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)
Bashar	Posted - 2003.09.07 00:20:00 - [151] Edited by: Bashar on 07/09/2003 00:23:36 I also think a falloff effect to tone down stacking should be on all or no items (I would prefer all ;) As for items like afterburners the only reason they would suck so bad after the nerf is that they that have already been heavily nerfed in the past. The base speeds for a top of the line rare like LiF should be bumped back up to a nice high number like it used to be along with the stacking nerf, that way running one or 2 will be faster than current, but running 4 or 5 will be slower. Same goes for any other current items where the stacking falloff would be too hard on the item bonus, just bump up the rares. Another expamle, reactor controls where rares are useless waste of a name currently. Make the best rare 14% instead of 10% but after the stacking nerf 4 of the best rares still experiences heavy falloff. This way you can make arare items actually be better than the stadards without screwing up the game when stacking makes them super powerful. regards, Bashar Miles Teg Shop Smart, Shop BasharMart!
Lurk	Posted - 2003.09.07 00:22:00 - [152] Quote: 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 As even this method seems to have it's flaws i'd suggest Grumpf's method: Quote: 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.
Claren	Posted - 2003.09.07 00:58:00 - [153] I can see the need for an adjustment in stacking. My Blackbird can nerf any battleship harmless. That should not be possible. I am fine with this change, as long as afterburners isn't included. Being a "long range trader" speed is my best defence against NPC pirates at gates. Making 26 jumps would also get rather tiersome at 98 m/s, not taking into account my ship would not survive it. Loosing my ship at every second gate to NPC pirates would also get rather tiresome :-)
Oosel	Posted - 2003.09.07 01:33:00 - [154] callas you will note i said back to the drawing board before you spout forth your holier than thou nonsense......coming from the man who whinges like hell when downtime happens earlier than planned because he cant get his buy orders in ill take ure comment with a pinch of salt
Lake	Posted - 2003.09.07 03:02:00 - [155] For what it's worth: My personal preference would be to go with the 'additive' method in my graphs except for when applying to armor resistance, shield resistance, max target range attributes as there are already diminishing returns for the major modules which apply to them. I suspect there is a 'real world' situation in which you would be penalized for applying another module which would by itself be a bonus, however I haven't yet searched in earnest. If you discover one, I'd love to hear about it so we can shoot the '75% nerf' down before any more effort is put into it. I do believe something needs to be done about extreme stacking, but I do not think the '75% nerf' is a viable solution. I also suspect that no system which relies on any sort of 'ordering' of bonuses will be feasible. Though I won't go into detail on that now. ~Lake Stacking: Graphs and Comments.
Lake	Posted - 2003.09.07 03:41:00 - [156] I'll probably put a graph up later, and I know shield HP isn't on the list to get the 75% nerf, but it does serve to illustrate that this case does infact exist in game. If you equip a MWD on Blackbird your shields go from 900 to 450 (-50% to shield HP). Then equip a Shield Flux Coil I (-15% to shield HP) and see what happens. Multiplicative: 382.5 Additive: 315 75% nerf: 499.22 A shield flux coil, when fitted with a MWD, will improve your shield HP. ~Lake
Frederic Bastiat	Posted - 2003.09.07 03:55:00 - [157] Wow. Great find with the flux coil trick there. That's a great example of why I dislike the idea of adding new rules instead of just adjusting item properties appropriately. The effects are non-intuitive and difficult to predict. As I pointed out earlier, that makes it it very difficult to plan ship loadouts; you've shown that it can also lead to bugs and exploits.
BSOD	Posted - 2003.09.07 04:36:00 - [158] Quote: 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. An excellent point. What people seem to be missing is that with a few exceptions, the current stacking formulas reward specialization. If you kit your ship out to have extreme benefits in one area, you are likely gimping it in others. If stacking is nerfed, we're going to see more "cookie cutter" setups - Rather than player A kitting themselves out for max range, player B for max close-in damage, and player C kitting themselves out for max cap/shield recharge, now all three of players A, B, and C will be kitting themselves out similarly because they can no longer specialize. ---------------- Blue Screen of Death CEO Exodus Enterprises
Rising Sin	Posted - 2003.09.07 04:39:00 - [159] I was under the impression shield hardeners were what was bothering everyone - not the amount of damage people were doing. So now, shield hardeners have been nerfed but possible weapon damage has been as well with the stacking nerf with shield hardeners. Again, I must ask, why nerf stacking? This renders using more than one of the same module useless - if a module combination looks like it makes the ship invincible, nerf the module. 50% too powerful for sensor dampeners? Decrease it or increase cap usage. Sensor dampeners really should be using more cap anyway, especially compared to the harder-to-use sensor jammers. -- "If they're shooting at you, you know you must be doing something right."
Archemedes	Posted - 2003.09.07 04:54:00 - [160] Edited by: Archemedes on 07/09/2003 04:54:25 Quote: I'll probably put a graph up later, and I know shield HP isn't on the list to get the 75% nerf, but it does serve to illustrate that this case does infact exist in game. If you equip a MWD on Blackbird your shields go from 900 to 450 (-50% to shield HP). Then equip a Shield Flux Coil I (-15% to shield HP) and see what happens. Multiplicative: 382.5 Additive: 315 75% nerf: 499.22 A shield flux coil, when fitted with a MWD, will improve your shield HP. ~Lake I thought the idea was to nerf stacking of the same type of module? So if you mount a Shield Flux Coil and an MWD, both operate at 100% because they are different types of modules. Likewise, 1 of each single-resist shield hardener and 1 multispectral hardener should all give their full bonus, because they are all different types of hardener. It's when you mount two Shield Flux Coils, EM Shield Hardeners, Heatsinks, etc... that the diminishing returns kick in. So if you want a low-slot tracking booster and a mid-slot tracking computer, for example, they'll stack multiplicitively just like they do now. 2 mid-slot tracking computers, on the other hand, will not. Under no circumstances should the stacking nerf apply to different types of modules that effect the same value... that would cause a lot of potential for bugs / exploits / general wierdness.
Dragon Emperor	Posted - 2003.09.07 05:08:00 - [161] Quote: I'll probably put a graph up later, and I know shield HP isn't on the list to get the 75% nerf, but it does serve to illustrate that this case does infact exist in game. If you equip a MWD on Blackbird your shields go from 900 to 450 (-50% to shield HP). Then equip a Shield Flux Coil I (-15% to shield HP) and see what happens. Multiplicative: 382.5 Additive: 315 75% nerf: 499.22 A shield flux coil, when fitted with a MWD, will improve your shield HP. ~Lake lake, i'm not sure where's the number come from?
Doc Evil	Posted - 2003.09.07 06:00:00 - [162] 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 Wow, I like this middle road.. Do you happen to have a graph of these 3 varitaions with regards to stamped heat sinks?
Solas	Posted - 2003.09.07 07:04:00 - [163] I donÆt think Amar ships will be as bad off as some of you guys think. There other useful modules to put in low slots than heatsinks. You just have to think outside of the box and capitalize on the strength of Amar ships. If you are running shield hardeners and boosters you are doing yourself a disservice. Throw on some armor plating and energized plating, a heat sink, and whatever else you like. I do it now and yes it does work. It will even be better with this patch because of the improvements to repair systems and the balancing of shields. Have you ever noticed how Amar sounds a lot like armor? Look at the stats and you will see how they are intended to be generally fitted, not with just heatsinks but armor mods too. I run this configuration now and with the patch it ôshouldö work out.
Callas	Posted - 2003.09.07 07:20:00 - [164] Quote: 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. That's the idea. I approve fully. Quote: 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. Frigates and cruisers will never manage to be generic because they simply don't have enough slots. Battleships are supposed to be more capable and that is reflected in the large number of modules they can mount. -- Callas
Callas	Posted - 2003.09.07 07:27:00 - [165] Edited by: Callas on 07/09/2003 07:45:44 Quote: callas you will note i said back to the drawing board before you spout forth your holier than thou nonsense......coming from the man who whinges like hell when downtime happens earlier than planned because he cant get his buy orders in ill take ure comment with a pinch of salt You're saying the game needs to keep stacking because you like having tons of firepower. Unfortunately, stacking sucks - it polarizes module choice and makes combat ridiculous. It's harmful to the game. I was angry at CCP screwing up the downtime messages because it breaks post-reset trading. I lost a lot of money. To be sure, post-reset trading is harmful to the game, and I've made it VERY clear I wish it wasn't there, but it is and until CCP fix it, you have to either do it or you can't make money. My selfishness - my demand CCP get the shutdown messages right - is certainly in my interest but is not in my interest at the expense of the game. I go along with post-reset trading because there is no choice; CCP have backed all traders into a corner. You can't see what you're saying is wrong, which isn't surprising because if you could you wouldn't be wanting to keep module stacking as it is now in the first place. -- Callas
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2003.09.07 07:32:00 - [166] I hate to tell you guys this but frigates and cruisers will never stand up to battleships. There is no twitch factor in this game, at all. Frigates simply can't dodge and weave their way around a battleship, the game simply doesn't allow it. It's like comparing a speedboat with a mounted machine gun to a naval destroyer armed with phalanx guns. You can't win. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Callas	Posted - 2003.09.07 07:34:00 - [167] Edited by: Callas on 07/09/2003 07:47:03 Quote: Again, I must ask, why nerf stacking? This renders using more than one of the same module useless - if a module combination looks like it makes the ship invincible, nerf the module. This approach absolutely does NOT work. What it does is reduce the bonus of a module to the point where a ship which can mount eight of that unit is no longer an uber-ship in combat. This makes the module useless for frigates or cruisers or for people mounting less than eight units. Consider weapon upgrades. Extruded heat sinks - 10% bonus to Rof and Dam each. If you mount eight of those, you get roughly a 4x firepower bonus (e.g. twice as much damage, twice as quickly). Let's say we thought that was too much. What to do? if we nerf the unit, we need to nerf it to the point where say there's only a 2x firepower bonus - something we consider acceptable. Ah - but now anyone with LESS than eight units finds heat sinks pretty much useless. But if you say - "well, lets set up the unit so it's useful for people carrying say four modules worth" then the unit is of course uber-powerful when someone carries eight. Stacking is broken. You cannot make a given unit work properly when one ship carries just one of them and another can carry eight. The fact nerfing for stacking is being introduced now makes this point clear; devs have already taken a bit of a step and realised stacking isn't working. Unfortunately, they've not managed to grasp the fact it will never work. -- Callas
Ana Khouri	Posted - 2003.09.07 07:37:00 - [168] Tell that to a BB who ECM'ed a Dominix. Or a Moa orbiting a Apoc with 400 m/s at 2-3 km while using 2-3 tracking inhibitors on him. In a pure "fair" 1v1 - no, but with dirty tricks - ohhh,yes. free speech not allowed here
Callas	Posted - 2003.09.07 07:39:00 - [169] Quote: I thought the idea was to nerf stacking of the same type of module? [snip] Likewise, 1 of each single-resist shield hardener and 1 multispectral hardener should all give their full bonus, because they are all different types of hardener. It's when you mount two Shield Flux Coils, EM Shield Hardeners, Heatsinks, etc... that the diminishing returns kick in. So if you want a low-slot tracking booster and a mid-slot tracking computer, for example, they'll stack multiplicitively just like they do now. 2 mid-slot tracking computers, on the other hand, will not. I mainly agree but not totally. I view module stacking based on what I think the modules are doing and how they do it, rather than whether or not they're seperate units or if they affect the same attribute. I would consider an overdrive and an afterburner to stack without any nerf, because an overdrive is a permanent boost to engine power through extra capacity whereas an afterburner is a temporary booster through say the future equivelent of a fuel additive. They should work together - in no way does their operation collide. But a multi-spectral hardener and a normal hardener, those I think should collide, since I view the MS hardener as doing exactly what the normal hardener does, except for all damage types. -- Callas
DanTheBanjoman	Posted - 2003.09.07 07:49:00 - [170] Why not have the bonus be added to the base? like base dmg mod is 4Î 20% dmg from lvl 4 skill adds 0.8 a 10% dmg mod would add another .4 instead of 0.48 and any other mods would apply to the base value
Scobichevskaya	Posted - 2003.09.07 11:03:00 - [171] Quote: Why not have the bonus be added to the base? like base dmg mod is 4Î 20% dmg from lvl 4 skill adds 0.8 a 10% dmg mod would add another .4 instead of 0.48 and any other mods would apply to the base value I was thinking of the same thing. Why not just have the damage mods (and possibly other devices) be based off the base value instead of stack? ------------- RUS / RUA RUSSIAN Team
happy	Posted - 2003.09.07 11:23:00 - [172] i realy have no complanted with this as i only use 2 hardners and its not gona afect it much and on the damage modifers all i can say it pass the nerf bat and ill do it my self lol j.k i use 2 and personaly i think more than that is insain now i think the tracking modifers need to be left alone as the tracking speed on hybrids suck a$$ however well see on the next patch i hear there gettign a boost any word on it? oh if you do decide to nerf the speed only nerf mwd stacking as more than one mwd is unnessary at best altho in a indy or a battleship having 2-3 ab on is the only way to make the ship bearable so maby just do a base incress if you do nerf the ships like maby a 25% boost to the raw speed non an or mwd but only on ships bigger than frigs but thats my thoughts If your happy and you know it clap your hands...... and if your not happy and you know it, .....its probaly because i just podded you
j0sephine	Posted - 2003.09.07 11:34:00 - [173] Edited by: j0sephine on 07/09/2003 11:36:44 "There is no twitch factor in this game, at all. Frigates simply can't dodge and weave their way around a battleship, the game simply doesn't allow it." ... You can orbit a large ship manually with a bit of practice; 'tis requires quite a bit of fast and precise clicking (more of twitch factor than in some FPP games afaict) but the benefit is, you move at nearly max speed while doing so. The frigate circling at 800+ m/s is impossible to hit by anything but the small guns and smartbombs. :s ... The real problem is getting within that range rather than effectively dodge once you're close... :s
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2003.09.07 11:37:00 - [174] Quote: "There is no twitch factor in this game, at all. Frigates simply can't dodge and weave their way around a battleship, the game simply doesn't allow it." ... You can orbit a large ship manually with a bit of practice; this requires quite a bit of fast clicking (more of twitch factor than in some FPP games afaict) but the benefit is, you move nearly at your max speed while doing so. The frigate circling at 800+ m/s is impossible to hit by anything but the small guns and smartbombs. :s ... The real problem is getting within that range rather than effectively dodge once you're close... :s Webifier stops that crap right away, or a missle. Frigates just can't compete.. cept perhaps Kestrels shooting missles far enough way while the ship you are attacking is sensor dampened and can't fight back.. works on Chaos atleast.. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
j0sephine	Posted - 2003.09.07 11:38:00 - [175] "Webifier stops that crap right away, or a missle." ... Spoilsport. :P but then the ECM stops both of those so what's the point, again?..
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2003.09.07 11:43:00 - [176] Quote: "Webifier stops that crap right away, or a missle." ... Spoilsport. :P but then the ECM stops both of those so what's the point, again?.. ECCM. =] ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
j0sephine	Posted - 2003.09.07 11:52:00 - [177] "ECCM. =]" Mhmm am not too familiar with those but they seemed rather weak; how many ECCM modules would you need to put on your ship to counter 3 or 4 type-specific ECM modules? And how many people do put that many on? =)
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2003.09.07 11:59:00 - [178] Quote: "ECCM. =]" Mhmm am not too familiar with those but they seemed rather weak; how many ECCM modules would you need to put on your ship to counter 3 or 4 type-specific ECM modules? And how many people do put that many on? =) 4 ECM Modules is -24.. probably too much for any ship to realistically overcome.. running four of those would mean having to have predetermined knowledge of what kind of ship you faced, and would be pretty useless in a larger fleet battle because you'd probably face a variety of ships. Medium slot ECCM are +3 sensors they use very little cap, low slots are +1 and use no cap and are always active, people say there are +2 modules, but I personally have never come across one. Overall ECM is pretty ineffective, multispectral is probably the way to go. Not a lot of people run ECCM though, so it's a toss up, sometimes it works, sometimes, it don't. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
j0sephine	Posted - 2003.09.07 12:14:00 - [179] "4 ECM Modules is -24.. probably too much for any ship to realistically overcome.. running four of those would mean having to have predetermined knowledge of what kind of ship you faced, and would be pretty useless in a larger fleet battle because you'd probably face a variety of ships." True; but then if it's conflict of larger fleets you could probably have your own ships configured for different jamming types, to pick and lock down the enemy units they're 'compatible' with. (granted, it'd require some good knowledge of what you're going to face, but anyone going to battle without such knowledge deserves what they get, non? ;) ... oh well, 'tis boils down again to the usual rock-paper-scissors game, with the battleships being a really big rock that requires quite a bit of paper to wrap it. :s
Bushido	Posted - 2003.09.07 12:36:00 - [180] Edited by: Bushido on 07/09/2003 13:21:58 Train is loosing binary. I have engeneering degree and i follow all your graph end formulas and enjoy myself with them. My little sister is 17 years old and want play eve. Should she rich a degree before ? Newb players will put items and will wait the result like a lottery. Live it so that is just hard to understand. People that can't understand a logarithmic graph will leave game. Specialization will be lost, too. I don't know why i will not be able to fly with a ship fitted for long range combat or whatever i will want that day, and i will obliged to make the usual vegetable soup of items. Nerf exploits with a CAP example: 15% < stat XX < 85% it will solve the problem of different items that upgrade same stat, too. And it is easy to explain. Bushido

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.