| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
TomB
   |
Posted - 2003.09.05 12:56:00 -
[1]
Edited by: TomB on 09/09/2003 00:44:52
Edited by: TomB on 08/09/2003 01:08:49
We will be changing how stacking of modules where an attribute gets multiplied, such as shield hardeners, damage modifiers and a few other modules.
Here is a list of attributes that will get penalized a bit if two or more modules (note: only modules, not skills) are multiplying the same attribute:
Armor Resistance (armor platings and hardeners)
Shield Resistance (shield hardeners and amplifiers)
Max Target Range (sensor boosters and dampeners)
Scan Speed (sensor boosters and dampeners)
Tracking Speed (tracking computers and enhancers)
Damage Multiplier (heat sinks, gyrostabilizers, magnetic field stabilizers)
Rate of Fire (heat sinks, gyrostabilizers, magnetic field stabilizers)
Shield Bonus (shield boost amplifiers)
Optimal Range (tracking computers and enhancers)
Other attributes that will not be penalized by this because they are not having as dramatic affect on gameplay:
Capacitor Recharge Time
Shield Recharge Time
Cargo Space
CPU Output
Powergrid Output
Structure Hitpoints
Armor Hitpoints
Shield Hitpoints
Max Velocity
Post your thoughts, no flaming unless you flaming someone else than me 
Edit with Formula:
When stacking modules that affect attributes like listed above, this formula will be applied: x^(1/n^0.25)
Here are 3 quick made graphs to see how dramatic these changes are (since graphs are the spice of knowledge):
Damage Modifiers
Sensor Dampeners
Shield Hardeners
NOTE: The shield hardener has been nerfed from 70% (TQ) to 50% (Chaos), the display on the graphs is as TQ was 50%
This is currently working on Chaos.
TODO:
- the total bonus will not get lower than the bonus of the best module
- fix neutral multipliers, i.e. many modules have bonus of 0% in the database and code is thinking they should count in as stacking nerf
"Where is my hat?" |
ga'ia
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:03:00 -
[2]
All good except i think that Tracking Speed, Damage multipliers and Rate of Fire should have 'lesser' penalty, since it will gimp eg arma to much... maybe aswell armor upgrades. Up to you really *points at TomB* 
__________________________________________________________ |
Masi
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:04:00 -
[3]
Sensor booster need there added range tweaked a bit. IMO they give too much extram but only need to be toned down a little. The targetting bonus they give is fine imo
-------------------------
|
Arwenn
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:06:00 -
[4]
Awesome news. Finally this game is getting more tatical then who has the best mods and can stack more.
And now griefers and ahole pirates need worry when they see a ship equal to them approach a gate.
|
Kalroth
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:07:00 -
[5]
I think it looks ok. Lowering the efficiency of both the shield boosters and damage modifiers should make it break even.
I like my fast ships, but then again, I rarely fly with more than one afterburner.
I guess it depends on how much of a penalty we're talking about. :)
I'm not really sure why the changes are warrented though. Are there a problem with (the above mentioned) modules as they are now?
I'm no skilled PvP'er though, so your milage may vary. :)
<sig>
0x4B656972657473752C20746865
0x0D0A
0x57616E7420746F206A6F696E20436F7265546563683F
0x4D657373616765204B616C726F7468206E6F7721
</sig> |
Masi
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:07:00 -
[6]
 Quote:
All good except i think that Tracking Speed, Damage multipliers and Rate of Fire should have 'lesser' penalty, since it will gimp eg arma to much... maybe aswell armor upgrades. Up to you really *points at TomB*
It's not too bad, i think they will need to be toned down a bit with the sheilds mods etc getting a decrease. But its not really bad for the Armarr Battleships. They can still add more then the other classes so they will still come out on top in this situation. It's not like the mods are getting nerfed for only Arma/Apoc.
But with things like Sheilds, Amarr do have the lowested i belive, so its a touchy thing.
-------------------------
|
Athule Snanm
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:08:00 -
[7]
All sounds pretty good and sensible to me. Should increase the diversity of sensible loadouts by quite a large degree.
_______________________________
Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene! |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:17:00 -
[8]
Sounds great! Looking forward to seeing exactly how big this penalty is, though.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:18:00 -
[9]
I like this idea, I would like to see more varied loadouts on ships. Otherwise people will just stack the hell out of the "best" modules.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:20:00 -
[10]
Great news. This should help against the "Get X number of module-Y on your ship and be happy" aspect of gameplay that we see everywhere right now.
Mai's Idealog |
Jabe
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:24:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Jabe on 05/09/2003 13:29:28
Sounds good to me. At the moment you've got no chance against a player stacked up to make trouble, if you're just going about your usual business.
We need to be able to fit ourselves for trouble but still have a cargo Expander or two, or even a mining laser fitted.
Obviously you still need a bit of an advantage if you're specifically kitted for war (or pirating) but at the moment it's just too much.
I wonder what will happen to the market for this stuff? On the one hand ppl will be selling off their unwanted modules, on the other ppl will want the best model of the module.
Looks to me like the below average and crap stuff will all get melted whilst the good stuff goes through the roof!
|
Avikar
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:25:00 -
[12]
Good stuff, TomB. Glad to see some of the balances taking place. No more will it come down to stacking and stacking. :) Will be fun to see these changes and play with them.
All in all it just makes sense...keeps everyone wondering how the battle will turn out beforehand instead of knowing they've got an nearly unstoppable configuration on their hands. :)
Avikar
|
DREAMWORKS
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:44:00 -
[13]
Nice and all, but what is the penalty?
__________________________
http://www.nin.com/visuals/thtf_hi.html |
Eilora Wingshy
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:45:00 -
[14]
Aye, on the whole, stacking needs an overhaul, but I just want to caution to overdo this penalizing really.. make it so it gives less of a bonus, but not to very much so..
--------------------------------------------------------------
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. |
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:51:00 -
[15]
Quote:
Other attributes that will not be penalized by this because they are not having as dramatic affect on gameplay:
Capacitor Recharge Time
Shield Recharge Time
Cargo Space
CPU Output
Powergrid Output
Structure Hitpoints
Armor Hitpoints
Shield Hitpoints
argh, and you were doing SO well.... ,-)
Change 'em all. Either things stack with degrading multipliers or they don't. These other stacks don't have as dramatic an effect because the other stuff is better. When the other stuff is changed, the above list WILL have a dramatic effect on gameplay... 
It's a valid system, so apply it to all (module only not skill) stacking. Also, it cuts off the legs of the "wahhh you're nerfing My mods and not Their mods wahhh" crowd, leading to far less s! for y'all to wade through 
imnsho, ofc.
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:56:00 -
[16]
I really don't think the stacking issue effects any of that stuff Bad Harlequin.
Cap recharge might be the only iffy one..
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 13:59:00 -
[17]
"Armor Resistance (armor platings and hardeners)"
Good, needed.
"Shield Resistance (shield hardeners and amplifiers)"
Good, definitely needed.
"Max Velocity (afterburners and MWD)"
Ouch. That's not going to be popular at all. People feel frigates don't move fast enough :D
"Max Target Range (sensor boosters and dampeners)"
I dunno how to feel about this one - I don't like the idea of giving a diminishing returns to an EW system. I would say make it an additive system, like other EW. Sensor dampners are -xx km targetting range, and sensor boosters are +xx targetting range. Then they'd work like ECM stuff.
"Scan Speed (sensor boosters and dampeners)
Tracking Speed (tracking computers and enhancers)"
Eh, I guess I would be trying to encourage people using tracking computers, instead of discouraging it :)
"Damage Multiplier (heat sinks, gyrostabilizers, magnetic field stabilizers)"
I think this is probably needed, but, this change may warrant some tweaks to ships that appear to be designed around racks of damage mods (like the amarr ships).
"Rate of Fire (heat sinks, gyrostabilizers, magnetic field stabilizers)"
Good, probably needed.
"Shield Bonus (shield boost amplifiers)"
needed.
"Optimal Range (tracking computers and enhancers)"
I don't see this as a big issue at all. We want to encourage combat to take place farther out right? :D
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:02:00 -
[18]
Also, it would be helpful to provide (when you can) the tentative formula that will be used.
A lot will depend on how much the penalty is.
If the penalty is too small, not much will change.
If it is too high, no one will use more than one of any module, and we still have the same problem of everyone having the same loadout :D Just they'll all have 1 of a specific set of modules, instead of all of 1 specific module.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:03:00 -
[19]
Tracking computers simply don't add enough tracking. Hell the freaking skill motion prediction is pretty dubious at best to train.
They do add max range though I believe, but not a lot.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:06:00 -
[20]
They add pretty poor trackind and pretty poor range :D
Might want to look into boosting themsome, before implementing the stacking penalty for them.
right now they are just... rather sub par :(
|
Replicant Amara
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:09:00 -
[21]
Hum... Turrets getting nerfed byt not multiplying modules and missiles getting a big boost out? I have to take a second look to that Raven ship out there.... Just hope the make it real...
|
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:11:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Valeria on 05/09/2003 14:11:54
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.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:11:00 -
[23]
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 -
[24]
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.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:20:00 -
[25]
Quote:
Hum... Turrets getting nerfed byt not multiplying modules and missiles getting a big boost out? I have to take a second look to that Raven ship out there.... Just hope the make it real...
Raven only gets is bonus on seige launchers.. which use almost as much grid as a large turret.. and way more CPU.
(Raven runs into major CPU problems)
Defenses are getting heavily nerfed with the shield hardener nerf.. and further nerfed by changing how modules stack, as well.
So no, I still think this is quite a good idea.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:29:00 -
[26]
"Ouch. That's not going to be popular at all. People feel frigates don't move fast enough :D"
.. Never mind the frigates (although yes, am gonna miss the 1k+ speeds... some boost of the base speed to all frigates would be nice to make up for it?) But think of all the MWD-equipped blockade running indy owners.... :s
|
agrizla
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:31:00 -
[27]
Quote:
hmm how about making items add straight rather than multiplying (ie 100 +50% +50% +50% = 250 .. not 337.5
I thought about that for a bit, but then realised that it didn't make sense. Take shield hardeners as an example - the first one has an effect on the base resist, then the second has an effect on the base resist + first hardener etc etc. That's the way it currently works. If you changed stacking to additive rather than multiplicative then you would actually be increasing the stacking effect in some cases while nerfing it in others. ie it's not consistent enough.
I'd tend to agree with Bad Harlequin - don't exclude any modules, because you know perfectly well TomB that someone will work out a way for them to affect gameplay and then you're just going to have to go through the same process again.
Work out a set of rules that defines what will happen if you fit more than one module of the same class to a ship. Then tell us the rules  I have no doubt you'll still need to tweak them in future, but at least all modules are "created equal" if you see what I mean.
|
RED predator
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:31:00 -
[28]
I think the After Burners not stacking is going to be very unpopular but a great thing to do...
Right know people have super fast indies (like my mammoth or bestowers... that can go at 800 m/s... I know these are great time savers but these ships should be slow cause they are like trucks... this way we will start using those other modules like shields to protect them...
And BS will become slow to making them useful for what they should be: med and long range combat to support frigates and cruisers...
Please make the penalty significant... to discourage the use off more than two modules of each...
Small changes in modules will lead to better tactics...
Note Tracking computer need a boost.. they are not worth it for the amount of skills they require to be trained to be able to use them, and they do no help to the projectiles terrible tracking...
|
agrizla
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:35:00 -
[29]
As I can't edit the last post what I meant was if the module reduces a vulnerability then additive stacking would make matters worse, but for a module (like AB's) it would reduce the stacking effect.
Altogether too messy I feel as you'd have to use multiplicative for some and additive for others.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:36:00 -
[30]
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.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |