| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cambarus
Baros Reloaded
122
   |
Posted - 2012.01.25 18:33:00 -
[31] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Posting in a OP beat down thread.
Most of the people here agree with the OP. |
Lili Lu
150
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 19:01:00 -
[32] - Quote
OMG this is more CCP hate for Caldari I can't take this anymore it is so ******* unfair  |
Mardero
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 02:58:00 -
[33] - Quote
Yeah, this looks like sloppy work. One of the many paper cuts that need addressing. |
Mavnas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 19:02:00 -
[34] - Quote
Sebastion Heorod wrote:Ummm, the Hawk's "bonus" is -5% to rate of fire per level?
i'm thinking either worst bonus ever or mis-print
They mean -5% reload time. Even the bonuses that say +5% ROF mean -5% reload time. They're all misprints for the most part.
ROF is something you want to go up. Calling cycle time ROF on all ships doesn't make it not wrong. The main reason this is wrong is it's confusing when you try to compare +5% ROF to +5% damage, which should be exactly the same DPS increase, but they're not in this game because +25% ROF actually means -25% cycle time (or 1 / .75 extra ROF) or a little over 33%.
It took me awhile to notice that ROF bonuses were better than straight damage bonuses because of the incorrect terminology. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
369
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 19:05:00 -
[35] - Quote
Mavnas wrote:It took me awhile to notice that ROF bonuses were better than straight damage bonuses because of the incorrect terminology.
ROF bonuses are also quite self-balanced, specially on cap-hungry weapons. a reason why it should've been applied to blasters instead AC's.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote]
ain't that right |
Doddy
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 21:34:00 -
[36] - Quote
The issue is not the bonus, it is how they named the attribute. The attribute "rate of fire" is the amount of time between shots (as shown in show info), so -5% is a buff. People who decide to apply the actual meaning of the phrase (-5% rate of fire) rather than what actually happens (-5% to the attribute that ccp have called "rate of fire" but is actually time between shots) have always been confused by this since the early days of eve. Its really just down to ccps bad english when they first made the game and they have never bothered to fix it. |
Admiral Pelleon
White Shadow Imperium
The Forsaken.
43
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 23:01:00 -
[37] - Quote
OP is being pedantic. The rest of you are just feeding this ****** thread.
Those who cannot keep up will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all. |
Mistermatch
Theoretical pi
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 23:26:00 -
[38] - Quote
I believe that consistency needs to be addressed as well, but this thread really is pointless. In every case, it is safe to assume the 'bonuses' on the ship will always work in your favor, despite the + or - |
Katherine Starlight
Apex Tech
Xenogenesis Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 23:35:00 -
[39] - Quote
What he means is taht modules state "x amount of bonus to rate of fire"
whilst the ship bonus states "-x amount of bonus to rate of fire"
Positive numbers on the modules giving "decreasing" bonuses
Negative numbers on the ships giving "decreasing" bonuses
total confusion in the defense of OP |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 00:32:00 -
[40] - Quote
This just in...
CCP need a Technical Writer to help them sort their ****. We need you to report for duty 8 years ago or some what!
Patri
Miners! Make Moar Isks Nao! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |