| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MIDI ION
   |
Posted - 2010.05.19 20:57:00 -
[1]
Edited by: MIDI ION on 19/05/2010 21:00:12
i know if you use 2 or more damps on one ship they get a stacking penalty but it makes sense that if you add another ship with 2 more damps they should get full effect to what's left of the target.... why is it the that when you add the second ships damping that it treats them as tho they are just a 3rd and 4th module on the original ship and penalized accordingly???
|
Biggus McChinnus
Minmatar
The Wild Bunch
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 21:00:00 -
[2]
Spot on.
|
MIDI ION
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 21:08:00 -
[3]
Edited by: MIDI ION on 19/05/2010 21:14:32
basically 2 attackers (A + B) 1 victim (1)
1 has a range of 100 km for example
(A) locks on to (1)
and activates damp with range script (works out to almost 50% range reduction so will use that for sake of simplicity)
thus now (1) has 50km range... IF (B) then damps him you would expect his range to drop another 50% this his range would be 25km
because neither A nor B are using more than 1 damp then you add the next 2 damps both wth a single lvl of stacking and his tgt range should drop to around 10km or so.....
however this isn't the case.... with 4 damps on 2 ships a 100 km tgt range ship still has tgting out to 35 or so km.... why is there stacking across muliple ships...
Is this a glitch or something that needs to be fixed... it doesn't make sense that 2 or more separate ships should be penalized because of what the other ship has and happens to be using....
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 21:34:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/05/2010 21:35:51
You do realize the ewar platforms are there for a reason, right?
Having 3 random hulls with one module each do a better job than a bonused ship with 3 modules is insane.
Not even talking about modules like webbers here that are present on 90% of pvp fittings, that sure wouldnt be ridiculously overpowered at all...
|
MIDI ION
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 21:43:00 -
[5]
Edited by: MIDI ION on 19/05/2010 21:45:43
that's what i am talking about....
you would expect 3 random hulls to do better than 1 ship running 3 modules but they don't...
3 ships running 1 module each do the same as 1 ship running 3 modules....
that's why i think there is a problem
i understand what you mean by the bonuses and all but bonuses or not with sensor damps the bonuses dont reall account for anything once you add that 3rd module
but to say that ship b and ship c should be penalized by a module ship a is running is complete horse crap
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 22:12:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: MIDI ION
but to say that ship b and ship c should be penalized by a module ship a is running is complete horse crap
They are not getting penalized at all, the penalty applies to the effect on the target ship. All they have to do is put their module on another target and all is fine.
|
MIDI ION
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 22:41:00 -
[7]
but thats completel missing the point of using them across 3 ships... 3 modules one hull should have a stacking penalty. but 3 individual units across 3 individual ships thy should get full effect no matter who they use it on tgt ship should have nothing to do with it. that's the whole point of spreading your ewar out so that if one ship gets taken out you still have 2 modules going not to have one ship taken out and have no ewar all of a sudden... the way you are saying it should mean that ships b an ships c's guns and missiles should be penalized too because they are firing at the same tgt.... or that the BCU's shouldnt upgrade the missiles damage as much because they are being upgraded to fire at the same ship.... individual ships should not be effected by other ships modules reguardless of the target unless they happen to be the victim of the ship.... EG ship a's damp shouldnt effect ship b or its modules unless ship A is in fact attacking ship b and not some other tgt...
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Amicus Morte
Shock an Awe
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 22:45:00 -
[8]
While his grammar hurts my brain, I actually think MIDI might be on to something here.
Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenĘt built for this!
Clear Skies - The Movie
|
MIDI ION
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 22:48:00 -
[9]
my most humble appologies for the grammar....
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 23:02:00 -
[10]
Originally by: MIDI ION
but 3 individual units across 3 individual ships thy should get full effect no matter who they use it on tgt ship should have nothing to do with it. that's the whole point of spreading your ewar out so that if one ship gets taken out you still have 2 modules going not to have one ship taken out and have no ewar all of a sudden...
What kind of logic is that? That makes absolutely no sense, your benefit of having ewar on multiple ships is it being redundant, not that it becomes stronger.
|
MIDI ION
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 23:12:00 -
[11]
its both redundant and stronger.....
SIT 1: 3 on 1 hull has a stacking penalty (160km down to 60km) and if that ship is lost so is all your ewar
SIT 2: 1 on 3 ships each having no penalty A. works better (160km to 20km) and B. is safer in the event of the loss of one or more of the ewar ships
figures not exact and for rough example only....
with situation 2 the loss of one of the ships would still net 40'km damp which is still better that that with the stacking penalty.
|
Whiny McEmokid
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 23:50:00 -
[12]
I am with MIDI on this for 2 reasons
1. blobbing needs more encouragement in Eve
2. Gallente recons need nerfing
|
measy
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 00:13:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Whiny McEmokid
I am with MIDI on this for 2 reasons
1. blobbing needs more encouragement in Eve
2. Gallente recons need nerfing
This
I'm so tired of seeing razus everywhere, and don't start about the lachesis. Making other people miss a little lockrange is just way too overpowered.
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 00:39:00 -
[14]
Originally by: measy
I'm so tired of seeing razus everywhere, and don't start about the lachesis. Making other people miss a little lockrange is just way too overpowered.
What the... damps have already been nerfed to hell.
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Amicus Morte
Shock an Awe
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 09:52:00 -
[15]
EWAR ships get big bonuses for EWAR so I don't see how changing 'stacking penalties across ships' would constitute a nerf of EWAR ships. Blobbing is a fact of life in EVE.
Fitting EWAR on multiple ships in your gang will require trading in some other module(s) so that also does not seem overpowered to me (recalls battle with cruiser gang which all had tracking disruptors with horror).
I am with keeping stacking penalties on single ships as otherwise we'll enter lol-fitting hell.
Still, that your EWAR effect is getting pernalized because another ship is also using that kinda of EWAR on your target seems very counter-intuitive to me.
If it the current situation is like this, there is probably a good reason for it. Maybe someone can give some examples where changing 'stacking penalties across ships' would disrupt the game balance badly.
Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenĘt built for this!
Clear Skies - The Movie
|
MIDI ION
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 11:51:00 -
[16]
Edited by: MIDI ION on 20/05/2010 11:54:21
lachesis????
lol next to useless if you ask me tho.... every good T2 ship has a redheaded step-child brother that no one talks about except to explain why he wasn't invited to Christmas Eve dinner so....
Currently There is stacking penalty across ships.... I see little need for this especially since it limits the number of ships you can effectively attack like this...
Assuming we don't use any ships with supposed damp bonuses 3 ships all using damps on one tgt should be able to cut down his tgting range then if say a friend of his warps in those same 3 ships could activate a second module on that second ship and have it be effective.... as it stands now all 3 ships have to activate all 6 modules on one tgt to get the effect that you should get with just 2 un-stacked modules
this is CRITICAL if you are using paper ships like frigs and destroyers and some of their T2 variants (EG Covert ops and dictors)... that once they are locked they are dead.... odds of escaping once locked is very slim indeed. and with the current setup once one ship gets locked and driven off the others need to disengage immediately or they will suffer the same fate since the 2 of them alone isn't enough to keep them safe.... it's essentially an Ewar tank.
there are modules designed to counter EWAR and I think if a person expects to retain their electronics then they need to be fitting these modules...
|
Sir Fourhead
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 13:32:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith
Originally by: measy
I'm so tired of seeing razus everywhere, and don't start about the lachesis. Making other people miss a little lockrange is just way too overpowered.
What the... damps have already been nerfed to hell.
The post you quoted.
|
|
|
|
Your head
Please pardon the prissy overtones that will be found throughout this letter, but the reservoir from which CCP draws its lickspittles is primarily the masses of revolting enemies of the people. |
JASON W0RTHING
Nomad LLP
Wayfarer Stellar Initiative
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 11:45:00 -
[18]
The amount of fail in this thread is overpowering.
Originally by: CCP Shadow
What is thy bidd -- Wait. This thread, I have an irresistible urge to lock it for "being related to neither crime nor punishment."
|
MIDI ION
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 13:49:00 -
[19]
The fail is in the stacking penalty over unrelated modules.
|
Concubinia Scarlett
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 15:57:00 -
[20]
And of course ECM is stacking penalised when used by falcons etc, or it would be OP compared to other types of EWAR now wouldn't it.... ahem.... 
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |