Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 21:32:00 -
[1]
Where 'warpspeed' stands for 'speed into warp' not 'speed in warp'. Just to clarify.
Anyway, here's an approximation of the improvement a single Local Hull IS provides
Agility * 0.82^2 = 0.6724 * agility 1 / 0.6724 = 1.4872 -> 48.72% improvement (And 41.41% improvement for the second)
If we factor the un-stacked first and the *0.85 stacked second IS together we get : 1 / 0.4851 = 2.0614 -> 106.14% improvement for two Inertia Stabilizers
For those not keeping track, you are now entering warp twice as fast with 2x Local Hull IS. Combined with a larger speed increase than even Nanos or Overdrives (haha) can provide - which is the reason I used 2x IS in this example, as the stacking penalty doesn't severely hit it yet.
The reason this boost is so huge, is that unlike damage mods this isn't one reduction in a figure and one increase - these are two reduced figures, and with pretty **** big bonuses no less. That is a maaaaaaaajor indicator of imbalance in comparison to other stacking nerfed mods - and particularly that this applys to one of the most valuable attributes of a ship.
Not just that, but the concept of a stronger agility mod in itself is flawed, I'm sorry. I like having my insanetacular 'phoon as much as the next guy (and trust me, 2x IS leave me enough mass to bump -_- ), but being able to enter warp near instantly is broken. Nanofibers alone let any ship of equal class enter warp before anyone other equal class ship has a chance to lock it and get a point on - inertia stabilizers basicly move this one class further, making anything but interceptors unable to catch Battleships (and even those are not very likely due to the activation delay) and making anything smaller than a battleship borderline invincible.
We've nerfed one travelmod now, and restricted it to traveling - but IS aren't just a combat mod, they double as a travel mod, as an escape-mod and generally throw lock time versus speed to warp balance out the window.
So can we just ditch the concept for now, revert them to the way they were or at least make the mass multiplier miniscule (ie 0.99 instead of 0.82) ? Please? :/
Addendum : Before this thread derails, I realize there is an overall balance problem with snares versus propulsion mods. This doesn't however address it - it only allows more people to avoid combat overall, which they'll be even more inclined to do with powerful propulsion jamming (webbers) still abundant and the impacts by proxy of the hp boost.
If we want to finally address webbers versus propulsion mod balance in favor of propulsion mods, fine by me. This just isn't it.
|
Dave Tehsulei
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 23:19:00 -
[2]
What he said , these mods needs to be looked at before they are released on TQ, we really dont need battleships and cruisers flying around with the agility of interceptors
stop the madness now !
|
Lord Frost
Minmatar The Crystal Method
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 23:27:00 -
[3]
I got lost in the numbers, but first of all, has this been tested? what was the outcome? Second of all... I think there is a WCS nerf, so if this is true, why isn't it a good thing? Thirdly... isn't losing a few low slots to a bs fitting these mods, balance the fact of what he could put there? Finally... I think entering warp twice as fast is okay with me. Why is that a problem if ceptors are just as fast or faster already?
|
Cpt Abestos
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 23:41:00 -
[4]
I fit 4 of these to my claw and was able to warp faster than a pod, acclerate to full speed in under .5 second and go 7000m/s with a 1mn mwd II, acc ctrl 4, nav 5, and a 3% speed implant. My sig was only increased to 29 from 24 even with 4 fitted. I'm not saying that was under realistic contdtions but with 4 nanos I topped out at around 5300ish and it took alot longer to get to that speed.
Fitting just one of these on a vaga give a massive bonus to mwd effectiveness and makes an allready agile ship nearly as agile as a frig. It's great being Amarr ain't it?
|
Lord Violent
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 00:00:00 -
[5]
Yeah my battlecruiser chasing down and raping interceptors on sisi kind of brought me to the conclusion that these may be a little too good.
|
Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 01:51:00 -
[6]
This is 'so not' a page 2 issue. And as for tested, was going to reply - but the 3rd and 4th reply seem to have anecdotal evidence covered.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 03:04:00 -
[7]
Bump in the form of
Originally by: Cpt Abestos I fit 4 of these to my claw and was able to warp faster than a pod, acclerate to full speed in under .5 second and go 7000m/s with a 1mn mwd II, acc ctrl 4, nav 5, and a 3% speed implant. My sig was only increased to 29 from 24 even with 4 fitted. I'm not saying that was under realistic contdtions but with 4 nanos I topped out at around 5300ish and it took alot longer to get to that speed.
...
That's over the top. * * * 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 |
Gordon Red
SteelVipers YouWhat
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 03:14:00 -
[8]
I can't wait to test them on my Crusader. It was allways too heavy to really make use of that high base speed with a MWD.
Due to balance it shouldn't be more effective to use only the inertias and no nanos! I would say, when you use 1 inertia + 1 nano and getting the optimal mix, it is balanced then.
|
Aeaus
Tabula Rasa Systems The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 03:36:00 -
[9]
Hurricane
6 x Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabalizer I Y-T8 MWD
Spaceship V Evasive V
LG Snake Alpha LG Snake Beta LG Snake Delta LG Snake Epsilon
CY-2 Zor's Custom Navigation Hyperlink MY-1
Half complete low-grade snakes... 2867.92867511 m/sec
180 turn at full speed = 4 seconds
Last Weeks Signature |
murder one
Gallente CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 04:14:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Aeaus Hurricane
6 x Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabalizer I Y-T8 MWD
Spaceship V Evasive V
LG Snake Alpha LG Snake Beta LG Snake Delta LG Snake Epsilon
CY-2 Zor's Custom Navigation Hyperlink MY-1
Half complete low-grade snakes... 2867.92867511 m/sec
180 turn at full speed = 4 seconds
lol?
I wonder what a crane w/ mwd and 2-3 of these will do haha.
Because I said so...
|
|
Aeaus
Tabula Rasa Systems The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 04:44:00 -
[11]
Viator : 2352.43404451 m/sec Occator : 927.131023081 m/sec <- Small effect on this one, took 5.5 seconds to do a 180 at full speed though, so very agile.
Local Intertial (full lows) Named 10Mn MWD
I opted for no implants on this one.
Evasive IV Navigation V Spaceship V
I'm going to load a carrier up later with a few and pop a 100mn MWD on that to see that happens
Last Weeks Signature |
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 04:49:00 -
[12]
6 inertia are not that good...
generally best results are just with 2-3 of them
|
Aeaus
Tabula Rasa Systems The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 04:58:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Aeaus on 08/11/2006 05:03:35 And to kill the Amarr Emperor...
Archon 3 x Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabalizer I 4 x Local Hull Nanofiber I Quad Lif Maximum Speed : 743.2800593 m/sec
Archon 2 x Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabalizer I 5 x Local Hull Nanofiber I Quad Lif Maximum Speed : 797.634860421 m/sec
ASC V Capital Ships III Spaceship V Evasive V
Snake Alpha Snake Beta Snake Delta Snake Epsilon Snake Gamma
CY-2 Zor's Custom Navigation Hyperlink MY-1
Last Weeks Signature |
Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 15:25:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Aeaus Edited by: Aeaus on 08/11/2006 05:29:39 It does appear that two inertia stabs are the best combination... http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Aeaus/yarricane.jpg (2 x intertia + 4 x nano)
The topspeed boosts aren't even that big an issue, but the acceleration definitely is. But yeah, even as far as topspeed goes you can get some nifty boosts (ballpark 20% more topspeed than all nanos).
|
Gierling
Gallente Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 16:05:00 -
[15]
Someone test a Daredevil!
|
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 16:11:00 -
[16]
Vagabond: now > 4500m/s without implants with only local hull inertial stabs in the lows.
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 16:12:00 -
[17]
i alredy see the dread that start to orbit around a frig
|
Spaced Skunk
Yesodic Nomads Corp
|
Posted - 2006.11.09 11:50:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Spaced Skunk on 09/11/2006 11:50:14 Fitted 6 to a Hurricane, from entering warp to warping, took around 1.5 seconds.
Did 2000m/s with t2 MWD, accelerated to 1800m/s within 2 seconds.
The idea behind them is good, but, like nanofibers, they should have a HP penalty.
|
Dave Tehsulei
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.11.10 20:29:00 -
[19]
bump!
|
Mr Ninjaface
Minmatar Shurekin INC
|
Posted - 2006.11.10 20:37:00 -
[20]
You guys will go faster if you use a mix of stabilizers and nanos. I was hitting 3500 or so in my hurricane with 3 stabilizers and 3 nanos and a few speed rigs. MY thoughts on Kali |
|
Caldorous
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.11.10 20:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ath Amon 6 inertia are not that good...
generally best results are just with 2-3 of them
maybe because there is a hidden (or not so hidden) stacking penalty -----------------------------
|
Inairin
|
Posted - 2006.11.10 21:03:00 -
[22]
Someone do a 3 IS, rest faction overdrives and then a, perferably faction, 100mw microwarpdrive on a battlecruiser/command ship for me. If you can mix in some rigs further adding to the madness; do so.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.11.10 21:13:00 -
[23]
I don't think there's a problem. You're sacrificing precious lowslots for just that kind of effects, each of those lows could have been some other dps/tank module, and these module have to be competitive with nanofibers in order to get used (instead of being the reprocessing fodder they have been). And it only helps with ab/mwd, not "cruising" speed. Oh, and there's a sig penalty, which may or may not matter to your ship setup.
Most ships are pretty sick in the agility-speed sector with 6 nanofibers, too.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.11.10 21:16:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Spaced Skunk Edited by: Spaced Skunk on 09/11/2006 11:50:14 Fitted 6 to a Hurricane, from entering warp to warping, took around 1.5 seconds.
Did 2000m/s with t2 MWD, accelerated to 1800m/s within 2 seconds.
The idea behind them is good, but, like nanofibers, they should have a HP penalty.
Well, fit the same 6 nanofibers on your Hurricane, you'll also get impressive speed and acceleration (and significantly better non-MWD speed as a bonus). Also, with those 6 inertia stabs your sig will be a lot bigger, and unless you plan on keeping MWD on all the time, that sig *will* matter if you go against big ships.
Nanofiber "hp" penalty is a hull penalty, which usually doesn't matter one bit, the sig radius penalty is a lot worse in many cases. Not all, of course.
|
Vishnej
Demonic Retribution Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.11.10 21:26:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Vishnej on 10/11/2006 21:27:19 Simply put, nanofibers should have weak improvements on speed, mass, and agility at a major structure cost (call it -40%), while inertial stabilizers should have a major agility increase in exchange for significant powergrid and/or cap penalties.
Adding thrusters cannot reduce mass, by any stretch of non-newtonian physics.
|
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 12:24:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Ishina Fel on 11/11/2006 12:24:58 I believe that in the Master of Orion games, Inertia Stabilizers / Nullifiers were internal force fields of artificial gravity nature that compensated the inertia of mass. Thus the engines need to work less to accelerate the same mass, which is equal to accelerating less mass. So while thrusters don't work from a physics perspective, gravity fields would.
I could be wrong though.
|
Gordon Red
SteelVipers YouWhat
|
Posted - 2006.11.12 21:03:00 -
[27]
I have done some tests with the Crusader (good base speed, but with a high mass). I wanted to do some tests with AB and Cruiser/AF, but 5 Minutes after I started, a pre-Kali built was installed on the Testserver. :-/
Their boost to agility and speed (with a MWD/AB) is allways higher as with nanofibers. (the stacking penality is not strong enough)
number of "local hull conversion inertial stabilizers" in lows and max speed:
4 5709 +46,8% from 0 3 5490 +41,2% from 0 2 5067 +30,3% from 0 1 4477 +15,1% from 0 0 3888
number of "Mark I modified SS inertial stabilizers" in lows and max speed:
4 5420 +39,4% from 0 3 5239 +34,7% from 0 2 4888 +25,7% from 0 1 4392 +12,9% from 0 0 3888
----------------------------------------
1 local hull conversion inertial stabilizers 1 local hull conversion nanofiber structure => 4714 +21,2% 3888 with zero mods
less orbitspeed and agility
|
Adrian Devoid
|
Posted - 2006.11.12 22:52:00 -
[28]
Tested it out on the test server. Took my fleet Scorpion setup and switched the 2x1600mm plates for 2xlocal inertial stabs. Feels like a ship that may actually turn arround and warp out of a fleet battle. I've used nano's instead of plates before, and its nice, but on sisi those stabs are *way* better than nanos for this situation.
|
Rogue Clone
Assault Squadron
|
Posted - 2006.11.13 21:32:00 -
[29]
I really don't see this as a problem... seems like a nice boost to compliment the stabs nerf. This won't detract from quality combat like stabs did, and putting these on a ship is enough of a nerf to your setup to balance out the higher agility and speed. I like the new IS's and hope CCP leaves them alone...
Also, as my understanding of stacking penalties is non-existant. Could someone do the math and find out whether its more affective to have:
2 Local Hull Inertial Stabs and 1 Local Hull Nano
--or--
3 Local Hull Inertial Stabs?
-- CEO of Assault Squadron now recruiting PVP players, please contact in game |
Sunsets
The Knights of the New Republic Forces of Freedom
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 00:22:00 -
[30]
You should try a combo of local hull inertias and overdrives for speed/agility. The overdrives have a slight penalty but the inertias more than compensate I think.
|
|
Grimpak
Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 00:43:00 -
[31]
Originally by: murder one
Originally by: Aeaus Hurricane
6 x Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabalizer I Y-T8 MWD
Spaceship V Evasive V
LG Snake Alpha LG Snake Beta LG Snake Delta LG Snake Epsilon
CY-2 Zor's Custom Navigation Hyperlink MY-1
Half complete low-grade snakes... 2867.92867511 m/sec
180 turn at full speed = 4 seconds
lol?
I wonder what a crane w/ mwd and 2-3 of these will do haha.
crane?
how about a prowler?
that thing handles almost like a friggin' stabber. with nanos it's a "ZOMG WOOOSH!". imagine the thing with the inertia thingys... -------
Originally by: Tiuwaz for caldari perception weapons that hit up to 100km are short range weapons
|
Dave Tehsulei
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.11.19 11:50:00 -
[32]
Page 9 :/
hello !
|
Mikelio Raijan
Sulithus
|
Posted - 2006.11.19 12:31:00 -
[33]
We got a geddon to go well over 10km/s without a Sleip in gang speed boosting it, cant wait for those 10km/s+ Vagas. \o/
|
Crellion
Art of War Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 03:04:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Crellion on 20/11/2006 03:05:45
Originally by: Mikelio Raijan We got a geddon to go well over 10km/s without a Sleip in gang speed boosting it, cant wait for those 10km/s+ Vagas. \o/
On the + side if the Vaga is doing 10km/s and your Cerb/Ishtar/Curse is doing 5km/s (and he cant afford to come in web range) his guns shouldnt be hitting you all that much...Especially Cruse v Vaga with good missle skills I think I see some definite potential there...If his mwd dies but you are still orbitting at 5km/s but his guns and tracking I believe you might here the first Vaga piloty in history say: "uber speed sux" Edit: my typing in this post is so awfull I am not going to bother...typing sounds 4tw :| Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim. |
Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 05:12:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 20/11/2006 05:12:41 Bonuses on Singularity have changed to 15% mass and 15% agility (from 18/18).
0.85 * 0.85 *0.85 * 0.8725 = 0.5359 (86.6% faster into warp)
The good news : Somebody might have read this, and this might have been a conscious balance decision.
The bad news : This leaves 2x IS at 86.6% faster into warp, versus 48.7% of Nanofibers. All the while maintaining higher topspeeds on everything except ships with base speeds lower than ~150.
Suggestion : Rethink propulsion versus propulsion jamming balance (and eventually aggression, but that's OT) to allow for reasonably powerful propulsion modules all around and less super-modules/superstacks. With the intent of making propulsion mods not the realm solely of overstacked ships (In Kali : Snakes, Shaqil, MY-2, Zor, Rigs, Booster, 5x Domination Nanofiber, 2x Local Hull IS, Mindlink Sleipnir).
That basicly means, disallow webber stacking (strongest takes precedence, no exceptions), possibly introduce size-based webbers (higher fitting requirements for stronger webbers) and compensating the Rapier/Huginn to make up for it. And also halving the MWD capacitor penalty (12.5%), providing a smaller signature increase for 10/100MNs (350/300% base, respectively).
Not all these things may need to happen, but it's a fairly conservative estimate of what should really happen to in-grid propulsion mods. That alone would go much further towards prolonging combat than any amount of hitpoint increases ever will, while at the same time increasing the quality of said combat by making it more involved for all partys.
@Crellion : That's already the way it works for Curse vs Vagabond, except that being at the edge of falloff is perfectly sufficient. It of course gets worse if it's a damp or TD (gasp) Curse, at which point you're practically invincible unless you're superbad. 800mm, nano-less Curse currently hits about 1.7km/s, so we're talking about 2.4km with LG Snakes.
Infact, since the speed-gap would increase, it would become easier to leave Disruptor range.
|
Crellion
Art of War Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 05:20:00 -
[36]
yup Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim. |
Rehen
Sulithus
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 20:51:00 -
[37]
Tux Im not sure if you are meaning for this or not but on kali at this moment i can fly around in my geddon at speeds of 16.5k/sec + probaly could get 1 going faster just seems too be a bit odd that i will be able too do this on tq if this patch is live soon. (I know alot of people wont be able too but i see anybody being able too do this as wrong). This is with a command ships bonuses but still dosent change that the ship can do the speed.
|
Aenigma
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 21:21:00 -
[38]
There's some kind of stacking penalty though. It's not 0.85*0.85*0.85 for three of them.
|
West Allis
Minmatar Cornerstone Unlimited
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 21:50:00 -
[39]
I like the modification, in combination with the nerf to WCS. If a person suddenly finds themself in a hostile situation (either an enemy warped in on them, or they warped somewhere they shouldn't have), then they have a few precious seconds to decide to warp out. If they fail to warp out, then they are stuck because they will no longer have WCS.
In today's world you think, "Well, I'll see how this goes." knowing that you can probably warp away if you get in trouble because you have WCS fitted.
The WCS nerf forces a commitment. If you decide to fight, then you are committed to that fight. The IS improvement gives you the ability to escape *before* you commit to the fight, and I think that's important. This helps make PvP more consensual for the players who are paying attention... and this is, IMO, a "good thing".
|
Herculite
Hunters Agency Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 22:42:00 -
[40]
/signed
This is another obvious issue that shouldn't have even gotten this far on sisi.
|
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 13:12:00 -
[41]
Could someone please post some data for a ship with various numbers of these modules fitted, so we can work out what the stacking penalty for mass reduction is? Ideally, please fit a plate while testing so we can check how the mass addition penalty is affected.
Since I'm not on Singularity, I don't know how these modules work- do they (a) visibly change the mass attributes of the ship, armour and ab/mwd themselves, or do they (b) only change mass in the context of working out top speed?
If (a), then the mass attributes of your ship and its relevant modules while the ship is active are lower than when it is not active and we can work out the stacking penalty directly.
If (b), then mass appears the same with Inertia Stabilisers fitted and the stacking penalty has to be worked out via the top speed formula, and more data (or a clarification from a developer ) are needed:
Number of 15% Inertia Stabilizers fittedShip massArmour mass (if present)Type of afterburner/microwarpdrive (i.e. 1mn, 10mn or 100mn)Max. velocity bonus for said afterburner/microwarpdrive (as listed in the attributes tab of the module info when fitted to the ship, undocked)Top speed with mwd/ab active (from the attributes tab of the ship info)Top speed without the ab/mwd active
This will be enough to work out the stacking penalty via the formula for top speed, since between the last three items all the other (numerous!) effects on speed or ab/mwd effectiveness are taken into account. ---------- An idea for helping people to appreciate ECCM |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 16:19:00 -
[42]
Mass is directly modified (visible in the stats block) agility I would assume the same, but it's a hidden stat.
Given that mass gave me a nice even number with one inertial stab fitted, and a lot of decimal places with 2 fitted, I'd assume they have stacking penalty.
However a few of these, especially with the mass and agility rigs fitted makes a battlecruiser handle quite nicely. I tried a hurricane, and it was about 4 seconds to 180 and reach max speed on MWD. Rather fun, but might count as a bit extreme. Then again, they're not damage mods nor tank I'm fitting in the lows, so it might not.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 20:33:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/11/2006 20:36:21 From Gordon Red's Crusader data back on page 1 of this thread, and these assumptions:
Navigation IVAcceleration Control IIINo implants or gang bonusest2 1mn mwd15% base mass reduction for each IS used
, it looks as though the following stacking penalty, or something like it, applies:
1st IS: 100% effect2nd: 87% effect3rd: 57%4th: 28% This is numerically in line with other stacking penalties, but not quite as neat as I'd have hoped. ---------- An idea for helping people to appreciate ECCM |
R Dan
Infinite Improbability Inc Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.11.22 02:51:00 -
[44]
to the folks that dont see the problem with this:
I had a dominix run away from my gang yesterday... I'd got 2 scram frigates on the other side of the gate (incase he had BM's) ready to scram him.
He did have BM's but had entered warp before they both could get points on him. They said it took less than 4 seconds to go from cloaked to warped. And this is on TQ!
With BM's and that ammount of turn / speed (later he ran back through a gate and the momentum he'd gathered from MWD was enough to get him in jump range) he was basically invulnerable to anything other than a squad with a dictor....
This IS milarky coupled with the warp to 0 (ie a BM to everywhere) will mean that you will ALWAYS need a dictor (or more) to trap anyone....
I assume this domi had a number of nanofibers fitted. so after patch it will just be a number of IS and he will be even quicker at the escape
I will save you, but make sure you bring beer - Wrangler and cAKe - Imaran |
Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 08:33:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Aenigma There's some kind of stacking penalty though. It's not 0.85*0.85*0.85 for three of them.
That's 1.5 of them that you have there. Remember they give two bonuses.
To clarify : Somebody claimed to have verified via logserver that agility isn't stacking penalized, yet mass is. I'll look into it myself later, but for the above that was assumed true. In the first post both are assumed true. Since in both cases we're only talking a 0.85 stacking modifier due to only using two mods, the difference is negligible and I didn't mention the switch.
The second set of numbers is 2x IS with the stacking penalty applied only to mass.
If you want to assume both stack : 0.85 * 0.85 * 0.8725 * 0.8725 = 0.55 (81.8% increase in agility)
Hope that satisfies. Anyway, agility mods are already as powerful as they should reasonably ever be with Nanofibers - simply because IS are currently pointless does not justify introducing something gamebreaking such as this.
For those that missed it, in a nutshell : Inertial Stabs are gamebreakers because they buff travelmods even further, from current nigh invincibility as well as doubling as a combat mod by boosting prop modded topspeed more than nanofibers - and disproportionally more on faster ships, further increasing the dramatic cleft between the nanoed-up pirate/shaqil/zor's mobile and everyone else.
|
Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 08:37:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 23/11/2006 08:38:25
Originally by: West Allis
The WCS nerf forces a commitment. If you decide to fight, then you are committed to that fight. The IS improvement gives you the ability to escape *before* you commit to the fight, and I think that's important. This helps make PvP more consensual for the players who are paying attention... and this is, IMO, a "good thing".
Making PvP more consentual is both a) bad and b) an oxymoron. By making it 'more consentual' you see more of the type only the aggressor agrees to, by evading combat until he finds the least consentual, most helpless target (and encouraging everyone else to do the same, as seeking out aggressors is pointless as they can evade indefinitely).
An essential part of actions having consequences is that PvP needs to be somewhat equally non-consentual for everyone, whether predator or prey. As it stands, and even more so with IS, the advantage lies with the predator dramatically as he can just evade engagement until it is impossible to lose. Which is already basicly the face of fleet and gang warfare, but that's a topic for another thread.
|
Dave Tehsulei
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.11.24 15:13:00 -
[47]
come on devs, not long left to stop the madness !
please ?
|
Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.25 10:34:00 -
[48]
This thread warps to the back of the forum incredibly fast. Let's not let it.
|
Xori Ruscuv
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2006.11.25 11:01:00 -
[49]
How can people NOT be bugged by this?
Kali is really WTFSOLOPWNING game balance... you know, not that vagas and ecm really did it any wonders in the first place. But now EVERYONE can have the agility of a vaga!
It's great playing Caldari-online, isn't it?
This IS my main! I just did a portrait swap... |
Ronja Mistysdottir
Norsk Gruvedrift
|
Posted - 2006.11.25 13:52:00 -
[50]
You guys DID see them HUGE warpbubbles, right? wasn't they like, 45km or something?
Put up one HUGE bubble, and have some ship with dual webbers make pancakes of the fast ships.
There are warpbubbles, interdictors.. what else is needed to ruin the day of camp-busters?
|
|
Tadis
Gallente 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.11.25 16:14:00 -
[51]
Quite simply a rediculous move.
Review and change please! ___________________________________
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.25 16:26:00 -
[52]
Ships that can travel stupidly fast were around years back (dual MWD scorps, anyone?), identified as a problem, and fixed without futher ado.
What gives with undoing that? Lets not have a big step back........ -----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |