| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rising Sin
   |
Posted - 2003.09.03 05:45:00 -
[91]
/copied to this topic plus some from another because this one is more relevant
*shakes head and sighs at shield hardener nerfs*
This was no doubt in response to laser-users complaining about shield hardeners. Does no one understand that reducing the shield hardeners affects all weapons and thereby will not help ONLY lasers? ALL WEAPONS WILL BE MORE EFFECTIVE. Since projectiles are up to speed now, the hardener situation was already taken care of because people would have to take explosiving and kinetic damage into consideration when mounting hardeners - trust me, I went up against a guy using 1200's and just fusion ammo (was using EMP myself) and got my butt kicked bad.
Besides, projectile's and hybrid's will still gain strength TOO. People already complain that battles are too short, and this change is only going to make them shorter. If you're going to keep shield hardeners nerfed, TomB, reduce the damage capabilites of ALL weapons by some ratio (so they are still balanced in relation to each other). I say at least 25% up to 50%. With this, you could change shield boosters and armor repairers back to where they were.
--
"If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right." |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 08:03:00 -
[92]
Please stay calm, these changes won't go live until in 1-2 weeks (just as Ana said without knowing for real), big changes like these are meant for being well tested and getting your feedback.
I don't want to lock this thread to let people flame somewhere else, where I don't hear you.
"Where is my hat?" |
DirtyHarry
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 08:39:00 -
[93]
Will the 'braced' version of the shield hardeners still be 70% (the braced multispectral shield didnt get nerfed in the last patch and kept its original 40% to all)
-Havo
-------------------
Sig: Mirus Crosius <3
DirtyHarry ~ Havocide - WoWing It Up, Not Givin A F**k |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 08:47:00 -
[94]
There are more changes going to happen around here very soon, shield amplifiers will most likely be moved to medium slots, shield hardeners be upped a little bit again and more. The proposed reduction of stacking effiency is a good idea and I will look at it and other possibilites.
I deleted some posts here after my last post where I asked about keeping pax in this thread, if insults continue I will lock the thread and you can read about changes in next patch update. It would be bad for all because this kind of communication with you folks is the quickest and the best there is, any balancing changes would take much longer time.
"Where is my hat?" |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 08:54:00 -
[95]
Nope, that with the multispectral was a oversight, both versions are 25% on chaos. Rare and common normal SH are 40%.
TomB, a request - could you change to fitting requirements of the shield boost amplifiers from shield management lvl4 to lvl3 or remove that skill requirement? *Just for chaos testing* A lot more people could test those then.
free speech not allowed here |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 09:51:00 -
[96]
Edited by: TomB on 03/09/2003 10:26:35
Changed to level 1 for next update
Edit: put 1 instead of 3, 1 sounds better
"Where is my hat?" |
Serge
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 10:19:00 -
[97]
LOL crazy sig, TomB
Concerning structural damage: is it planned to introduce a structure repairer? Or will hull repair-units be able to repair system damage, too?
***********************************************
... "we suddenly have a good 2 dozen Chicken Littles running about proclaiming tha |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 11:35:00 -
[98]
Stacking modifiers:
I agree on what players are talking about on these, and I'm all open ears to suggestions on how you folks want to penalize stacking of modules that affect the same attribute.
Rather than nerfing all modules that get to powerful the easier task would be nerfing bonus of stacking modules that give a multiplier to an attribute (this seems only to be a problem with modules that give multiplier bonus).
This would of course mean unnerfing of the shield hardener. Rather help with suggestions than flaming, I would like to get a good balance on this as soon as possible so I can finally start making new stuff (new ship, new stuff to do, new modules, new techs) for you all.
PS: shield boost amplifier moved to medium slot and bonus upped to 30%, any rejections?
"Where is my hat?" |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:02:00 -
[99]
"Rather than nerfing all modules that get to powerful the easier task would be nerfing bonus of stacking modules that give a multiplier to an attribute (this seems only to be a problem with modules that give multiplier bonus)."
... use some sort of a logarithmic stacking rather than the multiplication?.. (atribute defining the base, x being numbers of modules installed, plus whatever extra modifications of the result might be necessary)
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:13:00 -
[100]
The easier task, yes, but IMO not the better one.
The choice between a module reducing the damage you suffer to 30% and another one which, let's say, enhance your tacking is a no brainer - and this is totally independant to the actual damage/s.
If all weapons would deal 10% of the current damage hardeners will still be a "have them or die" equipment, simply because they are the most effective modules around. No other offence/defence modules come even close to their effeciency.
A cruiser with (single) shield hrdeners can easily combat a spawn of 5 other npc cruiser of the same ship class without even bothering to outrange them - something which you said isn't intentioned.
free speech not allowed here |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:15:00 -
[101]
Well, moving shield boost amps to medium slots allows the Scorpion to recharge 3011 shield per 400 capacitor. I believe the only solution to all imbalances like this is indeed to limit stacking.
I believe someone suggested earlier that frigates should be limited to 2 damage mods, cruisers to 4 and battleships to 6. Kind of like how the Raven is limited to 4 turrets despite having 8 high slots. And then allow only 1 shield hardener of each damage type to be fitted, and... well... you'd have to keep doing this for alot of modules to create a balance I suppose.
Its alot of work and from what I understand also requires work to be done to the actual game engine as there is nothing in place to limit stacking at the moment.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:18:00 -
[102]
Well, there are a few ways to go about this from a purely theoretical standpoint (since I don't know how the system is structured):
1) Hard limits/caps, as in "You can only get x amount of bonus from items"
IE: ROF bonus limit from items is 20%, which you can get to by:
- 4x5% ROF bonus modules
- 2x10% ROF bonus modules
- 1x20% ROF bonus modules
2) Diminishing returns, as in "Every module of the same type you mount results in a reduced effect for each module over 1".
IE:
Linear 50% reduction:
1 5% ROF module = 5% bonus to ROF
2 5% ROF modules = 7.5% bonus to ROF
3 5% ROF modules = 8.25% bonus to ROF
4 5% ROF modules = 8.875% bonus to ROF
Non-linear reduction:
1 5% ROF module = 5% bonus to ROF
2 5% ROF modules = 9% bonus to ROF (80%)
3 5% ROF modules = 12% bonus to ROF (60%)
4 5% ROF modules = 14% bonus to ROF (40%)
3) Exclusive mounting limits - "Thou shalt have only a certain number of a certain kind of module"
IE: You can only have 2 Gun Mounts, 3 ECM modules, 1 shield hardener, etc.
4) Exclusive activation limits - "Thou shalt have only one module of a certain type active"
IE: You can only have 1 AB OR 1 MWD active at any given time.
Each of these ways of limiting stacking have their advantages and disadvantages. One big question is what is the most feasible way to do it from a code perspective? 
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:19:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 03/09/2003 12:21:42
 Quote:
I believe someone suggested earlier that frigates should be limited to 2 damage mods, cruisers to 4 and battleships to 6.
Don't think that would change anything - most BS do not mount more than 6 damage mods anyway.
free speech not allowed here |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:30:00 -
[104]
"There are more changes going to happen around here very soon, shield amplifiers will most likely be moved to medium slots"
They should be in medium slots, yes, so Caldari ships can actually make use of them, but you will still need to change the way they stack, or a Scorpion will just use like 4 of them and still be invincible tank.
|
Brukhai Khan
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:37:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Brukhai Khan on 03/09/2003 12:39:10
edit: Karif got a few of the main points while I was still posting.
Shield hardeners of any type (damage type specific and invulnerability) could probably stack to about half of their original value without negatively affecting gameplay. That would mean that (using tq stats) an EM ward would give a 70% resistance boost, with multiple EM hardeners converging on 100%. The exact values should probably describe a negatively accelerated curve, i.e. the second hardener gives the most gain after the inital, the third only marginal and every other one after that only barely noticeable gains.
Since IŠm too lazy to do the math lets assume that one hardener=70%, two hardeners=85%, three hardeners=95%. etc.
This would probably work well, but would call for a slight nerf to the initial value (in the 60% area), to give players who stack same-resistance hardeners a significant enough boost on the second hardener.
That would produce values of about: 60% for one, 80% for two, 90% for three hardeners.
As for multiple resistance gains, why not simply use the same approximation formula and divide the boni by the number of resistance types?
With the above example lets assume that someone uses EM and thermal, each at 60%. Two hardeners by above example would total at 80% resistance, which means that both damage types would get a 40% boost to resistance.
Since this is obviously too low it would probably be a good idea to introduce a multiplier for each type of damage that is added to the hardeners.
For two types 1,3 would be ok (giving about 50% resistance to both), for three 1,4 (giving about 40% resistance) and so on. That way the protection for two and three hardeners can still be above those of invulnerability shields, without allowing too much protection. Jack of all trades - Master of none.
The nice thing about this is that now hardeners with different resistance values make more of an impact, since their stacking is affected much more by the initial value.
As for the invulnerability shields, the same basic system shoudl be used. Lets assume that they give 25% to each, with a falloff to 200% of the original value (that means that if you stack an infinite amount of them you will get 50% protection to all types).
First shield: 25%, two shields: 35%, third shield 40% (this is the number of hardeners where invulnerability shields are about even with single-type hardeners), fourth shield 43%.
I still donŠt like the multipliers for the value calculation of the different-type hardeners, but I think something like that will be necessary to allow the usage of a system that applies to all types of hardeners.
Other modules with multiplier boni could work with the same system, simply by adding a falloff value to their stacking modifiers.
Named items could, instead of lower fitting requirements have a larger stacking falloff range (like a loot invulnerability ward for example raising the falloff by a fixed +10%, meaning that our infinite number of wards would come out at a theoretical max of 52,5 % protection - with four of those you can them come to a theoretical 60%, which will make quite a difference).
Of course this will open up a whole new can of balancing worms, so it would probably be better to keep these loot items as an option for the future.
|
ROFL
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:37:00 -
[106]
Quote:
4) Exclusive activation limits - "Thou shalt have only one module of a certain type active"
I think this would have fixed the entire problem with shield hardeners. 4 types, you select from 1 type and mount it. Should also apply to fitting of shield amplifiers, but probably not the boosters themselves. Damage mod stacking is not something I percieve as a problem personally.
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 13:37:00 -
[107]
Edited by: TomB on 03/09/2003 13:38:33
Quote:
Well, moving shield boost amps to medium slots allows the Scorpion to recharge 3011 shield per 400 capacitor. I believe the only solution to all imbalances like this is indeed to limit stacking.
Would not apply if we penalize stacking of multiplying modules, or change how they affect attributes in some other way.
"Where is my hat?" |
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 13:50:00 -
[108]
My personal opinion is a hearty mix of 50% diminishing returns system coupled with a hard cap set very high and an exclusive activation limit for some modules would be best.
Diminishing returns makes for a little more variation. 50% Linear diminishing returns for everything but ECM.
Exclusive activation means certain modules don't end up stacking to create absurd situation like multiple hardeners. I personally think non-ECM modules should also fit in this category - Weapon Disrupters, Sensor Dampeners, Warp Scramblers, Webbifiers.
Hard Caps, set very high (as in Tech 5 maxed modules max skills, etc.), can be used to catch minor code errors, creative players using stacking in ways that were not intended, and can prevent some exploits.
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 13:58:00 -
[109]
Diminishing returns would make the game very interesting I think. No longer would those Amarr ships gain by running around with 8 damage mods, but instead they would be forced to mix with other modules, like a few damage mods, a few armor mods and a few capacitor relays. Then maybe they'd stop whining about to much cap use on those Tachyons aswell.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Popov
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 14:33:00 -
[110]
PS: shield boost amplifier moved to medium slot and bonus upped to 30%, any rejections?
=============================================
Moving that module to medium is another slap in the face for Amarr ship users especially the Armageddon battleship which is already struggling with it's miserly 3 med slots, surely the time has come to give Amarr a bit more flexibility in this department now that the lvl 2 battleships have 7 low slots (only one less than the Arma')
The growing plethora of choice in medium slot items is putting more and more strain on this and as a result the Arma is becoming weaker and weaker in comparison with other ships.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 14:44:00 -
[111]
Popov - you're not supposed to be the big shield race, nor the big EW race. Thus you have a low number of medium slots.
There are lots of low slot armor enhancing modules available.
Now that armor repairors are supposed to actually repair faster, you may well see an armor belt become a good subsitute for a shield.
|
Cleric
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 14:47:00 -
[112]
Why not change the shield hardeners to three different classes like the shield boosters ie. Small, medium and large. Make them so they require different power levels and Cpu to run,
The Large ones will have a massive power requirement, this will limit the scorpion users from fitting 7 hardeners and if they manage to do so they would have to sacrifice almost all weapons and low slots to power cores. Keep the resistances and stacking as they are now just make it that each hardener can be used only for its intended class of ship so nobody can fit a small one to a BS and get the same bonus.
|
Popov
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 14:57:00 -
[113]
You still need somewhere to stick the armour repairer, which suprise; suprise is a medium slot. There are things which you put in medium slots which are basically standard issue (e.g. shield booster and EM hardener) which with only 3 slots to play with leaves a very limited choice of things to add.
Plus with the proposed stacking changes it's not going to be a case of ignoring shields and sticking on half a dozen energised adaptive nano plates to make your armour harder to take down.
Notice also the races ships with the biggest shield capacity also have the number of medium slots necesary to use all this new shield improving gear?
Well I'm off to work out a decent setup for my Arma using 7 projectile guns as thats going to be the only workable solution given the current state of play on Chaos 
|
Tigersbane
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 15:58:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Tigersbane on 03/09/2003 15:59:08
Cleric hit the nail on the head I think. It's been suggested before but I have never seen any comments for or against.
Different sized shield mods, with different requirements would seem the best way to go about balancing the whole tac thing.
The different requiements I am refering to could include stuff like cap usage, power grid usage, CPU usage etc.
TomB perhaps you can comment on the practicalities of this suggestion?
|
ROFL
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 16:09:00 -
[115]
Quote:
Diminishing returns would make the game very interesting I think. No longer would those Amarr ships gain by running around with 8 damage mods, but instead they would be forced to mix with other modules, like a few damage mods, a few armor mods and a few capacitor relays. Then maybe they'd stop whining about to much cap use on those Tachyons aswell.
Ok. Any idiot running around in an Amarr ship with 8(?)(Wish my Amarr ship has 8 low slots) damage mods should just undock and self destruct, because thats how useful that ship is in combat. As it stands now I have more CAP MODS on my apoc than DAMAGE MODS. Most /every/ hybrid or proj user has 2/3/4 more damage mods than me, and thats with the CURRENT activation costs.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 16:13:00 -
[116]
"Notice also the races ships with the biggest shield capacity also have the number of medium slots necesary to use all this new shield improving gear?"
Um, it would be silly if the ships that relied most heavily on shields had the fewest number of slots available to use the shield gear.
And if you are relying on armor, don't use any medium slots for hardeners. You can put in an armor repair module (or two if you want). But the armor boosts and armor resists should be low slots, just like the shield capacity boosts and resists are medium slot.
That way you can sort of have diversity between different races ships.
|
Gauguin
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 16:33:00 -
[117]
Quote:
Lowering the single hardners to 40% is a bad idea, as was lowering the Invulnerabitity Shield to 25%. We are taking a step backwards with this move. Remember when the masses complained that battles were over in 10 seconds? The low-slot damage mods were reduced in effectiveness to prolong battles and make them more challenging.
Now you are reducing the shield hardner's ability to diminish damage by too great a factor. Our battles will go back to being simple engagements of who fires first. Where's the fun in that?
If you want to make a wise change, then make it so only one of each type of hardner can be fitted to a ship at a time. You can have one EM hardner and one thermal hardner, but not two of each.
Remember, these devices are power hogs, and eventually they will drain the opponent's cap down to where you can pummel their ship at will. Reduce individual shield hardners to 40% and you might as well go ahead and rebalance the gyros/magnetic stabilizers/heat sinks downward while you're at it.
I agree completely with the sentiment and the proposed alternative, but only as a part of the solution. The Shield Hardeners are power hogs only in a frigate. A cruiser can run four 70% SH's indefinitely (provided it has the mid-slots) but without being able to continuously fire it's weapons, and a battleship will not even notice the cap drain, effectively becoming an impregnable tank.
The solution to this, in addition to allowing only one SH per/type of damage, is to change the cap consumption requirement (activation cost) to a percentage of total cap instead of a hard number. This way the penalty for using Shield Hardeners is proportional to the size of the ship and the small ships aren't rendered even more useless just because the battleships need to be balanced between each other.
|
Raven DeBlade
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 17:49:00 -
[118]
Well if a scorpion is used with all hardeners it cant do much else than defend itself sinc the cap would drain, and if its used as EW ship there wont be much room for hardeners etc, atleast we had a choice, you can say anything but Scorpion is versatile but not a hard hitter
"To hunt pirates you need time and patience, because even monkeys fall from the trees"
"Any statements made above this line are my persona" |
Solas
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 18:39:00 -
[119]
My concern is versatility. I hope that the changes to shield hardeners make armor based defense viable. It is a shame that everyone on the live server only depends on shield hardeners and not armor mods. It just seems silly to see Aamar ships filling their few medium slots with hardeners / boosters when they were never intended to depend on them.
There should be multiple viable configurations for each ship type. The current use shield hardeners or die is an indication of how overpowering they currently are.
I would also like to comment on how important it is to balance shield / armor damage leakage. In order to use armor for defense currently you must have a armor repairer and sadly a hull repairer. In beta the developers removed shield damage leaking into armor. It would only be logical to do the same with armor damage leakage unless both are given the same penalty.
I would also like to add that on a cruiser that it is not feasible to mount both a medium armor repairer and medium hull repairer. I currently have to use a small hull repairer and must sacrifice many other slots to use just the med / small repairer combo because of fitting requirements. It takes forever for the small repairer to patch up my Aamar Omen.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 18:52:00 -
[120]
Solas: It seems as though TomB is looking into making an armor belt a viable subsitute for shielding, especially as far as Amarrians are concerned, with lo slot armor upgrades.
And now the armor repairers are being increased in efficiency. (Before, they couldn't hold a candle to shield boosters).
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |