| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Zyrla Bladestorm
   |
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:11:00 -
[1]
hmm how about making items add straight rather than multiplying (ie 100 +50% +50% +50% = 250 .. not 337.5
reducing the effect for each extra item Isnt neccesserily a bad idea, but the one item it worrys me about is the indys .. where number of AB's is one of the design/balance principles, if you reduce each extra one the indys designed to have the most at the cost of other stats (well the minnie ones, maybe the iteron V) get even less usefull over those designed to take more CE's (which I notice aren't on the list for the stacking nerf) it also pushes indys that can fit an MWD a very, very long way ahead of those that have to rely on AB's (Minnie again :/)
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:13:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 05/09/2003 14:30:53
woops double-post :/ couldnt see page 2 from page 1 (still cant for some reason)
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:36:00 -
[3]
 Quote:
Don't they (Optical Tracking Computers) add like 24% or something? That's quite alot when you consider how important tracking is. I don't mind a penalty here.
the way most tracking computers list it is as 1.24% (which should be 1.24x I'm sure) but I tried fitting 2 tracking computers earlier, activated them and they added nothing whatsoever to the tracking of my guns (a monopulse tracking enhancer and a Tracking Computer I) the optimal range did increase though so I know I was seeing the updated stats
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:40:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 05/09/2003 14:41:16
well currently most of the modules listed use multiplicative when they probably should use additive .. I didnt mean those that currently arent multiplicative (hardeners for example) should be changed to it too .. rather than being changes to negatively multiplicative like it sounds like they will be (IE 100 +50% +50% +50% = 337.5 will become 100 +50% +40% +30% = 273 .. hrm thats still more than being additive :P)
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 15:05:00 -
[5]
if a ships base speed is 20% faster than the end speed after AB's will be 20% faster too .. base speed still is very important with stacking
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.07 19:54:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 07/09/2003 19:57:29
as I understand it the core problem with stacking isn't shield hardners specifically, the problem is the way it adds exponentially so the more+bigger mods you can fit the more bonus you get, far beyond what the +% on the modules add up to.
(the blackbird with 2 million k sensor range or scorpion going 141 au are indeed good examples)
This exponential math is the reason most of the modules that give large/ish bonuses have been nerfed, some many times. It also hinders Tech 2 since adding bigger bonuses just makes the problem far worse .. so this has to get fixed first as I understand it
(before we get scorpions going 500 au/s and blackbirds with 2 billion k sensor ranges heh)
.. I still think Additive is the best solution in most cases (resistances for example need there own way of working, or additive with a cap) that way 4 modules gives you 4x the bonus of 1 module .. 8 modules is twice the bonus of 4 modules .. you dont lose any "extra bonus" by going with 7 instead of 8 and you can have any bonus on an item as large as you want and it won't unbalance the whole thing
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.07 22:42:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 07/09/2003 22:45:51
Quote:
If all modules were balanced, it wouldn't matter if some guy had 8 of one. He may not even *want* to mount 8 of one.
as long as there using exponential maths its impossible to have all modules well balanced without nerfing them all to such small values that they hardly matter, on tranquility there are quite a few cases where fitting 8 of one type of module gives you 3x (or more) of the bonus of fitting 4 of them, so even if all modules were "well balanced" people would still all flock towards the 8 of one thing setup because going with any other route would produce less effect
I dont particularly want to see a game where fitting 8 of a module is a bad thing, if someone wants to specialize I'm happy for him to do so .. what I want is for 8 modules to give 8 modules bonus, 4 to give 4 modules bonus and so on .. not 4 to give 6 bonus, 8 to give 24 bonus etc ..
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.08 23:33:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Have any devs said there will be new ships for higher tech levels?
I seem to recall them saying that yes ..
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.14 18:56:00 -
[9]
umm drutort were you typing that post up for over a week or did you come from somwehere else (say EVE-I) where they quoted the original post ? cos TomB edited and removed max velocity from those effected about a week ago :P
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
| |
|