellent idea. would make the TP a much more combat viable option for those midslots, especially on ships that aren't designed specifically for them
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 01:27:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Max Hardcase
Originally by: Reatu Krentor ...
The 5% figure is the T1 crappy TP with max skills ( so 4% >5% ) Thats the effect it would have on any ship that doesnt have TP% bonus. Vigil gets a 5%/lvl bonus and Bellicose gets 7.5%/lvl. a Tech2 TP would be 5%*1.25 = 6.25% as you said.
Effects of the relevant ship skills on target painters is calculated in my first post.
To the people who like the sig radius effect as it is, we could fabricate a different EW modules that also falls under TP bonus for certain min ships ( and skills) that does my proposed resistance "damage" effect. ( Its probably missile users that like the old effect ).
Gives you a little more choice as to what you want.
heh so you decide to quote me to correct me on something I already made clear I had misinterpreted, that's weak dude. I'd rather have had a response on this calculation for the target painter effect then on some misinterpreted numbers. As said in the post, it's exactly the same formula for resist modules just different value (increasing unresisted damage rather then decreasing it). Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 01:31:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 26/10/2006 01:00:34 Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 26/10/2006 01:00:11
Originally by: Scordite
On a side note, fixing target painters will cause, you guessed it, amarr whines. Tracking disrupters are effective at what they do, but if target painters were changed this way, tracking disrupters would be the only situational EW type left (only useful against turret boats). Every other EW type would have some beneficial effect no matter what ship you're in and what ship you fight. On top of that, resist reduction, people will say, hits the tanking race the hardest.
It's getting rather far afield, but I'd support TDs having a negative explosion velocity effect.
Or have 3 weapon disruptors, 1 specifically for launchers, 1 for turrets and 1 allpurpose(like multi ecm). Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug |
Kuang Jao
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 02:03:00 -
[45]
I admit I didn't read the entire topic, so this may be a bit late in the convo. If so, I apologize.
If TP's currently effect missile dmg more than turret tracking/dmg, why not make the TP have a greater effect when using turrets? I do like the solution you suggest, it really does sound good, but why couldn't the turret's tracking cpu be "synced" with the TP, therefore increasing tracking efficiency (speed) while the TP still increases sig radius? You would have to find the percentage to increase turret tracking speed to balance the missile dmg bonus.
I'm just thinking on the fly (it's not like I've spent time thinking this out), but wouldn't that be a little easier to implement? I will admit though, it doesn't sound nearly as nice as what you've figured out
|
Matuk Grymwal
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 03:10:00 -
[46]
Mmmm...I like the basic premise. It would bring the matar EW (and the recon ships in particular) up to a level of usefulness of the other races.
|
Frater Perdurabo
The Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 03:36:00 -
[47]
This is a really good idea. Sure the numbers need reworking, and a stacking penalty would be applied no doubt, but still, a damn good idea. ----------------------------------- Please note that my response to this thread is probably a result of boredom, and its very likely that i dont care, but am posting in an attempt to wind someone up |
Pepperami
Art of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 03:43:00 -
[48]
This is a great idea max!
They'll never put it in
|
6Bagheera9
Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 04:24:00 -
[49]
I do not like this idea, it doesn't make any sense. What's needed is to make the type of hit you score more dependent on signature radius. Having signature radius decrease with distance like it would in RL like would also make TPs very useful for snipers (both to achive a lock and do maximum damage.)
|
Galactic Magi
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 04:41:00 -
[50]
Very very nice idea.
I have a qus though. The main idea of target painters was to help large ships hit smaller targets. But your current idea seems to be help everyone agaist high resist target.
As most small targets dont even fit hardners this seems like a good weapon vs HACs and heavily tanked ships, but it stil doesnt help large ships agaisnt smaller targets that much.
May be add this as a new module in game and add them to matari ships with bonus?
Just a suggestion.
|
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 06:58:00 -
[51]
The only way to increase the current TP's effect on smaller ships for turrets is to greatly increase the sig radius boosting effect. But that still gives missiles an even greater boost. The problem is that close up with big guns vs small targets the sig radius only plays a minor part of the to-hit probability since big guns have abysmal tracking to begin with.
|
Tyler Lowe
Minmatar DROW Org Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 07:26:00 -
[52]
I like the idea very much, and I don't think your original numbers were all that low tbh. People are quick to point out that a single damage mod grants a higher dps increase, but they are much less quick to point out that this is another stacking non-penalized boost on top of those mods.
You'd have to tread carefully when attempting to arrive at the final figures for such a module, but this would be anything but the ho-hum module it is now. Being target painted should be dreaded, in the same way being damped or disrupted is.
The concept is outstanding. J.A.F.O.
|
Mesasone
Gallente Vogon Deconstruction Fleet Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 07:31:00 -
[53]
I like this idea, I'm not sure that it's the perfect solution, but a perfectly workable one. I really like the idea of damage type specific modules too, it would help with that whole 'amarr issue'. Except that Amarr have few midslots, but that's not my problem
|
Bardi MecAuldnis
Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 09:03:00 -
[54]
/signed
"Give the slaves this useful mod-boost," says the Amarrian missile spammer... --- Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui, so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!! |
Twilight Moon
Minmatar Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 09:29:00 -
[55]
Damn....do it CCP....and deposit a free Maelstrom the OP's hangar when Kali comes around.
/signed
...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative.
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 09:30:00 -
[56]
Whoa, what a nerf to T2 ships (and their resistances) this would be...
50% resistance drops to 45% resistance => target takes 10% more damage. 90% resistance drops to 81% resistance => target takes 90% more damage.
Back to drawing board, I'm afraid. -- NMTZ forum |
Gor Kraon
Minmatar Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 10:03:00 -
[57]
Eh no... They should take the same amount of extra damage, but the numbers have more change on the high resist ships.
Going to use easy numbers... 5000 HP and 50% resist = 10,000 HP tank vs that damage type 5000 HP and 90% resist = 50,000 HP tank vs that damage type
Both get hit by a -10% resist paiter... 5000 HP and 45% resist = 9090 HP tank (10% less than 10,000) 5000 HP and 89% resist = 45454.5 HP tank (10% less than 50,000)
Just like adding a 50% hardener at 0% resists and 90% resists. Both cut damage in half, but the hardener at 90% base looks like it has less effect. The painter will add the same amount of damage to any resist, except 0% (unless they go negative...)
|
wierchas noobhunter
Caldari Praxiteles Inc. E N I G M A
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 10:15:00 -
[58]
i wery wery like this idea and now when we gona have hp boost and some of ships wil tank like crazy this realy maybe a option tbh
shame that it realy to good
join me be cool |
Ishana
Minmatar Neo Knight Errant
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 10:21:00 -
[59]
I like it a lot! _________________________________________________________
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 10:37:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow Whoa, what a nerf to T2 ships (and their resistances) this would be...
50% resistance drops to 45% resistance => target takes 10% more damage. 90% resistance drops to 81% resistance => target takes 90% more damage.
Back to drawing board, I'm afraid.
Read about how resists work(and how by extension the suggested TP would work imo) in this very thread.
Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |