| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Headd
   |
Posted - 2003.09.06 14:55:00 -
[121]
Am I missing something though? If you put 1 module that has +10% (1.10 multiplier) alongside with 3 modules that give you +1% (1.01 multiplier), wouldn't the end result be smaller than if you only had the 10% one?
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 15:49:00 -
[122]
 Quote:
Am I missing something though? If you put 1 module that has +10% (1.10 multiplier) alongside with 3 modules that give you +1% (1.01 multiplier), wouldn't the end result be smaller than if you only had the 10% one?
Well you are right, you'd had an Multiplier of 1.0688 ...
|
Iminay
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 16:01:00 -
[123]
looking at this stacking multiple tech 2 modules wont get you any much further then stacking multiple tech 1 modules.
In other words,
tech 2 has recieved a nerf withouth it even being implemented yet (now thats some l33t nerfing sk1llz there  )
____________________________________________________________
Subscription Status: Active
Cancellation
Pending
Expires: 30. September 2003
|
Callas
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 17:00:00 -
[124]
Quote:
Thanks for your feedback Lurk, we will lessen the effect of stacking penality, I will post any changes when they happen.
Oh no no no - WRONG WRONG WRONG!
--
Callas
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 17:24:00 -
[125]
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks for your feedback Lurk, we will lessen the effect of stacking penality, I will post any changes when they happen.
Oh no no no - WRONG WRONG WRONG!
--
Callas
Well you can't tell me that you are satisfied with the current stacking penalty. It's weakness is so obvious, just look at the post above ...
|
Callas
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 18:35:00 -
[126]
Quote:
Well you can't tell me that you are satisfied with the current stacking penalty. It's weakness is so obvious, just look at the post above ...
I'm upset that stacking exists at *all*.
I was happy to see it being nerfed, then TomB posted saying "ah, we won't nerf it so badly".
That, for me, is getting further away from the ideal of no stacking.
I'm not that concerned about the particular nerf implimentation, because I think stacking of any sort for most modules is wrong; the nerf implimentation is just a lesser degree of wrongness.
--
Callas
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 18:36:00 -
[127]
Quote:
Am I missing something though? If you put 1 module that has +10% (1.10 multiplier) alongside with 3 modules that give you +1% (1.01 multiplier), wouldn't the end result be smaller than if you only had the 10% one?
That's true, we won't let any outcome of modifiers go below the minimum possibility of the highest modifying module.
"Where is my hat?" |
Dragon Emperor
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 18:37:00 -
[128]
Quote:
Quote:
Am I missing something though? If you put 1 module that has +10% (1.10 multiplier) alongside with 3 modules that give you +1% (1.01 multiplier), wouldn't the end result be smaller than if you only had the 10% one?
Well you are right, you'd had an Multiplier of 1.0688 ...
I don't think different value modual will count at same time, that makes no sense, which X will apply? I believe that'll be 1.10*(1.01^(1/sqrt(3)))^3
|
Dragon Emperor
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 18:39:00 -
[129]
Quote:
Quote:
Am I missing something though? If you put 1 module that has +10% (1.10 multiplier) alongside with 3 modules that give you +1% (1.01 multiplier), wouldn't the end result be smaller than if you only had the 10% one?
That's true, we won't let any outcome of modifiers go below the minimum possibility of the highest modifying module.
I'm confused, you said "that's true", so the end result is lower than only one 1.10x modual, then you said "we won't let any outcome of modifiers go below the minimum possibility of the highest modifying module.", so the end result should be higher than 1.10???
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 18:39:00 -
[130]
Quote:
I'm not that concerned about the particular nerf implimentation, because I think stacking of any sort for most modules is wrong; the nerf implimentation is just a lesser degree of wrongness.
People should be able to specialize their ships for some kind of action by stacking modules, but it's not suposed to be as powerful as it is currently.
"Where is my hat?" |
Lurk
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 18:53:00 -
[131]
Quote:
I'm confused, you said "that's true", so the end result is lower than only one 1.10x modual, then you said "we won't let any outcome of modifiers go below the minimum possibility of the highest modifying module.", so the end result should be higher than 1.10???
He means that in the case the outcoming modifier is lower than the one of one module, there will beno stacking at all. So in the case with those 1.01 stabs and one 1.1 the outcoming mod would be 1.1 just like there weren't any other stabs.
|
Lake
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 19:10:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Lake on 06/09/2003 20:35:22
Rescinded. |
Missa
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 19:30:00 -
[133]
Quote:
People should be able to specialize their ships for some kind of action by stacking modules, but it's not suposed to be as powerful as it is currently.
Yes, I believe this as well. Call me obsessive, but I actually thought about this for several hours while I was laying in bed. I was thinking about my current ship layout and what it would have to be to work with the current stacking change. The conclusion I keep comming back to is that there has to be a way to allow for _some_ specialization. I don't know if it is a middle ground math equation from what is currently on Tranquility and the new one you have made. Or if it is my origional ideal to allow 2 of the same mod without penalty, but a penalty on 3 or more. There has to be some way to make it work and balance though.
All I ask is that you don't let the current stacking re-balance to go live. Please.
Thank you,
--Missa
New Siggy to Come Soon(tm) |
Halo Jones
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 20:56:00 -
[134]
Quote:
Quote:
Am I missing something though? If you put 1 module that has +10% (1.10 multiplier) alongside with 3 modules that give you +1% (1.01 multiplier), wouldn't the end result be smaller than if you only had the 10% one?
That's true, we won't let any outcome of modifiers go below the minimum possibility of the highest modifying module.
Hmm, perhaps if modules are linked so that similar modules apply to the same formula. Bascially the current equipemtn setup with these changes makes no senc,e even if u say u won't let it drop beyond they minimum values for the best piece of kit. That making the coding considerably more complex than necessary.
At this rate a single tech lvl2 modules will be better than 8 slots of the best lvl stacked. Perhaps this is what u meant, if it is let us know, so we can exclude purchasing multiple modules for lots of money because they are worth it now, yet your 'ingame improvements' ruins out efforts with a single patch.
Any chance of fixing some bugs before u play with stuff that works.....
like corp wars, that oddly u were unaware of until last week, yet it was pasted form week2 onwards
Oberon Incorporated. |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 20:59:00 -
[135]
Edited by: TomB on 06/09/2003 21:02:05
Thread starting post has been edited with very simple possible solution:
Stacking of modules affecting the same attribute listed above will nerf all these modules to 75% effiency, here are two graphs for examples (Since they are the spice of knowledge):
Damage Modifiers
Shield Hardeners
Hurry up and post your comments here 
"Where is my hat?" |
Caillech
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 21:09:00 -
[136]
that sounds superduper :) wohoho a toast for TomB :p
--------
Caillech
Director of Sexual Healing
2003.08.22 16:18:53 -----
Your 1200mm Artillery Cannon I perfectly strikes Small Secure Container, wrecking for 1102.9 damage
|
Callas
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 21:17:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Callas on 06/09/2003 21:21:54
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not that concerned about the particular nerf implimentation, because I think stacking of any sort for most modules is wrong; the nerf implimentation is just a lesser degree of wrongness.
People should be able to specialize their ships for some kind of action by stacking modules, but it's not suposed to be as powerful as it is currently.
My view is that the very USE of modules is specialization.
Ships are in their base state general purpose; non-specalized. Ships can do most things without any additional modules.
Module slots exist in a ship to allow specialization; a player chosen emphasis on certain of the capabilities of the ship.
So if I want a combat ship, I plug in a weapon upgrade.
If I want a long range combat platform, I plug in a tracking enhancer.
If I want a ship resistive to EW, I plug in a sensor booster.
The very act of deciding to fit a given module *is specialization*.
*Excessive* specialization - stacking - takes the concept too far and polarises the game. The very fact nerfs for stacking are being introduced now highlights this issue.
I think you're trying to fix something which is inherently broken.
Stacking should be considered harmful.
--
Callas
|
Frederic Bastiat
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 21:18:00 -
[138]
I still think that just making the fitting requirements for mods higher would make the problem self-correcting without any complex formulas. I also understand the concern about tweaking fittings taking longer. My concern is the long-term stability of all of these little rules that keep getting added to the system.
When you start piling on all of these little rules about how requirements and bonuses change in all of these different situations, you get a very brittle, house-of-cards sort of system. It can't easily adapt to new items, and any change brings the whole thing down. I worry that it's going to look a lot like the tax code, and figuring out the requirements and effects of a given ship loadout will take a form that looks a lot like tax forms. It really seems like you should be able to figure out how a loadout will perform with a four-function calculator and a blank sheet of paper.
All of that said, this is much better than the original, sucky formula.  I would still prefer that it either be left the way that it is currently or the mod attributes be revisited.
|
Callas
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 21:21:00 -
[139]
Quote:
My concern is the long-term stability of all of these little rules that keep getting added to the system.
Amen to that.
Quote:
When you start piling on all of these little rules about how requirements and bonuses change in all of these different situations, you get a very brittle, house-of-cards sort of system. It can't easily adapt to new items, and any change brings the whole thing down. I worry that it's going to look a lot like the tax code [snip]
And amen to that.
Eve is already rather like this, I think because it's a complex game. When devs introduce changes into the game they almost invariably have unforseen side-effects, which are sometimes of greater or much greater significance that the attempted change itself.
This is an age old issue though. The unpredictability of complex systems has been known for a long, long time.
--
Callas
|
Grumpf
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 21:28:00 -
[140]
How about this:
You have some items built in that give the same bonus. I look at them ordered by the effectivity descending
- The "best item" for the certain attribute always gives full bonus.
- any additional item gets its attributes lowered by dividing it.
Possible ways:
n-th best item is divided by n
Example:
3 9% damage mods:
First mod gives 9%=9%/1
second gives 4.5%=9%/2 on top of the 9%
third gives 3%=9%/3 on top of 9% and 4.5%
or
n-th best item is divided by sqrt(n)
Example:
3 9% damage mods:
First mod gives 9%=9%/1
second gives 6.3%=9%/sqrt(2) on top of the 9%
third gives 5,1%=9%/sqrt(3) on top of 9% and 4.5%
By doing this you can avoid that you combine good and bad items and get a worse result than only using the better one.
|
Daan
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 21:30:00 -
[141]
*hands TomB a blue pill..
|
Dragon Emperor
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 21:32:00 -
[142]
Quote:
Edited by: TomB on 06/09/2003 21:02:05
Thread starting post has been edited with very simple possible solution:
Stacking of modules affecting the same attribute listed above will nerf all these modules to 75% effiency, here are two graphs for examples (Since they are the spice of knowledge):
Damage Modifiers
Shield Hardeners
Hurry up and post your comments here
actually i feel it's good, give me a good reason to use other moduals
|
Oosel
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 22:22:00 -
[143]
 just as i get my hands on my 7th extruded heat sink for my arma to be able to deal damage i now find i may as well throw them in the bin along with my stamped heat sinks......ah well back to the drawing board i may as well have just gone for a scorp in the first place for all the use an arma is going to be now or my apoc for that matter
|
Korben Dallas
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 22:23:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Korben Dallas on 06/09/2003 22:31:31
i agree there needs to be a reduction of some sort in the stacking of modules i.e to prevent invunerability using hardners, however i think this is going to overall more adversly affect amarr ships as they are based around low slot modules i.e. damage mods.. PLUS the lasers are getting a good nerfing so amarr ships are getting a bit of a double whammy..
I think a better/additional solution to the hardners is to increase their energy per sec useage as well as doin some kinda % nerf but maybe not as much.
the raven needs boosting as does the other minmatar ship which i think is due in the next patch.
i still think the scopion is still by far the best ship to have as even with the nerf it can still run 7 (to be 40%) hardners and a shield booster and as they dont use that much energy it wil be able to sustain this
although i havent got the patience or inclination to try on chaos to see the full extent of balancing.... by nerfing one thing people will just find some other combo of modules that works well... ]YES there needs to be balancing but id rather see lots of smaller tweaks instead of big swings of the nerf bat...
i think this has alot to do w tech 2/3/4 items... basically tech 1 will get nerfed to sh*te and then tech 2 will come along probably not as good as tech 1 is now... whoop de doo :)
p.s. excuse my grammar/spelling as its late and im off to bed..
Aikon-Systems
|
Callas
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 22:47:00 -
[145]
Quote:
just as i get my hands on my 7th extruded heat sink for my arma to be able to deal damage i now find i may as well throw them in the bin along with my stamped heat sinks......ah well back to the drawing board i may as well have just gone for a scorp in the first place for all the use an arma is going to be now or my apoc for that matter
Tough. Don't be so selfish. What's good for you isn't good for the game.
--
Callas
|
Mynobe Soletae
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 23:06:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Mynobe Soletae on 06/09/2003 23:14:23
How about adding a new field to all modules, called "Interface" or something, that does the following:
- if the module is the only one of its kind mounted, it gives its full bonuses.
- if there are other modules of the same type, the bonus is modified by its "interface" value, using whatever exponential, sqrt, or other function you want.
Personally I like the 2/3 one, but this way you could tailor each item separately, not have to rebalance when you add new items, and you can create items that are designed to function alone (cause if you put 2 in, it's worse than having just one). |
Lake
|
Posted - 2003.09.06 23:16:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Lake on 07/09/2003 00:02:15
Edited by: Lake on 06/09/2003 23:51:47
Edited by: Lake on 06/09/2003 23:33:08
Updated graphs and notes regarding the new candidate. The original candidate is removed.
Graphs and Comments
Updated with an "Unusual case" which could cause problems if 75% nerf is used.
Heavily updated with notes for each graph.
~Lake |
TheZapper
|
Posted - 2003.09.07 00:01:00 -
[148]
Concern on the nerfing of AB's (which were already nerf'd coming out of warp!):
If speed is reduced to the point you mentioned, I believe it will be more profitable to 'mine' (in a high sec system) than trade.
My average trade run is 12-24 jumps for 500-1M isk... One way I use cargo expanders and 4x AB for maximum speed, on the return trip use AB's..still usually takes 45min to 1Hr complete.
I'd feel better about Nerfing of AB if "Warp" drive speed was increased to 3-4 AU/sec and the 'accelration / decelleration to warp speed' (currently at 2au/sec')was signifficantly faster..this would reduce 'total' travel time and offset the nerf bat on AB's...
Please consider...Travel within EVE is boring enough..don't slow it down!
|
Ends
|
Posted - 2003.09.07 00:02:00 -
[149]
This patch between the thacyon nerfs and stacking mod nerfs are really going to hammer ammar ship users.
|
Rising Sin
|
Posted - 2003.09.07 00:12:00 -
[150]
Bah, just when I thought things were starting to look balanced on Chaos, the nerfs started pouring down like cats and dogs. Leave stacking the way it was, it was working OK. This is basically forcing people into trying not to rely on one module.
This is going to kill fleet tactics because it will be much harder to have specialized ship. With hardeners at 50%, they were nerfed to the point of perfection. If there were other invincible setups (ie crazy armor setups), they could be nerfed. Instead, now, I'm going to command a fleet of generic ships.
--
"If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right." |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |