| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sarpy Aranori
   |
Posted - 2011.06.16 20:24:00 -
[1]
"Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."
What is the penalty? o.o
|
Lady Spank
Amarr
Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 20:29:00 -
[2]
Its not really a penalty, it's a 'stacking nerf'. The second module that affects the same bonus will have it's effect reduced, the third further so.
~~~
|
Saile Litestrider
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 20:31:00 -
[3]
The stacking penalty makes each successive module you fit to a ship less effective. For example, your first ballistic control system is 100% effective. The second you fit is only 87% effective, the third is 57%, and so on. More than 5 is really not worth it, the 6th is only 3% effective. Even the 5th is arguable.
You can find more information here: http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Stacking_penalty
|
Nizran L'Crit
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 20:58:00 -
[4]
It's just math really. If you have a resist plate that gives say 50 percent (for the sake of easy math) resistances and you have 0 innate resist to that type of damage. Every incoming 100 damage gets reduced to 50. Add another resist plate and 50 percent of the remaining 50 percent damage is reduced, thereby making it 25 percent resist EXTRA. Third plate drops 25 damage by 50 percent making it 12.5 damage from 25 and making that 50 percent resist plate only give a total of 12.5 resist instead. 4th one would give 6.25 percent instead of 50, hardly worth it, especially when considering that with passive plates, we're talking more like 15 to 20 percent for the first plate and ships already have resists.
With webs, if they have a speed of 500 and your web slows them by 50 percent, that knocks their speed down to 250. Another web on top of that will only decrease their speed by 25 percent of the total so 125.
|
Arazel Chainfire
The Awakened Armada
Infinite Conflux
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 21:47:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Nizran L'Crit
It's just math really. If you have a resist plate that gives say 50 percent (for the sake of easy math) resistances and you have 0 innate resist to that type of damage. Every incoming 100 damage gets reduced to 50. Add another resist plate and 50 percent of the remaining 50 percent damage is reduced, thereby making it 25 percent resist EXTRA. Third plate drops 25 damage by 50 percent making it 12.5 damage from 25 and making that 50 percent resist plate only give a total of 12.5 resist instead. 4th one would give 6.25 percent instead of 50, hardly worth it, especially when considering that with passive plates, we're talking more like 15 to 20 percent for the first plate and ships already have resists.
With webs, if they have a speed of 500 and your web slows them by 50 percent, that knocks their speed down to 250. Another web on top of that will only decrease their speed by 25 percent of the total so 125.
Not quite. Taking a look at the resist example:
Base resist: 0
Hardeners used: 50% (again, for ease of calculation)
Resists after 1 harder: 50% (50% resist, no nerf)
Resists after 2 hardeners: 71.75% (1 50% resist, 1 stacking nerfed resist at 43.5%)
Resists after 3 hardeners: 79.8% (1 50% resist, 1 stacking nerfed resist at 43.5%, 1 stacking nerfed resist at 28.5%)
This is due to stack nerfing, and what put in place originally because 8 unstacking nerfed heatsinks on a geddon was just a bit too much over the top.
-Arazel
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 21:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Nizran L'Crit
It's just math really.
Correct. But your math is wrong. The poster previous to you got it right.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:20:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Templar Dane on 16/06/2011 23:19:59
Originally by: Sarpy Aranori
Punishment for using more than one of the same module?
It hurts so good you'll be coming back for more.
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 04:21:00 -
[8]
Stacking penalty formula and numbers.
-----
"Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you!
-- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
Kagumichan
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 04:37:00 -
[9]
Stating the obvious but just in case someone were to ask why this penalty exists:
Without the stacking nerf it'd be feasibly possible to make your ship 100% resistant to 1 or multiple types of damage, therefore it would be completely immune to whatever the opponent is firing at you (which is very unfair).
I remember reading there didn't used to be a penalty for inertia mods and someone built frigs setups with 0 inertia, essentially allowing them to align and warp to destinations instantly, and letting them go to to maximum impulse/AB/MWD speed without any acceleration time, eventually it got nerfed, obviously, 'cos a frig that can instantly leave a gate is a frig that'll never die.
So yeah, there you go, you can't have too much of a good thing :P
|
Dark Voynix
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 06:32:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Kagumichan
Stating the obvious but just in case someone were to ask why this penalty exists:
Without the stacking nerf it'd be feasibly possible to make your ship 100% resistant to 1 or multiple types of damage
well STRICTLY SPEAKING, thats not true. Even without stack penalty you cannot reach 100% even using any finite number ( as big as you wish) of hardeners. You can come very close to 100% with even few hardeners but 100% is impossible.
For example if we talk about EM and T1 hardeners:
resistance with 0 hardeners: 00%
resistance with 1 hardeners: 50%
resistance with 2 hardeners: 75%
resistance with 3 hardeners: 87.5%
resistance with 4 hardeners: 93.75%
resistance with 5 hardeners: 96.875%
resistance with 6 hardeners: 98.4375%
resistance with 7 hardeners: 99.21875%
resistance with 8 hardeners: 99.609375%
That said you are right about the too high resistance possible if not stack nerfed.
I remember back in 2003 the stacking penalty was not implemented at all and the scorpion with hardeners and expecially because of "inv fields" was a beast of a tanker. Was so damned overpowered versus all other ships that ccp implemented stack penalty ( before someone ask: armour tanking was a complete crap, and was fixed some times later).
From then the stack penalty was applied also to other modules that was not designed for tanking. An example was damage mods ( someone remember the "8x dammage mods" armageddon ?  ) was so ridicolous that they put a limit also there.
Once implemented rigs another the game became unballanced again because is was possible to "nano" a lot of ship like crazy. Overdrives, nanofiber and inertia stabs was different once and generally talking stronger. Once came rigs became really the nano era. Everything was nanoed so ccp put stack penalty also to thove modules and redesigned it ( expecially the nanofiber was nerfed ).
|
|
|
Haruhi Zusumiya
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 07:48:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Haruhi Zusumiya on 17/06/2011 07:49:56
Ah good point and well noted, 100% isn't possible but with a few hundred million low slots on a non-exist ship it could go up to 99.99% (Did I mention that'd take a few hundred million slots? Someone do the math XD)
Still, before the stacking nerf it'd be pretty unnerving when your super mega laser fit battleship fired on a heavy resist tanked ship and the entire volley only did like... 20 damage. Shame I missed those times, I'd have played around with tank fitting a frig and seeing if it could outlast a rep-tanked battlecruiser. (I bet Gallente resist-tanked frigs dominated 1v1 low sec frig pvp back in those days)
EDIT: And whoops, replied on my silly minmatar alt.
|
Dark Voynix
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 08:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Dark Voynix on 17/06/2011 08:03:02
Originally by: Haruhi Zusumiya
Edited by: Haruhi Zusumiya on 17/06/2011 07:49:56
Ah good point and well noted, 100% isn't possible but with a few hundred million low slots on a non-exist ship it could go up to 99.99% (Did I mention that'd take a few hundred million slots? Someone do the math XD)
Still, before the stacking nerf it'd be pretty unnerving when your super mega laser fit battleship fired on a heavy resist tanked ship and the entire volley only did like... 20 damage. Shame I missed those times, I'd have played around with tank fitting a frig and seeing if it could outlast a rep-tanked battlecruiser. (I bet Gallente resist-tanked frigs dominated 1v1 low sec frig pvp back in those days)
EDIT: And whoops, replied on my silly minmatar alt.
Agree, even 6x inv field ship with still room for mwd + point would be quite "unnerving". About the old days. the frigs was quite weak since large weapons had very, very, very better tracking. THe rule was "bigger is better", so ccp changed things to give small ships a rule. A nice exception was the kestrells with 4x standard launcher that could fit fitted 1 cruise missile in it ( YES!! CRUISE missiles on standard launchers) you had to realod each missile but the alfa was great. kestrell gangs was quite common. immagine 10 frigs launching on you 40 cruise missiles. 
other old things:
caracalls launching torpodoes,
thorax sending 15 drones ( yes.. you could use 15 drones ).
aaahhhhh the old days..... unballanced as hell but still fascinating.
|
Kagumichan
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 08:09:00 -
[13]
Yeah, I remember the old Gallente drone heavy ships before drones were nerfed down to only 5 operational per ship. Speaking of that though did you know there's still a Gallente ship that can field and operate up to 10 drones at one time in the game? I think it was a prize from a tournament or something, one of it's racial bonuses is +1 drone operation per skill level and it never felt the drone nerf since it's a limited edition ship. I think it was an Imperial Issue Megathron or Brutix or something like that.
What seems kinda odd though is how Eve managed to switch from the 'bigger is better' ruling to the 'bigger is slower' rule without killing itself, where as the mmo Pirates Of The Burning died because of it, from what I remember a patch changed cannon tracking so galleons couldn't shoot rowing boats, so rowing boats could kill galleons, and that wasn't taken well by the players.
I guess in a sandbox universe like eve with full 3 dimensional movement and things like speed boosters and inertia to take into account, 'bigger is slower' does have more of a believable effect in combat.
|
Dark Voynix
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 08:29:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Dark Voynix on 17/06/2011 08:29:44
Originally by: Kagumichan
Yeah, I remember the old Gallente drone heavy ships before drones were nerfed down to only 5 operational per ship. Speaking of that though did you know there's still a Gallente ship that can field and operate up to 10 drones at one time in the game?
No ..
as far i know in old days the "Drone Interfacing" skills let you use +1 drones per level instead of giving +20% dammage and gallente ships with bonus on drones whad +1 drone usage instead of drone dammage bonus. Since all caused a lot of lag ccp changed the bonus from +1 drone to drone damage. Lower number of drones , same dps. Drones got also ehp buf to make them more durable.
Actually there's no sub capital ships with drone number bonus.
Carriers and motherships are the only ones that can use more than 5 fighters/drones.
|
Kagumichan
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 08:42:00 -
[15]
The ship doesn't show up in the market anywhere but it does exist, I remember reading about it last year, I'll look it up and then get back once I find out what it is.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 08:45:00 -
[16]
Guardian vexor
|
Kagumichan
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 08:51:00 -
[17]
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Guardian-Vexor
tada, the Guardian Vexor, a limited edition Gallente cruiser that is able to field and operate up to 10 drones even now, after the change to drones (which results in it being very strong). There are believed to be less than 20 of them left in the game with Entity obviously owning a few of them, and auctions for this ship ranging around the 28 billion isk mark. 
|
Kagumichan
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 08:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Guardian vexor
Darnit you stole my thunder, I was all ready to make myself look clever as well! 
|
Dark Voynix
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 09:13:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kagumichan
Originally by: Furb Killer
Guardian vexor
Darnit you stole my thunder, I was all ready to make myself look clever as well!
Ah.. yes.. forgot the guardian vexor :P
|
Bibosikus
Gallente
Universal Moose Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 20:30:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Bibosikus on 17/06/2011 20:35:03
Last time I saw one of those for sale, it went for about 15 bill..
edit: Correction - here ..ouch :s
|
|
|
Diomidis
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 01:29:00 -
[21]
Since Damps are getting stacking penalties, shouldn't ECM get the same?
(stealth whine, i know)...
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |