| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zakgram
   |
Posted - 2005.12.15 16:48:00 -
[1]
Been kicking around RMR today and found that:
1) Damage control units don't appear to have the ability to be activated even though they do claim to have an activation cost of 1 cap per 30 secs
2) They didn't have any (visible) impact on structure resists - e.g. they all stayed at 0.
3) They appeared to stack but it was hard to tell since the effect seemed to remain in the fitting screen after I removed them.
Anyone know how they are really supposed to work in preparation for tonight?
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 16:50:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Zakgram
Been kicking around RMR today and found that:
1) Damage control units don't appear to have the ability to be activated even though they do claim to have an activation cost of 1 cap per 30 secs
2) They didn't have any (visible) impact on structure resists - e.g. they all stayed at 0.
3) They appeared to stack but it was hard to tell since the effect seemed to remain in the fitting screen after I removed them.
Anyone know how they are really supposed to work in preparation for tonight?
they are suppost to stack like all other resistance modules - file a bug report and it might be fixed before it goes live
Originally by: Testy McTest
Artillery Extreme Ammo - fires typhoons that launch claws with autocannons that launch guys in space suits that have machine guns that fire ninjas
|
Fi T'Zeh
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 16:54:00 -
[3]
Torment > damage controls dont give hull resists now?
Tuxford > no they don't
Tuxford > the hull hitpoint thing wasn't working anyway
Tuxford > we'll probably try to get it in eventually but for now it's only shield and armor
Tuxford > well I was going to give it hull hitpoints but that was errm problematic
This was posted on our alliance boards.
Franky it sucks cos i fly Gal, i was looking forward to structure tanking =[
....
Alts : The forum equivalent of a WCS ?
|
Sun Ra
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 17:02:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Sun Ra on 15/12/2005 17:03:35
They changed out there work @ the last min? o comon, sif anyoen was gonan use em to structure tank, theyw ere very useful for shield n armour tansk
Patch note:
Damage Control has been improved, the module now requires activation and gives resistance bonuses to shields and armor.
So this is wrong then? offical ccp post pls :P
We're coming for you |
Arleonenis
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 17:10:00 -
[5]
they give very small bonus to shield and armor resistances, not worth for armor tankers (twice lower than energized nano) and for shield tankers dont worth much as another pduII is worth more
only it structure resistance would be worth anything, to survive longer in battle, but if ccp wouldnt implement it... damage controls wouldnt be really worth time
|
J Constantine
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 17:12:00 -
[6]
Before the test server went down today I was using this damage control mod. All the attributes that it adds to shield + armour where applied, but the module did NOT requiere activation and was acting as a passive module although it does list in the desciption that it requieres cap and has an activation time.
|
Addy tehse0xoore
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 17:24:00 -
[7]
yesterday it gave me 100%+ hp on structure and had an activation cost of 1, but today its passive with only resistance to shield and armour
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 17:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Arleonenis
they give very small bonus to shield and armor resistances, not worth for armor tankers (twice lower than energized nano) and for shield tankers dont worth much as another pduII is worth more
only it structure resistance would be worth anything, to survive longer in battle, but if ccp wouldnt implement it... damage controls wouldnt be really worth time
actually, combined with 2 invul fields it makes for some damn high resistances (30% + 30% + 12.5%)
Originally by: Testy McTest
Artillery Extreme Ammo - fires typhoons that launch claws with autocannons that launch guys in space suits that have machine guns that fire ninjas
|
Torment
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 17:35:00 -
[9]
Yeah FI T' was surprised to see the structure resist taken off,as im not sure what Tux meant as they were working fine before...for 1 time in eve most players agreed they were a good thing for most ships.
What your left with now is a low slot module that actually helps shield tankers...And that cant really be called a good thing as armour tankers have no mid-slot module that helps them.
Still confused as to why he thought the structure thing didnt work
|
Zakgram
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 18:01:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Zakgram on 15/12/2005 18:01:51
Originally by: Torment
What your left with now is a low slot module that actually helps shield tankers...And that cant really be called a good thing as armour tankers have no mid-slot module that helps them.
Still confused as to why he thought the structure thing didnt work
Lets look at this with a Ferox with BC 4 on it's worst stat - EW:
EW base resist: 20
1 EW hardner: 60 (100-20 - 50%)
Each DC1 offers 7.5% extra shield resist so...
with 1st DC1: 63 (100-60 - 7.5%)
with 2nd DC1: 65.775 (100-63 - 7.5%)
with 3rd DC1: 68.342 (100-65.775 - 7.5%)
with 4th DC1: 70.716 (100-68.342 - 7.5%)
That's a 10.716 gain for T1 4 low slots used.
Try again with DC2:
with 1st DC2: 65 (100-60 - 12.5%)
2nd DC2: 69.375 (100-65 - 12.5%)
3rd DC2: 73.203 (100-69.375 - 12.5%)
4th DC2: 76.553 (100-73.203 - 12.5%)
And a massive 16.553 gain for T2 4 low slots used.
The gain is obviously worse the higher you get - so if your base resist + bc bonus is in the 70s then you'll get only a few % gain overall.
Now compare that to a PDU II that gives 5% extra shield per slot (so 20% for the 4), 8.5% extra recharge per slot (34% extra), more grid, more cap 5% per, faster cap recharge (8.5% per).
I don't think it's that great. The armour bonus - while nice - isn't that useful since we tend to be shield tankers - and losing the shield usually means game-over anyway.
Now - lets go crazy and not fit any mids to the ferox - then we get:
1st DC2: 30 (100-20 * 12.5)
2nd DC2: 38.75 (100-30 * 12.5)
3rd DC2: 46.406 (100-38.75 * 12.5)
4th DC2: 53.105 (100-46.406 * 12.5)
Not bad, but what to put in the mids ;-) LSE II's aren't good since you'd get much better bonuses for keeping PDU IIs, hmm...
Some inspiration is needed because there *must* be something useful here, if only it can be figured out.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 18:08:00 -
[11]
"actually, combined with 2 invul fields it makes for some damn high resistances (30% + 30% + 12.5%)"
Stacking penalty on third module makes that 12.5% turn into something like 1-2% of actual resistance increase... i.e. say you have 56% resistance with 2x invul.fields, the damage control on top of it will make it 58% instead. Waste of a slot :<
|
Torment
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 18:20:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Torment on 15/12/2005 18:20:20
Yep agreed Jo..was meant to add in my last post that this module has now become useless to all races again(with a very SLIGHT help) to shield tankers.
Would like to see a answer from Tux on this as i may be missing something(Dont get the stucture not working bit:/).
|
Zakgram
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 18:21:00 -
[13]
Originally by: j0sephine
"actually, combined with 2 invul fields it makes for some damn high resistances (30% + 30% + 12.5%)"
Stacking penalty on third module makes that 12.5% turn into something like 1-2% of actual resistance increase... i.e. say you have 56% resistance with 2x invul.fields, the damage control on top of it will make it 58% instead. Waste of a slot :<
Assuming base resist is 0 then the result would be:
0 + 30 (30% of 100) = 30
30 + 21 (30% of 70) = 51
51 + 6.125 (30% of 51) = 57.125
I'm wondering if I can get away with 4 x invuln 2's though... that's about 12.8 cap/sec drain... must use them PDU 2's ;-)
That would give a lowest-resist on the ferox with bc4 of 80.782 (ew) and highest of *cough* 92.32 (expl)
Maybe even drop down to 3 x invuln 2's to get 72.56 (ew) 89.03 (expl) and fit a booster or something that little bit special?
|
Kaylana Syi
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 18:22:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Torment
What your left with now is a low slot module that actually helps shield tankers...And that cant really be called a good thing as armour tankers have no mid-slot module that helps them.
*cough* cap recharger *cough*
Originally by: "Oveur"
I don't react to threats any better than you do
|
Torment
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 18:32:00 -
[15]
*cough* meant resists nub *cough* j/k.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 18:41:00 -
[16]
"Assuming base resist is 0 then the result would be:
0 + 30 (30% of 100) = 30
30 + 21 (30% of 70) = 51
51 + 6.125 (30% of 51) = 57.125"
Afraid no ^^ the modules affecting the same attribute are subjected to stacking penalty -- every module after 1st suffers increasing reduction of its strength, to the point where past 4 modules the effect of another module is practically none.
|
Zakgram
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:05:00 -
[17]
Originally by: j0sephine
"Assuming base resist is 0 then the result would be:
0 + 30 (30% of 100) = 30
30 + 21 (30% of 70) = 51
51 + 6.125 (30% of 51) = 57.125"
Afraid no ^^ the modules affecting the same attribute are subjected to stacking penalty -- every module after 1st suffers increasing reduction of its strength, to the point where past 4 modules the effect of another module is practically none.
The penalty only affects modules that say it affects them; e.g. I fit 5 LSE IIs that affect my shield and it goes up by *lots*.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:09:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 15/12/2005 19:13:38
Originally by: j0sephine
Afraid no ^^ the modules affecting the same attribute are subjected to stacking penalty -- every module after 1st suffers increasing reduction of its strength, to the point where past 4 modules the effect of another module is practically none.
Indeed. Resistance calculations are also a tad less intuitive than what Zakgram wrote when using the stacking penalty. We'll rather have:
1-(.70*1) = .30 or 30%
1-(.7*(1-.7*.869...)) = 1-.517485... = .482515... = 48.2515...%
1-(.7*(1-.7*.869...)*(1-.7*.570...)) = 1-.428904... = .571095... = 57.1095...%
4th mod: 60.7503... %
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Check for updates/known issues and report bugs/problems/questions/other feedback. |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:19:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 15/12/2005 19:24:57
Originally by: Zakgram
The penalty only affects modules that say it affects them; e.g. I fit 5 LSE IIs that affect my shield and it goes up by *lots*.
It would worry me a lot if hardeners were not affected by the stacking penalty as the data used to determine with accuracy the constants of the RMR stacking penalty was gathered when stacking hardeners, precisely.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Check for updates/known issues and report bugs/problems/questions/other feedback. |
Sun Ra
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:31:00 -
[20]
Well the thing was with these modules is when u hit structure it wasnt game over, it allowed your shield booster/armoru rep to get a cycle or 2 in and sometimes come back from the dead
We're coming for you |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:37:00 -
[21]
"The penalty only affects modules that say it affects them; e.g. I fit 5 LSE IIs that affect my shield and it goes up by *lots*."
Some ship attributes are subjected to stacking penalty and some aren't... but it has nothing to do with item desctriptions which can often be out of date and/or inaccurate.
Speed, cargo size, shield size, cpu size, grid size, capacitor size, recharge rates and similar engineering-related values seem to be mostly free from stacking rules. On the other hand damage resistances, damage modifiers, tracking accuracy etc... all do get affected by stacking penalty, to keep things in check -- you can thank people who used to fly Scorpions with 95% resists across the board for that. ;s
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:40:00 -
[22]
it would seriously suck if cap was affected by the stacking..
|
Zakgram
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:47:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Naughty Boy
Indeed. Resistance calculations are also a tad less intuitive than what Zakgram wrote when using the stacking penalty. We'll rather have:
Starting from where exactly? I have a GM email that explained the stacking of hardners to me when I queried them and it says that the "bonus" is applied the the remaining % of the shield.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:53:00 -
[24]
Originally by: j0sephine
(should be some very old thread by TomB somewhere in this forum too, which described everything regarding that in more detail anyone would ever want to know o.O;
This?
^^ found with google, i wasn't around at that time 
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Check for updates/known issues and report bugs/problems/questions/other feedback. |
xenorx
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:53:00 -
[25]
Well if this is true then I am seriously disappointed. I was looking forward to finally having structure resistances. I also recall someone telling me a while back that only one could be used at a time sort of like a MWD or AB. Has that changed too?
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:55:00 -
[26]
"I have a GM email that explained the stacking of hardners to me when I queried them and it says that the "bonus" is applied the the remaining % of the shield."
This is correct; it simply doesn't mention that "bonus" is (also) affected by stacking penalty if you use more than one hardener for given resistance kind...
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 19:56:00 -
[27]
"This?
^^ found with google, i wasn't around at that time "
Aye, that one. thank you for finding it \o/
TomB was Amarr back then... then the Jovians got him ;s
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 20:05:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 16/12/2005 02:32:49
Originally by: Zakgram
Starting from where exactly? I have a GM email that explained the stacking of hardners to me when I queried them and it says that the "bonus" is applied the the remaining % of the shield.
I think that you are mixing things up. Indeed, "the "bonus" is applied to the remaining % of the shield" but that is not the stacking penalty.
Damage taken without hardener = Raw damage * (1 - base resistance)
Damage taken with x% hardener = Raw damage * (1 - base resistance - 50% * (1 - base resistance) )
= Raw damage * (1-x%) * (1 - base resistance)
= (1-x%) * Damage taken without hardener
And that's ho it should be, why "the "bonus" is applied to the remaining % of the shield"... This is not related to the stacking penalty because you aren't stacking modules at this point.
Sincerly yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Check for updates/known issues and report bugs/problems/questions/other feedback. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |