| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Captin Biltmore
   |
Posted - 2005.06.19 00:12:00 -
[1]
Ok, this topic again. Can we get an official CCP statement as to if these things are working correctly? While in my apoc I got jumped by a crow and scrambled. Deciding I'd play I painted him with 2 TII painters and opened up with megapulse. He was orbiting me at 6km at 4200m/s. My first shot gave me 526hp wrecking shot. I started to miss terribly, then I got a 150hp shot. At this point his buddies (gankageddon and scorp) jumped in. The crow decided it was time to leave....as soon as he stopped orbiting to allign for warp....BOOM, dead crow. I was then able to warp away from his backup. I enjoy using painters....but....
Are they suposed to be this good?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 00:18:00 -
[2]
Yea, that's the question isn't it.
New sig time.
Say NO to target painters |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 00:31:00 -
[3]
I'm pretty sure theres a bug with target painters and a MWDing target. A target painted MWDing inty is SUPPOSED to have around 200-something signature radius, but I've seen it give them a sig radius of over 1000m. Thats a couple times bigger than a BS. Even going several km/sec, its hard to miss that.
|
Karkazz
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 01:15:00 -
[4]
meh i dont care one way or the other. Frig pilots have had their day in the sun and its time for someone else to shine. Frig pilots will always find something to whine about, They want to fly about nearly immortal and kick ass chew bubblegum. If this gets "fixed" they will start on about nozes and how they should have tracking and **** and then to smartbombs.. man their just unfair.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 01:25:00 -
[5]
Yea, being able to pop a frig with 1400mm's, unwebbed, at 5 km sure is FAIR
Say NO to target painters |
Captin Biltmore
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 01:41:00 -
[6]
Before we get into this I will remind everyone that there is already a mod that counters the painter....and works wonders. Tracking disrupter.
|
Ardor
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 02:04:00 -
[7]
I dont understand why so many people say the target painters are bugged. The effect of this module is exactly doing what it is supposed to do. That's not a bug.
You could say the target painter needs new values because ships using a mwd have a sig radius of a moon. The target painter is working fine against ships that dont use a mwd, though. The values of the target painters are fine.
If you decrease the sig penalty for mwd it would screw the current mwd balance. The sig penalty of the mwd is fine.
The problem, I don't think it's a problem or a bug, is the combination of mwd and target painters. The only way to code some kind of target painter nerf would be to check if the targetted ship is using a mwd and only then reduce the effect of the target painter by a huge amount if CCP thinks the combination of target painter and mwd is against game balance. I can understand the reasons why CCP avoids to code such extra handling for certain modules even if they can do.
I think interceptors (and some t1 fregates like executioner) using a mwd are way to fast compared to all the other ships. Yes, I know the function of an interceptor. Without target painters inties are a no brainer for flying risk free anywhere if you are trying to avoid fights.
Maybe a reduction by a factor of 2 of energy usage and activation time for mwd would help. For sure not for long range battles but for battles at a gate. This would help to use the mwd more strategic. Currently you are a target like a christmas tree for 10 seconds and even battleships without sensor boosters can lock in this time. A decrease of activation time would also help for small maneuvers like making a fast 180¦ turn or for going faster into warp with a battleship/cruiser. Of course I see the bad sides of this idea so I don't know if that's really a good idea.
|
Alita Tiphares
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 02:07:00 -
[8]
target painters are bugged in so many ways and if you cant see that then im sorry, youre retarded
|
Zaintiraris
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 02:30:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Captin Biltmore
Can we get an official CCP statement
This NEVER WORKS. Otherwise, I think yeah, they should be that good *jumps down flame hole laughing maniacally*
---
Originally by: CCP Hammer
This game was so much better back before people knew math.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 02:38:00 -
[10]
There *IS* a bug, and it's fairly well-documented.
Evidence suggest that, where a Traget Painter with penalty X is applied to a ship already under MWD Signature Penalty Y, the new Signature Radius is not:
(Base Sig)*Y*X
but:
(Base Sig)*Y*Y
in other words, the target painter applies *ANOTHER* mwd sig penalty on top of the existing one, instead of it's correct value.
so, if you paint a ship suffering from 550% sig penalty, you get
(Base Sig)*6.50*6.50
as opposed to (assuming TP II and Sig Focusing 5):
(Base Sig)*6.50*1.875
-------------
Originally by: Gnauton
It was purely accidental. We really don't have a sense of humour at all.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:04:00 -
[11]
CCP have not confirmed that's a bug.
Say NO to target painters |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 04:34:00 -
[12]
keepiru is right. I've target painted a MWDing Inty and calculated out what his sig radius should be, and the actual sig radius after painting is very much greater.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 04:57:00 -
[13]
CCP not confirming it's a bug != it's not a bug
Ive had people tell me theyve been told by ccp not to expect a fix for it in the next patch though.
we shall see.
-------------
Originally by: Gnauton
It was purely accidental. We really don't have a sense of humour at all.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 06:25:00 -
[14]
Well they've "fixed" it on SiSi.
I just tested it: if you MWD Painter has no effect on you atm.
...which isnt really a fix at all, but marginally better than the current situation.
-------------
Originally by: Gnauton
It was purely accidental. We really don't have a sense of humour at all.
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 06:50:00 -
[15]
Use an AB instead.
~Sobe |
BlueSmok
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 07:25:00 -
[16]
Uh I thought the final word was that MWD were not intended for combat only speeding up travel.. IE Jettisoned containers... you take the risk you pay the price... Stop whining..
*Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security.
Bene Gesserit Coda |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 09:00:00 -
[17]
Er, well MWDs are a bit of a combat requirement for most interceptors...
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 09:25:00 -
[18]
... and cruisers, as only option was to live 'under' bs guns. So painters are something that should help locking maybe, but in no way increase chances of hitting.
|
MadGaz
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 10:40:00 -
[19]
Couldnt each ship type be given a max sig radius?? Would even it out abit.
------------------------------------------
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 10:45:00 -
[20]
Originally by: MadGaz
Couldnt each ship type be given a max sig radius?? Would even it out abit.
Bit arbitrary isn't it? Better soloution would be to remove em :/
Say NO to target painters |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 10:46:00 -
[21]
They just need to tweak the effect of the painter versus a MWDing target to a reasonable level. A MWDing Crusader with a 32 signature radius should have an adjusted sig radius of 160. With a 25% painter, that sig radius should be 200. However, for some reason, it's much higher. I think something in the calculation is borked. A sig radius of 200 already puts the Crusader somewhere between cruisers and battlecruisers in terms of signature radius, which is a pretty fair counter to its high speed. To have it much higher than that is getting ridiculous. Battleships already have a counter for interceptors in the Heavy Nos, target painters shouldn't completely doom them. Make them somewhat hittable, yes, but not allow a battleship to totally tear them apart.
|
Dexter Rast
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 11:24:00 -
[22]
from my personal experience target painters have made the combat in eve too predictable and too easy, gone are the interceptors from fights only to be replace by more battleships.
an option for using a target painter should be that it also increases your own sig raius as well as that of your target. maybe this would make the module more `balanced` risk v`s rewards type thing
---------------------------------------------
|
Ardor
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 15:09:00 -
[23]
Originally by: keepiru
There *IS* a bug, and it's fairly well-documented.
Evidence suggest that, where a Traget Painter with penalty X is applied to a ship already under MWD Signature Penalty Y, the new Signature Radius is not:
(Base Sig)*Y*X
but:
(Base Sig)*Y*Y
in other words, the target painter applies *ANOTHER* mwd sig penalty on top of the existing one, instead of it's correct value.
so, if you paint a ship suffering from 550% sig penalty, you get
(Base Sig)*6.50*6.50
as opposed to (assuming TP II and Sig Focusing 5):
(Base Sig)*6.50*1.875
Yes, you are right and I was wrong. I thought I've tested them when they came out. Shame on me.
|
Alita Tiphares
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 15:21:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Originally by: MadGaz
Couldnt each ship type be given a max sig radius?? Would even it out abit.
Bit arbitrary isn't it? Better soloution would be to remove em :/
you would love that wouldnt you, invulnerable frig pwnage ftw? Before painters were introduced it was impossible to catch/kill an inty pilot that knew what he was doing.
having said that i still think they are retarded
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 16:30:00 -
[25]
Sigh, you can all quit the whining already, k.  
Painters are the counter/are countered by the upcoming stealth modules, so until then hold yer horses, we've only got 1 side of the coin.
-------------
Originally by: Gnauton
It was purely accidental. We really don't have a sense of humour at all.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 16:47:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ardor
Originally by: keepiru
There *IS* a bug, and it's fairly well-documented.
Evidence suggest that, where a Traget Painter with penalty X is applied to a ship already under MWD Signature Penalty Y, the new Signature Radius is not:
(Base Sig)*Y*X
but:
(Base Sig)*Y*Y
in other words, the target painter applies *ANOTHER* mwd sig penalty on top of the existing one, instead of it's correct value.
so, if you paint a ship suffering from 550% sig penalty, you get
(Base Sig)*6.50*6.50
as opposed to (assuming TP II and Sig Focusing 5):
(Base Sig)*6.50*1.875
Yes, you are right and I was wrong. I thought I've tested them when they came out. Shame on me.
Apparently not. I've extensively tested them on live and on test, and there is undoubtedly a bug happening when a MWDing target is painted. You don't believe it, please, send me an evemail on the test server and I'll be happy to show you.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 16:51:00 -
[27]
Tested them on SiSi last night, and its gotten funnyer.
As of the latest version - 3492 is it - painting an MWD'ing target has no effect.
Obviously an attempt at fixing the bug gone wrong, because now the Interceptor's sig reduction bonus doesent come into effect either... at any time.
Calling for a module to be removed/nerfed because of a bug is... well... y'all need to go back to kindergarden.
-------------
Originally by: Gnauton
It was purely accidental. We really don't have a sense of humour at all.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 17:31:00 -
[28]
Indeed, all it needs is to be fixed. At least it looks like the devs are working on it.
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 20:19:00 -
[29]
I ran a HED-GP blockade in an ABing Slasher. No damage. Course if they had been prepared for it...
Can any mwd user say the same thing?
Try using an AB II in the situations you get owned in while using an mwd. Do you survive better or worse?
~Sobe |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 21:54:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/06/2005 21:56:07
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/06/2005 21:54:54
Depends heavily on your MWD skills, if you're hit while accelerating and what MWD you're using (T2 is less vulnrable than named).
The key factor for me is that in an interceptor 1v1, without a MWD you are likely dead.
And keepiru? I'd like it removed because it's a bad idea. As for "upcomming" modules, they're not here, and I don't see them. Until then, I can't comment on them (and will they be adding slots to my interceptor for them? If not, then they're useless in context).
Say NO to target painters |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |