| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Haze zec
   |
Posted - 2010.06.07 09:59:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Haze zec on 07/06/2010 09:59:04
I hit me last night when I was thinking about ewar drones.
Almost every thing in eve is subject to the diminishing returns rule. If you use a module that effects the same attribute on your ship, the 2nd will have a lesser effect. If you use ewar on an enemy ship the second module will have a lesser effect.
Ok fine and dandy, I mean I understand why CCP would put something like this in there. Why you can't use 10 target painters to blow up a frigates signature to the size of a battleship and why you can't fit 5 EANM's and expect to have 99% of armor resists.
What I don't understand is why when you shoot someone there is no stacking penalty if another ship shoots the same target??
I mean whats the RP story for the rest of the stuff that falls under this rule? Do the 3 target painters start to affect and hinder one another? If so I don't understand how 3 different targeting systems pointing their ôradarsö at the same target and shooting their guns doesn't do the same thing?
Imagine this. You have two big fleets (+50 each) fight each other. And instead of the standard primary secondary calling of targets you have groups of max 3 ships focusing on the same target because adding a 4th wouldn't be worth it just like it isn't to have 4 webs, painters, disruptors, EANMs, ECCMs and so on.
What do you think?
|
Haze zec
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:06:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: DuKackBoon
Because shooting twice at someone deals twice the damage. Pretty damn obvious isn't it?
ORLY mr Sherlock? Can you then please explain to me the logic behind two target painters pointing at the same ship not giving twice their bonus to the target ships signature?
|
Haze zec
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:48:00 -
[3]
Why is it not the same as shooting at it? I think it's exactly the same. In fact if painting a target would follow any logic at all the second painter should give an even bigger bonus than the first since it sees a larger ship caused by the first painter and there are no logical reasons for it to not have a full effect. Just like there isn't for guns.
But that's logic. And please... Don't get me wrong. I understand the difference between logic and balancing game mechanics. Like I stated in the first post I understand why CCP incorporated the mechanics of diminishing effects. What I don't understand is why they left out the guns.
|
Haze zec
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:11:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Tarhim
And what exactly is reason for second TP to have even bigger effect than first? From the logic point of view, target is lit up already, you can't lit it up twice as good.
From the in game description:
A targeting subsystem that projects a electronic "Tag" on the target thus making it easier to target and Hit.
From the attribute page:
Signature Radius Bonus 30 %
So you have a ship with a signature of 120 (some cruiser), you paint it with the first TP it's signature inreases to 156m (120m + 30%(36m)). Now according to logic if you have a second TP, this one now paints a target with a signature of 156m and should increase the signature of the cruiser to 202,8m (156m +30%(46,8m)).
See how following logic the second one has a bigger effect than the first?
The only reason why that isn't so in game is because in the description made up rule of: Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized.
which follows no logic what so ever but is there for game mechanic balancing purposes..
|
Haze zec
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:41:00 -
[5]
Valandril, thousands of people do it because they learned that that's how you win. What if "thousands" is the low end and maybe hundred of thousands would do it if were less bloby and more fun?
|
Haze zec
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jelosavich
Originally by: Haze zec
Why you can't use 10 target painters to blow up a frigates signature to the size of a battleship and why you can't fit 5 EANM's and expect to have 99% of armor resists.
If you shine 5 flashlights on something, it's not 5x as bright as if you shone one flashlight on it. Whereas if you shoot someone 5 times, they DO have 5 holes in them.
Even though I'm sure physicists would disagree with you on that one I see your point of maybe picking the wrong ewar type to illustrate my point, perhaps too abstract to comprehend.
So if the TP doesn't work for you how about the web. Please let me know the logical reason why the 2nd web has less of an effect than the first?
|
Haze zec
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 20:00:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
Diminishing returns on EW lead to a cap on effectiveness. If there was a cap on damage output, then it would become possible to tank (or spider tank) the whole world.
Yes you are right and it's precisely why CCP put it in. To cap the ewar you could effectively use on a single target and to prevent IMBA setups. I just don't understand why stop with weapon mods..
I mean you do have a point in that the damage diminishing returns formula would have to be slightly different because of the tank. So how about damage diminishes but doesn't drop below let's say 30%. And while we are at it, as someone pointed out, do the same on remote repping.
|
| |
|