| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shin Ra
   |
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:09:00 -
[1]
As most of you will be aware. Sensor dampners and Sensor boosters effectively stack. I wont go over this again, suffice to say it needs to be fixed. After I realised they had broken them on the test server, people quickly discovered that tracking disruptors too were broken in the same way. Well now, I have discovered a 3rd module effected by this.
Shield Boost Amplifiers & Capacitor Power Relays stack!
A capacitor power relay gives a much larger bonus to cap recharge rate than PDUs. A while ago, CCP introduced a -20% shield boost penalty to them to balance shield tanking. Unfortunatly, this penalty stacks with the positive bonus which shield boost amps give (+30% shield boost). Meaning that if a ship fits 3 or more shield boost amps, this all but cancels out the penalty which cap power relays give to shield boosting since positive mods stack before negative mods and because the the +ve and -ve effects are in the same pool.
This essentially means a well setup raven or scorp has a much much stronger shield tank that can be run indeffinatly with the right set of skills and mods.
I am sure this was unintential but it clearly needs a fix as I think its really unfair to armor tankers.
I'm merely lobbying CCP to fix the stacking on these 3 modules:
Remote Sensor dampners + Sensor Booster
Tracking Disruptors + Tracking Computers
Shield boost amps + Cap power relays
Can we get confirmation that this is not an intended effect?
Shin Ra
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:16:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Aakron
Not being able to fly amarr I cant test this but are you saying an Apoc can fit 8 cap relays an XL and 3 amps and run it indefinitely?
Yeah. It would have no resistances tho.
On a tempest or dominix tho, you can fit an invulnerability field too. On a raven you can fit 2 invulnerability fields making it a REALLY strong tank.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:45:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Bazman
Edited by: Bazman on 22/01/2006 11:30:17
How can Boost amps possibly stack with cap relays?
As I explained:
Shield boost amps
Shield boost bonus 30%
Capacitor Power Relay
Capacitor recharge rate 20%
Shield boost bonus -10% (not really a bonus, but a penalty)
Since both these mods are effecting the same stat, shield boost bonus, only 4 can stack. And the positive will stack first. So a ship with 3 shield boost amps will and 5 cap power relays: 3 shield boost amps will apply, then 1 cap power relay will apply. This means that in reality, having 5 cap power relays on this ship will give a -1 or -2% penalty to shield boost in total. The other 4 cap power relays will take the stacking formula beyond 4 mods, meaning they will give almsot no noticable difference.
Also, cap recharge is unaffected by the stacking nerf so it compounds this setup.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:49:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Shin Ra on 22/01/2006 11:50:02
Originally by: Adril Alatar
So there should also be a way to get around the cap recharge penalty of shield power relays?
Fitting 3 - 4 mods that give cap recharge bonus (pdu's) and a few shield power relays should give good shield recharge rate and dont drop your cap recharge rate. will test this after downtime.
CCP FIX THIS!!
Yeah this will work too!
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: LUKEC
OMG...
Perma tanked vindicator, anyone? :)
Oh or omg, rattlesnake.
The insane tanking is possible with noraml mods.
If you bring in faction mods into the equation, you get some STUPIDLY powerful tanks. Pith XL shield booster, with 50% invul field, with 45% shield boost amps and 32.5% cap power relays gives you a tank so stupidly powerful, its just rediculous.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:32:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Antic
any heads up on the tech 2 ammo and tracking computers ? I dont have a supply of that kind of ammo so cant test.
I'm almost certain they do NOT stack. This is because the the tracking info on the ammo is labeled 0.75% yet the tracking computers are 20%. This already means that they are clearly using a different pools to bring a total tracking speed together. This is how they can solve the bugs with the other 3 mods. Pool them seperatly.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:46:00 -
[7]
Originally by: franny
this maybe will get damps fixed
nice find Shin Ra
We can but hope
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:15:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
You selfish immature [expletive]
1) Naughty Boy and myself figured this one out about two weeks ago
2) We both self-censored ourselves when we realised the magnitude of the problem, and NB bugreported it
3) Shin Ra obviously read it and continued to post about it in that thread
4) We had to get a mod in to deal with what is obviously publishing an exploit
Grow up or get lost. This kind of thing IS NOT CLEVER OR FUNNY. This cannot be fixed quickly; I'm sure CCP are working on it as they're aware of this problem and will want this hole plugged. By publishing this again you're not only causing unnecessary and untold headaches, you've probably delayed a proper fix while CCP rush to close what is now a public loophole, quite possibly with a special-case exception for this case which reduces the urgency of fixing damps and disrupters.
Be thankful I'm not a developer because I would ban you outright with no appeal for pulling something like this.
If this was an exploit, surely the mods would deal with it the same way they dealt with the Wasp situation?
This is probably not an exploit seeing as no "don't use this" warnings have been published despite, as you say, you having bugreported it.
Did the guy who publicised the problem with WASP drones get banned? No, everyone knew about the problem and priority was given to the fix.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:25:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Shin Ra on 22/01/2006 13:27:39
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=276561&page=3#64
You were censored for it last time. You decided to do it again.
Aside from the fact your not supposed to discuss moderation, that incident was in a completly different context.
In particular:
"Abusing exploits or encouraging others to do so can get you in a lot of trouble."
I am not abusing this personally and certainly not encouraging anyone else to use it unless CCP say its okay. That is one of the points of this thread.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:32:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Sarmaul
btw, could someone tell me if this applies to a cyclone with it's built-in boost bonus?
Built in bonuses should not apply in stacking forumlae. I would highly doubt it. Still usiing 3 shield boost amps on a cyclone will give u a solid shield tank to say the least.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 00:21:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hanns
I think CCP needs to give Shin Ra a BH position.
CCP couldn't pay me enough.
This is well and truely out in the open now. I've started the ball rowling and that was my intention. Next stop, TomB's house...
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 01:27:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Shin Ra on 23/01/2006 01:27:59
Originally by: Peppo
Edited by: Peppo on 23/01/2006 01:15:55
Tob made me do it 
Quality
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 01:53:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Btw do sensor backup arrays stack ? Did anyone test it ? maybe that's also a problem ...
No. We fitted out a raven with 1370 Gravimetric sensor strength. The worrying thing was my scorp with a str 6 multispec managed to jam him a couple of times.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 04:05:00 -
[14]
"And no, i don't really like this thread was posted in the first place. Because everyone can easily tell the purpose of it -- it's posted so people can make wide usage of it, to the point where devs have no choice but to do something about it, since it *is* quite game breaking. It's kind of cheap black mail and if i were a dev currently working on the proper fix for the whole stacking issue, i'd be quite p.ssed at this kind of stunt. Maybe to the point of actually fixing everything but the sensor dampeners stacking, at least for couple more months... just to show that no, this isn't a way to get things done the way someone wants them to be. ¼¼;;"
I'm simply highlighing the fact that this a much bigger problem than originally thought in the hope ccp devote more resources to a fix. There is nothing wrong with adding some pressure to get this fixed. Fixing everything but sensor dampners is just stupid. CCP don't intentially messup their own game. They occasionaly need players to point them in the right direction. That is all that is happening here. Nothing more.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 05:26:00 -
[15]
"They know very well by now this is broken. They also know very well it applies to the shield boosting stuff. "applying pressure" like that and "pointing in the right direction" and all that at this point... it'd would honestly just annoy me >.<"
Perhaps if we recieved a little more communication from CCP on the matter, there would be less of a need for me to lobby them in such a manner.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 08:05:00 -
[16]
Originally by: theRaptor
It is not that major. It is not like this gives shield tankers massively better tanks, they just last longer. But in anything but minor skirmishes the improved recharge rate will only delay the inevitable shortly.
Yeah obviously with sustained firepower, a target will always go down no matter what his tank is. Doesnt change the fact that this will cause some very powerful tanks.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.23 12:20:00 -
[17]
Actually someone said: "I wonder if this would work with shield boosters and cap power relays"
I went and tested it and it did.
Whats the big deal? We all want it fixed.
|
| |
|