EVE Search - Scripts and how they will affect modules

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Scripts and how they will affect modules

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)

CCP Gangleri	Posted - 2007.10.30 15:38:00 - [1] There has been a lot of speculation regarding the proposed changes to certain modules and the introduction of Scripts for said modules. I'm going to try to clarify a little bit what is being done and how this is going to affect gameplay. Lets start with a list of modules affected: Sensor Booster Remote Sensor Booster Remote Sensor Dampener Tracking Computer Tracking Link Tracking Disruptor Warp Disruption Field Generator These modules should be familiar to you, apart from the Warp Disruption Field Generator which is a new module specially made for the Heavy Interdictor ship type. And will not be covered here at this time. The other modules all have one thing in common, they affect two attributes on either your own ship or your targets ship. These attributes have a rather large role to play in many combat situations and these modules have therefore been very popular fittings. What Scripts are meant to do is separate these two effects without creating a lot of new modules. This is achieved by reducing the overall effectiveness of the modules and then introducing a sort of ammo that affects the modules bonus, though scripts do not get consumed upon use. The scripts reduce one bonus while bringing the other one to whatever level decided by the script. Ships that have special bonuses to these modules attributes still give a full bonus but only after the script has changed the attributes. If you choose to have no script installed then the module still affects both attributes but not as well as before. So yes, they were changed, but not quite as severely as some may have thought due to Scripts not being available on Sisi. Balancing efforts are still underway and your feedback is appreciated. I'll be seeding the Scripts on the market as soon as they pass basic testing, please test them for any bugs and report them as usual.

Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.30 15:55:00 - [2] The scripts really shouldn't reduce the non-bonused attribute tbh, since the attributes have already been reduced 50%.
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.30 16:08:00 - [3] I approve, I'll test them out as soon as they go live and submit through the bug system.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.30 16:09:00 - [4] I just hope that the scripts for TCs will be powerful enough so that with one TC scripted for tracking and one for optimal, I get the same effect as I get with two current ones. Anything else would be a nerf to TCs, and I can't think of many modules that need a nerf less than TCs... There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
Zhull	Posted - 2007.10.30 16:26:00 - [5] Edited by: Zhull on 30/10/2007 16:31:45 Edited by: Zhull on 30/10/2007 16:29:20 I would like to see a dev blog explaining the impact of the changes in recon ships. I did some quick numbers to calculate the effect of the RSD bonus change on the gallente recons. On Tranquility a Remote sensor dampener II reduces range by 48%. On sisi reduces 17% plus another 17% when you fit the script (plus you loose the resolution dampening effect). On a maxed char in a Lachesis without rigs that translates to the following numbers: Tranquility # of mods / Effect 1 RSD II: 29,5% of the original range 2 RSD II: 11,3% 3 RSD II: 6,7% 4 RSD II: 5,4% Singularity # of mods / Effect 1 RSD II: 37,1% of the original range 2 RSD II: 16,8% 3 RSD II: 10,8% 4 RSD II: 8,9% So, right now in TQ 2 modules would dampen a Raven from 93.750m to 10.560m. In sisi 2 modules would dampen the same raven down to 15.785m and 3 modules to 10.122m. So if the bonus does not change, you will need 3 modules to get the same effect than 2 modules now do (on range) and you also loose the effect on scan resolution. I won't argue against the double effect removal because I think it was necesary, also i understand that the reduced effect on RSD was to balance them with Sensor boosters and to prevent the modules from being effective in non specialized ships. However, i would like to see an increase in the Arazu & lachesis bonus to at least partially offset the reduced strength of modules. Right now Gallente recons have a 5%/lvl bonus to RSD. In order to completely offset the change in stength the Gallente recon bonus should change to 8,18%/lvl. Or the same effect could be achieved by changing the RSDII to -17,5%, the script to -17,5% and the recon bonus to 8%). Would that make Gallente recons overpowered? I don't think so. You can ussualy carry 4 dampeners and next to no tank. So being able to dampen a ship with just 2 mods = 2 ships removed from battle. Bear in mind that it is supposed to be an ewar specialized ship.

CCP Gangleri	Posted - 2007.10.30 16:29:00 - [6] Scripts will unfortunately not make it in today, maybe tomorrow. In the meantime this is the current list of scripts I will be seeding, some name changes may still happen before seeding but they should be minimal. Targeting Range Targeting Speed Scan Resolution Dampening Targeting Range Dampening Optimal Range Tracking Speed Optimal Range Disruption Tracking Speed Disruption The attributes on them are not final and may very well get changed, please keep in mind that the opposing module is also getting changed. It's not just the tracking computer being changed but also the tracking disruptors to keep the balance. These changes may also have wide reaching effects for other areas of gameplay since a single module is less likely to permanently disable a target ship in a fight. It should now require more focus to cripple a ship completely through the use of a single module type.

Angelik'a Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.30 16:29:00 - [7] Since you're nerfing double attribute modules, are you going to do the same for warp core stabilizers? I mean, let you chose between lock range or lock time as a penalty? Seems double standards if you don't tbh.
Garrakh	Posted - 2007.10.30 16:33:00 - [8] Edited by: Garrakh on 30/10/2007 16:35:03 Originally by: Angelik'a Since you're nerfing double attribute modules, are you going to do the same for warp core stabilizers? I mean, let you chose between lock range or lock time as a penalty? Seems double standards if you don't tbh. Also nanofibers should affect your microwarpdrive speed OR your agility, not both, shield extenders should affect your total shield or your recharge/sec, not both... the list goes on.
Indigo Johnson Minmatar	Posted - 2007.10.30 16:52:00 - [9] Surely dev blog worthy?
Tiny Carlos Destructive Influence	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:05:00 - [10] Originally by: Garrakh Edited by: Garrakh on 30/10/2007 16:35:03 Originally by: Angelik'a Since you're nerfing double attribute modules, are you going to do the same for warp core stabilizers? I mean, let you chose between lock range or lock time as a penalty? Seems double standards if you don't tbh. Also nanofibers should affect your microwarpdrive speed OR your agility, not both, shield extenders should affect your total shield or your recharge/sec, not both... the list goes on. And afterburners make you go faster and harder to hit... Any more idiotic things to type? "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." - Groucho Marx
MaverickG Peregrin Avionics	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:05:00 - [11] I have to agree, you should not have it both ways. I also think this is complicating things and will detract from gameplay overall. Soon every module will need some augmentation or tweak. Can we just leave it at ship rigs for now? I still have not tried to "heat" modules yet as this is another complication in my opinion. I know some gamers are looking for this sort of depth, but where does it stop? Your going to alienate new players and possibly some vets.

CCP Gangleri	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:09:00 - [12] Dev blog will be posted in the near future, untill then I'll be testing and providing feedback to the design team.

Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:51:00 - [13] Just want to say that I think the idea behind scripting is genius and I approve wholeheartedly. I'm really looking forward to this change.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:58:00 - [14] Currently the modules on SiSi have the base bonuses at 50% original strength, Now perhaps for ewar modules that is understandable when you introduce the scripts as the sensor dampeners needed a rebalance. The real issue here however is sensor boosters, remote sensor boosters, tracking links and tracking computers. You see they are not really overpowered, infact I have never heard anyone saying they needed rebalancing, they did the job. Perhaps for the non ewar modules, reducing the overall bonuses for the modules only by a few % and allowing the scripts to boost the main attribute to an equal % over the original modules bonus would be a nice tweak. E.g. Sensor Booster II, +55% targeting range, +55% scan resolution with scripts that give +30% targeting range, -45% scan resolution, This would give you +71.5% targeting range & +30.25% scan resolution, Alloqing a boost to one of the attributes beyond the current bonus but still reduce the other bonus enough to be a counter to it. People would be happy because they then can truly gain a beneficial bonus beyond the current module, whatever their play style. Current module +120% total bonus, Suggested module unbonused +110%, with script +104.5%. Still less than the original but with a greater increase in locking speed or targeting range beyond what is currently possible, it would alleviate issues people will have from the change. Another point I would like to make is that the Minmatar will be most heavily hit by this if the modules do recieve a substantial reduction in effectiveness, they have the worst locking range of all the races, infact quite a bit worse and it would make it extremely difficult to have an effective sniping minmatar vessel.
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.10.30 18:56:00 - [15] Edited by: Veng3ance on 30/10/2007 18:57:06 I must say I agree with Nian Banks. I am also worried that Amarr will recieve a major hit after this change much like the Minmatar. While I understand that Minmatar have tracking and lock range issues, Amarr have mid-slot issues. If sensor boosters and tracking computers are nerfed significantly Amarr (and Minmatar) will not be on the same playing field as Gallente and Caldari fleet battleships. While the Megathron does have only 4 mid-slots, it recieves a tremendous boost to tracking, and the Rokh has an obvious advantage with its range bonus, and wealth of mid-slots. Either of these ships will be able to adapt, and may see the same effectiveness or close to it after the change. It would be a real shame to see Amarr and Minmatar battleships dissapear off the long range battlefield. And personally would make me very upset. I await the scripts with low hopes.
Treo Fortuna	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:13:00 - [16] Heh, to be honest I'm not as bothered by the overall concept of the change as the execution. I wish the interface for configuring the module was a built in one, albeit one only configurable in a station (perhaps a maint array, I suppose) versus ANOTHER item that has to be taken into consideration when making a ship. A relatively simple interface with "tune left", "tune neutral", "tune right" on top of the module in the fitting panel would have sufficed, and would have kept things relatively "nice and neat" all things considered. An idea, though I know it has no merit at this point since scripts are set to come out. The nerf somewhat blows, but my Rokh could hit from 318 as it is, so I'm sure I can be fine with it grinding down to 200.
Udyr Vulpayne Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:25:00 - [17] Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 30/10/2007 19:24:57 any plans to extend this to cover damage modules? also: how about a script to decrease falloff range with tracking disruptors...optimal isnt all that usefull against non-laser shortrange weapons.
Stellar Vix State War Academy	Posted - 2007.10.30 20:36:00 - [18] Are scripts going to be something seperate that we have to buy? similar to ammo? If scripts are to be bought can they be built? If they are to be built then what materials? stuff we can get from hacking/salvage maybe? Are we going to get named scripts and tech 1 and tech 2 scripts eventualy? Are we going to see scripts that could possibly reach a new level of strengh but they also boost the opponent one way as well? for example one that reduces the oppoents locking range but increases their locking speed when used? Dunno some toys to play around with. SWA PVP
Crausaum Ixion Defence Systems The Cyrene Initiative	Posted - 2007.10.30 22:07:00 - [19] Yes, while I can see the point of removing/nerfing the double effects of some modules and find myself agreeing to most of it I find the implementation of this change more than a little annoying. When fitting a ship for battle it is already time consuming enough to find all the modules and munitions you need. On Sisi this is not a major issue as parts are readily available on the market but should these changes go live I can see this becoming a rather annoying feature in the combat system. In addition damage mods and ballistic controls seem to be a rather glaring omission from the list of modules receiving this balance. I would strongly suggest that this chance is not implemented as is but rather that the scripts be integrated into the module as a selectable option rather than yet another item that pilots must find, purchase, and fit. --------------------------- absit iniuria verbis
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.10.31 04:03:00 - [20] Originally by: Crausaum I would strongly suggest that this chance is not implemented as is but rather that the scripts be integrated into the module as a selectable option rather than yet another item that pilots must find, purchase, and fit. /signed Another important thing to remember is that none of these modules should end up being any weaker than they are now, when focused on one attribute. That is to say, if you focus your rsd on range dampening, it should still result in a 48% range reduction. If you focus your sensor booster II on range increase, it should still give 60% range increase. Choosing one or the other is fine, but don't also make it weaker. And recons aren't the only ships that should be able to use rsds worth a damn either. Bombers usually rely on them to manage to shoot at targets from 80k out and keep from being shot back at with their tissue paper tanks...
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2007.10.31 07:51:00 - [21] Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 30/10/2007 19:24:57 any plans to extend this to cover damage modules? I certainly hope not. Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne also: how about a script to decrease falloff range with tracking disruptors...optimal isnt all that usefull against non-laser shortrange weapons. That could be very useful. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth

CCP Gangleri	Posted - 2007.10.31 08:59:00 - [22] Scripts will be built from BPO's available on the market, there are no tech2 or named versions in this release. However one of the reasons scripts were chosen over other methods of splitting bonuses is that scripts allow for flexibility and upgradeability in the future. If the options were hardwired then it would be problematic to add things like the falloff range script someone suggested here.

Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.10.31 10:01:00 - [23] My concern is that (currenly) tracking disruptors are generally inferior to sensor damps. They only work against some enemies, while damps work against pretty much everything. You can see this disparity in action by comparing the amount of damps you see in pvp to the amount of TDs you see. Market prices of best-named modules will also give you good indication of relative value. Now, it seems that both these modules have been scaled down by the same static factor... which is a bit of a problem, since it still leaves the TD lacking in comparison to the sensor damp. Please consider scaling the TDs down a bit less than damps, to give them some "oomph" wrt damps.
katz3 PPN United Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.31 13:21:00 - [24] Originally by: Feng Schui The scripts really shouldn't reduce the non-bonused attribute tbh, since the attributes have already been reduced 50%. I agree. Those penalties are unnecessary. Please consider removing them. ___________________
Mudkest MetaForge Ekliptika	Posted - 2007.10.31 13:43:00 - [25] eeks, I have a twin in ccp O.O wondering on script changing though. Lets say I have 2 sensor boosters fitted for lock time, someone with rsd nerfs my locking range, can I change the scripts in my sb too lockrange to counter this, or can scripts only be installed in stations/fitting arrays? if it can be changed is change like ammo with a 10sec loading time or is it like laser crystals and instantanious? also wondering on teh various lowslot items like signal amplifiers and damage mods, are those unafected or do those get scripts as well? ----- GIEV custom ship paint jobs! I want my hello-kitty-kessie! For your safety do not destroy vital testing apparatus

CCP Gangleri	Posted - 2007.10.31 15:08:00 - [26] Scripts take one second to reload.

Udyr Vulpayne Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.31 15:55:00 - [27] Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 31/10/2007 15:55:48 Originally by: CCP Gangleri Scripts take one second to reload. how about increasing this to 10 (or even more) seconds so a wrong choice has more of an effect on combat.
El'essar Viocragh Minmatar FSK23	Posted - 2007.10.31 15:55:00 - [28] Originally by: CCP Gangleri [...] Lets start with a list of modules affected: Tracking Link [...] these modules have therefore been very popular fittings. [...] On which server do you play? -- [17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim
Arenis Xemdal Amarr	Posted - 2007.10.31 16:35:00 - [29] Originally by: Feng Schui The scripts really shouldn't reduce the non-bonused attribute tbh, since the attributes have already been reduced 50%. Well I believe they should. At the end of the day, its a matter of opinion on what is fair. But the whole purpose of doing things this way, with scripts, is so CCP does not have to create stuff like Long Range Sensor Booster and Fast Lock Sensor Booster. It makes sense that if you want the full bonus, you only get one. If you don't install any scripts you do 50% of both types.. which still only amounts to the same effect. Otherwise you basically have zero reason to use the un-Scripted module with dual bonuses. This allows people to carry one type of script loaded at all times and be fairly well off even if they misjudge the circumstances completely and utterly. Thats no good, part of the appeal of this system is that you've got to make decisions, and that you can do them in space on the fly. Cause last I checked, fittings only work under ideal circumstances, and not everyone can change them. EVE would be too much of a paper rock scissors game if that were the case (sometimes it is).
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2007.10.31 17:13:00 - [30] I just hope that the non-bonused attribute is reduced to 0%. If its just reduced to something silly like 1% it will go in the stacking pile with all the other modules, causing all sorts of silly stack nerfs and making it hard to get a balanced setup.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.