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)
Frieghterbabe	Posted - 2006.02.10 11:02:00 - [1] after just getting my Recon Cruisers I have been hearing Dampners are borked, anyone know what the problem is givin the bonus I have for Sensor Dampners it I would like to know current problems before going out and losing ship to said BORK! any help would be appreciated.
Darwinia	Posted - 2006.02.10 12:13:00 - [2] The short version is that currently 2 sensor boosters will completely neutralize ANY number of sensor dampeners. ------------------------ I don't believe in sigs.
El Yatta	Posted - 2006.02.10 12:53:00 - [3] The long version is: 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. If you fit two sensor boosters, and are damped by two damps, his damps are the 3rd and 4th mods in the stack, and as such are quite heftily penalised - certainly not enough to damp you below your original locking range, let alone enough to neutralise you. If he puts on 7 damps, (even with a big effectiveness bonus like Lachesis has), his first two are still 3rd and 4th mods, and his remaining 5 have 0 effect anyway. He cannot damp you. It gets worse when you consider the trend these days of distributed EW in gangs - because its most postive to most negative, then if you're better at damping (and say flying a Lachesis), and some others in your gang are just using some t1 damps with no spec skill or bonus, their damps will be high in the stack than yours, so you wont even have a 1% effect with your specialised damps! This is also borked for tracking disrupters vs. tracking computers, and, incredibly, shield boost amps vs. cap relays- with two amps, you have enough positive to stacking-nerf the shieldboost penalty on cap relays, allowing a massive sustainable shield tank. The latter issue is fixed on test, I have heard, so hopefully the whole stacking thing will be resolved come Blood patch. ---:::---
Kunming	Posted - 2006.02.10 13:13:00 - [4] This is a game breaking bug IMO.. but whatever I'm not a DEV, EVE is not my game and you're not my customers so.. who cares! Website Killboard

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.02.10 14:16:00 - [5] 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. _______________

KilROCK	Posted - 2006.02.10 14:19:00 - [6] Good news, now i might bother with a lachesis/arazu
Tullius Cicero	Posted - 2006.02.10 14:41:00 - [7] bad news, at least for all those who believe that there should be a counter to everything. Sensor dampeners counter ships without booster, ships with boosters counter those with dampeners. Sounds like a perfect relationship to me.
Shamis Orzoz	Posted - 2006.02.10 14:43:00 - [8] Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 10/02/2006 14:43:15 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. That's a good start, but doesn't that still nullify the use of remote sensor boosters and remote tracking links? A ship with 3 sensor boosters on should still be able to be remote boosted, but as it stands now remote sensor boosters and sensor boosters get penalized together. So remote sensor boosters only work on somebody who doesn't have many, if any sensor boosters fitted. It just seems to me that remote modules should have an advantage because they require coordination of multiple characters.
El Yatta	Posted - 2006.02.10 14:46:00 - [9] Originally by: Tullius Cicero bad news, at least for all those who believe that there should be a counter to everything. Sensor dampeners counter ships without booster, ships with boosters counter those with dampeners. Sounds like a perfect relationship to me. So what, in terms of sensor range, counters a ship with boosters? Nice logic there - "everything should have a counter"... Also, how come the counter for damps also gives you a sweet positive boost allowing you to lock smaller ships faster and at longer range? Funny how the counter for ECM doesnt give you that, isnt it? Is it because boosters aren't counter-damps? ---:::---
Valea Silpha	Posted - 2006.02.10 14:52:00 - [10] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 10/02/2006 14:43:15 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. That's a good start, but doesn't that still nullify the use of remote sensor boosters and remote tracking links? A ship with 3 sensor boosters on should still be able to be remote boosted, but as it stands now remote sensor boosters and sensor boosters get penalized together. So remote sensor boosters only work on somebody who doesn't have many, if any sensor boosters fitted. It just seems to me that remote modules should have an advantage because they require coordination of multiple characters. It only nullifies them if you already have sensor boosters on. If your going to have three remote boosters on you , and you know it, you may as well take tracking comps instead and use lower ranged ammo
Mudkest	Posted - 2006.02.10 14:57:00 - [11] Originally by: Tullius Cicero bad news, at least for all those who believe that there should be a counter to everything. Sensor dampeners counter ships without booster, ships with boosters counter those with dampeners. so whats the problem? sensor booster increase range50-60%, sensor damper decreases it 50-40% so you end up with same sensor range as if you were not being jamed or boosted. the way it is now, fit 3 boosters and you cant counter them at all with dampers, so where is the logic of "all should be countered" in current situation? -Would you attack a lion with a brooch-pin? Why would a lion have a brooch-pin?
Gummi	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:06:00 - [12] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 10/02/2006 14:43:15 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. That's a good start, but doesn't that still nullify the use of remote sensor boosters and remote tracking links? A ship with 3 sensor boosters on should still be able to be remote boosted, but as it stands now remote sensor boosters and sensor boosters get penalized together. So remote sensor boosters only work on somebody who doesn't have many, if any sensor boosters fitted. It just seems to me that remote modules should have an advantage because they require coordination of multiple characters. Its a good start and you have a point, however I think the positive stacking should still apply to remote sensor boosters and tracking links, but in the case when tracking disrupted or sensor dampened the remote boosters/link bonuses should be applied after the negative modules. That would involve 3 phases.
Degarion Soth	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:16:00 - [13] 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. So will this be the same for Tracking Disruptors too? please? pretty please?????
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:19:00 - [14] Originally by: Degarion Soth 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. So will this be the same for Tracking Disruptors too? please? pretty please????? I assume he means the entire stacking penalty, so this means... well, anything that stacks. sensors, tracking, cprs/boost amps, etc.
Tullius Cicero	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:19:00 - [15] Edited by: Tullius Cicero on 10/02/2006 15:25:32 Quote: So what, in terms of sensor range, counters a ship with boosters? Nice logic there - "everything should have a counter"... Well its all simple. If you just have a normal setup, and someone uses dampeners on you, you are countered and that is ok. If you fit a long range setup and just fit enough boosters to get your optimal, and someone uses dampeners on you, you are countered and that is ok, too. If, however, somebody anticipates your use of dampeners, and thus sacrifices one med slot just to specifically counter your counter setup, he should be able to do so. There are a lot of EWAR methods, so correctly predicting the attack and use of one of these methods should be rewarded greatly, by being able to counter several hostile med slots of people who chose the wrong equipment against you, with just one med slot used by you. Whats the counter to a sensor boosted ship that used too much boosters? Well, actually there does not need to be a counter to that, as this player already sacrificed med slots for nothing. Quote: Also, how come the counter for damps also gives you a sweet positive boost allowing you to lock smaller ships faster and at longer range? Funny how the counter for ECM doesnt give you that, isnt it? Is it because boosters aren't counter-damps? First of all, theorizing about what the intention for each module is or what not, isnt to the point. Sensor boosters are a great threat, and counters need to be available. Second of all, it actually is very difficult to correctly anticipate the ewar choice of someone else. If you take a look at the three most prominent ewar methods ecm, disrupting, dampening, each method has one method that counters this method, but the counter does only counter this method and not other ones. So we have the phenomenum that you can use one ewar method and affect ships with two of the three counter methods. However, if you choose to use a counter-measure, you can actually only counter one of the three ewar methods. Thus, even if the new SiSi adjustments were corrected, from a game-theoretic point of view, its perfectly fine that the modules receive an additional bonus to compensate for being at a disavantage in the general ewar-counterewar setup. Quote: so whats the problem? sensor booster increase range50-60%, sensor damper decreases it 50-40% so you end up with same sensor range as if you were not being jamed or boosted. the way it is now, fit 3 boosters and you cant counter them at all with dampers, so where is the logic of "all should be countered" in current situation? The problem is that 1.60.5 = 0.8. Look above why I believe Booster BonusDampener penalty should be sthg like 1.2 at the minimum.
Degarion Soth	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:25:00 - [16] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Degarion Soth 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. So will this be the same for Tracking Disruptors too? please? pretty please????? I assume he means the entire stacking penalty, so this means... well, anything that stacks. sensors, tracking, cprs/boost amps, etc. Yeah but its nice to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak - without being too cynical, perhaps that one question may prompt them the test the code revision on ALL these stacking modules... (I have a lovely Curse wanting to use its TD bonus to full effect...
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:30:00 - [17] "so whats the problem? sensor booster increase range50-60%, sensor damper decreases it 50-40% so you end up with same sensor range as if you were not being jamed or boosted." Sadly, no. 1 * 1.5 (booster) * 0.5 (dampener) = 0.75 1 * 1.6 * 0.4 = 0.64 ... meaning you still lose ~25-35% of range and lock speed. The benefit with new stacking penalty is, that's the most you lose no matter how many ships are dampening you, but it's still there. I'd actually like the dampener effect to be knocked down a bit, so that's real 1:1 relation between boosters and dampeners :/
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:39:00 - [18] Originally by: j0sephine "so whats the problem? sensor booster increase range50-60%, sensor damper decreases it 50-40% so you end up with same sensor range as if you were not being jamed or boosted." Sadly, no. 1 * 1.5 (booster) * 0.5 (dampener) = 0.75 1 * 1.6 * 0.4 = 0.64 ... meaning you still lose ~25-35% of range and lock speed. The benefit with new stacking penalty is, that's the most you lose no matter how many ships are dampening you, but it's still there. I'd actually like the dampener effect to be knocked down a bit, so that's real 1:1 relation between boosters and dampeners :/ give damps a maximum multiplier of 0.66 and this would work. 1 * 1.5 * 0.66 = 0.99 (good enough)
Nadec Ascand	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:45:00 - [19] should not all this stuff only be stack with same kind of stuff ... i mean damper with damper, booster wwith booster, remote booster with remote... Well i mean u made some family of stuff ... why not use it Yeah im caldari... and yeah im flying a megatron... Why coz maybe now only caldary are tough enough to fly those and evryone use caldari ship...
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:52:00 - [20] Ok. Let's use the ECM and ECCM as an example. Sensor Booster adds 50%. Remote Sensor Dampener adds 50% (with high skills). Prior to Booster: 50% effective effectiveness of sensors. After Booster: 1.50.5 = 75% effective effectiveness of sensors. Effect of dampeners reduced by 1-(25/50) = 50% Native sensor strength of example ship is 20 (Battleship avarage) ECCM adds 50% sensor strength. ECM Racial jams for 7.5. Prior to ECCM: 7.5/20 = 37.5% chance of jamming After ECCM: 7.5/30 = 25% chance of jamming. Jamming chance reduced by 1-(25/37.5) = 0.33333 So. In conclusion we see that Sensor Boosters as a pure counter module is in fact much stronger at countering Sensor Dampeners than the strong ECCM <Racial> modules are. The ECCM modules are also strictly counter modules, while the Sensor Boosters are both boosting and counter modules in one. So, for all of you who strive for fairness, I suggest the current system (as presented by Tuxford) with the following single change: Sensor Booster I is reduced in effect to 25% boost instead of 50% boost. With this system, the ECCM and Sensor Booster balance is mathematically maintained. The only reason I personally only half-entertain this thought instead of actively promote it is that combat situations can be mastered, and Sensor Dampeners can thus become too effective. ECM cannot be fully compared since ECM is chance based as well as giving a complete effect. What I can say with this example, however, is that anyone who claim that Sensor Dampeners should be nerfed neither have enough knowledge about the mechanics nor have any concern for game balance* Do the maths and comparisons correctly next time, people! The one and only reason Sensor Dampeners are percieved as so powerful is that people aren't working with lock range redundancy and can thus not handle any significant reduces to lock range at all As a paralell, people who tank with no reserve capacitor recharge (such as balancing capacitor on 35% and not using backup cap boosters), always balancing on edge of capacitor collapse will have their tank fail as soon as someone starts eating off their capacitor. EVE gate didn't open by a fluke, it was, in fact, Chuck Norris' roundhouse kicking a blackhole that did it.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.02.10 15:55:00 - [21] Originally by: Ithildin stuff you forgot that sensor damps will always succeed in optimal range, hence (imo) the counter needs to be stronger. ECCM isn't such a high counter as there is still a chance it will fail, even if inside optimal range.
Tullius Cicero	Posted - 2006.02.10 16:38:00 - [22] Edited by: Tullius Cicero on 10/02/2006 16:39:01 Quote: ECM cannot be fully compared since ECM is chance based as well as giving a complete effect. Quote: What I can say with this example, however, is that anyone who claim that Sensor Dampeners should be nerfed neither have enough knowledge about the mechanics nor have any concern for game balance Do the maths and comparisons correctly next time, people! Ok, first you admit that isnt a good comparison and then you jump to such a strong conclusion ? Apart from that, your definition of game balance only seems to include intra ewar balance, not balance of ewar in general. Still, the facts state clearly that: a) Predicting the type of ewar attack is more difficult than predicting the type of non-ewar defence (see above post) b) Even if you are lucky and correctly predict it, your counter measure still needs more med slots to counter one med slot of the offensive module So we have the situation that: a) most of the time, people wont have defence against your attack method b) even if they do, the defensive method uses more med slots than the offensive method => Remote dampeners dominate sensor boosters => Imbalance => Nerf plz These results are completely independent of any imbalance that might or might not exist in some other area.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.10 16:41:00 - [23] Edited by: j0sephine on 10/02/2006 16:43:12 "So. In conclusion we see that Sensor Boosters as a pure counter module is in fact much stronger at countering Sensor Dampeners than the strong ECCM <Racial> modules are. (..) So, for all of you who strive for fairness (..) With this system, the ECCM and Sensor Booster balance is mathematically maintained. (..) ECM cannot be fully compared since ECM is chance based as well as giving a complete effect." Why are you trying to make mathematically equal the effect of modules from two different systems which, even by your own words, operate in very different manner..? ^^;; (nevermind it can't be fully done anyway, since the reduction of jamming chance provided by ECCM changes with the number of ECM / ECCM modules involved. E.g. 2 eccm modules in that example reduce chance of 2 ecm jammers from 60% to 30%, i.e. has in fact 50% effect instead of 33% single eccm vs single jammer has)
Captain Merkin	Posted - 2006.02.10 16:50:00 - [24] this got all too maths based for me... fix them yes good ok Proving natural selection and Charles Darwin wrong since 1981. The Kamikaze pilot Maximum sig image dimensions are 400w x 120h & 24kb filesize. --Jorauk
Severa Crest	Posted - 2006.02.10 18:56:00 - [25] So if 1 ship uses 2 sensor damps or 2 ships use 1 senesor damp the results are the same?
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.02.10 19:10:00 - [26] Originally by: Severa Crest So if 1 ship uses 2 sensor damps or 2 ships use 1 senesor damp the results are the same? yes Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Sarmaul 4tw.
Commander Nikolas	Posted - 2006.02.10 19:18:00 - [27] Well this new stacking penalty seems fair enough. Very few people carry more then 2x sensor boosters, and it is hard to do so without nerfing your setup on most ships. Tux's new stacking should make the Gallente Ewar ships kind of useful again (if the pilot can't fly a Scorp, Falcon, or Rook). And it will massivly help with frig fleets. One major RMR problem solved (I just hope it goes live soon)
Nafri	Posted - 2006.02.10 19:19:00 - [28] lol, ok, getting my 20 maulus back here, damping abusage is back No, seriusly, dampeners are way too strong, especially with that + 5% bonus some ships have, but hey, more Recon Cruisers to abuse
Bazman	Posted - 2006.02.10 19:43:00 - [29] Originally by: Nafri lol, ok, getting my 20 maulus back here, damping abusage is back No, seriusly, dampeners are way too strong, especially with that + 5% bonus some ships have, but hey, more Recon Cruisers to abuse Bah, 20 Griffens pwn 20 Maulus! :P And yay, my Lachesis will be useful! ----- Hi TomB! All out Do or Die Blasterboat for tier 3 Gallente battleship please! Make it look cool too. Thanks.
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.02.10 19:46:00 - [30] 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. Woot! Thank you. Off to buy a Lachesis or Arazu. They'll actually be useful now.
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]

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.