| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| 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]
|
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
The Nest
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 17:52:00 -
[2]
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 ^^
Team Minmatar
Carriers need Clone Vats
|
Master OlavPancrazio
Einherjar Rising
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 17:56:00 -
[3]
Wow, totally interesting idea. I have nothing at all to say negatively about it.
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 17:59:00 -
[4]
 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 ;)
|
Tiuwaz
Minmatar
Omacron Militia
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:00:00 -
[5]
me likey
Originally by: Oveur
This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
|
CptEagle
Gallente
Stargate Command...
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:01:00 -
[6]
Hmm I dunno, very interesting, but I don't really like the idea of a ship with dmg mods in low AND med slots.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:18:00 -
[7]
Signature radius is also directly linked to how easy someone is to hit and hurt. Just works slightly differently to resists.
|
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
The Nest
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:18:00 -
[8]
Originally by: CptEagle
Hmm I dunno, very interesting, but I don't really like the idea of a ship with dmg mods in low AND med slots.
It would make our racial ewar as powerful as the others. It is already a damage mod to missiles when they hit smaller targets. If the sig res was taken off for a % resistance it would stop becoming the bane of smaller ships vs big ships and be what it probably was meant to do in the first place.
Team Minmatar
Carriers need Clone Vats
|
Tar om
Minmatar
Octavian Vanguard
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:21:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Tar om on 25/10/2006 18:21:44
true but it tends to favour big ships when engaging small ones. This proposal would be even across all ship sizes which is a different twist altogether.
--
We are the Octavian Vanguard www.octavianvanguard.net
"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:22:00 -
[10]
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 |
|
|
korrey
Taurus Inc
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:25:00 -
[11]
Good idea personally, but Amarr would get further shafted as most our ships hardly have enough mids to fit Scrams and webs. 
|
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
The Nest
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:27:00 -
[12]
Its actually one of the better threads I have read on EVE-O in a long time. Thanks for the pearl Max! Even if your numbers need to be reworked... the idea is class.
Team Minmatar
Carriers need Clone Vats
|
Krulla
Minmatar
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:29:00 -
[13]
Originally by: korrey
Good idea personally, but Amarr would get further shafted as most our ships hardly have enough mids to fit Scrams and webs.
Seeing as how it is Matari racial EW, I don't see what the Amarr have to do with it...
Anyway, excellent idea!
|
Nebuli
Caldari
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:44:00 -
[14]
Good idea Max, I like it.
CEO - Art of War
|
Karash Amerius
Amarr
O.E.C
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 18:51:00 -
[15]
You would have to have a stacking penalty on the modifiers for multiple TP use on a single target.
Merc Blog |
Gor Kraon
Minmatar
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:08:00 -
[16]
Yeah it would need a serious stack penalty or a absolute limit. After 4 painters from any amount of sources the rest have no effect... Otherwise everyone in some blob will fit them and were back to insta-popping everything (once Kali changes combat to lengthen it).
It might be a little over powered being 'multispec'. Maybe make a painter that is multi and then racials as well? Just make sure they are all painters so Minmatar get the bonus on them all. (Keep the name PWNAGE for multispec.)
|
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:09:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Tasty Burger on 25/10/2006 19:09:20
A little more resistance penalty than 5%, but its an excellent idea nonetheless.
And it would have to be worked around stacking so that it actually has a point against extremely hardened targets AND unhardened ones. So yeah, the numbers need to be worked on but I wholeheartedly endorse this idea.
-
It's great being Minmatar, ain't it? |
Nyxus
GALAXIAN
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:15:00 -
[18]
I like it. Very good idea, and very matari-ish as well.
<imagines happy hughinns buzzing around laughing, huggling enemy ships down while I kick them in the nads repeatedly with megapulse II>
Oh yes. Me likey a lot.
Nyxus
It's great being Amarr, ain't it?Ö
|
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:23:00 -
[19]
I want to add that I'd actually fit target painters if this change went through. ATM target painters are worthless EW except for ravens.
It fits in with minmatar ideas too... doing lots of damage quickly. Destroying the enemies defense, rather than their offense.
This is probably the most original and yet workable idea I've seen on these forums in a long time.
-
It's great being Minmatar, ain't it? |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:24:00 -
[20]
I like the idea in principle. Definitely needs a stacking penalty of course.
My only real concern about it is that I wonder if it's technically feasible. Offensive resistance modifiers seem like such a natural part of the game--of most games, really-- and yet there's nothing like it in EVE already.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
|
|
Magunus
The Forsakened Few
The ARR0W Project
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 19:43:00 -
[21]
I like this idea, I think. Would the resistance decrease work on the current positive resist, though, or would it just be a flat amount?
For instance, (using simple numbers)
TP -5%
Current target resist 50%
Would the new modified resist be (50 - 5) = 45% or (50 - (50 * .05)) = 47.5%?
Presuming the current stacking penalties are used, 2 painters would be around 9.3%. The thing is, such a target painter would hurt tank ships far more than gank ships, simply because they have more resist to lose. This somewhat contradicts current target painters. I'd be afraid that if these were to be too good, everyone would want to use them, and if everyone used them, nobody would use tanks because they'd just get nullified, and move to full ganks, or drop resists for more plates or extenders, because they would KNOW that that last EAN or invulnerability field would be neutralized anyway. High natural resist ships like HACs, or simply shields with 60% explosive resist would take it in the shorts. Ravens would be mounting one or two target painters and nothing but explosive torps.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just exploring reactions. Actually I think it's a good idea overall, just need to think about what it would cause. 
---
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe' |
Spaced Skunk
Yesodic Nomads Corp
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 20:06:00 -
[22]
I dont really like the idea to be honest, with the new patch coming up with the serious HP increase (if that is still going ahead) they might not be all that effective.
I like target painters, it means if I paint a ship with my skills in my Huginn/Rapier/Bellicose, its sig radius is more than doubled (granted I use more than 1). It gives me a sense that this EW is completely offensive which I like :)
Its an interesting idea, but I think target painters are in need of some different tweaking. I think an increase in effectiveness and optimal range, and definatly a secondary effect (Damps have 2 effects (target range/target speed), ECM just jams..so, tracking disrupters (Tracking Speed/Optimal range).
At the moment 1 target painter makes hardly any impact on a battle, whether its 1v1, small gang or fleet. All the other EW does, its viable to say use a tracking disrupter on a non-ew ship,but target painters require you to use 2+ to have any sort of noticable effect (and thats on target painting specific ships).
|
Sovy Kurosei
Amarr
Therianthropic Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 20:16:00 -
[23]
I really like this idea. Not that useful unless you are in a gang though and everybody else already is loaded up on damage mods. Yeah, a single damage mod gives better damage output than two of these painters on the bellicose.
___________________
|
Wat0721
GalacTECH Unlimited
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 20:36:00 -
[24]
This idea wins.
Too bad it's just another gem of a great idea that'll just be completely ignored by the devs for lacking 100 pages of spam and whine.
---
ECM Fix <--still stands, post-nerf. |
Bob ThePlumber
United Society Starfleet
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 20:38:00 -
[25]
this is a really good idea.
currently target painters feel like another caldari EW option, and not a minmatar one. i fly a rapier, and dont even fit one on the ship because i dont benifit from it unless im paintin for a raven. i dont know about everyone else, but as a minmatar i rely 98% on my guns and gunnery skills, and the only missiles i really fit are the occasional rocket or heavy launcher.
painters dont really seem to help hit things with turrets as much as i would like. granted, apocs that could hit orbiting frigs using 1 painter like when they first came out was a bit over the top, but still... their uses are limited to ships that are relying mainly on missiles for offence, and that doesnt really help most minmatar pilots out at all.
a painter that did 5-7% or so fewer resists to all HPs on an enemy ship would be a tremendous boost to the module, and pull it out of the gutter...tracking disruptors make it REALLY hard to hit someone, remote dampners can keep people from even being able to engage, and we all know how bad ECM is.
changing the painter to remote anti-hardners would definitely be in the minmatar's way of thinking. CCP would have to do the numbers on it, and it would definitely need a stacking penalty, but i think its something they should look into.
great idea, very original...
-BTP
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 20:44:00 -
[26]
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.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 23:29:00 -
[27]
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 |
Max Hardcase
Art of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 23:31:00 -
[28]
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
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 23:39:00 -
[29]
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 |
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.10.25 23:45:00 -
[30]
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
-
It's great being Minmatar, ain't it? |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |