EVE Search - Target Painters part II : Reloaded

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Target Painters part II : Reloaded

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.10.25 17:14:00 - [1]
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.10.25 17:59:00 - [2] Originally by: Kaylana Syi What your saying is that it should become a remote damage modifier for all weapon systems. I kinda like the idea but I also fly huginns and rapiers ^^ Well....Minmatar are supposed to be about doing alot of damage so that seemed appropriate to me ;)
Max Hardcase Art of War	Posted - 2006.10.25 23:31:00 - [3] As to my idea, just about everything in the game gets a stacking penalty so so should TP. My Bellicose example with 2x TP assumes 80% effectiveness for the 2nd TP (which is very close to the stacking formula). Calculation of the new resists is pretty easy actually say the numbers come up for 5% reduction of resists. Old resist = 0.60 New resist = ((100-5)/100)*0.60 = 0.57
Max Hardcase Art of War	Posted - 2006.10.26 00:02:00 - [4] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 26/10/2006 00:03:19 Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: Max Hardcase As to my idea, just about everything in the game gets a stacking penalty so so should TP. My Bellicose example with 2x TP assumes 80% effectiveness for the 2nd TP (which is very close to the stacking formula). Calculation of the new resists is pretty easy actually say the numbers come up for 5% reduction of resists. Old resist = 0.60 New resist = ((100-5)/100)*0.60 = 0.57 a 3% drop is crap, it needs to be higher Thats 3% absolute for a crappy T1 TP with max skills. Keep in mind it applies to everyone that shoots at that target. I do not think we want a repeat of the "everyone bring a Multi II scenario" again. You want bigger effect ? Point more TP at the target or bring a dedicated TP ship. Sigil with 2 TP I's = 11.25% reduction or 0.6 > 0.5325 Sigil with 2 TP II's = 14.06% reduction or 0.6 > 0.5156 Pretty effective I think.
Max Hardcase Art of War	Posted - 2006.10.26 00:20:00 - [5] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 26/10/2006 00:24:56 Originally by: Reatu Krentor Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 26/10/2006 00:07:47 Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: Max Hardcase a 3% drop is crap, it needs to be higher That is a 5% increase to damage taken, on a 0.0 resist it would end up as -5% resist. And Max is not including signature focusing skill right now, nor bellicose(and offshoots)'s bonus. edit: I looked at OP and saw T2 TP as 5% so I assumed you used that With just skill it becomes 6.25% increase and with bellicose bonus on top it goes up to 8.59% damage increase per painter. 2 maxed belli painters is something like a 16.71% increase to damage inflicted. I rather think his suggested amount is pretty decent, not too strong but not weak either. The 5% figure is the T1 crappy TP with max skills ( so 4% >5% ) Thats the effect it would have on any ship that doesnt have TP% bonus. Vigil gets a 5%/lvl bonus and Bellicose gets 7.5%/lvl. a Tech2 TP would be 5%*1.25 = 6.25% as you said. Effects of the relevant ship skills on target painters is calculated in my first post. To the people who like the sig radius effect as it is, we could fabricate a different EW modules that also falls under TP bonus for certain min ships ( ans skills). ( Its probably missile users that like the old effect ). Gives you a little more choice as to what you want.
Max Hardcase Art of War	Posted - 2006.10.26 06:58:00 - [6] The only way to increase the current TP's effect on smaller ships for turrets is to greatly increase the sig radius boosting effect. But that still gives missiles an even greater boost. The problem is that close up with big guns vs small targets the sig radius only plays a minor part of the to-hit probability since big guns have abysmal tracking to begin with.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.27 06:27:00 - [7] Originally by: Weirda Originally by: Tyler Lowe I like the idea very much, and I don't think your original numbers were all that low tbh. People are quick to point out that a single damage mod grants a higher dps increase, but they are much less quick to point out that this is another stacking non-penalized boost on top of those mods. You'd have to tread carefully when attempting to arrive at the final figures for such a module, but this would be anything but the ho-hum module it is now. Being target painted should be dreaded, in the same way being damped or disrupted is. The concept is outstanding. couldn't have said it better! great idea! what would happen to unresisted EM on a shield though for example? Negative value not possible are they? Used a substraction so the people easily see what kind a difference it makes. Substracting x% is the same as multiplying by (100-x)/100. Thats how the game would calculate it. Since you multiply a discrete number by 0 ( EM shield resist, base anyway) you still get 0. Wouldnt have any effect on the EM part of damage in this case.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.27 14:42:00 - [8] The idea is that it gives you information about the harmonics of the enemies shields / armor+hull integrityu fields, thus allowing you to adjust your fire to coincide with the natural lows.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:55:00 - [9] Originally by: VekkTor very very smart idea, this is the first thread i ever read which is clean of whines what do u think about a multispec TP and resistance specs TPs like em TP, kin TP etc? the idea is a painter which is simply designed to analyze and point at the specific weak spots of the ship, getting the weakest spot in the armor (em res reduction), or in the shield (kinetic res reduction) this should make the idea of specialized TPs still being working on all races I could see specialised TP's via the fluffmechanics ( in my TP scheme ) that work best on either shields or armour, but I think its too specific and doesn't fit the "get a bigger hammer" Minmatar style. Generally resists are pretty even when tanked since people like to fill in the obvious resist holes. Don't think its really needed TBQH.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.27 19:40:00 - [10] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 27/10/2006 19:40:11 Originally by: Polinus The best thing is that TP would be usefull against soemthing else than interceptors. Imagine the fear ona BS pilot when 4 Bellicose warp in and lock 2 TP each on it... huhu aa single BC would be able to finish him. Not really ; Bellicose 3 and 4 would be heavily stacking nerfed. TP 4 on Bellicose #2 is already operating ~20% of max effectiveness. You'd be better of bringing another ship type.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.28 06:47:00 - [11] T1 TP is now : opt 25km ; 50 km falloff. I see no reason to change the ranges.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.29 12:21:00 - [12] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 29/10/2006 12:21:59 Some slightly lower numbers now. Ship bonus (lvl 5) Base%1.25x5%7.50% T133.754.695.16 T245.006.256.88 Base effect2nd TP3rd TP4th TP 3.75 6.75 8.63 9.38 5.00 9.0011.5012.50 4.69 8.4410.7811.72 6.25 11.2514.3815.63 5.16 9.2811.8612.89 6.88 12.3815.8117.19 Stacking calculated as : 2nd 80% 3rd 50% 4th 20%
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.29 12:51:00 - [13] Ship bonus Base%Max skills5%7.50% T133.754.695.16 T245.006.256.88 Base effect2nd TP3rd TP4th TP 3.757.019.1510.20 5.009.3512.2013.60 4.698.7711.4412.75 6.2511.6915.2517.00 5.169.6412.5814.03 6.8812.8616.7818.70 Recalculated the effects with your stacking numbers I reran my old proposal with the 4% base T1 and thought it might be a tad too good with multiple ships using TP and that was with my too extreme effects of stacking penalty. I like these numbers. The reason why the resists are added to as they are while increasing resists, is because if you just kept adding a % of base you can eventually get over 100% resist. There is no such problem when reducing resists, plus it my numbers are also the extra % damage the target would take.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.30 07:21:00 - [14] Originally by: Reatu Krentor Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 29/10/2006 13:23:19 Originally by: Max Hardcase Recalculated the effects with your stacking numbers I reran my old proposal with the 4% base T1 and thought it might be a tad too good with multiple ships using TP and that was with my too extreme effects of stacking penalty. I like these numbers. The reason why the resists are added to as they are while increasing resists, is because if you just kept adding a % of base you can eventually get over 100% resist. There is no such problem when reducing resists, plus it my numbers are also the extra % damage the target would take. I'll assume then you would reduce the resists rather then the unresisted? Well there is a problem then. The %-age extra damage wouldn't be obvious from the numbers on the TP's. The higher the resist the higher the damage %-age increase would be. For example, Assume a TP that does 10% resist decrease. lets take one resist as 0, one as 50 and one as 90 If you would reduce the resist with 10% you'd get: 0 * 0.9 = 0% (or 1.0 / 1.0 = 0% increased damage) 50 * 0.9 = 45%(or 0.55 / 0.5 = 10% increased damage) 90 * 0.9 = 81%(or 0.19 / 0.1 = 90% increased damage) See the problem? Now let's use the current resist formula but instead of reducing unresisted damage we increase it with 10%, you would get: (1.0) * 1.1 = -10% (or 1.1 / 1.0 = 10% increased damage) (0.5) * 1.1 = 45% (or 0.55 / 0.5 = 10% increased damage) (0.1) * 1.1 = 89% (or 0.11 / 0.1 = 10% increased damage) See the difference? That's main reason why I think just using the same formula would make most sense and wouldn't make the TP's too powerfull. edit: didn't change numbers back to resist percentages on second list You are right, in that case however I'd think my original numbers would be better.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.30 11:44:00 - [15] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 30/10/2006 11:47:27 Edited by: Max Hardcase on 30/10/2006 11:46:36 5'th TP effect is about 10%. I already made a bunch of calculations for stacking effects. Ships have nothing to do stacking its the number of similar effects on the target. The only T1 ships that get a bonus to TP's have 3 and 4 slots respectively.
Max Hardcase Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.30 23:07:00 - [16] EVE is not a red vs blue game.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.06.11 13:38:00 - [17] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 11/06/2007 13:37:41 Too high? I doubt that, a fully spec'd bellicose is needed with 3 TP's to give as much (base) negative effect as an EAN I will compensate. Also my intended idea was to provide this as a seperate module type under the TP category, a little bit of choice for minnie EW wouldnt be bad, a much neglected part of EW for too long.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.06.11 20:29:00 - [18] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 11/06/2007 20:32:55 Originally by: Gawain Hill <snip> if you have a 69% resist using the example you gave Quote: Effect of a bellicose TPing you : Assuming : AB/MWD; Sensor booster ; 2x T2 TP and 80% effectiveness of second TP(stacking pen). -15.47% resists. 10.6743 yoru new resist would be 58.3257 orig damage recived 31 new damage recived 41.some now that's a full third more damage or 33.3333333333333333333333333333% or about 3 damage mods without a stacking mod <snip> p.s. my maths might be a bit off A bit ? Try a couple of miles 15.47% of 31% is : 4.8% So say 64% resists left 31 damage > 36 damage. Which is ~16% more. I've stated my reasons for my proposal b4. - Missiles and guns benefit equally from them - Fits the idea of high damage, get in, blown em up and get out fast, minnie style. - Equally usefull at all ranges - Adds another option for minnie EW - Effects are much clearer for users

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.