| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Valeria
   |
Posted - 2003.09.05 17:51:00 -
[61]
I just took a spin in my Caracal with 4 LiF burners, and the speed was basespeed*1.4975^4 just as it used to be. Hmm.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 17:52:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 05/09/2003 17:54:15
 Quote:
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
TomB, you *might* want to check chaos again. Either the reduction for the second heatsink is ridiculously low or the stacking malus isn't working yet.
5.712 * 1.098 * 1.098 = 6.8864...
5.712 * 1.098 * 1.07 = 6.7108...
Exactly the same numbers as before the "change"
free speech not allowed here |
agrizla
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:02:00 -
[63]
Actually cargo expanders are a classic example of a module where the stacking effect should be additive and not multiplicative. It's non-intuitive for a cargo expander to both expand the original cargo space and expand any expanders already fitted. I remember being rather confused the first time that I fitted 2 to my Imicus as to why I had more space than I thought I should 
|
killzone
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:02:00 -
[64]
I posted that I thought the ab stacking reduction would hurt industrials. Some people responded about getting an escort.
1) Getting an escort isn't going to remove the boredom of flying a slow ship made even slower. If something is already not fun, why make it even more not fun. Simple things like leaving a station and just flying to a spot in an asteroid belt are slow. With ab's it becomes almost bearable.
2) As far as 0.0 and blockade jumping go, have you guys that recommened an escort tried out large battleship weapons? Even if you have a huge escort it only takes 1 volley of fire from a battleship to take out an industrial, and it is going to be the first target, not the battleship escort. In any case this is irrelavant to the fact that industrials are slow enough and don't need to be made slower.
|
Headd
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:04:00 -
[65]
I like the general idea of changing the way stacking works. It just seems a little counterintuitive to follow the proposed formula as it can't be really arrived at from reading object descriptions in game. It also seems counterintutive to have some things use one formula and other things follow a different formula.
I don't know what the correct answer is. But if someone new is playing the game and finds a module that adds +5% to an attribute, the only logical way they could think it stacks is either +5% of the original attribute or +5% of the modified attribute (after all modifiers have taken place). The new formula cannot be arrived to logically without reading this forum post.
Maybe a solution would just be to use stacking on the base value always (instead of the current cumulative approach) and just cap the modifier at whatever point is necessary for balancing. This cap could be universal or displayed per item or whatever.
If TomB's formula can be easily explained in game (through the item descriptions), I'd be all for it. Although as pointed out in other places, another problem with TomB's formula (at least the way I understand it) is that you'll actually get less boost from putting 1 really good module alongside multiple crappy ones than just putting 1 good module on its own.
|
Traiken
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:05:00 -
[66]
Quote:
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.
Stav:
Kinda makes it a little harder to be a pirate now doesn't it? Ya gotta think a little bit about what your going to have on your ship instead of "stacking" the best.
Lasing our treasures here .......
and chasing our pleasures there. |
Solas
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:27:00 -
[67]
I would like to comment on people complaining that stacking will hurt Aamar ships. You guys act like the only thing that is of any use in those slots is heat sinks. If you are filling those slots with just heat sinks are not capitalizing on great armor Aamar ships have.
You ever wonder why they look like they have huge plates all over them? It is because these ships were designed to be armored juggernauts. Throw in a heat sink or two, a few power relays, some armor plating and hardeners and even some backup sensors if you have the itch. DonÆt be so close minded those defensive mods make a huge difference.
It will also balance out being that you wont see as many one trick wonders in the game. The ôI have four sensor dampeners you have no chanceö. The Aamar cant stack them but nether can anyone else. You wont need lot of heat sinks now that your enemy wont be running around with 92% resist on average.
This will really bring a lot of versatility to ship configuration. People wont be able to get those easy kills using stacked equipment. They will have to take some risk for once. The electronic warfare players can still use jammers, and even sensor warfare. They will just have to work harder at it.
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:27:00 -
[68]
The stacking penality is not working for all modules currently, will need to fix this.
And afterburners and microwarpdrive will probably be removed from the stacking penalities.
"Where is my hat?" |
Zuek
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:30:00 -
[69]
I think nerfing the max Velocity is a very bad idea.
Ships go slow as it is and some of us have a limited amount of time to play and to make the ships slower, and take more time means I will be able to play less. At a certian point one must ask if it is worth to pay to play when you cannot play as much. Most of the time spent in Eve is waiting to get to a gate or a station (except for all you gate campers) and you want to increase that time?
If you are going to modify the AB and MW moduals (again), that many people spent training time to build their characters around, are you willing to give people back the training points to redistribute among other skills? Yeah, didn't think so. Some skills will be nearly useless now, like Acceleration Control and Naviagtion. Yeah you can train both up to level 3 in a day or so, but if you spent the 2 months it takes to train them to level 5 then you have pretty much wasted that time because of the diminishing returns of stacking.
Its not that your proposal isn't lacking merit TOMB. Lets look at your list again and ask yoursel fin what situations does the item/s most affect people in the game?
Armor Resistance (armor platings and hardeners) - Combat 100%
Shield Resistance (shield hardeners and amplifiers) - Combat 100%
Max Velocity (afterburners and MWD) - Combat 0%-20% Travel is affected 100%
Max Target Range (sensor boosters and dampeners) - Combat 100%
Scan Speed (sensor boosters and dampeners) - Combat 100%
Tracking Speed (tracking computers and enhancers) - Combat 100%
Damage Multiplier (heat sinks, gyrostabilizers, magnetic field stabilizers) - Combat 100%
Rate of Fire (heat sinks, gyrostabilizers, magnetic field stabilizers) - Combat 100%
Shield Bonus (shield boost amplifiers) - Combat 100%
Optimal Range (tracking computers and enhancers) - Combat 100%
Nearly all of the things to be modified by your new equation directly affect combat. Max Velocity his has almost no direct bearing on combat. Nearly everyone who participates in combat on a regular basis uses stasis webs and warp jammers,and no one is going anywhere fast then: no matter how many AB or MWD you have if you are webbed or jammed. By including Max Velocity in this "modification" you are increasing the time it takes to travel from system A to sytem B. Max Velocity has already taken a large hit from the last patch because of the fact that most moduals cannot be activated during warp and AB and MWD where already previously nerfed in a past patch. I just dont think Max Velocity needs to be touched at this time.
Thanks,
Zuek
|
Colibri
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:49:00 -
[70]
Stacking can be explained in the in-game item descriptions as diminishing returns upon stacking...similar to how the shield and total cap are explained on microwarpdrives. It should NOT be a ghost factor like the bull**** cap recharge effect on microwarpdrives.
I personally have no problem with putting microwarpdrives in diminishing returns/stacking restriction category and leaving afterburners out but please unnerf them just a bit like getting rid of the (again) bull**** cap recharge nerf since MWD users already take it in the shorts with the shield and cap amount nerfs.
|
Sqalevon
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 18:59:00 -
[71]
Thanks for propably letting the AB's out of the deal
I have several buisneses running wich can be done thanks to AB's.
and i'm not feeling like collecting bookmarks for all jumpgates for all the deepspace mining ops / traderoutes / getting around eve, i'm involved in.
it is already boring to haul from mining ops and slowing down indies would not be helping as u might have guessed.
and it also makes bistot -> megacyte even more rare ( till mobile refinery's are out )
but i guess u knew that already :)
Greatings, Sqalevon.
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 19:04:00 -
[72]
""And afterburners and microwarpdrive will probably be removed from the stacking penalities.""
TY :)
|
Ka'loor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 19:29:00 -
[73]
Yes, please do keep ABs stacking as they are, it would mostly hurt travel, in combat you arent liable to run more than 2 abs at most anyway :D
so thanks alot if they stay the same.
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. |
Karif
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 19:44:00 -
[74]
Sounds good...but I'd keep MWDs on the list personally as it just seems off to have two active warp bubbles, but that's probably just me (and may not be technologically possible or feasible) 
===============================
Deception + Information + Skill |
Erick Thakrar
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 20:47:00 -
[75]
I can't believe I'm saying this but for once I agree with Karif...Alright it's happened before, but it's rare :)
MWD's don't need to stack. Afterburners do. If it's possible to separate the two then let MWD's be non-stackable...If it isn't...Then I can live with MWD's stacking, as long as afterburners still do.
Ya Hya Chouhada!!! |
Samson
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 20:47:00 -
[76]
Honestly Tom, it would seem much easier if you just implemented one single stacking formula that applied to all modules, and adjusted the stats of individual modules to give them the balance you want them to have. Why create multiple categories to balance modules around their current stats? This module stacks with diminishing returns, but this one is additive, etc. Seems to me like you're just making more work for yourself, and will just end up confusing people.
|
Owyn
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 21:03:00 -
[77]
How well are armor-based templates (ships focusing on armor, armor repair, and armor resists) going to hold up after this? I know a lot of people were/are tinkering with armor based ships as being finally a viable alternative to shields, with the boosts to repair systems and the nerf to hardeners.
With this patch, you'd now need about 9 adaptive armor resists (15% all) to get about a 45% resist, which is just a shade weaker than running one of each shield hardener (at 50% each). This seems like an unfair allocation of slots. Armor resist mods were really only useful as stacked elements.
As a suggestion, perhaps looking into boosting them - slightly - to bring them closer to hardeners might be in order? Consider boosting the resist specific mods to, say, 40%. The "everything" resist mods are just trashed now, for shields and armor; they only worked as stacked modules anyway (15% for armor, 20% for shields). You simply can't put on enough "everything" items to make it worthwhile now. So some sort of boost to those is now important.
Suggested values:
Shield Hardener: 60%
Invulnerability shield: 30%
(this makes it so that 4 invuln shields is about equal to 1 of each basic shield)
Armor Resist mod: 40%
Nano Adaptive Armor resist mod: 20%
(again, makes it so that 4 adaptive are the same as one of each basic - but also boosts all armor resist mods slightly, so that they are more comparable to shields; this was not needed before, since more low slots are generally available, so more mods could be stacked, but with the anti-stacking code, these mods would be hurt badly without a boost.)
Owyn
Commander, Defenders of Order |
Lurk
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 21:12:00 -
[78]
TomB, please comment on this formula:
Modifier = X^(N^(2/3))
This would be a slight nerf for a low number of modules but a hard one for 4-8 modules.
For example you'd need ~2.8 modules to replace two old ones, ~5.2 to replace 3 old ones and 8 to replace 4 old modules of the same kind.
|
Fritz Ionar
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 21:29:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Fritz Ionar on 05/09/2003 21:29:28
Of topic, but any way,
Quote:
2) As far as 0.0 and blockade jumping go, have you guys that recommened an escort tried out large battleship weapons? Even if you have a huge escort it only takes 1 volley of fire from a battleship to take out an industrial, and it is going to be the first target, not the battleship escort. In any case this is irrelavant to the fact that industrials are slow enough and don't need to be made slower.
I would think the precedure with an escort is some thing like this.
Escort warp to gate.
Escort chase away/destroy blockaders.
Escort calls for indy.
Indy warp to gate.
Escort jump.
Escort clear jump entrypoint.
Escort call for indy.
Indy jump.
Repeat.
This is just a theoretical construction since I have not done much combat or blockade runing so I might be way of, feel free to disagrea strongly
------------------------------------------
The services YOU need, WE provide! |
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 21:31:00 -
[80]
TomB, please consider this idea and give me some feedback to let me know if it is feasable or not.
Right now Traveling time is pretty bad for some people, and I have a solution that will help ease that pain.
Allow the autopilot (this would be an option to toggle on or off) to turn on the afterburners after exiting warp. That way people who need to make 30 jump trips dont need to sit around and click the burners on all the time (which is very tedious), rather they could go AFK.
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 - 2003.09.05 21:45:00 -
[81]
Quote:
I would like to comment on people complaining that stacking will hurt Aamar ships. You guys act like the only thing that is of any use in those slots is heat sinks. If you are filling those slots with just heat sinks are not capitalizing on great armor Aamar ships have.
You ever wonder why they look like they have huge plates all over them? It is because these ships were designed to be armored juggernauts. Throw in a heat sink or two, a few power relays, some armor plating and hardeners and even some backup sensors if you have the itch. DonÆt be so close minded those defensive mods make a huge difference.
It will also balance out being that you wont see as many one trick wonders in the game. The ôI have four sensor dampeners you have no chanceö. The Aamar cant stack them but nether can anyone else. You wont need lot of heat sinks now that your enemy wont be running around with 92% resist on average.
This will really bring a lot of versatility to ship configuration. People wont be able to get those easy kills using stacked equipment. They will have to take some risk for once. The electronic warfare players can still use jammers, and even sensor warfare. They will just have to work harder at it.
/me applauds.
Well said. Amarr ships will still be able to... as Stavros would say... 'r0x0r j00 b0x0rz!'. I personally can't wait for the next patch  .
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
sensitive
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 21:49:00 -
[82]
TomB
your killing the effective use of Sensor Dampners with this nerf.
I know they were in need of balancing, but this is quite rediculous. Its a sensible way of ECM, yet now with needing 4 modules to do the same as 2 did before your making them useless.
Example,
Before, a BS with 70km range could be reduced to 4.375 km range with 4 modules. Not completely jammed.
Now, 4 mods will give them a 17.5 km range, which gives them all the range they need in pvp, for battles are at 20km range anyway.
In other words, who the hell would use dampners now? They dont do squat in battle anymore, exept slow down the locking of the ship.
Either boost sensor booster, or reduce the dampeners strength to .66 instead of .50 of the range. Also increase cap usage to regulair ECM module hight.
I hate to whine, and I know ppl hate dampners, but looking at this im putting them on sale for they wont serve any real ecm use anymore.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 21:56:00 -
[83]
Quote:
TomB
your killing the effective use of Sensor Dampners with this nerf.
I know they were in need of balancing, but this is quite rediculous. Its a sensible way of ECM, yet now with needing 4 modules to do the same as 2 did before your making them useless.
Example,
Before, a BS with 70km range could be reduced to 4.375 km range with 4 modules. Not completely jammed.
Now, 4 mods will give them a 17.5 km range, which gives them all the range they need in pvp, for battles are at 20km range anyway.
In other words, who the hell would use dampners now? They dont do squat in battle anymore, exept slow down the locking of the ship.
Either boost sensor booster, or reduce the dampeners strength to .66 instead of .50 of the range. Also increase cap usage to regulair ECM module hight.
I hate to whine, and I know ppl hate dampners, but looking at this im putting them on sale for they wont serve any real ecm use anymore.
Dampeners kind of make you wonder why ECM Target Jammers even exist.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Owyn
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 22:16:00 -
[84]
Well, consider a ship with really long range guns - say designed to fight optimally in the 40km range - that dumps an opponent to a max range of 17km? It certainly does limit the use of the dampeners though, basically makes them a long-range fighter's tool.
Owyn
Commander, Defenders of Order |
Lola
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 22:46:00 -
[85]
Yeah, too bad if you aren't webbed and warp scrambled/jammed you can just run away and those only work at close range. Currently you have to run 2 sensor dampers to put a battleships range under the range of warp disruptor and 3 to get them dampened in stasis web range. What's the use of dampening if you have to sit inside dampening range to keep them there? The stacking shouldn't effect modules if two people are using them so I guess 3 frigates could still lock down a battleship so I guess it's not that bad of a nerf. No more solo blackbirds locking down battleships anymore I guess.
-----------------------------------------
Sig rented by Drethen Nerevitas. |
Bunter
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 22:47:00 -
[86]
I tried to think about these changes on the game overall and came up with these thoughts.
Players of similar skills will be more equalized in combat. Since additional stacking will have a diminishing effect. Players of unequal skills will not be affected too much.
It appears to de-emphasize the importance of the ships with larger number of low slots and favour ships with higher numbers od medium and high slots.
NPC encounters will become a little tougher.
The prior strategies of get in fast kill fast will not work as well if you are fighting multiple NPC's.
..
I'd like to see changes that would encourage more conflict. Have more things to fight over and consume the equipment that we have. That would rejuvenate prices and structure.
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 22:57:00 -
[87]
Um, sorry for semi-offtopic, but what's up with the nerfed CPUs?! With the "new" ones I would need at least 3 photonics.  
|
Dragon Emperor
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 23:01:00 -
[88]
frigates never ever should be able to damp or webifier a bs. that makes no sense. think how strong bs's signal can be and how weak the frigate's signal? how can a frigate damp bs? and webifier? come on, in real, if a frigate tried to web a bs, the only effect will be bs drag the frigate with it.
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 23:17:00 -
[89]
TomB
Quote:
The stacking penality is not working for all modules currently, will need to fix this.
And afterburners and microwarpdrive will probably be removed from the stacking penalities.
I seriously hope this is how it stays TomB.
If anyone would care to take a peek in navigation skills you can see that there are several devoted enirely to AB's. What other module in the game gets the same treatment?
All other modules will retain the bonuses conferred by skills.
Nerfing AB's will hit navigation specialists skill pool quite heavily.
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2003.09.05 23:18:00 -
[90]
The stasis webifier is no tractor beam, it works otherwise, so a frigate can web a bs. And yes, a frigate entirely devoted for this action should be able to sensordamp a bs that has no countermeasures.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |