EVE Search - Changes to stacking of modules with multiplying effect

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Changes to stacking of modules with multiplying effect

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Popov	Posted - 2003.09.05 14:38:00 - [31] I'd also be interested to know what the formula is going to be for the diminishing returns. Also what I don't understand is a lot of modules e.g. shield hardeners were just nerfed because of stacking issues. Now you have fixed the stacking issues it looks like a double nerf or a nerf with a stacking bonus.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2003.09.05 14:40:00 - [32] 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.
Athule Snanm	Posted - 2003.09.05 14:52:00 - [33] Quote: 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... True to an extent - but MWD makes your reasoning fall apart. Thinking about it, whilst MWD exists you may as well leave ABs stacking as they do now. Logically I don't think MWD should stack at all with anything given the game background - either more MWDs or ABs. ABs stacking well with each other makes a lot of sense though - thinking of hot-rod cars here. Before I make a judgement though I'd like to see how the changes are affecting the game and hopefully what the forumlas are. _______________________________ Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene!
Ader	Posted - 2003.09.05 14:57:00 - [34] This : Max Velocity (afterburners and MWD) Have been nerfed too much already imo. Mwd has been killed already, or is bleeding to death.
Replicant Amara	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:03:00 - [35] The Ships inicial speed means nothing when AB and MWD are stackable... So speed of a ship is not any advantage or disadvange... SO I think to givea penalty on AB being stack will make the ship inicial speed a great advantage in the game and help People to give a second look to all those minimitar ships that have been left behind... I think this will balance more the ship of different races...
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:05:00 - [36] 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.
TomB	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:17:00 - [37] Please read the starting post again, the penality my look very extreme right now, but as new tech and new modules are coming in, dramatic changes are needed to some multipliers. "Where is my hat?"
Paul Dubois	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:19:00 - [38] Hey if it was up to me I'd do away with mwds altogether :-) Just don't like the idea of battleships that can move way faster than any frigate!
Gauguin	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:27:00 - [39] Quote: Hey if it was up to me I'd do away with mwds altogether :-) Just don't like the idea of battleships that can move way faster than any frigate! Completely agree here! But with one addition: double or tripple speeds across the board. Ships move way too slow for speed to be of any tactical or strategic value.
Ulstan	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:28:00 - [40] In a way I hate to see ships slowed down because travel is so boring "Stacking of multiplying modules = X^(1/sqrt(N))" So does this mean each of the N modules has the modified multiplier of X? Is this a constant effect? Like, say I mounted two afterburners. Is each one going to give me the reduced value, even if I only have one activated? I ask because it can be important, where you have one of something running, but would like to carry a second for backup. And the low slot tracking thingies need a boost too I think :)
TomB	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:41:00 - [41] Quote: In a way I hate to see ships slowed down because travel is so boring We are looking at In-Space fitting, where players would be able to fit for example MWD for travelling to a location of battle and unfitting before going to the war. This kind of feature might come in very soon and might also take very long. "Where is my hat?"
killzone	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:43:00 - [42] I'm totally against removing the stacking of ab's. Industrials and frigates are barely bearable with 4 ab's going. Lowering their speed further is NOT going to improve gameplay. These ships are already pirate bait, slow them down even further and they will not be usable.
Masi	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:43:00 - [43] For the dmg mods, instead making them go like: Gyro 1.1 ROF x1.111 Hydro 1.3 x1.333 Skadi 1.6 x1.766 Why nto have them for varied so that some are good for ROF and some are good for DMG. This way, dont have to worry about ppl all getting the super dmg mods, but will need to think about if they rather more dmg, but less ROF. Or more ROF but less dmg. Better imo :f -------------------------
ShadowHawk	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:45:00 - [44] I think applying non stacking to speed will just make gate camping even easier... Gate camping takes no skill or strategy at all... all you do is wait with a decent amount of ships at the gate... see what warps in, if you think you can win the battle you start firing, if an oposing force moves in then you use the jumpgate or warp away... Ships traveling from one place to another (like indy's or mining ships) usually don't have another route as many systems are lined up in a row and no alternative path is available... so they have to somehow get through the blockade... running it won't be an option... fighting isn't one as you can't outmaneuver the other ships fire so all you can do is warp away to a planet and wait till the gate campers get bored and go home... and well, a game shouldn't have 'getting bored' as one of it's key strategic elements. I do think as much as gate camping is an option in the game, blockade running through speed or decent bookmarks should be a strategic option... About making other modules 'less' stackable... I defenetly can see that shield hardeners should only allow one per type... changing stacking on damage mods might make sense IF we get to see damage mods that have more effect by themselves... Tracking enhancers have too little of an effect as they are so nerfing them more makes them even less usefull. Your 280mm 'Scout' Artillery I perfectly strikes Sansha's Scavenger, wrecking for 264.3 damage.
PropanElgen	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:47:00 - [45] Quote: Please read the starting post again, the penality my look very extreme right now, but as new tech and new modules are coming in, dramatic changes are needed to some multipliers. True, but they are not needed for AB and MWD. All the angels and the puny men of god looked away... Frightened to death by the evil that was born on that day!
Replicant Amara	Posted - 2003.09.05 15:59:00 - [46] Edited by: Replicant Amara on 05/09/2003 15:59:28 I think you forgot that if you return fire in a gate with camping pirates you are not allowed to jump... so you need to warp away... Regarding to the issue of the indies... if you are flying with your indie in low sec system you should take an escort and not fly alone, and for a little extra help on defenses use more shields and extra hardeners, and they will be more useful when damage modifiers have a penalty on damage... I know is awesome to be independent and be able to fly super fast with a indi (Ido it) but I think the game was designed in other way... if you go to dangerous territory ask some friends or pay people to help you do it...
Jarjar	Posted - 2003.09.05 16:00:00 - [47] Edited by: Jarjar on 05/09/2003 16:00:54 Hmm, so if I got this right... X = 1.07x damage N = 1, 2, 3, 8 X^(1/sqrt(N)) 1 mod : 1.07 2 mods: 1.049 3 mods: 1.039 8 mods: 1.0242 Correct?
The Major	Posted - 2003.09.05 16:00:00 - [48] It's amazing how often this need sto be pointed out but if you want to run a pirate blockade in an Industrial then HIRE AN ESCORT. And not just some mong in a Battleship. Hire good people with good skills that can jam the pirates blockading the gate long enough for you to jump. Which actually makes me think, with it being possible to destroy a ship in under 60 seconds if an Escort jams pirates blockading a gate and then want to jump themselves they have to disable their jammers and wait 60 seconds for the gate to let them jump. By which point their clone is already rubbing the ectoplasm out of it's eyes.
Lurk	Posted - 2003.09.05 16:03:00 - [49] Keep in mind that modules that have been nerved several times due to stacking (damage mods/afterburners) need a boost to compensate this change. And i think this change is a bit too hard. I mean 9 modules do what 3 do now ? Just make it like: 3 modules do what 2 do now, 6 do what 3 do now and 8 do what 4 do now.
Stavros	Posted - 2003.09.05 16:23:00 - [50] total joke... how can cargo expanders not have a serious effect on gameplay? I mean poeple flying around with well over TWICE their cargo capcity in industrials, nah that doesnt effect game play at all... nah not even a little... another waste of dev team, another useless nerf, another nail in the coffin that is eve. -- "Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You"
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.09.05 16:39:00 - [51] Just took a quick glance at the first post and I think this is great news for PvP (especially considering shield hardeners are getting weakened and shield boost amplifiers aren't stacking) and should make battles more tactical than ever before. Still, Amarr ships with all those low slots are still going to do rather well out of this next patch, don't you think? LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Valeria	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:10:00 - [52] drool But honestly, this penalty should indeed exist for all modules using multiplicative bonuses, including cargo expanders. Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage.
Halo Jones	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:17:00 - [53] Quote: Please read the starting post again, the penality my look very extreme right now, but as new tech and new modules are coming in, dramatic changes are needed to some multipliers. Just to claify Tom, does this mena, that now u r releasing tech2, u have realsied the tech1 gear was so imbalanced at the higher levels when stacked, that tech2 would make the game ludicrous, therefore you have to mke major changes at the foundation, just so the game will still be playable when people stack all of one item at tech lvl2? Do you expect this major alteration to be compatible with introduce of tech3 (in the future) or will a similar nerf be required? This is a rather drastic change 5 months into a game, but i guess u have to do something to make tech2 apealing without being overbearing. The change on speed and velocity will affect and annoy many many people who play the game, but don't read this forum. Oberon Incorporated.
ShadowHawk	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:21:00 - [54] one thing to consider when applying the formula is how this affects mounting modules of different multipliers... you could actually get less bonus from two items if the second one has a much lower multiplier than the first one... this is what TomB gave... X = Multiplier N = Amount of modules Stacking of multiplying modules = X^(1/sqrt(N)) it also has to be made sure that the order in which the modules are being reduced in effect does affect the outcome... i.e. if you mount the higher value module first you get a different value than if you mount the lower value one first... It's a bit a similar problem that Blizzard had in DiabloII with stacking of Poison Charms... that if you added charms of different levels, the outcome was hard to predict... Your 280mm 'Scout' Artillery I perfectly strikes Sansha's Scavenger, wrecking for 264.3 damage.
Bushido	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:23:00 - [55] Valeria is rigth we will be crazy if we have to divide stacking modules by other. For cargo and other modules you could simply increase the stats to compensate the "stacking nerf" Bushido
TomB	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:25:00 - [56] Quote: one thing to consider when applying the formula is how this affects mounting modules of different multipliers... you could actually get less bonus from two items if the second one has a much lower multiplier than the first one... The outcome all worked, but if there are any modules not working correctly, just post it here and it will be fixed. "Where is my hat?"
ShadowHawk	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:28:00 - [57] TomB, can you give an example of what the damage bonus would be if I fit a 1.091 and 1.07 heatsink??? With the current model, I would get a bonus of 1.16737... what would it be after the nerf??? Your 280mm 'Scout' Artillery I perfectly strikes Sansha's Scavenger, wrecking for 264.3 damage.
TomB	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:41:00 - [58] Quote: TomB, can you give an example of what the damage bonus would be if I fit a 1.091 and 1.07 heatsink??? With the current model, I would get a bonus of 1.16737... what would it be after the nerf??? You can test this yourself on Chaos like I just did: Tachyon Beam - Base with skills: 5.712 dmg Tachyon Beam - 1 Extruded: 6.27 dmg Tachyon Beam - 1 Extruded + normal 1.07 heat sink: 6.71 dmg Tachyon Beam - 2 Extruded: 6.88 dmg "Where is my hat?"
Erick Thakrar	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:42:00 - [59] Nerfing the stacking effects of afterburners is a very bad idea. Doing it to MWD's is less important and as far as that is concerned I could care less. But afterburners have already been significantly nerfed with the removal of the in-warp activation, which helped only people doing PvP and caused far more problems than any possible exploits, and now it's being nerfed again with the removal of stacking multipliers. Ships are slow enough as is and with cargo expanders, even named ones taking away as much as 15% of your speed, then afterburners need to stay as they are. The idea for being able to change fitting in-space for MWD's is great. A truly good idea, but it does nothing for the people that can't fit MWD's on their industrials. Or don't want to. Personally when I'm hauling ore, I need as much cargo room as possible and I don't need to be going 80 m/s to the can in the belt and to the station coming out of warp. That's effecively making it take 4 times as long to move the ore from the belt to the station. Travel is slow and tedious enough as it is. Don't make it any worse, please. Nerf MWD stacking as much as you want. The vast majority don't use more than one MWD anyways. As for the other items mentioned I see no problems, although it would probably be a very good idea to boost the bonuses given by these various damage mods. They were originally nerfed when stacking them were a huge issue and people were getting some fairly insane damage modifiers as the result. Now they're being nerfed again. You do realise that you guys keep going to extremes in your balancing efforts? First projectile isn't good enough. It gets a boost. Then it's too good. Damage modifiers and tracking is nerfed massively. That along with the alterations to stacking with small and medium turret skills and the surgical strike skill made projectiles nigh useless. Other weapons took smaller hits due to stacking being altered and weapon stabilizers generally receiving a nerf in damage and ROF bonuses. Now shield hardeners are too effective, so weapon stabilizers are nerfed again. But at the same time, weapons are given higher damage output...I'm confused... Hate to say this, but I wish you guys would make up your minds. Ya Hya Chouhada!!!
Hematic	Posted - 2003.09.05 17:46:00 - [60] TomB, The badger is one of the indys that have no way of mounting a mwd. They also have the least low slots. This will make them the slowest indy in the game and one of, if not the lowest cargo holds as well. Badgers used to have the edge on agility, but mounting dual nano-fibres essentially erases this bonus. So shields becomes it's only true bonus, but at the cost of half speed AND half cargo? Not sure what the fix could be but moving one of the six med. slots to a low may at least keep the badger in the running.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.