|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Grymwulf
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 20:12:31 -
[1] - Quote
Ok, the amount of salt being generated in this thread is amazing. Let's not go overboard though...
Agreed, the nerf to Rorqual yields does seem to be a bit overboard, combined with the other changes it's hard to predict the actual change in yield.
I believe the amount of nerfing suggested shows yet again how CCP has very little idea of how to adjust things in a smart and intelligent way. First off, make one change, see how it goes, don't do 3 different changes where the combination of them all can be hard to predict. Honestly, make the changes to one thing at a time, less chance of unintended consequences.
Has no one at CCP learned the lesson from the history of overly complicated POS code? This goes again to my earlier comment, don't make big sweeping changes when small steps are capable of addressing the issue.
Question #1 - Is there currently a coded mechanic to address overpowered ECM capabilities when a particular module is activated? Question #2 - Is it easier to adapt already existing code that has been through several passes of QA, or to code a truly unique and untested method that has glaringly obvious exploitable issues?
Coding an entirely new solution to a problem that already has an easily adapted solution already in the code-base seems more about pride and hubris than anything else. Is this a certain developers attempt to demonstrate that their solution is better than one coded by someone else? Is this ego getting in the way of effective coding?
I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
|
Grymwulf
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:30:30 -
[2] - Quote
Querns wrote:Anya Aivora wrote: What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd.
Wrong. Industrial cores provide full ECM immunity when running. (Times I have repeated this: 3)
I've seen this stated, but don't notice anything in the attributes of the Industrial Core that indicate that this ability is granted.
I see -80% resistance bonuses to Sensor Dampener, Remote Assistance Impedance, but nothing regarding ECM.
I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
|
Grymwulf
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:35:12 -
[3] - Quote
Grymwulf wrote:Querns wrote:Anya Aivora wrote: What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd.
Wrong. Industrial cores provide full ECM immunity when running. (Times I have repeated this: 3) I've seen this stated, but don't notice anything in the attributes of the Industrial Core that indicate that this ability is granted. I see -80% resistance bonuses to Sensor Dampener, Remote Assistance Impedance, but nothing regarding ECM.
I just tested it, and you are quite correct - "xxx cannot be influenced by xxx ECM due to its resistances."
Limitation: Industrial Core must be active.
I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
|
Grymwulf
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:46:01 -
[4] - Quote
Querns wrote:[quote=Grymwulf][quote=Querns] https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=42890 Hit the attributes tab, scroll all the way to the bottom. ECMResistance 0%. (This value is inverted; 0% means "immune.") Edit: Saw your post above after I hit submit; more verification is always good!
But this just demonstrates the ease of solving it by adding 1 database entry for this item -
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=41411 "EW Capacitor Need Bonus9999900 %"
So, the choice is allocation of developer time and resources. Write 1 line of SQL code to add an attribute to an itemID *OR* spend many developer man-hours custom programming a solution, additional QA man-hours testing the solution, and additional complexity to an already complex code base.
I wonder which is easier?
I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
|
Grymwulf
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:05:27 -
[5] - Quote
I can see some of the concerns here - let me see if I can address your three main triggers for the need in change in rorqual Panic usage.
Quote:#362 - 2017-02-24 16:51:44 UTC | Like 2 Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far! I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes: There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
- The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
- The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
- The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.
Point 1 - alternatively, just take the ability to mount warp scramble/tackle modules from a Rorqual. Or, add a penalty to the Panic module that imposes a passive 100,000% capacitor use increase for all warp disruption modules. This functionality penalty/bonus is already coded in the game in several different ways (NSA, reduction for tackle frigates etc), so reduces follow-on effects and reduces server load.
Point 2 - I can see where the issue about this is, but not sure how much of a change is necessary at this point, I don't see any good options at this time.
Point 3 - Add Rorquals to the disallowed ships just as interceptors are OR just make it that active Entosis disallows PANIC
I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
|
|
|
|