EVE Search - Dampners whats the Problem

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Dampners whats the Problem

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.10 19:54:00 - [31] "lol, ok, getting my 20 maulus back here, damping abusage is back " With the new stacking more than 3-4 dampeners will do pretty much squat. You can still knock down target range of ship with couple boosters, but nowhere near where it used to be...
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.02.10 19:57:00 - [32] Originally by: j0sephine "lol, ok, getting my 20 maulus back here, damping abusage is back " With the new stacking more than 3-4 dampeners will do pretty much squat. You can still knock down target range of ship with couple boosters, but nowhere near where it used to be... /emote points j0 to my stacking penalty thread Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Sarmaul 4tw.
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.02.10 20:04:00 - [33] Originally by: Tuxford Not a gamebreaking bug imo but a pretty harsh penalty. It's fixed on sisi. The stacking penalty is now applied in two phases. All modules that have negative effect are stacking nerfed together and all modules that have positive effect are stacking nerfed together and then the two values are applied to get the final figure. Wow
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.02.10 20:10:00 - [34] Originally by: Tuxford Not a gamebreaking bug imo but a pretty harsh penalty. It's fixed on sisi. The stacking penalty is now applied in two phases. All modules that have negative effect are stacking nerfed together and all modules that have positive effect are stacking nerfed together and then the two values are applied to get the final figure. \o/
Vishnej	Posted - 2006.02.10 21:55:00 - [35] Originally by: Tuxford Not a gamebreaking bug imo but a pretty harsh penalty. It's fixed on sisi. The stacking penalty is now applied in two phases. All modules that have negative effect are stacking nerfed together and all modules that have positive effect are stacking nerfed together and then the two values are applied to get the final figure. May I request that you put logistics into a third pool? Sensor/Tracking links etc were already pretty gimped, and the RMR penalty made them near useless. Industry Demands
Eepzy Nimbles	Posted - 2006.02.10 21:58:00 - [36] Why is the stacking penalty applied if multiple ships are affecting one target? I would think that if you have 20 Scorpions with 8 RSDs dampening a ship it should be reduced to uselessness instead of the effect pretty much being reduced to zero after 4 RSDs.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.02.10 22:15:00 - [37] Originally by: Tuxford Not a gamebreaking bug imo but a pretty harsh penalty. It's fixed on sisi. The stacking penalty is now applied in two phases. All modules that have negative effect are stacking nerfed together and all modules that have positive effect are stacking nerfed together and then the two values are applied to get the final figure. \o/ Originally by: Eepzy Nimbles Why is the stacking penalty applied if multiple ships are affecting one target? I would think that if you have 20 Scorpions with 8 RSDs dampening a ship it should be reduced to uselessness instead of the effect pretty much being reduced to zero after 4 RSDs. There's a very simple logic behind that, which is related to how multiplicative bonuses have cumulative effects. Let's compare what happens with damage mods (under the effects of the stacking penalty) and with capacitor power relays (no stacking penalty, though a multiplicative bonus). http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b182/Naughty654/stack01.png The effect of the stacking penalty is mostly there to avoid exponential curves similar to the cap recharge curve, as precisely this makes stacking too rewarding (as even though the relative boost is constant, property of exponential curves, the absolute effect isn't). It sounds very difficult to account for multiple ships precisely because of the level of complexity the stacking formula should have to account for this parameter (which kind of curve should it be anyway, not an easy question to answer to). Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
Cummilla	Posted - 2006.02.10 22:39:00 - [38] Edited by: Cummilla on 10/02/2006 22:39:49 Originally by: Shin Ra Originally by: Tuxford Not a gamebreaking bug imo but a pretty harsh penalty. It's fixed on sisi. The stacking penalty is now applied in two phases. All modules that have negative effect are stacking nerfed together and all modules that have positive effect are stacking nerfed together and then the two values are applied to get the final figure. Wow so, let's hear it. Did they fix it to your satisfaction?
SATAN	Posted - 2006.02.10 23:42:00 - [39] Finaly..... WHEN IS THE PATCH!!!!!!!
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.02.10 23:43:00 - [40] Originally by: Cummilla Edited by: Cummilla on 10/02/2006 22:39:49 Originally by: Shin Ra Originally by: Tuxford Not a gamebreaking bug imo but a pretty harsh penalty. It's fixed on sisi. The stacking penalty is now applied in two phases. All modules that have negative effect are stacking nerfed together and all modules that have positive effect are stacking nerfed together and then the two values are applied to get the final figure. Wow so, let's hear it. Did they fix it to your satisfaction? Its how I expected it to be. I still think it sucks that you can't have multiple ships dampening the same target. Kinda makes EW coordination a bit primitive. But some guy said it wouldn't work due to maths or something? TBH, considering its taken 3 months for them to sort out this problem, I'm not holding my breating for anything else in the future.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.02.10 23:53:00 - [41] Originally by: j0sephine "lol, ok, getting my 20 maulus back here, damping abusage is back " With the new stacking more than 3-4 dampeners will do pretty much squat. You can still knock down target range of ship with couple boosters, but nowhere near where it used to be... since I can only fly 1 maulus and this one maulus has 3 midslots, I dont know what you try to tell me when I have 20 maulus, I still wont try to fly them all at one time
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.11 00:19:00 - [42] Edited by: j0sephine on 11/02/2006 00:19:29 "since I can only fly 1 maulus and this one maulus has 3 midslots, I dont know what you try to tell me when I have 20 maulus, I still wont try to fly them all at one time " Well, that '20 maulus' thing sounded like planning to have a gang of sensor dampening ship to cripple (1-2) targets and then gank them... so just noting that approach wouldn't work too well -.^
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.11 00:22:00 - [43] "I still think it sucks that you can't have multiple ships dampening the same target. Kinda makes EW coordination a bit primitive." You can have multiple ships dampening the same target. The limitation is in number of modules affecting single target due to reworked RMR stacking, not in where the source of dampening is.
Rathers	Posted - 2006.02.11 00:30:00 - [44] yes yes, good news!! Thank you! ---------------------------------------- Astrogeology / Rank 5 / 768000 SP needed +Currently training to: level 5
Gripen	Posted - 2006.02.11 01:31:00 - [45] Originally by: El Yatta All modules with a stacking penalty (whether local or projected) are stacked in the same group, in order from most positive effect to most negative effect, and then the stacking penalty is applied - ie beyond the 4th mod in the stack there is no real effect. However, as the negative mods (damps, tracking disrupters, for example) are lower down in the list, the positive mods have a massive advantage. I have a very important question. Are you absolutly sure this is the way how it works? I believe in the thread about new stacking penalty was stated that modules sorted in the order of absolute effect. So whatever their effect positive or negative does not affect their order. Has any one actually tested this? T1 dampener with Signal Suppression IV gets 0.52 multiplier and this is a 48% reduction so it stacked after Sensor Booster II (60%). But if you use T2 dampers on Lachesis with Signal Suppression IV and Recons IV you'll get 0.3328 multiplier what is equivalent to ~66% reduction and stacked before Sensor Boosters. Perfectly balanced imho. To damp someone without boosters use anything you want but to damp someone with T2 boosters you need best dampening equipment available. Concerning shield tanking with cap relays and shield boost amplifiers. My tests shown that PDU-based tanks always more efficient because of PDUs also increase your shield HP and thus passive shield recharge rate, what helps your tanking much more than ablity to run booster more often with the cap relays.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.02.11 01:40:00 - [46] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 11/02/2006 01:41:05 Originally by: Gripen I have a very important question. Are you absolutly sure this is the way how it works? That's how it's on TQ, not on SISI. Originally by: Gripen I believe in the thread about new stacking penalty was stated that modules sorted in the order of absolute effect. So whatever their effect positive or negative does not affect their order. Has any one actually tested this? There's very little in that thread about the sorting method, when only positive modifiers where used that was believe to be true. Nothing was said about negative modifiers, this case was mostly "undertermined" until the problems with negatives bonuses, stacked after positive bonuses, were observed and reported. Originally by: Gripen T1 dampener with Signal Suppression IV gets 0.52 multiplier and this is a 48% reduction so it stacked after Sensor Booster II (60%). But if you use T2 dampers on Lachesis with Signal Suppression IV and Recons IV you'll get 0.3328 multiplier what is equivalent to ~66% reduction and stacked before Sensor Boosters. Perfectly balanced imho. To damp someone without boosters use anything you want but to damp someone with T2 boosters you need best dampening equipment available. That's how it works on SISI (well, it's more complex, but in a "1 module of each kind" situation this is how it works). It's not working like this on TQ currently, as explained above. Originally by: Gripen Concerning shield tanking with cap relays and shield boost amplifiers. My tests shown that PDU-based tanks always more efficient because of PDUs also increase your shield HP and thus passive shield recharge rate, what helps your tanking much more than ablity to run booster more often with the cap relays. For some circumstances, due to the cap recharge rate brough by cap relays not being subject to the stacking penalty though using a multiplicative bonus, you can get better results for short term tanking. That's not massively unbalanced, partly because of other constraints, though that certainly shows that something wasn't working properly in the stacking penalty. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.11 01:49:00 - [47] Edited by: j0sephine on 11/02/2006 01:49:25 "Nothing was said about negative modifiers, this case was mostly "undertermined" until the problems with negatives bonuses, stacked after positive bonuses, were observed and reported." Behaviour of negative modifiers is easy to verify, since all shield / armour hardeners use in fact negative attributes. On TQ, the order of negative attributes is currently from 'most negative' to 'least negative' ... if it was done the other way, equipping 2 shield hardeners and activating just one of them (so you get stacked effect of active hardener and the passive 1-5% from the other hardened) would result in the active hardened providing less than full effect... due to passive 1-5% effect being first in stacking queue. (the described 'wrong' effect was actually present on SiSi as of few builds ago, but is bug reported and hopefully fixed. Didn't check it with the most recent build yet)
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.02.11 01:54:00 - [48] Originally by: j0sephine Behaviour of negative modifiers is easy to verify, since all shield / armour hardeners use in fact negative attributes. Oh, yes. That isn't what I intended to say. I wanted to say that the situation with negative and positive modifiers stacked together was undetermined, though there were questions about this, initially raised by Dalman. This all stayed undetermined until more testing was done with sensor boosters/dampeners and tracking disruptors/computers/enhancers. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.11 02:00:00 - [49] Ahh, i misread it then; sorry, my bad ^^;
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.02.11 02:01:00 - [50] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 11/02/2006 02:03:02 Originally by: j0sephine Ahh, i misread it then; sorry, my bad ^^; Nah, actually I messed up, you did read it fine. I somehow managed to write something else than what I was thinking about. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.02.11 04:56:00 - [51] When will this hit TQ?
Kyguard	Posted - 2006.02.11 05:32:00 - [52] Originally by: Shin Ra When will this hit TQ? Next patch I'd assume. -\|- Join LFC, become someone, become family.
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2006.02.11 06:12:00 - [53] Watch Gallente Recon hop back up to 150+ Learn what it means to be Caldari - www.omertasyndicate.com
Weirda	Posted - 2006.02.11 07:31:00 - [54] Originally by: Kyguard Originally by: Shin Ra When will this hit TQ? Next patch I'd assume. dev blog confirms __ Weirda ...balanced NOS change... Fix Assault Ship 4th Bonus and More!
Shin Ra	Posted - 2006.02.11 07:48:00 - [55] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Watch Gallente Recon hop back up to 150+ Buy them now. You'll be rich.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.