| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TomB
   |
Posted - 2003.09.01 21:53:00 -
[1]
Edited by: TomB on 05/09/2003 12:59:49
Edited by: TomB on 03/09/2003 11:36:01
Shield Boosters:
- Medium Shield Booster has been increased by 50% in shield boost and capacitor need.
- Large Shield Booster has been increased by 100% in shield boost and capacitor need.
- Xlarge Shield Booster has been increased by 150% in shield boost and capacitor need.
Shield Hardeners:
- All single boosting Shield Hardeners have been decreased from 70% resistance to 50% resistance. This was done because of some ships being able to be immune to all damage types (this was suposed to have been changed with the changes done to the multi spectral shield hardeners).
Armor Repairers:
Small, Medium and Large Armor Repairers have all been changed in usage:
- Duration of all armor repairers have been changed from 30 secs to 15 secs.
- Amount repaired has been increased alot and capacitor usage has been lowered compaired to amount repaired.
Shield Boost Amplifier:
New module, med slot; increases shield boosting amount by 30%.
End Note: shield boosting and armor repairing have been boosted alot since the shield hardener nerf will be taking place, players will should able to keep them alive much longer but not able to make them totally immune to all damage types, test this on Chaos and comment all you want.
Hiiiyyyyaaa! 
Edit to gather more information from thread:
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).
Shield Hardener upgraded to 50%
"Where is my hat?" |
Lake
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 22:03:00 -
[2]
I like every one of these changes. Not much more to say than that ;-)
~Lake |
Runefinger
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 22:12:00 -
[3]
/me waves bye to hit closerange npc killing setup.....
i liked the use off shieldhardeners...
only a scorpion could become a real tank and if he does that you can easely capdrain him to make sure he can't keep them running...
tobad the resistance it going down... would it not be better to just up the cap use ?
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 22:23:00 -
[4]
Hehe, yes, I have to kill my one, too.  Too bad, it was pretty effective.
Now, what do I put into my med slots? Perhaps 1-2 of this rare ammo repaires i orginially had in queue for recyceling. mhhh...
free speech not allowed here |
Taliranowe Sarum
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 22:25:00 -
[5]
\o/
Read the Rules Of Conduct and Terms Of Usage
"There is TONS of flaming, personal abuse and
other bad behaviour on the In-game board and in In-game world. If everybody would just read the rules and follow them, the EVE world be a much nicer place to be in."
Feel free to copy this Signature. |
StiZum Hilidii
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 22:28:00 -
[6]
u leave those shield hardeners alone dammit.
tell you what how about leaving all you tempering alone till you get all the bugs out? yeah sound like a good idea? people not stuck in stations for days or regions going down..how about those
STAN
FACTA NON VERBA |
Ad'rena
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 22:46:00 -
[7]
and i was gona get me 2 of each shield hardeners..
oh well.. guess iŠll just have to keep using ECM...  |
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 22:53:00 -
[8]
woo, not a little change. I guess I better get myself a 13000 shield instead of using 7 hardeners for my tank setup. But it will certainly make it easier for me to kill others
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 23:17:00 -
[9]
A small note: From what I've seen, the Shield Boost Amplifiers doesn't stack. Atleast not according to my info window on the Shield Booster itself.
If they did/do, then that would cause great imbalance. If my calculations are correct, a Armaggedon could recharge 4900 shield per boost.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 23:38:00 -
[10]
 Quote:
If they did/do, then that would cause great imbalance. If my calculations are correct, a Armaggedon could recharge 4900 shield per boost.
ouch. I haven't logged in on chaos yet (busy on Tran), what's the stats on those modules?
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 23:48:00 -
[11]
It states 2000% bonus, but apparently the actual bonus applied is 30%.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Jorlin
|
Posted - 2003.09.01 23:50:00 -
[12]
Quote:
Shield Hardeners:
- All single boosting Shield Hardeners have been decreased from 70% resistance to 40% resistance. This was done because of some ships being able to be immune to all damage types (this was suposed to have been changed with the changes done to the multi spectral shield hardeners).
*sigh*
so because the ships with lots of midslots were able to fit more hardeners than they should, the ones already low of those slots get another downgrade...
wouldn't it be possible to limit the maximum gain you could get from a single module type?
flying a Minnie Cruiser i'll get some serious problems there...
but ok, i'll adapt. maybe it's back to empire space for NPC hunting. 
no police, no summons, no courts of law;
no proper procedure, no rules of war;
no mitigating circumstance;
no lawyers fees, no second chance! |
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 01:05:00 -
[13]
Hey TomB I like the changes, so while you are at it, why dont you make those pirate drop Shield Hardeners worth more and give them say, 50% resistance, or 55% resistance.
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Arathmon
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 01:40:00 -
[14]
Quote:
u leave those shield hardeners alone dammit.
tell you what how about leaving all you tempering alone till you get all the bugs out? yeah sound like a good idea? people not stuck in stations for days or regions going down..how about those
Quit ****ing. If you knew anything about how CCP operates, you would know that TomB has nothing to do with fixing people getting stuck in stations. Think before you complain next time.
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 02:55:00 -
[15]
For those wondering,
Small Armor Repairer
Activation Cost:40
Time: 15s
HP Repaired: 60
CPU: 5tf
Grid: 5MW
Medium Armor Repairer
Activation Cost:160
Time: 15s
HP Repaired: 240
CPU: 50tf
Grid: 150MW
Can't find the new Shield Booster Amplifiers on the market (I don't operate out of the FC).
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Slithereen
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 03:01:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Slithereen on 02/09/2003 03:09:25
These changes will favor ships with a lot of low slots. Instead of a ship with plenty of midslots being invincible, you have a ship with plenty of low slots being invincible. This is the kind of setup that encourages people putting more relays, fluxes and diags on the low slots.
You are just shifting the superiority from one ship to another.
I'm not sure if I favor the idea.
A scorpion may be a tank, but the lack of its own turrets is its own nerf. So you have a tank with fewer guns.
An Armeggedon, with plenty of turrets and low slots on the other hand, can become both a tank with the big guns.
Also, damage for many weapons are being increased and missiles aer going to be faster. Already that should be counterbalanced with stronger defenses. I thought the game should be heading towards prolonged attritional warfare where battleships should die in battles lasting for minutes not seconds.
_______________________________________________
"Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies,
"Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.
"Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 05:02:00 -
[17]
Errr...Ahhh....Ummm
Oh nevermind. Anyone selling Armor Plating? 
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Lucas De'Thal
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 08:20:00 -
[18]
*sigh*
another nerf in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons.
______________________________________________
Hellmar > sorry for the attitude, playing a n00b character through the current state just left me a bit bitter
dev chat: Mar 18, 2004
hellmar> "you lot are just so clever you have a good history for out smarting us :-S "
dev chat: Feb 12, 2004 |
Mary Anne
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 08:28:00 -
[19]
Quote:
These changes will favor ships with a lot of low slots. Instead of a ship with plenty of midslots being invincible,...
Did you test that? You got a full test series on hit and defense vs various ship types (app. 100 times each)?
No? Are you serious?
Why do you talk?
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 08:42:00 -
[20]
Quote:
Edited by: Slithereen on 02/09/2003 03:09:25
These changes will favor ships with a lot of low slots. Instead of a ship with plenty of midslots being invincible, you have a ship with plenty of low slots being invincible. This is the kind of setup that encourages people putting more relays, fluxes and diags on the low slots.
You are just shifting the superiority from one ship to another.
Reducing shield hardeners to 40% will make armor important again. Ever wondered why Amarr ships had so many low slots? I believe it's because they're -meant- to be tanks. Hard-hitting, hard to damage, but not really sophisticated 
Quote:
A scorpion may be a tank, but the lack of its own turrets is its own nerf. So you have a tank with fewer guns.
A Scorpion is supposed to be an EW support battleship, as can be seen from its (horrible) amount of med-slots
Quote:
An Armeggedon, with plenty of turrets and low slots on the other hand, can become both a tank with the big guns.
Which is it's purpose. Conversely, it's easily jammed and has a low amount of med slots (so not a lot of EW there).
Quote:
Also, damage for many weapons are being increased and missiles aer going to be faster. Already that should be counterbalanced with stronger defenses. I thought the game should be heading towards prolonged attritional warfare where battleships should die in battles lasting for minutes not seconds.
Use armour hardeners 
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
ga'ia
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 09:12:00 -
[21]
Edited by: ga'ia on 02/09/2003 09:19:40
Yes! Finally we can get rid of shield camping bships, one can almost not even see the damn ship under all those layers of shields! o_0. Great changes and I must say..it will be very interesting to try this out =). However TomB, DONT forget to change all the META versions of the items youŠve changed, the v-15 (multispectral shield harderner) still have 40% on all! (gonna catch the moment by performing some naggin, <naggin> plz make a higher resolution for the megathron bitmap, it really sux< /naggin> ;PPP )
__________________________________________________________ |
Serge
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 09:20:00 -
[22]
Cool - thats a great step into the right direction imo.
Now armour has a meaning again! And the use of armor boosters (energized) will probably be worth it ;)
though it will be a prob with CPU usage now ... these armor boosts need hell a lot of CPU to be fitted ... this for BS only?
***********************************************
... "we suddenly have a good 2 dozen Chicken Littles running about proclaiming tha |
Rayvenous
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 09:50:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Rayvenous on 02/09/2003 09:51:06
Well done so far TomB.
I like all the announced changes (Battleships, Turrets, missles and modules) in general, ok it wonŠt be the last changes for complete balancing, but it points into the right direction.
|
Ka'loor
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 10:12:00 -
[24]
YAY, i like your changes TomB, iots really fits in with the BB turret changes, i think they should balance each other out.
Attack without mercy, until blood is gone, until life is gone, until the light is gone, unto the shadow itself.
Better to die with honor, than to live in shame. |
Mary Anne
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 10:18:00 -
[25]
TomB,
I still do not like the fact, that you tune current items. Anyway as you are at it, please review the following:
- Modules: With the same setup, dmg add mods provide different benefit after some time of play. Eg: using 3 skadi and an extruded heat sink, I got 95-254 dmg a hit with a Hvy Afocal Laser. Later I got 23 - 105 max dmg on same opponent on same setup on same range with same weapon. This has been stated by other players to apply for other items too (wrong cumulative benefit after excessive use of mods to one stat).
- Sometimes shield hardeners stay switched on (invulnerability) without consuming grid. And yes, the effect is there.
- ...
While those bugs are still ingame, how do you want to balance properly???????
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 11:01:00 -
[26]
Edited by: TomB on 02/09/2003 11:06:14
The BH Team put the shield amplifiers into the FightClub corp hangar, the item in question is called "Shield Boost Amplifier I".
Edit:
Shield Boosters cost much more CPU than Armor Repairers, but Armor Repairers cost much more powergrid.
Also: Lasers cost much more powergrid than before so if a player wants to fit his ship with 4-5 Tachyons for example, he will have to fill his low slots with modules for extra powergrid. Amarr ships are suposed to be able to deal out alot of damage or be complete tanks, but they won't be able to do both very well.
"Where is my hat?" |
ULTIMA TREX
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 11:06:00 -
[27]
Edited by: ULTIMA TREX on 02/09/2003 11:06:52
Since the hardeners are doing alot less for us now under half the resistance it once was. is the capacitor energy need going to be lowered aswell? i think it should.
|
Slithereen
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 11:12:00 -
[28]
The shield hardener visuals should be changed to something a lot more transparent instead of hiding in a cloud thing.
_______________________________________________
"Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies,
"Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.
"Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 11:43:00 -
[29]
"Under half the resistance"? 70% vs 40% - thats 57% of the old ones.
The cap need of the normal hardeners is pretty low. 2 - 2.5 cap/s - any large gun (exept projectiles, of cource) use more cap/s.
free speech not allowed here |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 11:54:00 -
[30]
Agree with Discorporation.
Medium Slots shouldn't make a tank. Low slots should. It's a good thing these changes are slowly starting to make armor important.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Stryker Zee
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 12:16:00 -
[31]
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.
|
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 12:22:00 -
[32]
Medium slots will make a shield tank (IE: Caldari)
Low slots will make an armor tank (IE: Amarr)
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 12:25:00 -
[33]
"these devices are power hogs"
Are you kidding? Tthe multispec - sure, but the normal ones?? They have the same cap/s as a SMALL laser. YOu can run 2 for infinite time on a cruiser, non-projectile weapon fire needs a lot lot more cap.
free speech not allowed here |
ROFL
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 12:28:00 -
[34]
Quote:
Also: Lasers cost much more powergrid than before so if a player wants to fit his ship with 4-5 Tachyons for example, he will have to fill his low slots with modules for extra powergrid. Amarr ships are suposed to be able to deal out alot of damage or be complete tanks, but they won't be able to do both very well.
If you go overboard with this, people wont use lasers at all. The scorpion is currently twice the tank the Apoc is (which is pretty ridiculous) and I think you you make it so that we cant fit 4 tachyons with at least 4 damage mods, people will just train hybrid or projectiles, guns they CAN for 4/5 of and CAN use the damage mods associated with them. What I'm saying here is trading our capacitor to use the weapons is a penalty, and if you make us trade our damage mods as well to use the same amount of weapons as everyone else, then that penalty will be too much.
|
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 12:48:00 -
[35]
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.
I think it's fine and I am the owner of a Scorpion, using these hardeneres. A fight between 2 Battleships having their medium slots full of hardeners can last for 10+ minutes. That's a bit over the top considering how easy it is to run in this game. 10 minutes is more than enough time to get to the gate even though you are webified x2, even x3. Or you can just log and your ship will dissapear before shields are down 10%.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 13:00:00 -
[36]
The only change I really have a problem with is making the shield booster thing a low slot module. Many Caldari ships have an exceedingly low # of lo slots. This is bad, since they have to rely on shielding. Amarrian ships, however, are supposed to rely on their armor, but they are the ones who get the shield booster enhancers.
It seems now, you may as well go for the ship with the biggest # of hi and low slots, since medium slots are so much less valuable now.
|
ROFL
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 13:15:00 -
[37]
Quote:
Or you can just log and your ship will dissapear before shields are down 10%.
Ah, the growing survival mentality of everyone in Eve.
TomB, this logging out crap needs to be fixed too please.
|
Amorex
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 13:49:00 -
[38]
Nice move TomB, you made a tomb for a Scorp.
|
DREAMWORKS
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 13:57:00 -
[39]
Tachyon change is very bad imho, since the current tachyons arent worth to lose alot of powergrid.
I hate nerf's overall, but experience told me company's dont listen anyway.
__________________________
http://www.nin.com/visuals/thtf_hi.html |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:01:00 -
[40]
Quote:
Nice move TomB, you made a tomb for a Scorp.
Quote:
The first Scorpion-class battleship was launched only a couple of years ago, and those that have been built are considered to be prototypes. Little is known of its capabilities, but what has been garnered suggests that the Scorpion is crammed to the brink with sophisticated hi-tech equipment that few can match.
A scorpion is a high-tech electronic warfare machine. It is not intended as a ning-invulnerable tank. Keep it in a support role, and use the Raven class battleship as your damage dealer.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
DREAMWORKS
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:10:00 -
[41]
Edited by: DREAMWORKS on 02/09/2003 14:11:39
Quote:
A scorpion is a high-tech electronic warfare machine. It is not intended as a ning-invulnerable tank. Keep it in a support role, etc..
True, but it still isnt the supported role i expected how it should be. Imho sensor linking is still to weak while this change could make a scorpion a teamplayer instead of a tank.
Even after the current change a scorpion can use EW to take out a apocalypse without the apoc beeing able to even target. So it still is and still will be a solo player ship in PvP, that will be feared by many..
By making sensor linking more important, so that the damage dealers are less a victim in teamfights, we could add a way of fighting in EvE on how we are supposed to fight. In teamplay.
__________________________
http://www.nin.com/visuals/thtf_hi.html |
Amorex
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:14:00 -
[42]
Quote:
Quote:
Nice move TomB, you made a tomb for a Scorp.
Quote:
The first Scorpion-class battleship was launched only a couple of years ago, and those that have been built are considered to be prototypes. Little is known of its capabilities, but what has been garnered suggests that the Scorpion is crammed to the brink with sophisticated hi-tech equipment that few can match.
A scorpion is a high-tech electronic warfare machine. It is not intended as a ning-invulnerable tank. Keep it in a support role, and use the Raven class battleship as your damage dealer.
Max defence min. firepower that is his role. If you are lowering his defence capibility then rise his firepower. Otherwise Scorp will become usless junk.
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:26:00 -
[43]
Scorpion could be the most powerful battleship if it was fitted that way, which it was not designed for. This battleship is designed for hi-tech operations such as electronic warfare. It still has 4 launchers and launchers are good at dealing damage now, check how they are working on Chaos (Missiles will also get decreased in price). But yes, if you want to be able to deal out the most damage in a Caldari battleship, you should rather fly a Raven which has more low slots, more hi-slots, more launchers, more powergrid and more capacitor.
"Where is my hat?" |
DREAMWORKS
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:27:00 -
[44]
Quote:
Scorpion could be the most powerful battleship if it was fitted that way, which it was not designed for. This battleship is designed for hi-tech operations such as electronic warfare. It still has 4 launchers and launchers are good at dealing damage now, check how they are working on Chaos (Missiles will also get decreased in price). But yes, if you want to be able to deal out the most damage in a Caldari battleship, you should rather fly a Raven which has more low slots, more hi-slots, more launchers, more powergrid and more capacitor.
You still havent answered me when you going to fix the defenders, since they all circle around the launcher ship and blow up there instead of defending.
__________________________
http://www.nin.com/visuals/thtf_hi.html |
DREAMWORKS
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:33:00 -
[45]
btw make armor boosters used in warp too
__________________________
http://www.nin.com/visuals/thtf_hi.html |
Amorex
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:34:00 -
[46]
Sorry TomB but this is not aswer. How I supposed to be a bounty hunter when all wanted pirates and persons are hading around in packs? with 70% a can roam there pack, tak my pray kill it not fast but fast enoth to stay alive and leave. If you made this game teamplay ONLY, then write it down on boxes. Otherwise stop killing single play in Eve.
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:49:00 -
[47]
Quote:
Quote:
Nice move TomB, you made a tomb for a Scorp.
Quote:
The first Scorpion-class battleship was launched only a couple of years ago, and those that have been built are considered to be prototypes. Little is known of its capabilities, but what has been garnered suggests that the Scorpion is crammed to the brink with sophisticated hi-tech equipment that few can match.
A scorpion is a high-tech electronic warfare machine. It is not intended as a ning-invulnerable tank. Keep it in a support role, and use the Raven class battleship as your damage dealer.
WTF Since WHEN does "hi-tech equipment" mean the same as "high-tech electronic warfare"
In my opinion a shield hardener, in opposite to an armor exteneder, surely is a "hi-tech equipment".
Though I'm not mad about the change. I can still make a Scorpion tank if I want to.
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:50:00 -
[48]
Defenders are being looked at - Armor Repair Unit has been added to "modules allowed in warp" group (Chaos updated with it later).
The scorpion is not a useless ship, the hardeners got nerfed and not the scorpion. You can still make the scorpion almost immune to various attacks but not as much before. But you now have more possibilites to survive in combat.
"Where is my hat?" |
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 14:56:00 -
[49]
And Tomb, please let us know when I'm gonna start dealing 360 damage and not 300 damage with my cruise missiles.
Ie, when the cruise missile skill will be fixed...
(I've not tested them after the 88 build though)
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 15:26:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 02/09/2003 15:30:44
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 02/09/2003 15:29:54
Cannot really see the problem with the scorp - 3 sensor dampeners and you can kill a enemy BS without it even firing one shot at you.
equip 6 and you'll disable two targets and still have room for a MWD and a SB.
And even with the 70% shieldhardeners a gallente or amarr BS with a single array of SH could outdamage a scorp with a double SH array. If you enganage a damage maxed BS with your scorp at tranq you'll loose.
free speech not allowed here |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 15:37:00 -
[51]
"Cannot really see the problem with the scorp - 3 sensor dampeners and you can kill a enemy BS without it even firing one shot at you."
Many, many, many people run around with sensor boosters nowadays. Particularly battleships with their slow lock times.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 15:39:00 -
[52]
True. Because of that I have fitted 4 dampeners on my scorp
Only against a single target, though.
free speech not allowed here |
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 16:11:00 -
[53]
It's not like sensor boosters would help very much anyway. Even the insane targeting range 300km suddenly becomes 18.75km with 4 (0.5x) dampeners.
|
Iridina
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 16:13:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Iridina on 02/09/2003 16:13:34
Quote:
"Under half the resistance"? 70% vs 40% - thats 57% of the old ones.
It's trivial to see that simple comparation of resisted damage by division doesn't really do justice here, if we have a shield resistance booster of 100% and other of 50%, the 100% booster isn't two times better than 50%, it's infinitely better, and the shield two times as good as a shield with 60% resistance would be a shield with 120% of resistance, which is absurd.
Basically the correct way to compare the effectiveness of items like these is to figure out the answer to the question "How many item A's do I need to have the effectiveness of item
B?"
So here it's a matter of figuring out how many 40% hardeners you need to get the resistance of a 70% hardener.
And this we acquire by observing how much damage goes through with one 70% shield, and that's 0.3 dmg, and then how many dmg goes through with x 40% shields, and that's 0.6^x.
And these two would have to be equal, for the setups to be as effective, ie. if they're equal, the both setups let as much damage go past.
So we have 0.6^x = 0.3.
Answer to this equation is x ~ 2.35, you can verify this by checking 0.6^2.35 = 0.301...
So the initial statement is correct, you need around 2.35 40% resistance shields to be as effective as one 70% resistance shield, thus meaning that the effectiveness was more than halved.
Actually the same calculation applied for multispectrals and regular resistance boosters, you needed 2.35 multispectrals to come in par with one regular hardener in one resistance type, or, to come in par with two hardeners in two resistance types.
After the change to 25% multispectrals and 40% hardeners, it takes only 1.77 multispectrals to reach the effect of one regular hardener, which especially keeping in mind the greatly higher capacitor cost on multispectrals sounds quite balanced. You can always get better resistance against two damagetypes with two multispectrals, but at a great cost to capacitor.
PS. the maths to 0.6^x = 0.3 is simple logarithms:
0.6^x = 0.3, take natural logarithm on both sides
ln(0.6^x) = ln(0.3), div both sides by ln(0.6)
ln(0.6^x)/ln(0.6) = ln(0.3)/ln(0.6), use log_a(x)/log_a(b) = log_b(x)
log_0.6(0.6^x) = ln(0.3)/ln(0.6)
x = 2.35..
--Irid |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 16:27:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 02/09/2003 16:27:38
True, I made an error here. I looked at the resitances, not at the damage going through.
free speech not allowed here |
Iridina
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 16:32:00 -
[56]
Greet the armor damage with joy, for you can repair it, and fly at 20km/s without thy ableness being lost, and ditch thy energy weapons for they are not the chosen ones.
Namely.
The biggest plus on shield hardening was that you could effectively increase your shield hitpoints, thus having as much shield as possible was a good thing.
Now with the boosts to shield boosters and armor repairers, having much shield isn't that big of an issue anymore, as more weight is placed on regeneration speed. And this means the MWD penalty of -50% shields doesn't hurt as bad as it used to.
Basically, equipping two MWD's, a shield booster and armor repairer makes you invulnerable in other sense, you can fly to 100km and repair yourself there and come back ;)
Of course this is not as bad balance-wise as the hitpoint tanks boosts with the hardeners, and will sure make the fights more interesting, but this will also in effect penalize long range weapon users some.
With the increased armor repairer speed, it means that armor hardeners also become a semi-viable option. The low-slot specialized armor hardener gives 30% to one resistance, almost as much as the shield booster gives to shields. The resist-all version sucks tho, 13% to all isn't that much.
We'll probably begin seeing armor used a lot like shields were used, thus having energy weapon users 'penalized' even more, due to inherent armor resistance against those damagetypes, and projectile users getting a boost due to explosive damage from their ammo.
Swing, swing, swing the scale..
--Irid |
Iminay
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 17:27:00 -
[57]
TomB
didnt you say you werent out to nerf things, just to boost the weaker components?
Seems your fooling around here. You hate laser users?
____________________________________________________________
Subscription Status: Active
Cancellation
Pending
Expires: 30. September 2003
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 17:34:00 -
[58]
Amorex am I getting this straight that your complaining that after these changes the scorpion will no longer be able to go against a group of enemy battleships, pick one, kill it and leave again without much risk ?
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Replicant Amara
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 17:42:00 -
[59]
I haven't read all the comments... but I have seen a skill that is called Shield piercing, and I think I saw somewhere a module called shield hardener disrupture...
Leave the hardeners alone and introduce these modules and skills...
That is all I have to say...
|
Adis
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 18:12:00 -
[60]
I think the Resistance should stay at 70% but only being able to activate 1 hardener at a time. As was mentioned before this disallows the overuse of shield hardeners but at the same time it gimps the other (lvl2) battleships defense.
Instinct is something you never learnàyou have to be born with it.
--Adis |
Lartfor
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 18:29:00 -
[61]
Quote:
TomB
didnt you say you werent out to nerf things, just to boost the weaker components?
Seems your fooling around here. You hate laser users?
How is this hurting lasers weapons, from what i see on chaos now, lasers are better than they ever have been... They do more Dot and like 10% more dot per cap usage than they use to do, meaning that they are potentially the most devistation weapons in the game, and potentially the worst. They take downs shields faster than any weapon class out there (now) and let me guess u want them to take down armour the fastest too? Leave that to projectiles.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 18:35:00 -
[62]
A word of advice to all non-chaos testers:
Those "shield boost amplifiers" need "shield manegement" lvl4 - so train it if you want to use them.
free speech not allowed here |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 19:18:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Valeria on 02/09/2003 19:18:59
Ok I was wrong, they do stack, atleast today. And the bonus is 20%.
So an Armaggedon using a XLarge C5-L can boost 2063 shield every 4 seconds, using 400 capacitor.
That still doesn't feel right.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 19:36:00 -
[64]
Hehe, I love my shield management lvl 4
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 20:03:00 -
[65]
Quote:
Edited by: Valeria on 02/09/2003 19:18:59
Ok I was wrong, they do stack, atleast today. And the bonus is 20%.
So an Armaggedon using a XLarge C5-L can boost 2063 shield every 4 seconds, using 400 capacitor.
That still doesn't feel right.
If this is true, STOP IT NOW. These items have to be non stackable.
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Lartfor
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 20:16:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Lartfor on 02/09/2003 20:19:10
Quote:
Edited by: Valeria on 02/09/2003 19:18:59
Ok I was wrong, they do stack, atleast today. And the bonus is 20%.
So an Armaggedon using a XLarge C5-L can boost 2063 shield every 4 seconds, using 400 capacitor.
That still doesn't feel right.
Ok wait one second... How long does it take to do 2063 dmg to the shields... I would think allot longer than 4 seconds... How much cap does it take to do 2063 dmg to shields... I would think ALLOT more than 400 (leaving projectiles out for that one. ). But any way if those numbers are right... Then thier problem with shield hardeners has just turned into an eaven bigger problem with shield boosters. Recharge half your shields every 4 seconds?
Are we turning this game into 30 minute fights followed by 5 second escape?
|
Scobichevskaya
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 20:27:00 -
[67]
I think the resistance should stay at 70% but only one of each type of hardener could be equipped (so you can't have 2 EM hardeners, but you can still have 1 Heat, 1 ballistic, and 1 EM). This solves the issue with Scorpion tank setup. The Scorp is a high tech ship and should be able to utilize technology to its advantage. The Amarr ships are heavy damage dealers; the Caldari ships are and should remain the most defensive ships.
Before any changes are made, I would really like the developers to just fix one thing at a time otherwise, they may have to rebalance everything again. I think they should fix missiles first, then adjust guns, and then shield hardeners.
How will shield transfer devices be affected by these changes? Will they become useless with the changes to the shield boosters? I like to fly my Scorpion around with my shield hardeners and repair the shields of my teammates, but with the shield hardeners getting nerfed, this may become a less viable option (and thus reducing some teamplay tactics).
-------------
RUS / RUA
RUSSIAN Team
|
Lartfor
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 20:42:00 -
[68]
Quote:
I think the resistance should stay at 70% but only one of each type of hardener could be equipped (so you can't have 2 EM hardeners, but you can still have 1 Heat, 1 ballistic, and 1 EM). This solves the issue with Scorpion tank setup. The Scorp is a high tech ship and should be able to utilize technology to its advantage. The Amarr ships are heavy damage dealers; the Caldari ships are and should remain the most defensive ships.
Before any changes are made, I would really like the developers to just fix one thing at a time otherwise, they may have to rebalance everything again. I think they should fix missiles first, then adjust guns, and then shield hardeners.
How will shield transfer devices be affected by these changes? Will they become useless with the changes to the shield boosters? I like to fly my Scorpion around with my shield hardeners and repair the shields of my teammates, but with the shield hardeners getting nerfed, this may become a less viable option (and thus reducing some teamplay tactics).
Well i agree with this but in a different way, i think shield hardeners should be limited to 60% (70% for high end ones) and there should be a limit to obly one being active at an given time.
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 20:44:00 -
[69]
Quote:
The Scorp is a high tech ship and should be able to utilize technology to its advantage. The Amarr ships are heavy damage dealers; the Caldari ships are and should remain the most defensive ships.
Hmmm why don't you take a look at structure and armor values on caldari ships and compare with the rest. You ll find out that caldari are hardly the most defensive ships... infact they are the weakest ships.
Medium slots should not make a tank. Low slots should. Amarr ships... most low slots , most structure and armor hps. Those ships should be able to become tanks not the weakest ones.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 21:07:00 -
[70]
Quote:
Quote:
The Scorp is a high tech ship and should be able to utilize technology to its advantage. The Amarr ships are heavy damage dealers; the Caldari ships are and should remain the most defensive ships.
Hmmm why don't you take a look at structure and armor values on caldari ships and compare with the rest. You ll find out that caldari are hardly the most defensive ships... infact they are the weakest ships.
Medium slots should not make a tank. Low slots should. Amarr ships... most low slots , most structure and armor hps. Those ships should be able to become tanks not the weakest ones.
You are so completely WRONG!!!
There are 2 types of defence, the high-tech defence in form of shields, the low-tech defence of armor/structure.
That's why the caldari high-tech ships have most shields in the game and most slots to boost their shield, but the lowest armor/structure and the worst ability to boost these.
And the complete opposite is true for the low-tech amarr ships. While gallente and Minmatar are something in between, trying to use a good mix of high and low tech.
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Scobichevskaya
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 21:22:00 -
[71]
Quote:
You are so completely WRONG!!!
There are 2 types of defence, the high-tech defence in form of shields, the low-tech defence of armor/structure.
That's why the caldari high-tech ships have most shields in the game and most slots to boost their shield, but the lowest armor/structure and the worst ability to boost these.
And the complete opposite is true for the low-tech amarr ships. While gallente and Minmatar are something in between, trying to use a good mix of high and low tech.
Caldari ships have the best shields. Amarr ships have the best armor. With the new changes to the armor repair, relying on armor may now become a viable option for the Amarr race. With the new changes to the shield hardeners, Caldari ships will become a lot weaker and have nothing going for them except for EW and maybe missiles. Caldari ships have the least turret slots and low slots. Currently missiles are useless, but hopefully that will change soon. Also, don't just think about the effects the changes of the shield hardeners have on the Scorpion, they effect the other Caldari ships such as the Moa. Why use a Moa if it has almost the same defense as a Maller but the Moa does only 50-60% of the damage? (of course, the missiles may change this and this is why the developers need to change one thing at a time.)
-------------
RUS / RUA
RUSSIAN Team
|
Frontier
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 21:27:00 -
[72]
if your going to do this, I think all E/W should work against npc pirates.
Not everybody uses their bships for pvp & my scorp will be laughed at by npc rats
Frontier
The Mighty |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 21:43:00 -
[73]
That would be a good idea. Give NPCs a targetting range so you can use dampeners.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 21:55:00 -
[74]
Quote:
Edited by: Valeria on 02/09/2003 19:18:59
Ok I was wrong, they do stack, atleast today. And the bonus is 20%.
So an Armaggedon using a XLarge C5-L can boost 2063 shield every 4 seconds, using 400 capacitor.
That still doesn't feel right.
Well, but for that it would need to sacrifice all it's low slots for the boost amplifiers, right? That is a pretty big sacrifice.
And even lasers and hybrids can do 2000 shield damage with less than 400 cap easily - a tachyon hit me two times on chaos today for 1111 damage.
(If you count it's average damage it would quite probably need more than 400 cap to make 2000 shield damage, but not much more. A mega beam or 425 rails can definatly deal 200 shield damage for less than 400 cap.)
free speech not allowed here |
Lartfor
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 21:59:00 -
[75]
Quote:
Well, but for that it would need to sacrifice all it's low slots for the boost amplifiers, right? That is a pretty big sacrifice.
And even lasers and hybrids can do 2000 shield damage with less than 400 cap easily - a tachyon hit me two times on chaos today for 1111 damage.
(If you count it's average damage it would quite probably need more than 400 cap to make 2000 shield damage, but not much more. A mega beam or 425 rails can definatly deal 200 shield damage for less than 400 cap.)
Thats not the point, the point is that if u beef up your cap u could be nearly invinsible... 2000 cap every 4 seconds? hell 8 Tachs could now do that dmg.
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 22:09:00 -
[76]
Edited by: dalman on 02/09/2003 22:11:13
I hope you guys really understand that it's simply not accaptable that this module is stackable.
Earlier in the thread, people are talking about that only amarr ships should have the possibility to be a tank, and that by increasing armor, and that Caldari ships shouldn't be able to be shield based tanks. That opinion is so wrong.
And now what??? Amarr ships also gets the possibilty to become an insane shield based tank!
This needs to be fixed NOW. There's NO WAY you can let the patch go live with this insane stacking module.
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 22:12:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 02/09/2003 22:14:38
Quote:
Thats not the point, the point is that if u beef up your cap u could be nearly invinsible... 2000 cap every 4 seconds? hell 8 Tachs could now do that dmg.
Well, it could use 2 10% cap rechargers in it's remaining med slots - since it'S low slots are all taken - but that won't help much.
We are talking about a 100 cap/s drain here. No BS can sustain that with that setup. Since (damage mod boosted) weapons can deal 200 shield damage for a lot less cap... Well, most. The tach probably cant, but all other lasers and hybrids, nevermind the projectiles, should be able too.
And the arma will deal not much damage witout mods.
And dalman, keep calm. The patch isn't due for at least 1-2 weeks I think. The balancing is perhaps finished for 50% - max.
That a shield tank arma/apoc has to be tested before we can decide if it's really uber. As said, such a "tank" would only have a pop gun, it wouldn't deal much damage.
free speech not allowed here |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 22:39:00 -
[78]
Not 100 / second. It would only boost when the shields are down more than 2000 units.
Combine with Projectile weapons, 7 of them, and you have quite an effective ship. Not counting recharge, the Armaggedon will be able to re-boost over 25,000 shield. And with Projectile weapons it will be able to fire while doing so.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
dalman
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 22:47:00 -
[79]
Quote:
That a shield tank arma/apoc has to be tested before we can decide if it's really uber. As said, such a "tank" would only have a pop gun, it wouldn't deal much damage.
Yea, but the thing is: Shield hardeners were nerfed because of Scorp tanks. And a scorp with 4 neutron cannons, 2 missile launchers and 4 hybrid damage mod, probably deals less damage than an arma will do past patch fitted with 7 projectile turrets without damage mods.
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 23:00:00 -
[80]
I'm not particularly happy with the shield hardeners getting cut to 40%. But come on people.
It's obvious the Scorpion is an EW Battleship. Same way the Blackbird is an EW Cruiser. Yall act like the Scorpion is the only ship that's going to get hurt by the change. The Blackbird isn't a frontline Cruiser. Quit pretending the Scorpion should be at almost half the cost of the real frontline Battleships.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 23:20:00 -
[81]
Quote:
Combine with Projectile weapons, 7 of them, and you have quite an effective ship. Not counting recharge, the Armaggedon will be able to re-boost over 25,000 shield. And with Projectile weapons it will be able to fire while doing so.
We'll have to test that one. A aram has 4200 shields with lvl4 shield management - which it will need for the amplies - so we could assume a total theoretical shield of 29.2k.
A normal arma can boost 6000 shield using a booster without amplies, so it has basically a 10200 shield, That gives the ampli arma 2.8 more shield than a normal apoc. If we outfit a normal apoc with damage mods it deals 5.46 more damage/time than the ampli apoc.
free speech not allowed here |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 23:28:00 -
[82]
Something tells me the shieldboosting Armaggedon will be able to take out the damage-modded Armaggedon first, but yes, it has to be tested.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.09.02 23:33:00 -
[83]
"Well, it could use 2 10% cap rechargers in it's remaining med slots - since it'S low slots are all taken - but that won't help much."
... It could use those med slots for cap boosters as well. Which would allow to recharge pretty much enough to operate the shield booster(s) whenever neccessary...
|
Jorlin
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 00:11:00 -
[84]
slightly offtopic...but
when:
- caldari ships get more defined as EW ships and shield tanks
- amarr ships are now the damagedealers or armortanks
- gallente are...hmm...don't know. dronecarriers maybe?
what are minmatar ships meant to be?
ok, let me guess: the easy to replace, fast hit-and-run vessels.
problem is, they are not THAT much cheaper than other races ships...and the current speedadvantage is neglegtible. give us a REAL speedboost...something to use it as a real advantage if properly handeled.
sure, even an Amarr ship should be able to keep pace..if the owner sacrifices every lowslot for overdrives. as i have to stuff all of my slots with armorupgrades to get almost close to his armor.
and even then...with the modified tracking speed on chaos, speed will get less important in fight.
i really don't want to fly other races ships, they are so....shiny.
it's just...when flying in a large, mixed battle group (which i never did and maybe never will) i want a role to fullfill. other than "first in range, first to die"
no police, no summons, no courts of law;
no proper procedure, no rules of war;
no mitigating circumstance;
no lawyers fees, no second chance! |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 00:25:00 -
[85]
Gallente and minmatar ships are both hybris between cladari and amarr ships, as mentioned previously somewhere in this forum. Gallente have a drone bonus, while minmatar have the speed bonus. Granted, the speed bonus isn't really as much, but the drone bonus isn't either.
And both boni can make the difference between victory or loss in certain situations. A BB jamming a gallente BS, but is getting destroyed by it's drones or a minmatar ship, which is able to keep it's distance to another ship with a lower range (but turrets with a higher damage) due to it's speed bonus.
free speech not allowed here |
Lartfor
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 01:23:00 -
[86]
Ana on drones and speed i feel niether of them really create a large advantage (at BS lvl). Easy way to fix this, introduce new drones (350 m3) that are called something like "assault drones". And for minmatar cheaper ships, and increased speed by like 30 ms, maybee even more.
|
Rath Amon
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 01:35:00 -
[87]
One concern I have about switching mindsets from 'defense = shields' to 'defense = armor' is that damage bleeds through armor to structure. At this point it doesn't seem to matter if systems get damaged but I still think that a new skill similar to Tactical Shield Manipulation needs to be introduced for armor. Something to reduce armor penetration because even if you repair armor and structure damage you'll still be flying around with system damage.
|
Arathmon
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 01:39:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Arathmon on 03/09/2003 22:04:48
Edited by: Arathmon on 03/09/2003 01:42:10
Tom B, why not instead of nerfing modules make them only stackable to a certain degree? For example: only two of the same type of hardener stack, and after that you're just wasting cap. Also, I certainly hope that shield boost amplifiers do not stack because of the obvious problems this would cause.
Anyway... back to only having a certain number of modules stack, you could also have it vary from ship to ship. Say that cruisers can only stack 4 stabilizers/heatsinks, while battleships can stack 6. The reason for this is the recent ghastly 'balancing' happening to lasers, which completely shaft the fitting requirements (4500 grid for a tachyon is NOT balance).
Edit: changed '****ting' to 'fitting'. bit of a freudian slip there.
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
Brukhai Khan
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 01:58:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Brukhai Khan on 03/09/2003 01:58:22
late again, this on the original post by TomB:
Quote:
Shield Boosters:
Shield Hardeners:
- All single boosting Shield Hardeners have been decreased from 70% resistance to 40% resistance. This was done because of some ships being able to be immune to all damage types
I agree that the problem of invulnerable ships needs to be addressed, but this is a measure that imo has too wide-reaching repercussions. With a reduction like that weŠre going to see a major decrease in combat duration, when over the last few patches it was finally managed to get *away* from the ten-second shootouts. As a result of this I think that eventually all guns will have to be rebalanced to keep combat time at its current level.
A much less intrusive way would be to allow multiple hardeners at full strength, but to reduce the individual resistance gain with each successive shield hardener that is installed. A ten to fifteen percent decrease in effectiveness for each additional hardener that is installed would give people the option of defending against two or three damage types moderately well, or choosing one damage type for the full resistance bonus.
So one hardener would provide the full 70%, two would give 55% to each damage type, and three would boost only 40%, making three the limiting number of effective shield hardeners you could use.
That way you could still get fairly good protection from half the damage types, but no more invulnerability to all.
Invulnerability shields would by this measure get their justification back as they provide allround protection. I am not sure how these stack atm, their stacking mechanics would have to level off to a fixed value (i.e. 25% to all for the first, +12% for the second, +7% for the third, etc.) about equal to an equal number of different hardeners used.
|
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 02:16:00 -
[90]
Perhaps now is a good time to take a long and detailed look into module stacking.
Outside of ECM/ECCM (not other jammers), removing/reducing/limiting stacking might be beneficial to overall balance...
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
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).
|
Nightwing
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 19:16:00 -
[121]
Quote:
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.
Ok, how about each successive item gets a 25% reduction in effectiveness?
For example:
Lets take the EM Shield Hardener since shields are at 0% already. 1 hardener = 70%, 2 hardeners = 91% (currently) but would = 85.75% with the 25% reduction. 3 would have = 97.3%, but with the 25% reduction on each successive module, with 3 it would equal 91.36%.
Even better would be a 40% reduction in effectiveness. making 1=70%, 2= 82.6%, 3= 87%
After seeing that, I thought I would put it in a column format for ease.
Normal 70% 1=70%, 2-91%, 3-97.3%
25% reduction 1-70%, 2-85.75%, 3-91.36%
40% reduction 1-70%, 2-82.6%, 3-87%
Yes I rounded a very slight amount, but you get the idea.
For 40% hardeners (multi's) this Shows how they would be limited:
Normal - 1= 40%, 2=64% , 3= 78.4%
25%red - 1= 40%, 2=58% , 3= 67.45%
40%red - 1= 40%, 2=54.4%, 3= 61%
Overall, I think this is a fair way to limit module stacking, but should NOT be used for ECM or ECCM modules since stacking of those (as they stand) are a requirement to make them useful.
This I feel is a fair way to limit the stacking of modules.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 19:32:00 -
[122]
"Overall, I think this is a fair way to limit module stacking, but should NOT be used for ECM or ECCM modules since stacking of those (as they stand) are a requirement to make them useful."
Agreed. Although, many EW modules stack additively, rather than multiplicitavely.
|
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 19:43:00 -
[123]
ECM needs to be tuned so that multispectral ECCM actually do something.
They currently will NEVER be of any benefit beyond the sensor strength that the ship actively uses (IE: LADAR for Minmatar). Either remove the -2 on the sensor specific or reduce it to -6 to one, -2 to another (LADAR/RADAR, Gravimetric/Magnetometric).
You're talking about 75% diminishing returns btw
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Solas
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 19:47:00 -
[124]
It would seem that this is a definite step in the right direction.
I just hope they factor in all the different variables so that both shielding and armor defensive based systems are viable.
--- Defensive armor setup information ---
Damage from armor to hull is a huge penalty that shields donÆt have. Hens, any armor dependent ship requires at least two mid slot items to repair. When you only have three for four med slots this is a huge deal.
Using armor as your main defense can be very unforgiving. At least when shields are gone you have your armor and structure to buffer you.
Energized plating: 32% to a specific resist or 15% to all. Have to be careful with the Energized adaptive nano plating. If you fill four slots with them you now have plus 60% resist to all with no cap use.
Armor plating: Can add a lot of hit points to armor. It seems to be balanced by its ample fitting requirements.
Repair systems: Currently most cruisers cannot fit two medium repair systems. I opted for one medium hull repairer and one small structure repairer. The fitting requirements are too high compared to shield boosters.
--- Balance ---
The main difference between the armor and shield setup should be staying power. The armor based ship should be able to take a great deal of damage and regenerate slowly on its own.
The shield based ship should be able to take a good deal of damage but pay for it by capacitor drain. It should be able to regenerate faster than armor based ships by a good deal.
Example:
Aamar ships should have greater defense and offense overall than the Caldari. Caldari are able to compensate with medium slot items. Although the Aamar ship has all that power, it looses its edge once the Caldari use electronic warfare. Hopefully making it a more balanced fight.
PS: Would be nice if they re-implement repair drones and remote repair support systems, making support ships more viable. Maybe then during fleet combat the fighter ships could forgo mounting hull or structure repair systems.
|
Faramir
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 19:50:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Faramir on 03/09/2003 20:28:45
talking about ECM... currently it seems sensor dampeners are more powerfull and better to use then the actual ECM...
With the big difference in Cap-usage on both modules and the time they r effective the sensor dampeners are much "stronger" and can be used against any ship... no special radar needed to be blocked here.
While the ECM Multispectral has a huge capdrain and is much easier to counter then the sensordampeners... only 2 lowslot +2's and you should be up to par with a -16 to all from the multispectrals.... (talking about lvl2 BS here... using 4 jammers which take a lot of cap)
But if you look at sensor dampeners, you need 2 sensor dampeners to counter a sensor dampener...
I think there need to be changes done to the ECM stuff aswell...
Any comments?
EDIT >> new topic started about ECM here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=29930 ]ECM-topic
|
Samson
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 21:54:00 -
[126]
I like the diminishing returns idea better than a flat reduction to 40%. I agree that shield hardeners were not balanced, and needed some adjustment, and a system of diminishing returns should do nicely.
I think EW could use some changes as well. There should be more counter measures for ecm other than eccm boosters. An emp smart bomb for example could temporarily disrupt electrical systems(active modules), if you can get in range while jammed, or a smoke screen of some sort, perhaps a cloud of ionized particles, which doesn't break a targeting lock, but prevents weapons from tracking the ship very well(yours, and theirs). Both modules would be useful in a variety of situations.
The point being that instead of being completely helpless if you run into someone equipped to jam your ship, you'd have options for mounting modules that would give you some degree of hope for a successful outcome, without having to devote one of your valuable mid slots to eccm "just in case". In the case of the emp smart bomb, it would actually use a high slot. Amarr ships for example don't have a lot of mid slots for an extra eccm device. 95% of the time it's a wasted slot when it's equipped. Giving them some more options to defend themselves without having to dedicate a slot for the express purpose of fending off an ecm attack would be a nice addition IMO, and they wouldn't be the only ships to benefit. Even the Caldari could make use of such modules.
|
Arathmon
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 22:15:00 -
[127]
Tom B, one thing you need to worry about when you are doing these balancing is to still preserve a sense of freedom in module choice. If too much balancing is made, players won't have much variation to their setups which kills creative PvP.
For example, limiting players to one of each type of shield hardeners or anything else along those lines is not a very good idea because it destroys possible combinations, as well as ruining the most important part of PvP: Know your enemy. If you know your enemy uses Hybrid weapons, but you cannot mount more than one thermal and one kinetic hardener to compensate, you are being limited in a very harsh fashion.
This goes for more than Tom B as well, and I hope people keep this in mind when offering suggestions, as well as another credo for PvP: Every strategy must have an equally viable counter-strategy.
P.S. When I said that Battleships should only have 6 stabilizers/heatsinks stacking, I was just putting forth an example... so please don't quote me as having requested it. It was merely there to illustrate my idea.
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
Calisarius
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 22:42:00 -
[128]
You know.. you could always limit x modifiers to only apply the greatest % no matter how many mods you have.
So you'd only be mounting 1 item of each type.
This would cause a HUGE change in variety in ship loadouts.
I've used 7x mag vortex dam mods on my domnix and 5x 24+% cargo expanders on my Iteron V(12,000+m3 cargo froma 4,000m3 cargo.., and they DO cause a huge inbalance when they stack like they do.
Same can be said for sensor dampeners/tracking disrupters and a whole load of ship moduels.
Addative mods can be left as they are as tweaking them is ALOT simpler than a multiplyer mod.
|
Regina
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 22:47:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Regina on 03/09/2003 22:47:32
dear Tomb, about the 70 % hardeners, wel i use 4 of the each type and have lvl 4 on the skill, once forced MOO blockade, and 1 single hit down my shield be 30 % , well about those imunity crap are nonsens, becose you can be imune to 1 type dmg 80 % imune to second type dmg but completly uncovered to the last 2
plzz keep them on 70 % raise or give extra skill, not alow them stack more like 2 , why ?
simple to give chance people who are not sick on PVP syndrome,
btw ,,PK are 5 % of total subscribers , and thye cose 90 % of all problems,, those i not my words but 1 developer for upcoming MMorpg
sory for my bad english 
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 23:12:00 -
[130]
I think the solution would be to limit to 1/damage type per ship, and lower the resistance a bit to 55-60% each. My opinion and nothing else, of course.
|
Rising Sin
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 23:21:00 -
[131]
Quote:
I think the solution would be to limit to 1/damage type per ship, and lower the resistance a bit to 55-60% each. My opinion and nothing else, of course.
Nah, that limits the effectiveness of ships with multiple midslots.
How about a mid-slot EW mod that lowers your opponent's resistence to a certain damage type?
--
"If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right." |
Arathmon
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 23:23:00 -
[132]
Quote:
Quote:
I think the solution would be to limit to 1/damage type per ship, and lower the resistance a bit to 55-60% each. My opinion and nothing else, of course.
Nah, that limits the effectiveness of ships with multiple midslots.
How about a mid-slot EW mod that lowers your opponent's resistence to a certain damage type?
Only if you can't use more than one at once for... obvious reasons.
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
Bashar
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 23:23:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Bashar on 03/09/2003 23:27:57
I also like the idea of diminishing returns better than large scale reduction to individual modules. There are a lot of interesting modules with diverse effects that are simply not used right now because other modules are such no brainers to put in the same slot. If my 7th extruded heatsink wasn't going to do diddly for me anyway, I would be a lot more inclined to try out some of the other interesting low slot items I have been eyeballing but unable to bring myself to equip.
Seems most of the nerfs lately have been to counteract the effect of stacking, thereby making a single unit of any given item much less useful. Afterburners for instance...if 4 afterburners didn't stack in the way that they currently do, LiF's could go back to a respectable boost % and would actually be noticably different than a standard AB when used individually... (when I only put one LiF or one Afterburner I on my ship the difference is negligible) Same with shield hardeners..if they did 55-60% depending on rarity, but the second was MUCH less effective and the third was laughable then perhaps it wouln't be such an issue...again...same with sensor dampeners...people wouldn't equip 4, they would mix and match some other stuff for a change. But ohh boy am I going miss my big fat cargo hold when expanders get the same treatment :(
On a side note TomB, why do we have rare items with little or even *NO* difference from other rares, or even standard items? Seems like a huge waste of time on everyones part to have such items in the game. (examples below)
Mark I Generator Refitting: Capacitor Power Relay
20% cap recharge | -25% shield recharge | 3 cpu
Type-D Power Core Modification: Capacitor Power Relay I
20% cap recharge | -25% shield recharge | 3 cpu
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
20% cap recharge | -25% shield recharge | 3 cpu
Local Power Plant Manager: Capacitor Power Relay I
20% cap recharge | -25% shield recharge | 3 cpu
And could you please please please change the name of the small size medium named lasers? They are constantly confusing people...the small medium modulated energy beam I is the worst...it's name is medium its size is small, its icon is the same as the pulse, and both beam and pulse display the same "short name" in the hangar and the pulse has both "beam" and "pulse" in it's name....I can not think of a worse named set of items in the game...other than perhaps the misleadingly named rare "innefficent" repair unit which is actually very good if not the best in it's class hehe.
Bashar
regards,
Bashar Miles Teg
Shop Smart, Shop BasharMart! |
Rising Sin
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 23:25:00 -
[134]
Quote:
Only if you can't use more than one at once for... obvious reasons.
Hm, how about if it is a high-slot mod? People are usually less willing to sacrifice high-slots for this type of mod (ie, energy drainers) because they lose fire power.
--
"If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right." |
Rising Sin
|
Posted - 2003.09.03 23:47:00 -
[135]
Before someone flames my last post, I'm going to explain the reasoning behind it:
After a whole lot of testing on Chaos with the new shield hardeners, I've found them to be useless compared to other defensive setups (especially heavy armor setups).
These other setups are incredibly strong with weapons as they are and reducing weapon effectiveness through lowering damaging mods or nerfing stacking will only make the situation worse. So I take back my "weapons should be nerfed" idea. I think shield hardeners should be increased BACK to where they are, and if they're such a big problem, we can implement my "resistence drainer" idea. This is basically a mid or high slot mod that lowers the resistence of your opponent's shields.
--
"If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right." |
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 00:23:00 -
[136]
Actually, I saw a module on chaos that lowered the target ships EM resistance. I'm 100% sure about it, too.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 00:50:00 -
[137]
It lowered the resitance only by 20 or 30% , though.
Andf resitance drainers would make shield hardeners even more of a must have module.
Lets say a -30% EM resitance drainer - without SH 130% damage (100 * 1.3), with SH 39% (130 * 0.3). The damage blocked by the Sh is still 70%, but since the other ships deals more EM damage due to the resistance drainer it blocks more damage.
free speech not allowed here |
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 01:09:00 -
[138]
Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 04/09/2003 01:15:13
Right now IŠm too tired to see if my approach is actuually worth thinking about but anyway I give it a go for you to comment on:
WouldnŠt it be another pretty simple and effective approach to not penalize/boost the modules but rather the ships themselves?
Right now every ship just has one special bonus like upped hybrid damage or similar.
Why not make it so the armageddon for example gets a certain penalty to shield-booster modules because the ships are so Lo-Tech? You could apply that to every ship in no time while youŠre able to tweak the ships until they all have their special bonuses and penalties.
To make this more "visible" lemme just add these few proposals:
1. Armageddon battleship:
-20% penalty to shield boosters
-15% penalty to shield hardeners
-20% bonus to armor platings
-15% bonus to armor repair
-5% bonus to weapon damage, additional 3% bonus for laser-weapons
2. Scorpion battleship:
-10% penalty to shield boosters and hardeners
-15% penalty to capacitor storage amount if more than X amount of shield booster or hardeners are fitted
-15% bonus to EW-module duration or efficiency
-3% reduction in EW-module capacitor need
-5% bonus to missile damage, additional 3% bonus to missile speed
IMO this would result in easier balancing for the ships overall. It would enable you to tune the ships until they give bonuses or penalties according to their desired "task" while you wouldnŠt have to make modules useless to other ships because they would be out of balance on them.
Such an approach would make it possible to make shield booster (as an example) a good choice for one ship while the other ship isnŠt good for them since it gives a penalty on their efficiency.
From a roleplay-perspective this can be easily explained. While the armaggedons capacitor wasnŠt designed for the use of shield boosters they function with 10% less efficiency on the ship than they do on a scorpion. The scorpion on the other hand also gives a 10% penalty since the ship was designed for the use of EW intentionally.
IMHO this approach makes sense because it doesnŠt require as much tweaking. The modules can additionally be tweaked to more overall bonuses/penalties while the stats of the ships in fact define whether that particular ship is good for module-X or not. And as said it would mean that you wouldnŠt have to nerf modules any more because they can be abused on one ship while they do what they were intended to do on a another ship because of the amounts of slots.
Mai's Idealog |
Darkwolf
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 01:32:00 -
[139]
Righto, firstly, my comment.
Reducing the strength of shield hardeners only succeeds in making those ships that can't use lots of them even weaker. Reasoning: A Scorpion could still use lots of hardeners, and while it wouldn't be immortal, it would STILL be a LOT tougher than, say, an Armageddon only using two.
All that will happen is the disparity between medium slots will increase. What we really need to address is the stacking issue.
Personally, I think hardener stacking is just fine the way it is - sure you can get 91% EMP resistance pretty easily from two EMP hardeners. And you're blowing 2 medium slots to do it. However, here is the key issue....
Single-type hardeners are ridiculously easy to run in terms of cap. They only use 2 cap per second! That is the real reason why a Scorpion can happily run six hardeners and a booster all at the same time and not run out of cap - because he gets 90%+ resistances in everything for less than it costs to fire a laser.
My solution to this problem is just to make shield hardeners cost significantly more energy. Say, 50 energy for 10 seconds (5 nrg/sec). If that was the case then outfits using large numbers of hardeners would have to pay appopriately larger amounts of cap to run them, whereas "disadvantaged" configurations wouldn't have to pay so much - so they could spend more cap shooting.
Take into account that as you add hardeners, your resistances increase asymptotically towards 100%, whereas the energy cost increases in a linear fashion. Thus, you will rapidly reach a point where adding more hardeners gives you virtually no benefit compared to the energy you're paying.
I don't agree with nerfing the stacking directly, since the way they stack together already causes the second and third hardeners to do virtually nothing. But I do support increasing the cost of running them, to avoid people running large numbers of them at once.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 02:31:00 -
[140]
Since I saw several posts saying that the reduced SH will make ships, which can mount more, stronger and ships, which can mount less, weaker.
Actually it's exactly the other way around. Please keep an open mind and follow me for 1-2 mins.
Multiple shield hardeners take effect after each other. A 70% SH will reduce 100 dmage by 70% to 30 damage. The next SH will reduce this 30 damage again by 70% - 70% of the 30 damage and not of the 100 damage - to 9.
Now let's take a ship 1 with a single SH against a ship 2 with a double array. Let's assume both ships deal each other 100 shield damage before the hardeners.
The single hardener of ship 1 and the first hardener of ship 2 will both decrease the damage to 30. Basically both ships will still deal themselves the same damage compared to each other. So, we can savely ignore the first SH reduction on both ships since they have no effect on the damage ratio both ships have to each other.
This means we have no SH on ship one and 1 SH on ship 2 (since ship 1's sole SH and the first SH of ship 2 canceled each other out).
Now, if the ships use 70% hardeners ship 2 will suffer only 30% of the damage ship 1 suffers.
But when both ships use 40% hardeners ship 2 will suffer 60% of the damage it deals to ship 1.
So, a ship with multiple hardeners is in fact MORE vulnerable with 40% hardners as with 70% hardeners against a ship with single hardeners.
I'm pretty sure someone now want's to type "But a scorp which use single hardeners now could use double to compensate..".
Yes, it could. But medium slots don't grow on trees if you get my meaning. In order to find room for a second SH array it needs to ditch some other mdules. Which it very likly simply cannot do and still keep enough of them to actually use them effeciently (ecm, inhibitors, wab jammer, webber, etc). The only scorps which still could use 2 hardners without completly redesigning their outfit & chaing their tactics are those which already had 2 hareners prepatch.
Nevermind that scorps are the only ships with double hardners, they are a valid option on all ships with 4 or mor slots when you know your enemy.
free speech not allowed here |
Darkwolf
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 03:06:00 -
[141]
Single EMP hardener (now): 70%
Double EMP hardener (now): 91%
Single EMP hardener (chaos): 40%
Double EMP hardener (chaos): 64%
While it is true (and I'm not debating this) that a ship with multiple hardeners will be weaker after the Chaos changes, what I am pointing out is this.
Single Hardener: Prior to the patch, you'll only take 30% damage. After the patch, you'll take 60% damage - thus double the amount of damage you receive.
Double Hardener: Prior to the patch, you'll only take 9% damage. After the patch, you'll take 36% damage, increasing the amount you take by 4 times (!).
While indeed, post-patch, double-hardened ships will be greatly weakened compared to how they are now, the fact still remains that (both) single-hardened and double-hardened ships will be MUCH weaker than they are now. This is what I have a problem with.
We currently endure the situation where battles are already painfully short - and this is with uberized shield hardeners. Forcing EVERY ship (since everyone can easily use single hardeners) to suddenly start taking double damage is quite a tall order. In addition to making weaponry do more damage to start with. We're going back to the instagank days of old with this, and I'm strongly against it.
However, I'm also against overstacking of shield hardeners - hence my suggestion about boosting the energy costs of hardeners.
Note that CURRENTLY, if you go with double hardeners, you pay double the energy to take 29% of the damage that someone with a single hardener does. Obviously this won't change if you just increase the costs of hardeners, but if you make it high enough, that cost may tip over the balance from being able to run several of them AND STILL REGAIN CAP down to running them and losing cap.
|
Taliranowe Sarum
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 03:21:00 -
[142]
the new meta mod for shield boosters, should also affect Shield transferer mods imo.
Also shield transferer mods needs a trippling or so in range. 20km on a non named one, and the standard increase by the nameds. The current 7.2km on the best ones are not even close to beeing good enough.
Read the Rules Of Conduct and Terms Of Usage
"There is TONS of flaming, personal abuse and
other bad behaviour on the In-game board and in In-game world. If everybody would just read the rules and follow them, the EVE world be a much nicer place to be in."
Feel free to copy this Signature. |
HavokTBP
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 04:14:00 -
[143]
Quote:
I think it's fine and I am the owner of a Scorpion, using these hardeneres. A fight between 2 Battleships having their medium slots full of hardeners can last for 10+ minutes.
Battleship Battles are supposed to take long thats why they are battleships.
It's a bad idea because most people don't attack 1v1 or 2v2, its always like 6 vs 1. Now they don't have a chance to live or run.
Member of the Curse Alliance before the Corruption
Leader of The Black Plague.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 04:28:00 -
[144]
The main reason I was/am strongly for the reduction of hardener effeciency is bacaue they have become a standart item.
Med slots became more or less synonymous with the number of shield hardeners you can fit (in addition to a sb and perhaps a MWD), quite similar like the low slots are more or less synonymous with damage mods.
(I know that there are other outfits, but damage mods and shield hardeners are standart for most)
Since - IMO - diversity is the lifeblood of a MMORPG such a dominncy of certain items is seen by me as bad thing.
SH are with 40% no uber item anymore, but ships have problems with too high weapon damage now. As jim Raynor pointed out there is a pretty simple solution for that problem. The main reason for that are not the weapons themselves, though, but the damage mods.
So, reducing the damage mod effeciency would actually solve most weapon damage problems. There are several suggestion how damage mods could be changed so far:
- change the stacking mechanics; same items get less and less of a bonus if you use more of them
- limit the number of the same items which a ship can carry
- devide the current mods into two new kind of mods - pure damage+ and pure rof+ ones
My personel (and highly subjective, since I'm one of the persons who suggested that option) vote would be the 3rd option, since 1) and especially 2) will limit how you can outfit a ship, therefore reducing diversity, which I see as a bad thing, as stated already. In addition to that that change would require the least amount of code changes (I think).
free speech not allowed here |
Severus Trajan
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 07:05:00 -
[145]
Quote:
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
This would indeed seem to be a very logical choice! It seems reasonable enough that a battleship shield hardener affecting a massive amount of shield would require more cpu/power grid/energy than one boosting a small frigate shield.
Good suggestion Cleric!
|
Serge
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 08:16:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Serge on 04/09/2003 08:17:02
IŠd like to point out again, that the use of armor hardeners and repair units is a cool idea, and gives Amarr ships a viable defense option - so it seems.
Due to damage sweeping through armor and damaging or even destroying (?) internal structure (wepons, mods) this atm is a shady alternative!
One has to be able to repair not only armor, but even structure - therefore one already needs 2 med slots! Hull rep units repair the hull, but not modules! This has to be considered, when the strengthening of armor really should be a viable option compared to the strengthening of shields thatŠs currently ocurring with the Gallente ships.
***********************************************
... "we suddenly have a good 2 dozen Chicken Littles running about proclaiming tha |
Zen Later
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 08:58:00 -
[147]
An interesting idea but if I may offer a suggestion...that may have been made earlier btw but I skimmed through most of the posts so far and can't be sure...
Instead of nerfing the hardeners down what about a combination of getting the full 70% skill dependant (you get the full 70% resistance at lvl 5 of tactical shield skill) and make the hardeners a non-stackable.
|
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 09:18:00 -
[148]
Now that I have some time (agent missions 4 teh win!), time to offend:
1) Shield hardeners to 60% (Base 40cap/10s)
2) Multispectrals to 30% (Base 80cap/5s)
3) Exclusive Activation for Shield Hardeners - you can only run 1 EM, 1 Thermal, 1 Kinetic, 1 Explosive and 1 Multispectral at any one time.
4) Exclusive Mounting for Energized Armor Webbing (no more than 1 of each kind).
5) The addition of 30% single 15% quad resist shield modules (akin to energized armor webbing) with higher fitting requirements than shield amplifiers, and with the same Exclusive Fitting as Energized Webbing (no more than 1 of each kind)
6) Addition of Multispectral Shield Amplifier.
7) Armor Hardeners added in. Operate exactly as Shield hardeners do, but are fitted to low slots (60% single resist, 30% multi-resist).
7) The mounting of Energized Armor Webbing, Additional Armor Plating or Armor Hardeners eliminate structural bleed damage.
8) Scaled diminishing returns on all med/lot slot modules except ECM and ECCM. 25% 2nd Mod, 50% 3rd Mod, 75% 4th Mod, 90% 5th Mod, 95% 6th Mod, 97.5 7th Mod, 98.75 8th Mod.
9) Exclusive Activation (regardless of size) for Weapon Disrupters, Warp Jammers, Webbifiers, Sensor Dampeners, Shield Boosters, Armor Repair Units, Hull Repair Units, and Microwarp Drives.
10) Single sensor ECM now suppress a single sensor to -6 and a single secondary one to -2. Active ECCM (Mid slot) basic value to 4/0/0/0, Omni 2/2/2/2, Passive ECCM (low slot) basic value to 2/0/0/0, Omni 1/1/1/1.
11) Change Weapon mounts to ROF+Range (Shoot faster further), Tracking Enhancers to Damage+Tracking (Hit harder more accurately).
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 11:07:00 -
[149]
Addendum:
a) Cap Boosters changed to a high slot item.
b) Cap Boost changed to 75, 300 and 1000, with 75 fitting in all boosters, 300 requiring Medium Cap Boosters (Cruiser class) and the 1000 requiring the Large/X-Large Cap Boosters.
c) The volume of Cap Boost reduced to .01 (75), .025 (300) and .05 (1000).
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 11:27:00 -
[150]
9.) bad idea, at least for tracking and sensor disruptors. You need more of those at once so they are effecient.
free speech not allowed here |
Rising Sin
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 12:02:00 -
[151]
Ugh I don't like my shield resistence EW mod idea anymore nor do I like the idea to simply nerf weapons and ROF/damage boosters.
@Ana: Filling all low-slots with damage mods doesn't make for a good PVP setup, no matter how many people use it. I've seen several setups in Tranq and Chaos without any damage mods and they can really kick butt.
Regarding shield hardeners, how about keep shield hardeners at 70% and just disable the ability to stack them? Or set a certain limit (ie 85% or something) that resistance can't go past? That would stop any invincible shield setups.
Or, better yet, how about keep hardeners the way they were before and let players figure out ways around shield hardeners like, say, cap drainers? I've seen those used both in Tranq and Chaos with quite a bit of success.
--
"If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right." |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 12:45:00 -
[152]
I dont' see the fact that shield hardeners are considered a 'standard' item any more troubling than people considering weapons or shield boosters a 'standard' item.
And it's not so standard as you might think - there are plenty of set ups that don't use shield hardeners, but rely on something else to give them the edge in battle.
Here is what I recommend.
Leave the shield hardeners as they are.
Implement resist drainers.
Do not allow these resist drainers to reduce your resistance below zero.
That way, sure, a ship might be using 4 shield hardeners to be immune to every damage type, but you can equip 2 resist drainers to allow your guns to hit better.
|
Eilora Wingshy
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 13:21:00 -
[153]
I sorta agree with Ulstan here.. I think that what we are seeing is not very good.. it's a snowball effect really.. first the hardeners were to good, so nerf them, then the guns do too much dmg, so nerf mods and guns.. All things rely on eachother, if you fix one thing, you have to fix 2 other things which result in 4 things being wrong and so on.. and what I think we are seeing in a way now
That being said, the hardeners -is- very powerful, as they should be.. but they are only powerful if you know what guns the nmy is using. If you don't then a kin hardener vs a energy user is a wasted M slot.. perhaps it's better to take a "safe" tracking comp that you know you will put to good use. And don't forget that when the guns get more balanced, we will not only see tachs, but 425's, 1400mm's and so on.. more guns mean more diversity, mean even more choices, making the selection of a hardner against an unknown oponent even harder. Also to note is the fact that id you do have intel on what your enemy is using, you -should- have an advantage..
Now, 70% might still be a bit to much.. 60% or 65% might do it.. but I beg everyone that puts up a list of 10 things that needs to change.. it's almost certain that will generate another 10 things being out of balance. The only way to balance things is in small small steps often. Tho this might not be able due to problems with patching.. I dunno. But say a patch every week, with only slight changes each time I think would be infinately better then once every month with discussions and arguments like the one that has forgone this..
--------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are my own and not those of my corp
I don't suffer from insanity, I revel in it.
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research. |
Las Lumi
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 13:21:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Las Lumi on 04/09/2003 13:22:13
I have a suggestion regarding stacking of damage boosters.
One booster type per gun.
There are issues here with number of low slots vs, number of turrets but this is a working idea, not a suggested solution.
Each damage module will effect only the first gun of the correct type that is fitted to the ship.
i.e. if a ship fitted
A) 250 Railgun
B) 720 Artillery
C) 250 Railgun
in the high slots and
1) Gyro Stabaliser
2) Magnetic thingy (can't remember the module name)
3) Overdrive
In the low slots, then the the Gyro would apply it's bonous to the 720 artillery (gun B) and the Magnetic (low slot 2) would effect the first rail gun (A).
The second railgun would have no modifier attached to it, making it a stock gun.
Slightly more care would be needed when fitting out the ship, but I personally wouldn't have a problem with doing this.
Perhaps a similar idea could be applied to shield boosters and the new enhancers.
/ll
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 13:25:00 -
[155]
Edited by: j0sephine on 04/09/2003 13:26:35
"Implement resist drainers.
Do not allow these resist drainers to reduce your resistance below zero."
... Nice; there actually is entry in tti-nexus database for "EM Shield Disruptor" which works opposite to shield hardener, reducing EM resistance of the shield of targetted ship by 70%
If these were implemented in game along with other shield disruptor types (perhaps making them slightly weaker than the hardeners) it'd created a viable additional way to counter the 'tanks'....
|
Dyvim Slorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 13:48:00 -
[156]
For cruiser pilots, shield hardeners are pretty essential for survival, nerfing them means the only decent ship even for npc fighting will be a BS.
Sadly, it seems that the BS is becoming the only ship that gets considered now.
This is a stacking problem, the hardeners should be left as they are.
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 14:02:00 -
[157]
Quote:
Edited by: Las Lumi on 04/09/2003 13:22:13
I have a suggestion regarding stacking of damage boosters.
One booster type per gun.
Actually, i find this very interesting.
All guns have slots to fit ammo/crystals in, right?
So, would an option be to create a similar slot, where you can stick a meta-gun module in, and that the bonus applies -to that gun only- ?
This would free up low slots to be used as armour modules, etc, and couteract the gun stacking
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 14:14:00 -
[158]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 04/09/2003 14:14:44
Quote:
All guns have slots to fit ammo/crystals in, right?
So, would an option be to create a similar slot, where you can stick a meta-gun module in, and that the bonus applies -to that gun only- ?
This would free up low slots to be used as armour modules, etc, and couteract the gun stacking
Very good idea. Got my vote.
free speech not allowed here |
Eilora Wingshy
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 14:31:00 -
[159]
Aye, me like..
--------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are my own and not those of my corp
I don't suffer from insanity, I revel in it.
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research. |
Las Lumi
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 14:33:00 -
[160]
Quote:
Actually, i find this very interesting.
All guns have slots to fit ammo/crystals in, right?
So, would an option be to create a similar slot, where you can stick a meta-gun module in, and that the bonus applies -to that gun only- ?
This would free up low slots to be used as armour modules, etc, and couteract the gun stacking
That wasn't quite what I had in mind, freeing up the low slots for other items would, in my opinion, unbalance the ships. Also, there is the posibility of two modules of different types effecting the same gun.
Of course.. if filling one of these 'damage slots' ment sacrificing a low slot then I don't have a problem with it.
Adding more slot types seems overly complex though.
/ll
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 14:43:00 -
[161]
Quote:
That wasn't quite what I had in mind, freeing up the low slots for other items would, in my opinion, unbalance the ships. Also, there is the posibility of two modules of different types effecting the same gun.
How, exactly, would it unbalance the ship? I'm curious
Quote:
Of course.. if filling one of these 'damage slots' ment sacrificing a low slot then I don't have a problem with it.
Adding more slot types seems overly complex though.
/ll
Yes, it does. That's why criticism is good
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Las Lumi
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 15:01:00 -
[162]
Quote:
Quote:
That wasn't quite what I had in mind, freeing up the low slots for other items would, in my opinion, unbalance the ships. Also, there is the posibility of two modules of different types effecting the same gun.
How, exactly, would it unbalance the ship? I'm curious
Well, at the moment you lose a low slot for these items, not losing a low slot would mean, another PDU, more armour etc.. than you would be able to have otherwise.
Yes, it does. That's why criticism is good
Yeah, after all, the last thing I want is for a bad suggestion to get implemented, even mine
|
Gauguin
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 18:10:00 -
[163]
Quote:
For cruiser pilots, shield hardeners are pretty essential for survival, nerfing them means the only decent ship even for npc fighting will be a BS.
Sadly, it seems that the BS is becoming the only ship that gets considered now.
Very true. It seems that efforts to balance battleships further gimp the other ship classes.
IMO shield hardeners, as ANY OTHER modules, need to be balanced by having different CPU, grid, and capacitor usage for different classes of ships as a start, and then their benefits can be further fine tuned.
It is just not right that the same device will achieve the same effect when used either in a frigate or a battleship for the same amount of CPU, grid, and cap.
|
JPFAmarr
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 19:10:00 -
[164]
Nurfing the hardness will most greatly impact cruiser pilots ability to NPC farm. This shifts the income per hour back such that mining is far superior than NPC farming for cruiser pilots. Fix the "super hard" double hardener battleship problem directly by allowing a maximum shield hardness. This nurf while looking right on paper for battleships with gimp cruisers pilots to no end.
Again I think you are trying to balance the double hard battleships and in doing so will completely gimp NPC farming in cruisers. Look before you leap at income per hour vs mining on this.
Generic Corporation |
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 19:41:00 -
[165]
I still think limiting to 1 hardener per type and ship (i.e. 1 EM, 1 thermal, 1 explosive, 1 kinetic + possibly 1 multispec), plus lowering them a wee bit would kind of solve the problem. Then you can no longer load up with 3 EM/3 Thermal hardeners just because you know that the enemy is using lasers either.
|
Arathmon
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 21:05:00 -
[166]
Quote:
I still think limiting to 1 hardener per type and ship (i.e. 1 EM, 1 thermal, 1 explosive, 1 kinetic + possibly 1 multispec), plus lowering them a wee bit would kind of solve the problem. Then you can no longer load up with 3 EM/3 Thermal hardeners just because you know that the enemy is using lasers either.
Then what is the point of knowing what your enemy is going to use? A major part of PvP, as I have already said, is knowing your enemy and being able to compensate for whatever they're going to throw at you. Also, limiting to one hardener forces cookie-cutterdom into many ship layouts.
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
Regina
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 21:48:00 -
[167]
Edited by: Regina on 04/09/2003 21:51:56
Edited by: Regina on 04/09/2003 21:51:31
Edited by: Regina on 04/09/2003 21:51:07
beter idea ! like to use hardenners ? OK ? but then if your shield resistance higher like 70 % in ECM+ HEat u cant shot lasers
if your shield Resistance higher like 70 % in kinetic +heat cant shot hybrid
if all resistance above 70 % u cant shot any weapons, that can be logic becose guns are covered by shield , yes projectyle can have biger dmg but they have to not use 3 type of hardener when fire guns
that can give real tactic in game , if u like to fight lower your shield and fight ! if not, you can go, finaly PVP and PK are not the midle of the universe
|
Rising Sin
|
Posted - 2003.09.04 23:51:00 -
[168]
Quote:
So, would an option be to create a similar slot, where you can stick a meta-gun module in, and that the bonus applies -to that gun only- ?
This would free up low slots to be used as armour modules, etc, and couteract the gun stacking
I don't like. This is assuming everyone uses low slots for damage mods, and not everyone does. Go on Chaos and try other types of setups yourself. Experiment with those low slots.
Quote:
I still think limiting to 1 hardener per type and ship (i.e. 1 EM, 1 thermal, 1 explosive, 1 kinetic + possibly 1 multispec), plus lowering them a wee bit would kind of solve the problem. Then you can no longer load up with 3 EM/3 Thermal hardeners just because you know that the enemy is using lasers either.
I think this is a bad idea and this is why. What are the 2 hardeners that everyone will use? EM or Thermal, because you get the most effect by using one of these two. No point in using explosive, period. The only time kinetic would be useful is if your oppopenent was using titanium sabbot ammo. So, we'll have ships that come in 2 flavors - resistent to EM, or resistent to thermal. To me, that just makes combat all the more boring.
How about give shield hardeners 50-60% strength, just so they are less effective than they are now, but cruisers can still use them well while hunting NPC's? There will still be stacking, but hey, at least they'll be able to take more damage.
So, before you tell me that this won't fix anything, lemme say something. Your opponent is in a scorpion and can mount 3 EM hardeners while you can only mount 2. Well, guess what, if hardeners were limited to 50%, you would be getting better damage than if shield hardeners were at 70%.
2 EM Hardeners @50% = 75%
3 EM Hardeners @50% = 87.5%
This means he's taking exactly 50% the damage that you are taking.
2 EM Hardeners @70% = 91%
3 EM Hardeners @70% = 97.3%
This means he's taking exactly 30% the damage you're taking. Looks like with 50% hardeners (or anything less than 70%), you're better off. 40% was too low, but 50 or 60 should be great.
--
"If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right." |
Taliranowe Sarum
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 01:15:00 -
[169]
No answer to the shield transferers yet, would really like to know if the new module is supposed to boost their effect.
And by god do something with their range, its way to short.
Read the Rules Of Conduct and Terms Of Usage
"There is TONS of flaming, personal abuse and
other bad behaviour on the In-game board and in In-game world. If everybody would just read the rules and follow them, the EVE world be a much nicer place to be in."
Feel free to copy this Signature. |
Fritz Ionar
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 06:21:00 -
[170]
Wouldn't it be logic if the capdrain of shield hardeners was proportional to the total shield strength? The bigger shield you have the more energy would be needed to harden it. That way the hardeners would drain a lot more cap when used on a battleship then on a cruiser or frigate.
I've never used a shield hardener my self though and I'm not doing much fighting at all. So I'm just tossing in a new idea for you fighterpilots to flame/applaud/modify or what ever you feel like doing wiht it
------------------------------------------
The services YOU need, WE provide! |
Serge
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 08:24:00 -
[171]
I strongly favor the implementation of ship-class tac shields! its a bit ridiculous to allwo them BS users the use of these great items that cost them NO cap compared to the cap/recharge they have.
Suggestion:
Bring in 2 types of wards: medium and large. Both give the same resistance bonus, but they apply their bonus on different size of shield. Say the med wards harden up to 1500 shield, the large ones harden up to 5000 shield.
--> Using a BS now with 5000 shield and a medium EM ward (that gives 50% resistance bonus) and relativly low fitting and cap costs:
Resistance gain:
1500 / 0.5 = 3000
3500 / 1 = 3500
total relative shield strength against EM is 6500
Using the large ward:
5000 / 0.5 = 10000
--> 35% more relative shield
***********************************************
... "we suddenly have a good 2 dozen Chicken Littles running about proclaiming tha |
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 08:58:00 -
[172]
"The only time kinetic would be useful is if your oppopenent was using titanium sabbot ammo. So, we'll have ships that come in 2 flavors - resistent to EM, or resistent to thermal."
Nonono. First, the most common weapon that causes kinetic damage is definately hybrid, all ammo.
Also, I meant 1 hardener per damage type - you can have 4 hardeners + possibly 1 multispec, not just one.
1 EM + 1 thermal + 1 kinetic: Possible
2 EM: Not possible
Might not be such a good idea after all. Hmm.
|
Cleric
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 10:12:00 -
[173]
Just seen the patchlog and it looks like they have gone with the 40% resistance idea. I don't like this idea, all it will achieve is shorter battles. Again the idea still favours the person with the most medium slots. A megathron with 4 hardeners vs a scorp with 8 = You have just shortened the battle outcome.
I really hoped you would just split them into three different classes like I mentioned before ie. small, medium and large. All have the 70% resistance but the module can only be fitted to it's intended ship (prevents a BS from mounting a small hardener and getting the full resistance) With these three different classes you could change the Power and CPU requirements to suit each ship. Wouldn't it make sense that a Battleship with far more shield capacity than a frigate would require more CPU and Power core to harden those shields?
If you had done this you could prevent the scorpion from mounting 8 hardeners and becoming immune to all damage (if it did manage to fit them by using cpu and power mods it would have no resources left to mount weapons) Sounds like the perfect trade-off to me, shame you never went with it 
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 10:39:00 -
[174]
The problem with shield hardeners is that one could really harden their shields tighter than a clams ass and and actually force a person to run out of cap energy to even take their shields down.
Particularly a problem with lasers, people with lasers have very little chance against someone running an EM and Thermal hardener..
This is partly due to the fact these modules use very little energy, and they you can stack them to 98% resist.
With turrets being revamped and becoming even more powerful, and missles getting a huge overhaul. I don't know if the defense nerf is justified though..
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 12:01:00 -
[175]
Again, the problem is stacking :D Maybe a *slight* tune down in the resistance per module, and don't allow them to stack.
60-70% Em resistance on a shield isn't going to make anyone immune to lasers - it's 98% resistance that is the problem.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 12:27:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Jim Raynor on 05/09/2003 14:27:26
Quote:
Again, the problem is stacking :D Maybe a *slight* tune down in the resistance per module, and don't allow them to stack.
60-70% Em resistance on a shield isn't going to make anyone immune to lasers - it's 98% resistance that is the problem.
While I am not for nerfing defenses personally (as turrets are getting better), I know my Scorpion could easily run any ship using lasers out of cap using 1 em 1 thermal and 1 c5-l shield booster while dealing damage to that ship and destroying it easily.
Amarr battleships using lasers are quite trivial to defeat in 1v1 fights on traquility, with the right setup, of course.
Lasers just don't deal with shield hardeners that well.. unless you have some uber cap regen setup I guess.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:05:00 -
[177]
They could easily replace one of their damage mods with a cap recharge thing if they wanted :D
And if they were set up for it, assuming you use hybrids, they could mount a thermal and kinetic shield, and use a shield booster, and cut your damage massively :)
And they could always throw in a few drones of not em/thermal damage type.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:49:00 -
[178]
Quote:
They could easily replace one of their damage mods with a cap recharge thing if they wanted :D
And if they were set up for it, assuming you use hybrids, they could mount a thermal and kinetic shield, and use a shield booster, and cut your damage massively :)
And they could always throw in a few drones of not em/thermal damage type.
Ya but lasers always run out of a cap first.. but yeah, hardeners can screw anyone really.
If they did that, chances are they couldn't warp scramble me or anything anyways. Caldari ships kind of spoil you with their medium slots.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 15:18:00 -
[179]
Quote:
Nice move TomB, you made a tomb for a Scorp.
"Any bogaten'ky loh it was cried to mummy on a dress that can not kill Skorpa in private, therefore you and ruin tactical shchitok?"
i think i need better translation software
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Heff
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 16:41:00 -
[180]
Let's stay focused on the problem: reducing the ability of a ship to be invincible. Single 70% hardeners don't make anyone invincible, stacking multiple copies does.
With that in mind, reducing the effectiveness of individual hardeners is probably not the best choice. I would eliminate the ability to stack them altogether, or reduce the effectiveness of 2nd and 3rd module considerably.
Keep in mind: if you want to run many different hardners to keep you safe, you're only safe from damage-causing weapons, and only for as long as your cap holds up. If one guy comes along with draining modules, you're finished.
Heff
President, Playboy Enterprises
[email protected]
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 17:42:00 -
[181]
Quote:
Quote:
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
This would indeed seem to be a very logical choice! It seems reasonable enough that a battleship shield hardener affecting a massive amount of shield would require more cpu/power grid/energy than one boosting a small frigate shield.
Good suggestion Cleric!
Forehead-smacker, that. Should have been obvious, eh?
While i appreciate the concern over discovering that a pilot can make himself immune to everything - how is it different than a clever pilot making his opponent unable to target him? Or stop him from running away? Okay, 98% resistance is out of hand, fair enough.
But normalizing everything to the most extreme example will only skew the low and mid ranges. As mention, turrets are getting better. Now defenses are lower. Fights will be short indeed, and you can't even turn the suckers on coming out of warp. We're going to have people loading a pod unexpectedly, again .
Hey.
Ok, the problem is not "i have 98% damage to thermal ha ha ha!" - unload all your kinetic missiles on him is the answer :D - but "i am damn near invulnerable to everything!"
There are 4 basic damtypes. Why not make a booster of one make you SLIGHTLY more vulnerable to another? EM in opposition to Explosive, and Thermal in opposition to Kinetic.
Rather than an ubernerf, why not leave the base at or near 70% instead of 40% (echhh), but keep the proposed stacking multiplier change.
And add, say, 10-15% vulnerability to the opposed damtype. And have the vulberablity stack in *precisely* the same way the bonus does. Go ahead, stack 2 EM and 2 Thermal harderners - if you're preparing to attack a laser-user. But stacking all 4 will no longer result in "immmune to all" if you cap the max POSSIBLE stacked resistance to any one damtype for any reason at 99.9%, THEN apply the penalties for opposition.
/me dons asbestos undies
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Serge
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 17:56:00 -
[182]
Stacking - jep, its one topic!
But the other still is the size! Modules that are supposed to be cruiser-sized (like the shield hardeners atm are) should not be able to be fitted on a BS without serious penalty! this is only another step towards BS the one and only choice!
***********************************************
... "we suddenly have a good 2 dozen Chicken Littles running about proclaiming tha |
Erick Thakrar
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:48:00 -
[183]
I personally agree with Heff on this. Just stop shield hardeners of the same kind from stacking at all. Then you could mount 4 EM hardeners and STILL have a 70% resist to EM damage. Takes away the whole problem. No need to nerf the resist percentage or anything. Although a reduction to say 60% resist wouldn't hurt. That would be the only change required though. No need to change cap use either. On an entirely different note, the idea of implementing different sizes of shield hardeners like there is now with shield boosters is very appealing.
Just make sure they're available in the market and in NPC drops. Same thing goes for Large Shield Boosters. Atleast let some of the NPC rats drop those, like they used to.
Ya Hya Chouhada!!! |
Dawn
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 06:49:00 -
[184]
As far as Shield Hardeners are concererned, I think there should be 2 classes for shield hardners. The first class would be at 70% resistence and only frigates and cruisers could use them. The second class would be 40% resistence and only Battleships and titans could use those.
IMO this would probably be the easiest way to balance the shield hardners for everyone and not nerf the shield hardners across the board. If the shield hardners are nerfed, I totally agree that combat times will be even shorter.
|
Kardis Ta'Destroyer
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 22:51:00 -
[185]
Med Nano Armor Repair II seems to have old stats still
80 energy activation
24 sec time
71 armor repaired
req skill of repair systmes 4
where as the normal medium armor repairer I
160 energy
15 sec
240 armor repair
req skill Repair system 1
|
Rising Sin
|
Posted - 2003.09.07 04:46:00 -
[186]
When you have a maximum number of slots (ie, 8 of each in EVE), stacking actually isn't a big deal if the effectiveness of shield hardners is brought down. With 50%, cruisers will still be able to use hardeners with ease and scorpions won't be able to build a heavy resistence to every damage type.
Even if a ship like that does build a high resistence to your weapon, why not use a cap drainer on him? Cap drainers are one of the most under-used but effective combat modules in the game and basically make a ship (even one that uses projectiles) a sitting duck.
--
"If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right." |
Quinty Isabella
|
Posted - 2003.09.08 10:44:00 -
[187]
Because Cap drainers and Energy neutralizers causes CTD... yes another possible combat exploit......
|
Kardis Ta'Destroyer
|
Posted - 2003.09.09 01:06:00 -
[188]
Quote:
Because Cap drainers and Energy neutralizers causes CTD... yes another possible combat exploit......
only if both partys are useing them at the same time does it cause CTD |
Dakkon
|
Posted - 2003.09.09 03:01:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Dakkon on 09/09/2003 03:01:50
TomB, could u look into the hull repairers also? I was messing around on chaos and they need an improvement because it doesnt matter how good the armor repairers are. Once your structure is gone so is your ship. This is a problem cause once ppl start hitting armor they deal damage to structure also.
|
Quinty Isabella
|
Posted - 2003.09.09 05:38:00 -
[190]
I will explain why this can be an exploit. Cause not only the two who use neutralizers on eachother will CTD but also some people at the same location I have experienced.
Example tactics:
* warp in with two cruisers/or with those alts with frigates where the enemy is
* let them use energy neutralizers on eachother
* they CTD but also a couple of the enemies will CTD
* Warp in with reinforcements to kill the enemies and those who CTD'ed
|
Acuna Traos
|
Posted - 2003.09.09 17:54:00 -
[191]
To Dakkon:
Then mount a hull repairer as well. There isn't anything wrong with the armour repairer as it is. If I were relying on armour I would. Infact I may just train up Amarr ships, or maybe Min, they are both going to own for the setups I have in mind. But then also my setups for Cal should be pritty good (got a bit more thinking to go into those though)
Shh nobody say I didn't mention Gall ships. (there just not right for my setups thats all)
|
Salama
|
Posted - 2003.09.09 19:40:00 -
[192]
I've just hopped in from Shadowbane 3 days ago and have no idea WTH yer talkin about.
However: KUDOS KUDOS KUDOS for the way you are talking to your player base!!
|
Dakkon
|
Posted - 2003.09.09 21:40:00 -
[193]
Acuna
I have put hull repairers on also, they r way to weak. Meds r 60 hp, 25 duration.
|
Acuna Traos
|
Posted - 2003.09.10 17:59:00 -
[194]
Ahh sorry, to my shame I didn't check there stats. I asumed they would be simmilar. In which case they need boosting.
|
shakaZ XIV
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 20:39:00 -
[195]
not entirely on the same topic :P but:
Energy vampires need some love aswell :P By energy vampires i mean modules like Nosferatu.
They suck 10 energy from an enemy and add it to your cap, every 45 seconds, and from 1200 m away.
they take 50 cpu (!!) and 8 powergrid to equip.
As it is, they are useless...the energy sucked and added per second just isnt worth bothering, but the idea makes for an interesting module! If only they could be improved a bit.
Lets say, 50 energy every 20 seconds from 10 km or so sounds more reasonable and at least not completely useless...or more energy/s from very close by perhaps to make them a bit more unique in their use? :P
|
Kardis Ta'Destroyer
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 01:43:00 -
[196]
I posted this in its own topic but thought it might get a better chance of being seen here
-----------------------------------------------
I know i have seen lots of people mention maybe a hotkey to relaod weapons but i had a thought that should be rather simple
the same way u can toggle on autorepete couldn't the dev's incorprate a auto-reload after the weapon runs dry?
my 2 isk |
Devana
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 22:50:00 -
[197]
wtf is chaos?!
|
OPTIQUEST
|
Posted - 2003.09.13 02:12:00 -
[198]
Does anyone know whats going to happen to the the vm15 multi shield booster that gives 40% to all dam types now? If normal boosters are getting nerfed to 40% what will this module give you after nerf. BTW if theres no nerf on it prices of these things will shoot 10mil + range and everyone will want one. buy them while u can :)
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.15 18:02:00 -
[199]
It will be reduced to 25% like the commone version.
SIngle damage type hardeners will be 50%, not 40%.
free speech not allowed here |
Paul Dubois
|
Posted - 2003.09.15 21:05:00 -
[200]
If theyre dropping the benefits of the VM15 multispectral types, are they reducing the cost in cap? 50 every 2 seconds is a ridiculous amount of cap to waste if it is only providing 25% benefit.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |