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)
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.25 18:22:00 - [1] interesting idea. Makes target painters an interesting module, perfect for hit and run tactics. Paint the target, do your omgbbq damage and get the heck out. Just one thing. Might have to tweak the bonus you calced. Because of the way resists work. Like a 20% resist actually means a 20% reduction of the damage that is going through or iow 80%(0.8) of the damage goes through and then adding 25% resist results in 60%(0.75(-25% mod) * 0.8) going through or 40% resist. But now turn that around, increasing the damage going through actually mean increasing the value, so a 25% resist reduction means increases the damage by 25%(1.25), on a 20% resist(0.8) that results in (1.25 * 0.8) 0% resist. Err.. way too much text to get some kind of point across . Well what I'm trying to say is, think in amount of damage going through rather then what is resisted, as that is how it works. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.25 23:29:00 - [2] Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 25/10/2006 23:31:54 Originally by: Leandro Salazar Problem with this is that it makes it even easier for smaller ships to pwn larger ones, while at the same time taking away one of the remaining tools for larger ones to pwn smaller ships. As a new module this might be good. Heck it could be the missing beneficial property of ECCM. But to replace painters? Thats just another disguised battleship nerf. There is a reason why all battleships have a drone bay, just a thought...(that and I guess battleships aren't meant to be able to solo everything) The suggested painters would seperate the classes a bit more that's true, it wouldn't make it easier for a bs to shoot a smaller ship class anymore but is that really needed? Also like suggested in OP, could keep a smaller sig radius increase present on the module. Other solution to make target painters more worthwhile would be to increase the sig increase, but it was higher once and was nerfed for being too strong. Although the game was different back then, so maybe can be looked into(I like the OP idea more though ) The offensive use of target painters is low currently, it increases damage up to a point(missiles untill sig radius >= explosion radius, turrets by improving hit chances). Changing it to actualy penalize the target ship by lowering the resist would increase damage and result in stronger offense(which is the current goal of target painters but doesn't really succeed). Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.25 23:39:00 - [3] 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 Wouldn't it be easier to just use the current calc for resists just with a positive increase? like this: Old resist = 0.60 New resist = ((0.6 - 1.0) ((100+5)/100)) + 1 = 0.58 it's the same formula for current resists, just the other way. +25% resist on 60% resist would be: ((0.6 - 1.0) * ((100-25)/100)) + 1 = 70% Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.26 00:06:00 - [4] 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. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.26 01:27:00 - [5] Originally by: Max Hardcase Originally by: Reatu Krentor ... 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 ( and skills) that does my proposed resistance "damage" effect. ( Its probably missile users that like the old effect ). Gives you a little more choice as to what you want. heh so you decide to quote me to correct me on something I already made clear I had misinterpreted, that's weak dude. I'd rather have had a response on this calculation for the target painter effect then on some misinterpreted numbers. As said in the post, it's exactly the same formula for resist modules just different value (increasing unresisted damage rather then decreasing it). Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.26 01:31:00 - [6] Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 26/10/2006 01:00:34 Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 26/10/2006 01:00:11 Originally by: Scordite On a side note, fixing target painters will cause, you guessed it, amarr whines. Tracking disrupters are effective at what they do, but if target painters were changed this way, tracking disrupters would be the only situational EW type left (only useful against turret boats). Every other EW type would have some beneficial effect no matter what ship you're in and what ship you fight. On top of that, resist reduction, people will say, hits the tanking race the hardest. It's getting rather far afield, but I'd support TDs having a negative explosion velocity effect. Or have 3 weapon disruptors, 1 specifically for launchers, 1 for turrets and 1 allpurpose(like multi ecm). Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.26 10:37:00 - [7] Originally by: Theron Gyrow Whoa, what a nerf to T2 ships (and their resistances) this would be... 50% resistance drops to 45% resistance => target takes 10% more damage. 90% resistance drops to 81% resistance => target takes 90% more damage. Back to drawing board, I'm afraid. Read about how resists work(and how by extension the suggested TP would work imo) in this very thread. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.27 08:45:00 - [8] Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 27/10/2006 08:48:31 Originally by: Max Hardcase Originally by: Weirda Originally by: Tyler Lowe ... 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. >_< resists don't work like that. I put it in this very thread how they do work. I also don't see a reason why you would calculate the resists any different for these target painters. Anyway to repeat myself(again). The resist bonus from modules are applied to the damage that is unresisted, rather then the resisted damage. For EM resist of 0% IOW the resist bonus from modules is substracted from the unresisted amount which is 100%(1.0). So if you have a 20% bonus it would be: 1.0 * (1 - 0.2) = 0.8(80% unresisted -> 20% resist). You can just use the exact same math for these painters just add the percentage instead of substracting. Suppose a 5% reduction on same resist: 1.0 * (1 + 0.05) = 1.05(105% unresisted -> -5% resist). If anyone thinks that is overpowered, it's not. Consider this, a 25% resist bonus(25% reduction of unresisted part remember) would need a 33.33% resist reduction(33.33% bonus to unresisted part) to be negated. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:08:00 - [9] Originally by: Glarion Garnier I dont like this idea. Even if the effect was limited to the user of the module even then it might be too powerfull effect. Getting uber resistances on a hac / command ships costs a fortune. Now you want cheap no cost solution to reduce that effect. And first of all this effect affects shield tankers most. I personally do it all shields and armor tanking. + there is no logic supporting how it would be possible (even tho you will say so are many things in this game) Perhaps boost the target painters differenltly like increased targetting range for the whole gangn 5% per painter and only 3 effects can be active per gang. after all the target is now lid so the computers are able to calculate bit further. Don't really see how a 5% increase to dps would be too powerfull(suggested numbers for a T1 painter with maxed painter bonus skill). 1 damage mod is 1.1 / 0.895 = 1.229 -> 22.9% increase to dps, 1 painter is 5% on a non-dedicated ship. If you use the the same formula for the target painters as for resist mods the effect is lower the higher the resists are, where a 10% resist becomes 5.5%, a 90% resist becomes 89.5%, yet on both resists the dps was increased by 5%. Really can't see how this could be considered overpowered. And on top of that it would fit nicely into minmatar combat style. Instead of preventing damage to your own gang you improve your gang's damage. I'm curious to know how this would affect shield tankers more. Logic would tell me it would affect both the same amount. could explain it, the painter lights up the target and everyone can get a better scan from the target and have an easier time finding the weak spots resulting in more damage being done. They can't make it so that one target can be targeted from farther away but no other can, afaik. If you make it for all targets then you tread on ground that would rather be reserved for gang and gang warfare links imo. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.29 12:36:00 - [10] Originally by: Max Hardcase 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 Why lower the numbers? the 4% for T1(5% with sig focusing skill 5, 5.5% with vigil, 6.875% bellicose) and 5%(6.25%; 7.8125%; 8.59375%) for T2 looked pretty good. It depends on how you apply it to the resists though. What did you have in mind? I'd figure just using the current resist formula would make most sense. Originally by: Max Hardcase Stacking calculated as : 2nd 80% 3rd 50% 4th 20% Stacking penalty multipliers are closer to 1: 1x 2: 0.87x 3: 0.57x 4: 0.28x 5: 0.1x Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.29 13:20:00 - [11] 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 Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug

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.