EVE Search - The sensor dampner nerf takes another unexpected twist

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The sensor dampner nerf takes another unexpected twist

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
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
ParMizaN	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:12:00 - [2] fitting 3 amps to have a near sustainable tank seems ok to me .. and i fly only amarr Phenomena of ironies, cast the litany aside How intelligible, blessed be the forgetful
Aakron	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:14:00 - [3] 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?
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:16:00 - [4] 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.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:20:00 - [5] Damn why didn't I think of that! how could I overlook suck powerful setup opportunity, I knew about the RMR stacking effects. Thanks for not keeping it secret
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:26:00 - [6] this was posted by someone already it didnt get much attenshion though since it wasnt written out too well.
Bazman	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:27:00 - [7] Edited by: Bazman on 22/01/2006 11:30:17 How can Boost amps possibly stack with cap relays? ----- Hi TomB! All out Do or Die Blasterboat for tier 3 Gallente battleship please! Make it look cool too. Thanks.
Kalast Raven	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:30:00 - [8] Shin Ra, I think you found what you needed to find. Nice work. ------- K. Raven
Renox	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:32:00 - [9] Hm.. wonder it works that way with the tech II ammo too. I mean if you fit 3 tracking comps and then the ammo that reduce tracking, would it work the same way and not apply with tracking penalty? I don't have access to the game atm so I can't test it, but funny thought none the less. TheJay > grrr slow stupid garlic eating surrender monkeys
Renox	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:34:00 - [10] Originally by: Bazman Edited by: Bazman on 22/01/2006 11:30:17 How can Boost amps possibly stack with cap relays? I believe it's because the amps bonus affect the same attribute as the cap relays penalty and if CCP made it so that only 3 changes (be it bonus or penalty) will be applied for each attribute and the positive are added first... TheJay > grrr slow stupid garlic eating surrender monkeys
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:34:00 - [11] Originally by: Renox Hm.. wonder it works that way with the tech II ammo too. I mean if you fit 3 tracking comps and then the ammo that reduce tracking, would it work the same way and not apply with tracking penalty? I don't have access to the game atm so I can't test it, but funny thought none the less. good point: ill test that when servers go back up
Adril Alatar	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:39:00 - [12] 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!!
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:45:00 - [13] 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.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:48:00 - [14] OMG... Perma tanked vindicator, anyone? :) Oh or omg, rattlesnake. I use no guns... i smack to death.
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.22 11:49:00 - [15] 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 - [16] 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.
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2006.01.22 12:08:00 - [17] Edited by: Goberth Ludwig on 22/01/2006 12:09:02 Very good job Shin Ra finding this out. EDIT: just came to my mind, what about mwd and pdus ? - Gob (also known as Admiral Goberius)
Antic	Posted - 2006.01.22 12:14:00 - [18] any heads up on the tech 2 ammo and tracking computers ? I dont have a supply of that kind of ammo so cant test.
dalman	Posted - 2006.01.22 12:23:00 - [19] Originally by: Goberth Ludwig EDIT: just came to my mind, what about mwd and pdus ? They are not subject to stacking penalty. And now this really needs fixing... Like if shield tanking weren't already overpowered, now we can have the 'uber-tank-forever'-ravens back. Drink up, shoot in. Let the beating begin. Distributor of pain. Your loss becomes my gain...
Grut	Posted - 2006.01.22 12:31:00 - [20] Originally by: dalman Originally by: Goberth Ludwig EDIT: just came to my mind, what about mwd and pdus ? They are not subject to stacking penalty. And now this really needs fixing... Like if shield tanking weren't already overpowered, now we can have the 'uber-tank-forever'-ravens back. nah ravens have things to put in their lows now apart from cprs. Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know... Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.22 12:32:00 - [21] 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.
franny	Posted - 2006.01.22 12:45:00 - [22] this maybe will get damps fixed nice find Shin Ra
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.22 12:46:00 - [23] Originally by: franny this maybe will get damps fixed nice find Shin Ra We can but hope
Shinnen	Posted - 2006.01.22 12:49:00 - [24] Originally by: Shin Ra 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 I fully support you in your rallies! :) Lets hope they give us some info --- INFOD
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:07:00 - [25] this is getting ******* stupid now. did ccp actually test the effects of the new stacking penalty at all?
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:11:00 - [26] 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.
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:12:00 - [27] MWD and PDU cap modifiers are listed with the same name "Capacitor Bonus" Since pdu stacks will 3 pdu cancel the mwd penalty? - Gob (also known as Admiral Goberius)
DarK	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:13:00 - [28] So cyclone ?
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:15:00 - [29] 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.
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:22:00 - [30] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=276561&page=3#64 You were censored for it last time. You decided to do it again.
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:25:00 - [31] 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.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:29:00 - [32] this is not an exploit - this is exactly how ccp have designed the game mechanics. it's completely unfair and overpowered, but it's not an exploit.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:30:00 - [33] btw, could someone tell me if this applies to a cyclone with it's built-in boost bonus?
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.22 13:32:00 - [34] 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.
Roga Midrennie	Posted - 2006.01.22 15:19:00 - [35] 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? You dont even need 8. I just tried this out with my terrible shield skills (shield comp lvl 1, the other 2 at lvl 4). xl c5l, 2 amps, multispec hardener 6 relays, 1 named damage control average of 53% resis repping 178hp/sec forever. 2 large accomos with maxed skills gives 128hp/sec and can also be run forever using same amount of slots and has 62.5 average resis (thats 3 tech 1 damage specific hardeners).
Azuriel Talloth	Posted - 2006.01.22 15:26:00 - [36] Respect for not keeping it to yourself for abusage. Gogo CCP QA Division Interdictors: Destroyer-class vessels, designed to pull other vessels out of warp.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.22 16:08:00 - [37] "If this was an exploit, surely the mods would deal with it the same way they dealt with the Wasp situation?" IIRC they did erase Farjung's post describing this effect, on that very basis (exploit info) I'd guess it is considered exactly that (exploit, unintended side-effect giving unfair advantage) because the whole CPR shield boost penalty was introduced to prevent people from filling low slots with relays and then having fully sustainable high performance shield tank in the mids. Which is what the change in stacking allows again, now. Difference between this situation and the Wasp exploit is, it's easy enough to notice the Wasps are involved -- they show on your killmail. But there's no "proof" someone is running the uer shield tank until you manage to kill them and find all mods in their can.... and with this sort of defense, killing can become quite problematic. :s
Equinox II	Posted - 2006.01.22 16:14:00 - [38] CCP, fix this, tracking disruptors, sensor damps and cyno-field on recon now! How many bug reports and patches do you really need? CCP Hammer > Next patch we will make sure to boost Amarr and Nerf Caldari.
Ante	Posted - 2006.01.22 16:32:00 - [39] I wonder if this is why I witnessed a solo Raven tank 2 Megathrons and 2 ceptors + drones, eventually managing to beat them all back...
Face Lifter	Posted - 2006.01.22 16:35:00 - [40] since I really want to PvP using this technique, I'd like a statement from CCP Is this an exploit or not? As far as I know, the positive and negative stacking effect has been brought to attention of CCP before the last patch. They openly said that they will consider its effects. They decided that the effects are acceptable since there was no fix in the last patch. So technically, this is not an exploit, but I'd say it unbalances the game somewhat, in favor of much stronger tanks. Do we want to keep better tanking? CCP has moved in that direction already, maybe we should think of it as just another step forward
Wee Dave	Posted - 2006.01.22 16:42:00 - [41] Exploit or not, either way expect to have about ten days to use it, max.
Antoinette Civari	Posted - 2006.01.22 16:43:00 - [42] Thanks Shin Ra for breaking EvE :) Seriously, if this becomes well known ( and it will become well known ) we'll soon see a lot ravens that are tanked to **** which results in breaking the balance in pvp situations. Hooray. I hope CCP acts fast on fixing this, but i seriously doubt it. :\
James Lyrus	Posted - 2006.01.22 17:03:00 - [43] If you want to confirm whether it's an exploit or not, pressy on that thar f12. -- We are recruiting Carriers on sale
Blind Man	Posted - 2006.01.22 17:11:00 - [44] Edited by: Blind Man on 22/01/2006 17:11:48 /trains caldari bs 4 o ya and cyclone + XL booster + 4 amps + 4 cap relays, 4tw.
Joshua Foiritain	Posted - 2006.01.22 17:17:00 - [45] Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 22/01/2006 17:18:01 Hmm gotta go buy me some shield boost amps for my raven. Awesomeness On the bright side, if this is an exploit then so would fitting Sensor boosters be... -------------
Ranger 1	Posted - 2006.01.22 17:28:00 - [46] Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 22/01/2006 17:18:01 Hmm gotta go buy me some shield boost amps for my raven. Awesomeness On the bright side, if this is an exploit then so would fitting Sensor boosters be... Exactly.
Karazaan	Posted - 2006.01.22 17:30:00 - [47] Originally by: Shin Ra 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. There is only one way to see this, you should be banned from the forum for a few months, to think about it. You are truly transforming the truth to achieve your goal, worse, you are now sacrificing all of Eve balance to reach it. What's next? A massacre in Jita? You have become an annoyance for the devs and the community. This is my feeling and I'm sharing them.
James Lyrus	Posted - 2006.01.22 17:33:00 - [48] Originally by: Blind Man Edited by: Blind Man on 22/01/2006 17:11:48 /trains caldari bs 4 o ya and cyclone + XL booster + 4 amps + 4 cap relays, 4tw. Actually you only need 2 amps - invulnerability fields go quite well in the other slots. -- We are recruiting Carriers on sale
Ranger 1	Posted - 2006.01.22 17:46:00 - [49] For crying out loud... This explains several odd things I have noticed lately. Shin Ra is OBVIOUSLY not the only person to have figured this out. However, the others are using it to their advantage. I'd much rather we all know how the current game mechanic is working and plan for it, rather than be raped by those that no qualms using this "secret method" to themselves. I quite understand the argument to keep it as quiet as possible until it is fixed... but frankly, it was already to late for that even before this thread. The issue's with the new stacking formula were coming to light before the last patch and frankly, if it wasn't addressed in the last patch then (in this case) CCP is not devoting enough resources to the problem. I don't really see this as an exploit or a bug. This is a new game mechanic that is working as intended, however it is having evidently unforseen results that literally affect every vessel in the game in one way or the other. If it were limited to a few ships or situations, it might be a different story. That is not the case. We need clarification on this, and we need it NOW. Keeping it a secret is NOT going to achieve this.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.22 17:50:00 - [50] "Actually you only need 2 amps" Even one is enough for that matter; completely offsets the penalty from all cpr's you'd fit, and still gives ~20% increase of booster efficiency...
De ath	Posted - 2006.01.22 18:28:00 - [51] I would say this is best described as a bug, if you take a quick look at the descriptions of the six modules you mention the stacking penalty (or bonus in this case) is not intended to apply to Cap Relays. Piccies of 6 mods for easy reference Merits of the stacking penalty favouring defenders and not attackers in the other two situations aside it is at least clearly advertised in the module description that this will occur. The same is not true for Cap Relays, therefore its a bug, or exploit if people are using it in combat to their advantage. I would say the stack penalty is functioning as intended in the other case, why shouldn't defensive mods nullify offensive mods? I do however think Shield Amps nullifying Cap Relay penalties is wrong.
Gierling	Posted - 2006.01.22 18:37:00 - [52] I would say that there are probably more broken modules using this logic. They need to be found and documented. snip That's not very appropriate. - Teblin
Farjung	Posted - 2006.01.22 19:44:00 - [53] Originally by: j0sephine "If this was an exploit, surely the mods would deal with it the same way they dealt with the Wasp situation?" IIRC they did erase Farjung's post describing this effect, on that very basis (exploit info) I'd guess it is considered exactly that (exploit, unintended side-effect giving unfair advantage) because the whole CPR shield boost penalty was introduced to prevent people from filling low slots with relays and then having fully sustainable high performance shield tank in the mids. Which is what the change in stacking allows again, now. Difference between this situation and the Wasp exploit is, it's easy enough to notice the Wasps are involved -- they show on your killmail. But there's no "proof" someone is running the uer shield tank until you manage to kill them and find all mods in their can.... and with this sort of defense, killing can become quite problematic. :s Verily ;\ I still think it's wrong to call it an exploit, as it seems an inevitable result of the new stacking penalty, but whatever. Might as well call anyone running dual sensor boosters/tracking comps a filthy sploiter. But anyway, I spent quite a while on sisi trying to come up with a setup that could really take advantage of this and the results were a bit meh to be perfectly honest. You have to give up quite a lot of slots to make it work, it generally makes more sense to just go for a cap injector and free up a bunch of slots anyway.
Farjung	Posted - 2006.01.22 19:44:00 - [54] Originally by: j0sephine "If this was an exploit, surely the mods would deal with it the same way they dealt with the Wasp situation?" IIRC they did erase Farjung's post describing this effect, on that very basis (exploit info) I'd guess it is considered exactly that (exploit, unintended side-effect giving unfair advantage) because the whole CPR shield boost penalty was introduced to prevent people from filling low slots with relays and then having fully sustainable high performance shield tank in the mids. Which is what the change in stacking allows again, now. Difference between this situation and the Wasp exploit is, it's easy enough to notice the Wasps are involved -- they show on your killmail. But there's no "proof" someone is running the uer shield tank until you manage to kill them and find all mods in their can.... and with this sort of defense, killing can become quite problematicEVE Online \| EVE Insider \| Forums
ArchenTheGreat	Posted - 2006.01.22 20:54:00 - [55] Originally by: Farjung But anyway, I spent quite a while on sisi trying to come up with a setup that could really take advantage of this and the results were a bit meh to be perfectly honest. You have to give up quite a lot of slots to make it work, it generally makes more sense to just go for a cap injector and free up a bunch of slots anyway. It could be nice setup for mission runners. 2 hardeners and XL booster running in auto mode forever. Damage is good enough mostly - it's tank which is a problem during missions.
Valea Silpha	Posted - 2006.01.22 21:21:00 - [56] Despite all the bad press being slung at Shin Ra, i think that exposing the problem widely is the best way to deal with it from a community stand point anyway. It does indeed appear to be a bug, but as theres been no specific advice on if using this type of set-up is an exploit or not, we are all caught in a kinda limbo. Now its well known at least the decent parts of community who are self-regulating and want to avoid using exploits or exploia-a-like effects will be better placed to decide if they want to continue using the set-up.
Neon Genesis	Posted - 2006.01.22 21:26:00 - [57] So basically you're saying eve has regressed to how it was 6 months in? /neon logs in.... There, i just contributed nothing to your thread
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.22 21:36:00 - [58] "But anyway, I spent quite a while on sisi trying to come up with a setup that could really take advantage of this and the results were a bit meh to be perfectly honest. You have to give up quite a lot of slots to make it work, it generally makes more sense to just go for a cap injector and free up a bunch of slots anyway." Well, i kind of like this one: * 2x invul field II, 2x shield amp, large booster II + medium booster II, cap relays. ... cap neutral, equivalent of x-large tech.2 booster running non stop with 48% or so to all resists, but without grid / cpu issues --can fit tech.2 sieges easily-- ... and not limited to short tanking time offered with cap booster (plus, the extra space to fit ammo due to no room taken by cap charges is nice) It's possible to swap parts a bit there and make room for target painter / sensor booster / scrambler while maintaning the tank ability... would be a tad bit more expensive, though, and more demanding on the skills. Damage is obviously lesser than the gank setup will dish out, but the extra tank ability can quite make up for it in certain cases...
NebulousBlur	Posted - 2006.01.22 21:39:00 - [59] Thanks Shin Ra. Unlike some of the others, I don't believe you have done anything wrong. I'd rather know about quirks in the combinations of modules that people may be equipping against me and my friends than to be in the dark (and at a disadvantage) I hope CCP fixes this positive/negative modifier stacking to work more sensibly.
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2006.01.22 21:39:00 - [60] I would say Shin Ra is right on reporting this. I read the previous sensor modules problem, but did not think in such a large scope. There are many out there that did and are now using this to their advantage. If this is an exploit, the devs should warn about it as they did with the wasps issue. Not doing so is a silent approval for me. Considering the issue itself, seems the stacking penalty was worked out on paper with nice numbers, then was tested on the obvious modules and implemented. Nobody took a deeper look it seems. ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well ...
Stratosfear	Posted - 2006.01.22 21:47:00 - [61] Of course shin ra didn't do anything wrong. It's just that some people wanted to keep w1n setups for themselves.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.01.22 22:09:00 - [62] Originally by: Karazaan There is only one way to see this, you should be banned from the forum for a few months, to think about it. You are truly transforming the truth to achieve your goal, worse, you are now sacrificing all of Eve balance to reach it. What's next? A massacre in Jita? You have become an annoyance for the devs and the community. This is my feeling and I'm sharing them. grats - you just won Sarmaul's Retard of the Day award. It was reserved to the covert ops I managed to snag as he decloaked on the otherside of the gate today, but you not only demonstrate true stupidity, but blind ignorance and excessive hyperbole as well.
Hanns	Posted - 2006.01.22 22:23:00 - [63] I think CCP needs to give Shin Ra a BH position.
Farjung	Posted - 2006.01.22 22:37:00 - [64] Edited by: Farjung on 22/01/2006 22:38:30 Originally by: j0sephine "But anyway, I spent quite a while on sisi trying to come up with a setup that could really take advantage of this and the results were a bit meh to be perfectly honest. You have to give up quite a lot of slots to make it work, it generally makes more sense to just go for a cap injector and free up a bunch of slots anyway." Well, i kind of like this one: * 2x invul field II, 2x shield amp, large booster II + medium booster II, cap relays. ... cap neutral, equivalent of x-large tech.2 booster running non stop with 48% or so to all resists, but without grid / cpu issues --can fit tech.2 sieges easily-- ... and not limited to short tanking time offered with cap booster (plus, the extra space to fit ammo due to no room taken by cap charges is nice) It's possible to swap parts a bit there and make room for target painter / sensor booster / scrambler while maintaning the tank ability... would be a tad bit more expensive, though, and more demanding on the skills. Damage is obviously lesser than the gank setup will dish out, but the extra tank ability can quite make up for it in certain cases... Yeah, I was playing with something like this but didn't really see the application for PvP, except maybe as bait or something. Injector + ballistics would kill it in (meaningless) 1 v 1, it'd die just the same as any other ship to focussed fire if the fight involved more than 5 or 6 damage dealers a piece and in that situation the slots would probably be better served for EW. Other possibilities I thought about were nos domi, and maybe the resurrection of the shield tanked 1400 II poc, but the fact that you have to give up 2 mids to shield amps means it's not quite the same overpowered setup that led to the introduction of the penalty on the cprs in the first place imo. aeti was having interesting results on a phoenix, with faction cprs it might actually be fairly decent ¼_¼.
Farjung	Posted - 2006.01.22 22:45:00 - [65] Originally by: Hanns I think CCP needs to give Shin Ra a BH position. Clear proof that BE are in fact Devs out to take their frustrations out on the playerbase - my thread on this was moderated within 20 minutes of posting ;p.
krendos	Posted - 2006.01.22 23:11:00 - [66] Originally by: Karazaan There is only one way to see this, you should be banned from the forum for a few months, to think about it. You are truly transforming the truth to achieve your goal, worse, you are now sacrificing all of Eve balance to reach it. What's next? A massacre in Jita? You have become an annoyance for the devs and the community. This is my feeling and I'm sharing them. Way to go making yourself look rather daft. All I see is that Shin Ra has done us all a favour, but all you do is see his name and BE and then flame. This whole stacking situation needs a re-think/patch.
Zakgram	Posted - 2006.01.22 23:19:00 - [67] Edited by: Zakgram on 22/01/2006 23:23:16 Doesn't do much for my Ferox; with a Large Shield Booster 2 and 2 x amps I only work it out to be ~96 hp/s. My passive Ferox can do the same without any new funky methods. The advantage to the amp method is that it's a constant 96 hp/s but the disadvantage is that you need to have cap and you reduce your overall shield from 12000 to 3000 or so. Attempt to put much damage (e.g. 3 x bcs) and you lose the ability to use the amp method but the spr method still works - just not as strong - so you can choose the damage vs. tank.
Ravenal	Posted - 2006.01.22 23:21:00 - [68] this might be fixed yeah... but whats it got to do with remote sensor damps and tracking disruptors...? . -Fate is what you make of it. -Make your own fate using T2 items produced by The Fated
Zakgram	Posted - 2006.01.22 23:23:00 - [69] Originally by: krendos This whole stacking situation needs a re-think/patch. Good god no. Can you imagine how much more complicated it could become if it gets tinkered with even more. If any changes are made then the whole thing should be scrapped. Change it so that we can only fit 1 of a "power" module per ship instead of complex stacking rules that need a degree in maths and obviously several in Computer Science to be able to maintain. Simplicity is key. KISS. Remove complexity. Dumb it down. Just like us...
Lanu	Posted - 2006.01.22 23:44:00 - [70] Edited by: Lanu on 22/01/2006 23:43:56 This is getting silly IMO, CCP should fix these kind of VERY serious bugs with a hotfix right now or atleast in the next downtime. The Exotic Dancer will not survive intact, if transported in a giant secure container.
Inspiration	Posted - 2006.01.22 23:46:00 - [71] Edited by: Inspiration on 22/01/2006 23:52:53 I am waiting on the ultimate passive tank using this interesting new twist ;). Anyway, workable solution to this issue is very simple. Just sort the negative and positive bonuses in seperate list, the possitive in descending order, the negative in ascending order. Then apply them seperatly like two unstacked modules by means of multiplication. Consequence would be that the the biggest penalties are applied first, then ones following however will get less and less severe (just as the bonus for the possitive ones decreases). If this 'side effect' is not what CCP wants, they can simple remove the stacking rules on the negative bonusses, and let those be applied in full force. ANd since all this is done server side, I wonder why the issue is still around....
Farjung	Posted - 2006.01.22 23:46:00 - [72] Edited by: Farjung on 22/01/2006 23:52:30 Originally by: Ravenal this might be fixed yeah... but whats it got to do with remote sensor damps and tracking disruptors...? It's like this: certain attributes are affected by stacking penalty, for example "targeting range bonus" and "shield boost bonus" Any mod that affects either of these two attributes is subject to the stacking penalty. Since RMR the method that was used to calculate what the penalty is has been changed in the following way: say you've got 6 modules that affect a particular attribute, one increases it by 50%, one by 30%, one by 20%, one by -10%, one by -35%, one by -95%. The effects are ordered from biggest to smallest in the calculation, and then each successive effect is hit by the stacking penalty more and more. So, the 50% module will not be penalised, the 30% will be penalised mildly, the 20% will be penalised quite a bit more, the -10% will be penalised more, the -35% more still, and the -95% module might as not be there for all the effect it's having. Stick it in the formula and you get: With 50%, 30%, 20%, -10%, -35%: net result of +97.1% With 50%, 30%, 20%, -10%, -35%, -95%: net result of +91.5% When applied to sensor boosters, you've got sensor boosters that add ~50% to the attribute "targeting range bonus" (and "scan resolution bonus"), and remote sensor dampers which (with skills) can get over -50% effect on those attributes. Because the effects are ordered from most positive -> most negative like I said above, if you've got a couple of sensor boosters running, those are hardly penalised, but then if someone tries to damp you, the -50% effect from each damp is penalised hugely. So you get +50% (not penalised) +50% (mildly penalised) -50% (quite penalised) -50% (strongly penalised) -50% (completely useless). Net result, having two sensor boosters running makes you pretty much immune to the effects of any number of damps. In the same way, for the shield boost bonus attribute, you've got modules that have a strong positive effect (shield boost amplifiers) and modules that have a mild negative effect (cap power relays). Having 2 shield boost amplifiers (+30% each) will mean that the -10% from each cap power relay you have fitted will be penalised into non-existence. Pre-RMR: 2 shield boost amplifiers w/ 5 cap power relays would bring your final shield boost bonus to 0.999 or -0.01% Post-RMR: 2 (30%) shield boost amplifiers would bring your final shield boost bonus to 1.639 or +63.9% Post-RMR: 2 shield boost amplifiers w/ 5 cap power relays would bring your final shield boost bonus to 1.4804 or +48% Post-RMR: 2 shield boost amplifiers w/ 6 cap power relays would bring your final shield boost bonus to ... 1.4802 or +48% Both this shield boost bonus phenomenon and the damps/tracking disruptor phenomenon result from the same change in the stacking penalty mechanics.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.01.22 23:59:00 - [73] Nice. I just set up a battlebadger to boost 50 per second forever with 2 hardeners -- Proud member of the [23]. The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
Lithiani	Posted - 2006.01.23 00:19:00 - [74] Originally by: Inspiration Edited by: Inspiration on 22/01/2006 23:52:53Anyway, workable solution to this issue is very simple. Just sort the negative and positive bonuses in seperate list, the possitive in descending order, the negative in ascending order. Then apply them seperatly like two unstacked modules by means of multiplication. Consequence would be that the the biggest penalties are applied first, then ones following however will get less and less severe (just as the bonus for the possitive ones decreases). If this 'side effect' is not what CCP wants, they can simple remove the stacking rules on the negative bonusses, and let those be applied in full force. ANd since all this is done server side, I wonder why the issue is still around.... You can't just remove the stacking penalty from negative effects. The Sensor Damps negative effects were what prompted the change to stacking in the first place Your first suggestion is close to ideal, but it'd be better if you figured out the total bonus (with stack adjustment) and total penalty (with stack adjustment) and cancelled the two out to leave one final modifyer, rather than multiplying by both. Odd fractions happen and tend to favour the negative, otherwise - and I think we can all agree that the maths would be best kept as simple as possible.
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.23 00:21:00 - [75] 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...
keepiru	Posted - 2006.01.23 00:44:00 - [76] ------------- Please fix the stacking algorythm, it's a disgrace!
Tobiaz	Posted - 2006.01.23 00:46:00 - [77] Just tested this on my Raven 1x XL Shieldbooster T2, 3x Shield Amp, 5x Cap Relay I have pretty much all the relevant shield and energy skills to at least 4. I had a boost of a bit over 220HP/second and I could keep it running continuously for 150 seconds. So much for shield tankers being 'powerful but shortlasting'. Good job Shin Ra, for finding something that will finally twist CCP's wrist and force them to fix this ridiculous new stacking system NOW and not in the next stupid 'all-at-once-and-keep-fingers-crossed' patch. I'd rather have the old system back then this travesty, but what CCP should do is simply separate the positive from the negative modifiers and give them a separate stacking penalty. RMR hiatus
keepiru	Posted - 2006.01.23 00:52:00 - [78] Originally by: Tobiaz I'd rather have the old system back then this travesty, but what CCP should do is simply separate the positive from the negative modifiers and give them a separate stacking penalty. Which is what we all said should be done in that 1st fateful thread in the game dev section... what was it... oh, 2 months ago now? Yeah. The EVE devs are usually pretty good about communicating with players, but pointedly ignoring these threads... well... lets just say im none too impressed. Et tu, denial? ------------- Please fix the stacking algorythm, it's a disgrace!
Peppo	Posted - 2006.01.23 01:15:00 - [79] Edited by: Peppo on 23/01/2006 01:15:55 Tob made me do it Peppo's Paintshop with galleries coming soonÖ
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.23 01:27:00 - [80] 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
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2006.01.23 01:43:00 - [81] Originally by: keepiru Originally by: Tobiaz I'd rather have the old system back then this travesty, but what CCP should do is simply separate the positive from the negative modifiers and give them a separate stacking penalty. Which is what we all said should be done in that 1st fateful thread in the game dev section... what was it... oh, 2 months ago now? Yeah. The EVE devs are usually pretty good about communicating with players, but pointedly ignoring these threads... well... lets just say im none too impressed. Et tu, denial? I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack. It is obvious that damage mods and resist mods should stack. some other modules maybe also. but some (like CPRs) should not (or pds). Btw do sensor backup arrays stack ? Did anyone test it ? maybe that's also a problem ... ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well ...
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.23 01:53:00 - [82] 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.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.23 02:00:00 - [83] "I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack." Think it's not something easily doable, as it appears the stacking is applied per-attribute rather than per-module. It makes sense (allows different modules affect the same attribute easily) but at the same time you can't have something like stacking penalty on booster amplifier but no penalty on boost amount reduction from the cap relay o.O;
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2006.01.23 02:13:00 - [84] Originally by: j0sephine "I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack." Think it's not something easily doable, as it appears the stacking is applied per-attribute rather than per-module. It makes sense (allows different modules affect the same attribute easily) but at the same time you can't have something like stacking penalty on booster amplifier but no penalty on boost amount reduction from the cap relay o.O; you can ... just have to decide is the stacking modules have precedence over the non-stacking. basicaly the non-stacking are just stacks with only one module applied separately. ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well ...
SATAN	Posted - 2006.01.23 02:15:00 - [85] Can we get someone in Iceland to read this to TomB so he can take a look at it. Or is he too bussy making snow balls for next year?
Farjung	Posted - 2006.01.23 02:57:00 - [86] Originally by: j0sephine "I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack." Think it's not something easily doable, as it appears the stacking is applied per-attribute rather than per-module. It makes sense (allows different modules affect the same attribute easily) but at the same time you can't have something like stacking penalty on booster amplifier but no penalty on boost amount reduction from the cap relay o.O; The curious thing is that damage controls appear to do precisely this, somehow. E.g. a dread guristas magnetic scattering amplifier (40% EM resistance) and a damage control I (7.5% EM resistance) gives you an EM resistance of 44.5% on a base resistance of 0%. Damage controls are rather curious beasts, but I wonder if the same could be carried over to cap power relays somehow so that they always give -10% shield boost bonus regardless of how many shield boost amps are fitted ¼_¼.
Harry Voyager	Posted - 2006.01.23 02:58:00 - [87] Just from a historical perspective, the dual AB/ dual MWD ships were never considered exploits, as they used freely avaliable game mechanics to function. It can be argued they were unbalanced as was the justification for their removal, but they were all within the rules in which the game was written. This is very much a similare situation. These are the rules in which the game is written; merely because it causes a serious imbalance does not make it an exploit. Game killing, but not an exploit. Exploits are using methods to alter the game mechanics in way not within the permited rules. Things such as the speed hacks prevelant in other games fall under that catagory, because they use no ingame function to achieve their purpose. This is, at its core, a game breaking imbalance, created by the dev team not fully considering the ramifications of their choices, and it can be fixed only by that said same dev team repairing the system they broke. Until they do that, I'm out. This is to serious an imbalance to allow a functional game, so long as it exists. Harry Voyager ____________________ I'm not an idiot; I just play one on the forums.
Doc Brown	Posted - 2006.01.23 03:03:00 - [88] Shin Ra, I know we've had fights in the past (and I still would like to kill you again).... That said, thanks for not only finding these bugs but for pointing them out to the community at large. At least it'll let people know what might be comming at them and help level the field a bit. btw: I'm sure you guys will pop one of my Black Mamba's one of these days. Doc Brown _________________________________________________ There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations.
Doc Brown	Posted - 2006.01.23 03:09:00 - [89] Edited by: Doc Brown on 23/01/2006 03:14:15 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. Keeping information this damaging to yourselvs is greedy and almost an exploit in it self. Even though you bugreported it, you now had a defense from banning if you used it to your advantage (i.e: used a bug to gain an unfair advantage against other chars). The exact reason why this can't be fixed quickly is why it should be common information that everbody can adapt to while CCP does their job and fixing it. Calling Shin Ra names is totally uncalled for. What's not clever or funny is keeping bugs that could be exploited to your own personal 'click' of friends, even if those bugs were reported. I'm willing to bet that it'll be at least a month before it's fixed so in that time you would almost have free reign to use the bug to your advantage.....and if somebody ever petitioned you had your bug report to fall back on. Mind you, I'm not saying that you have used this setup yourself or even considered what I implied in above statement. However, with your direct attack on Shin Ra I could only assume the worst. Doc Brown _________________________________________________ There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations.
Vishnej	Posted - 2006.01.23 03:13:00 - [90] They need to fix or revert the stacking penalty itself, not duct tape every hole. They also broke all forms of logistics. When we were trying to put together the formula, I kept saying it needed to have certain properties, like commutability, because they are what keeps the system in balance - CCP wouldn't put something in that treated the 5% modules vastly differently than the 10% modules, because that wouldn't make sense... But CCP did, and now we have a situation where it doesn't make sense.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.23 03:37:00 - [91] "The curious thing is that damage controls appear to do precisely this, somehow." Well, it's not impossible to do ^^ i mean, you could have something like this. three separate 'sub-attributes' in the ship object: * base armour resistance layer * damage control armour resistance layer * regular hardeners armour resistance layer ... each using separate stacking for effects generated by modules which are 'linked' with given layer, or some of the layers maybe not even using the stacking, for faster calculations. And then to determine final resistance you just get the resistance from 'base' layer, then apply the damage control resistance, and then finally apply the regular hardeners resistance to whatever remains. There, hardeners stack with one another, but not with the damage control effect. The very same thing could be obviously used to sort out both the shield boosting / cap relays and the EW booster / dampener conflicts ... but the catch is, given how it's going the devs loooong time to actually fix it, and how they went as far as to consider if the whole stacking mess is even worth fixing in the first place... am guessing it's the kind of change to ship object structure that isn't easily done. Which is why i said i thought it's not something easily doable ^^;;
Vishnej	Posted - 2006.01.23 03:52:00 - [92] Proposal: Every module effect now has a 'pool' attribute, into which their stacking is put, rather than a boolean 'penalized'. The effects from modules on powergrid, cap, cap recharge, shield, shield recharge, ammo modifiers, siege module effects, signature resolution are all set to the 'null' pool, meaning they don't get penalized. The effects from sensor dampers, tracking disruptors are set to the 'EW' pool. The effects from logistics: tracking links, sensor links, remote backup arrays, get sent to the 'logistics' pool. The negative effects from modules are either set to the 'null' pool, or the 'malus' pool. And the effects from hardeners, damage mods, tracking comps/enhancers, etc are sent to the 'main' pool. If you have the type of system CCP has put in place, with a sorting-based stacking penalty, the ONLY way to do correctly is to have multiple lists to sort.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.23 03:52:00 - [93] "Keeping information this damaging to yourselvs is greedy and almost an exploit in it self. Even though you bugreported it, you now had a defense from banning if you used it to your advantage (i.e: used a bug to gain an unfair advantage against other chars)." Uhmm, no? If anything, the bug report confirms that you are aware it's a bug. So it cannot "defend" you if you then use this bug to personal advantage... but to the contrary, it's a proof you knew you're breaking the rules. Kind of like petitioning the macro miner automatically means you now have absolutely no excuse to steal ore from them. Because by filling the petition you basically admit you know the ore you'd steal and take advantage of, was macro-mined. 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;; You can only hope devs are better humans (Jove?) than that -.o
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.23 04:05:00 - [94] "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.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.23 04:50:00 - [95] "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." This is ok on 100% rational level. ^^ On the normal human personality level, you only need to remember Oveur's (i think) comment in some other thread, "i don't react to threats any better than you do." 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 >.< As for the 'not breaking intentionally their own game' part... hey, it is their game, they can do whatever they want with it. And don't forget if the feedback in the sensor dampeners threads is any indication, it appears the majority would actually love these things to remain broken. it's just few idiots (yes, me included) that would like it to get fixed, for the sake of game balance >>;;
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.23 05:26:00 - [96] "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.
Matrices Reborn	Posted - 2006.01.23 05:28:00 - [97] Edited by: Matrices Reborn on 23/01/2006 05:28:55 There's something truly hilarious about broken-game apologists decrying people for pointing out severe exploits because - shudder - it will force the developers to actually fix the problem, which they have clearly not done for weeks. These apologist airheads forget one critical thing: we pay to play the game; we pay the dev's salary. It's not about "threats" - it's about getting what you pay for. Least they can do is fix game-breaking bugs. The final clincher of course is that the arrogant devs have not descended from their elitism to comment on this situation at all to the player base. So stop making excuses for them.
franny	Posted - 2006.01.23 05:31:00 - [98] Originally by: j0sephine Kind of like petitioning the macro miner automatically means you now have absolutely no excuse to steal ore from them. Because by filling the petition you basically admit you know the ore you'd steal and take advantage of, was macro-mined. but by CCP's rules, your MORE LIKELY to get in trouble if you DON'T petition the macro miner before stealing then if you do petition before stealing using the same logic, filing a bug report 'protects' you till a formal exploit msg is announced(ala the wasp drones)
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.01.23 06:02:00 - [99] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 23/01/2006 06:05:17 Originally by: Matrices Reborn There's something truly hilarious about broken-game apologists decrying people for pointing out severe exploits because - shudder - it will force the developers to actually fix the problem, which they have clearly not done for weeks. That's not the reason, and there is no magic fix. There is always a risk of unexpected side-effects, as this particular case shows perfectly. You wouldn't want a fix as bad as the problem, would you? There are also very good reasons not to "advertise" exploits. Most previous posts about this were erased, and the rules stating how exploits shouldn't be posted on the forum didn't change in the meanwhile. It could very well not be considered as an exploit now, I have no idea. Finally, people who knew and refrained from posting this did not necessarily intent to use the exploit to their own advantage, nor did they necessarily actually use it to their own advantage. That's the kind of wild accusations holding no value if you can't back them up. Originally by: Matrices Reborn These apologist airheads forget one critical thing: we pay to play the game; we pay the dev's salary. It's not about "threats" - it's about getting what you pay for. Least they can do is fix game-breaking bugs. They said they are looking into it. Not need to keep repeating this endlessly, i think we can assume that they very well know the extent of the problem. Originally by: Matrices Reborn The final clincher of course is that the arrogant devs have not descended from their elitism to comment on this situation at all to the player base. So stop making excuses for them. They commented, and said it bas being looked at. What else do you want, you make it sounds like its just a major issue in game and a minor issue to fix. As much as you know how important of an issue it is in game you have most certainly no idea how difficult it is for them to fix. I don't know either, and any of my guess or assumptions wouldn't be more accurate than yours... So, how about assuming less? Oh, and it's "clichT", not "clicher". Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. ---
Farjung	Posted - 2006.01.23 06:05:00 - [100] Clincher NB, as in something that clinches ;p.
Doc Brown	Posted - 2006.01.23 06:21:00 - [101] Edited by: Doc Brown on 23/01/2006 06:21:38 Originally by: j0sephine "Keeping information this damaging to yourselvs is greedy and almost an exploit in it self. Even though you bugreported it, you now had a defense from banning if you used it to your advantage (i.e: used a bug to gain an unfair advantage against other chars)." Uhmm, no? If anything, the bug report confirms that you are aware it's a bug. So it cannot "defend" you if you then use this bug to personal advantage... but to the contrary, it's a proof you knew you're breaking the rules. Kind of like petitioning the macro miner automatically means you now have absolutely no excuse to steal ore from them. Because by filling the petition you basically admit you know the ore you'd steal and take advantage of, was macro-mined. <SNIP> The counter example you give is one of a previously know exploit (macro mining) to cover your actions. I viewed their actions a different way. That said, neither of us are GM's and because of that that we both don't know what their actual stance on this issue is. I still stand by by statements that just filing a bug report does not make it ok if you (or anybody) uses this flaw. Finally, if this thread was not posted, there would be a small, small percentage of Eve who know of this bug and the rest of us would be at their mercy. That is pure exploit to me. _________________________________________________ There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations.
theRaptor	Posted - 2006.01.23 06:57:00 - [102] Originally by: Zakgram Originally by: krendos This whole stacking situation needs a re-think/patch. Good god no. Can you imagine how much more complicated it could become if it gets tinkered with even more. If any changes are made then the whole thing should be scrapped. Change it so that we can only fit 1 of a "power" module per ship instead of complex stacking rules that need a degree in maths and obviously several in Computer Science to be able to maintain. Simplicity is key. KISS. Remove complexity. Dumb it down. Just like us... Uh sorry the stacking rules are stupidly simple. This is basic multiplication for ****s sake, anyone who reached high school should be able to figure this out. The problem isthat the devs aren't doing their job and actually thinking about synergistic effects. every game I have ever played, I have seen carefully balanced rules completely smashed by players who come at the game with no preconcieved notions of how it is supposed to work. The problem is the devs being lazy and not doing doing enough testing and QA to make sure that hings actually work the way they are intended to work. But CCP's general attituide is to throw out broken content and fix it later. So us poor players have to indure months of completely uber items, or completely terrible ones. I don't think you trust, in, my, self-righteous suicide.
theRaptor	Posted - 2006.01.23 07:04:00 - [103] Originally by: Doc Brown Finally, if this thread was not posted, there would be a small, small percentage of Eve who know of this bug and the rest of us would be at their mercy. That is pure exploit to me. Like the infinite structure tank bugs? That was still live about four months back, despite the devs claims to have fixed it. Or my favourite dreadnaughts being able to dock despite agression (which as far as I know the GM's haven't said anything about). I don't think you trust, in, my, self-righteous suicide.
Andarvi	Posted - 2006.01.23 07:10:00 - [104] Wow. I didn't mind waiting for a sensor dampener/tracking distruptor fix, since it did not influence the game that much and there was other EW to fall back on. But this is major. Good job in bringing this out in the open, I would hate for only a selected few to have knowledge of this 'unintended consequence'. If this gets the fix out faster, all the better. (and to be honest, it's been a while from that: It's being looked at. comment) On the plus side, I have had a Raven and a Scorp for sale for a while.. I bet they'll move pretty fast now
theRaptor	Posted - 2006.01.23 07:20:00 - [105] 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. I don't think you trust, in, my, self-righteous suicide.
Vishnej	Posted - 2006.01.23 07:32:00 - [106] Edited by: Vishnej on 23/01/2006 07:32:19 A Phoenix could use this to run a nasty BS-killing fleet setup, tanking roughly 14900 hitpoints per second sustainably at base resists if they keep their cap recharge at peak w/ micromanagement. Their missiles, unlike turrets, are pretty effective against battleships in siege mode, as well. Crystal implant set 3 citadel launchers Siege module 2 CN/DG invuln fields 2 CN/DG shield boost amps 2 cap recharger 2 capital shield booster 5 dark blood cap relays
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.23 08:05:00 - [107] 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.
Vishnej	Posted - 2006.01.23 08:16:00 - [108] Originally by: Vishnej Edited by: Vishnej on 23/01/2006 07:32:19 A Phoenix could use this to run a nasty BS-killing fleet setup, tanking roughly 14900 hitpoints per second sustainably at base resists if they keep their cap recharge at peak w/ micromanagement. Originally by: Shin Ra 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. 15k(nah, call it 21k with 30% avg base resists) DPS is how much 'sustained firepower'? 40-50 average-setup battleships or so? Minus one of them being 1 volleyed every 30 seconds.
Gariuys	Posted - 2006.01.23 08:32:00 - [109] Originally by: Hanns I think CCP needs to give Shin Ra a BH position. What, for figuring somethign out, everyone with half a brain alraedy figured out weeks ago, and then publishing it on the forums. Yeah freaking awesome BH work. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
Alexis Solati	Posted - 2006.01.23 09:46:00 - [110] Has anyone tested this with passive shield rechargers? It seems that a very good passive tank could be made from this.
God forbid	Posted - 2006.01.23 10:45:00 - [111] Originally by: SATAN Can we get someone in Iceland to read this to TomB so he can take a look at it. Or is he too bussy making snow balls for next year? Hehe :D Yeah THink so, But That snow ball **** was just stupid.. : S
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.01.23 10:57:00 - [112] Originally by: Vishnej Edited by: Vishnej on 23/01/2006 07:32:19 A Phoenix could use this to run a nasty BS-killing fleet setup, tanking roughly 14900 hitpoints per second sustainably at base resists if they keep their cap recharge at peak w/ micromanagement. Their missiles, unlike turrets, are pretty effective against battleships in siege mode, as well. Crystal implant set 3 citadel launchers Siege module 2 CN/DG invuln fields 2 CN/DG shield boost amps 2 cap recharger 2 capital shield booster 5 dark blood cap relays Better yet: Estemal's invulns -- Proud member of the [23]. The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.01.23 11:49:00 - [113] It's good to see that some people (Farjung, j0, NB) can still think straight. I'm not going to go over things they've already covered, but for all those giving SR "mad propz" for finding this, it's worth noting that s/he is flat out lying in the first and subsequent posts - not only was s/he not the first to find the problem, but I know for a fact that s/he did not find it independently - the idea was lifted intact from a discussion involving various people in this thread where NB basically came up with the idea on his own and SR joined in the discussion after it had been found, tested, bug reported and then self-censored. Originally by: Harry Voyager Exploits are using methods to alter the game mechanics in way not within the permited rules. Things such as the speed hacks prevelant in other games fall under that catagory, because they use no ingame function to achieve their purpose. No, that's a hack, which is entirely seperate area. An exploit is just a way of using the game mechanics in a way which allows you to generate massive unintended and unbalancing effects. It's not always obvious what's an exploit and what isn't - essentially it's up to a game's developer what constitutes "unbalancing" - but it remains the case that exploits are purely in-game phenomena - anything requiring external manipulation is a hack and insta-bannable. Originally by: Hugh Ruka Originally by: j0sephine "I guess they should also introduce some flag for modules that should or should not stack." Think it's not something easily doable, as it appears the stacking is applied per-attribute rather than per-module. It makes sense (allows different modules affect the same attribute easily) but at the same time you can't have something like stacking penalty on booster amplifier but no penalty on boost amount reduction from the cap relay o.O; you can ... just have to decide is the stacking modules have precedence over the non-stacking. basicaly the non-stacking are just stacks with only one module applied separately. I suspect it's nowhere near that simple. Apart from anything else, the "common-sense" difficulty of a change (eg "I can explain the solution in three lines, it should be easy!") rarely correlates with actual difficulty in code, and most "common-sense" fixes are partial at best and destructive at worst.
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.01.23 12:20:00 - [114] 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.
Lowa	Posted - 2006.01.23 12:25:00 - [115] The *only* thing we need right now is: 1. Yes, it is an exploit and should not be used. 2. No, it is not an exploit and can be used until the fix. 3. And, yes, we are working on the fix, it will come soon[tm]. We can sit in this thread for 400 days arguing but until CCP gives an official answer we cant call anyone a cheater. /LOWA NSN - Forcing EVE reviewers to mine since 2003!
James Lyrus	Posted - 2006.01.23 12:32:00 - [116] Originally by: Lowa The *only* thing we need right now is: 1. Yes, it is an exploit and should not be used. 2. No, it is not an exploit and can be used until the fix. 3. And, yes, we are working on the fix, it will come soon[tm]. We can sit in this thread for 400 days arguing but until CCP gives an official answer we cant call anyone a cheater. /LOWA Only a GM can answer that. I would suggest raising a petition. I have done so, and am satisfied with the response. (Which I don't think I can post, because of the rulez) -- We are recruiting Carriers on sale
Lowa	Posted - 2006.01.23 12:37:00 - [117] Originally by: James Lyrus Only a GM can answer that. I would suggest raising a petition. I have done so, and am satisfied with the response. (Which I don't think I can post, because of the rulez) Has to be a Senior GM minimum I'd say and tbh they have been know to be wrong from time to time so... Anyway, please PM me in game . Thanks! Cheers, LOWA NSN - Forcing EVE reviewers to mine since 2003!
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.01.23 12:38:00 - [118] Originally by: Joerd Toastius It's good to see that some people (Farjung, j0, NB) can still think straight. I'm not going to go over things they've already covered, but for all those giving SR "mad propz" for finding this, it's worth noting that s/he is flat out lying in the first and subsequent posts - not only was s/he not the first to find the problem, but I know for a fact that s/he did not find it independently - the idea was lifted intact from a discussion involving various people in this thread where NB basically came up with the idea on his own and SR joined in the discussion after it had been found, tested, bug reported and then self-censored. What's with this vendetta? You're coming off a bit shrill, here. BE did the proper thing and reported a serious new side-effect of the stacking bug/feature, instead of keeping private and using it to private gain. You have an issue with that... which makes me doubt your own motivations. Sure, obscurity can be good in obscure bug/exploit cases. But as you yourself note, the cat has been out of the bag on this one for a long while now. Keeping quiet will do much more harm than good. If this forces CCP to do something about the situation, all the better. We need an official response to the whole stacking issue, this multi-month silence is bad for everyone. Everyone who realizes how the bug works and can look at the item database will quickly realize that this current issue and the old sensor damp things were only the tip of the iceberg. It's not something solvable by tweaking a few modules, it needs a rethink of the new game mechanic (which obviously wan't thought-out or tested well enough). Labeling it an exploit is also problematic. They would need to say "using any modules on your ship which give positive bonuses and negative ones to the same attribute is an exploit". That covers the bug, but also makes a good portion of current normal ship fittings exploits.
Alexis Solati	Posted - 2006.01.23 12:49:00 - [119] Joerd; you seem to be bringing your personal vendetta against Shin Ra into a rational thread. Everything you write drips of your problems, and it's clouding your judgement of the issue. Shin Ra has brought attention to a serious problem because it wasn't being dealt with, despite whatever petitions you filed. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion you should provide more rational reasons rather than slating Shin Ra for using a different method of bringing attention to the problem.
Jin Entres	Posted - 2006.01.23 13:13:00 - [120] Originally by: Vishnej Originally by: Vishnej Edited by: Vishnej on 23/01/2006 07:32:19 A Phoenix could use this to run a nasty BS-killing fleet setup, tanking roughly 14900 hitpoints per second sustainably at base resists if they keep their cap recharge at peak w/ micromanagement. Originally by: Shin Ra 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. 15k(nah, call it 21k with 30% avg base resists) DPS is how much 'sustained firepower'? 40-50 average-setup battleships or so? Minus one of them being 1 volleyed every 30 seconds. Show me how a Phoenix can 1 volley a BS.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.23 13:29:00 - [121] "but by CCP's rules, your MORE LIKELY to get in trouble if you DON'T petition the macro miner before stealing then if you do petition before stealing" Uhmm from what i hear about the issue, after you petition macro miner pretty much the only thing you can do with their ore is blow it up. Because taking it for yourself means taking advantage of what you already acknowledged (by petition) as 'automated gameplay' (stealing without petitioning allows one to play dumb "oh, it was macro miner? by golly, i had no idea" ... it just happens enough people dislike macro mining enough to report them rather than farm them for personal gain) "using the same logic, filing a bug report 'protects' you till a formal exploit msg is announced(ala the wasp drones)" Perhaps it would, if it wasn't broken logic. You are not allowed to _willingly_ take unintended advantage of game mechanics, simple as that. And for that matter, most exploits are never announced, but quietly fixed after they're reported. Because making them known does nothing but sends number of asshats taking advantage of them and the "omg gimme back my ship, the other guy must've been 'sploitin!" petitions, through the roof. And they already have enough daily petitions to go through as it is. :/
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2006.01.23 13:36:00 - [122] I'm dusting off the Dread Guristas Shield Boost Amps that are at the bottom of a can in my hangar
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.01.23 13:36:00 - [123] All these people condemning Shin Ra for posting this should grow the **** up and realise some simple things here. Posting this simply means that CCP will have to act on the stacking bug. Shin Ra already had two other reasons why they had to, but CCP has taken a full month and not let us know even once what they thought about those two. So, this is just additional pressure. A very valid use of this information imo. CCP should have stepped in on the stacking bug way before this. They did not, so Shin Ra ups the pressure a bit. That's simply how it works. Silence is not acceptable, so you force them to say something. And if this doesn't work I can think of one or two other things to start talking about too. Some priorities seem rather ****** up at this time tbh. Power to the players !
ArchenTheGreat	Posted - 2006.01.23 13:36:00 - [124] Originally by: James Lyrus Only a GM can answer that. I would suggest raising a petition. I have done so, and am satisfied with the response. (Which I don't think I can post, because of the rulez) LOL, here we are an example of pure mindless. You got an answer usefull for all players. It is not related to any personal info/stuff/whatever. Posting it on forum will reduce work for CCP - we would not have to post petitions on our own. Yet you still don't want to post it because of some rule introduced to protect player privacy. Dura lex sed lex anyone?
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.23 13:37:00 - [125] Edited by: j0sephine on 23/01/2006 13:37:20 "Show me how a Phoenix can 1 volley a BS." Druid took one for the team once: "Tanked Raven. 10k of Shields. 50-60-70-60 Resist's across the board. [ 00:43:34 ] Thor Torpedo I hits you, doing 4400.5 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Thor Torpedo I hits you, doing 3659.0 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Doom Torpedo I hits you, doing 8351.3 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Ship is out of control"
Alberta	Posted - 2006.01.23 13:59:00 - [126] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 23/01/2006 13:37:20 "Show me how a Phoenix can 1 volley a BS." Druid took one for the team once: "Tanked Raven. 10k of Shields. 50-60-70-60 Resist's across the board. [ 00:43:34 ] Thor Torpedo I hits you, doing 4400.5 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Thor Torpedo I hits you, doing 3659.0 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Doom Torpedo I hits you, doing 8351.3 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Ship is out of control" Looks like a good reason to train tactical shield manipulation to lvl5 if ever I saw one! My Thoughts on Game Balance
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.23 14:16:00 - [127] "So, this is just additional pressure. A very valid use of this information imo. CCP should have stepped in on the stacking bug way before this. They did not, so Shin Ra ups the pressure a bit." The issue i have with this is, it's akin to p.ssing in your own bed to get your sheets changed faster. Yes, it might give you what you're screaming for a tad bit faster. Or it might not. And either way in the meantime, you have drenched stinky bed to sleep in. You know as well as i do how well the public announcement of Wasp tracking worked, as far as reducing number of people using them goes. It's pretty much the same thing here -- i seriously doubt it'll bring full fix faster, because they put these things in when they can. (i'd guesstimate they're shooting at it being part of the bloodlines patch i.e. some 2-3 weeks down the road) ... in the meantime? Have fun trying to get through tanks from hell with less thank a gank squad. (and as far as communication and lack thereof goes, it works both ways. Nothing prevented any of us from getting the ass on IRC where the devs and BH do show up, and asking one of them about this particular issue and the stacking thing in general. But apparently none of us could be actually arsed. So anyone now talking how "we've been all ignored so there's no choice but up the pressure to get answers /o\" ... can shove it, because the choice was there)
Jin Entres	Posted - 2006.01.23 14:36:00 - [128] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 23/01/2006 13:37:20 "Show me how a Phoenix can 1 volley a BS." Druid took one for the team once: "Tanked Raven. 10k of Shields. 50-60-70-60 Resist's across the board. [ 00:43:34 ] Thor Torpedo I hits you, doing 4400.5 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Thor Torpedo I hits you, doing 3659.0 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Doom Torpedo I hits you, doing 8351.3 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Ship is out of control" Fair enough, it's doable. But with how many target painters and BCS's? The link is inaccessable by unregistered users, by the way, hence I can't see any setups etc. If you use 3 amplifiers and most of your lows to sustain this tank, I seriously doubt you could 1 volley any BS.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.01.23 14:39:00 - [129] Originally by: Jin Entres Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 23/01/2006 13:37:20 "Show me how a Phoenix can 1 volley a BS." Druid took one for the team once: "Tanked Raven. 10k of Shields. 50-60-70-60 Resist's across the board. [ 00:43:34 ] Thor Torpedo I hits you, doing 4400.5 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Thor Torpedo I hits you, doing 3659.0 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Doom Torpedo I hits you, doing 8351.3 damage. [ 00:43:34 ] Ship is out of control" Fair enough, it's doable. But with how many target painters and BCS's? The link is inaccessable by unregistered users, by the way, hence I can't see any setups etc. If you use 3 amplifiers and most of your lows to sustain this tank, I seriously doubt you could 1 volley any BS. on Sisi it was doable with full rack of webbing drones and about 4-5 TP II
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.01.23 14:48:00 - [130] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 23/01/2006 14:48:58 Originally by: j0sephine "So, this is just additional pressure. A very valid use of this information imo. CCP should have stepped in on the stacking bug way before this. They did not, so Shin Ra ups the pressure a bit." The issue i have with this is, it's akin to p.ssing in your own bed to get your sheets changed faster. Yes, it might give you what you're screaming for a tad bit faster. Or it might not. And either way in the meantime, you have drenched stinky bed to sleep in. You know as well as i do how well the public announcement of Wasp tracking worked, as far as reducing number of people using them goes. It's pretty much the same thing here -- i seriously doubt it'll bring full fix faster, because they put these things in when they can. (i'd guesstimate they're shooting at it being part of the bloodlines patch i.e. some 2-3 weeks down the road) ... in the meantime? Have fun trying to get through tanks from hell with less thank a gank squad. (and as far as communication and lack thereof goes, it works both ways. Nothing prevented any of us from getting the ass on IRC where the devs and BH do show up, and asking one of them about this particular issue and the stacking thing in general. But apparently none of us could be actually arsed. So anyone now talking how "we've been all ignored so there's no choice but up the pressure to get answers /o\" ... can shove it, because the choice was there) Partyl true, you inform people of a bug so CCP has to take action faster or make a public decision about it. Yeah, it's not ideal. However this whole case is simple insanity from the get go. CCP were already informed during early testing of the RmR clients on sis that this stacking method was not going to work with regards to sensor boosters, tracking comps and all other stacking-affected attributes. So any semi-logically thinking invidual would have already thought about this possibility once they have been warned about the background bug would he not ? I know I did. This thread wasn't anything new, it just shows how lazily CCP can deal with known balance-breakers. The only real question is wether public whinage about bug sploitage and other nonsense like this can actually put CCP into motion. I'd say you have a decent chance of it. Power to the players !
theRaptor	Posted - 2006.01.23 14:52:00 - [131] Originally by: Shin Ra 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. Of course. But it is not like these Uber RavensÖ will be fending off small fleets on their own. I rate the wasp bug as a far more serious issue, but it is taking the **** that CCP haven't fixed sensor damps and tracking disruptors yet. I don't think you trust, in, my, self-righteous suicide.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.01.23 15:01:00 - [132] "Fair enough, it's doable. But with how many target painters and BCS's?" I'd say you don't need any ^^ * 1800 base damage * 25% extra damage from citadel torpedoes skill * 10% extra damage from warhead upgrades * 6.25 damage multiplier in siege mode ... 15468.75 raw hp per hit (19335.9 hp with kinetic missiles) even if Raven gets damage reduction down to 46% due to signature size / explosion radius difference, it still means 7115-8895 raw hp per hit, as long as the target isn't moving at significant speed o.x;
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2006.01.23 15:04:00 - [133] I recon this bug applies to Crystal set + Cap Relays too?
Teblin	Posted - 2006.01.23 16:23:00 - [134] Locked for resposting a locked topic. forum rules \| [email protected]
Nafri	Posted - 2006.01.23 16:24:00 - [135] you forgot the lock

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.