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)
Ragel Tropxe The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.31 18:08:00 - [31] Of course we will need to see how they pan out on Sisi, but Im very concerned that the tracking computer and sensor booster scripts will have an unbalanced affect across races. In particular I fly a Tempest. Artillery has terrible tracking and pretty poor optimal range, Minmatar ships do not have a long lock range. In comparison however, the Rokh has huge range (so can just choose tracking scripts) and the Mega has a tracking bonus (and so can just choose range scripts). If you plan to introduce the scripts to non-Ewar mods, please confirm if you have plans to adjust artillery / laser stats to balance the effect out across the races
bsspewer Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.31 19:02:00 - [32] Edited by: bsspewer on 31/10/2007 19:02:20 Scripts take one sec to reload, but that's equal to 30 seconds when in a battle larger then 20 people. Fix the lag first, then give us more things to click and do. Other then that, What about adding a "Load all" or "Reload all w/ - " options for scripts and ammo. I'm tried of having all guns loaded fully w/ one type of ammo, want to switch to a 2nd type, but I have to individually click each gun to reload it. Why not let me click one gun, select one option, and all weapons now be ready? There's a delay for each gun I click to reload. 10 sec to reload ammo, but add on 1.5 sec to click through the menu of each gun. 6 guns would be 19+ sec to reload all, 8 is 22+ sec to reload. Get my point? ____________________
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2007.10.31 20:53:00 - [33] Originally by: bldyannoyed 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. That will not be a problem. Bonuses that are stacknerfed are applied in order of size, starting with the largest. So if you have a 60% bonus, a 30% bonus and two 1% bonuses, you get a final bonus of (1.6 * (1+0.3First Stacknerf) (1+ 0.01 * Second Stacknerf) * (1+0.01 * Third Stacknerf)), so those 1% bonuses don't affect your good modules. That ends up being about a 103% bonus, total. Non stacking nerfed bonuses and penalties are applied separately, and the order doesn't matter there. Also, bonuses and penalties have their own stacknerf groupings, sou you can't stack 2 SBAs and then a lot of CPRs on a Raven and suffer minimal penalties from the CPRs. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
ElfeGER Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.31 22:36:00 - [34] more lag \o/
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.10.31 23:52:00 - [35] Originally by: katz3 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. Yes please. Originally by: Ragel Tropxe Of course we will need to see how they pan out on Sisi, but Im very concerned that the tracking computer and sensor booster scripts will have an unbalanced affect across races. In particular I fly a Tempest. Artillery has terrible tracking and pretty poor optimal range, Minmatar ships do not have a long lock range. In comparison however, the Rokh has huge range (so can just choose tracking scripts) and the Mega has a tracking bonus (and so can just choose range scripts). If you plan to introduce the scripts to non-Ewar mods, please confirm if you have plans to adjust artillery / laser stats to balance the effect out across the races I really would like a straight answer from CCP Gangleri on this. Ragel makes much the same points I did in my previous post. And I believe we have a strong reason for concern.
Natalie Jax Indecision Industries	Posted - 2007.11.01 00:06:00 - [36] Please construct a script for Falloff-Range Disruption sooner rather than later. Don't you find it strange that the race with the bonuses to Tracking Disruptors (Amarr) is the least useful versus their enemy faction (Minmatar)? Though I suppose the Minmatar did develop their technology after the Ammarians and likely designed their weapons with large falloff ranges as a direct result of the Amarrian tracking disruption technology. Doesn't change the fact that it still sucks :p.
Treher Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.01 00:10:00 - [37] I would be all for it if your UI was a little more user friendly. You are expanding on a bad you and are therefore making it worse. Please, please, please revamp the UI as soon as possible to make playing the game less complicated than experiencing the game. Please, please redesign and code a new HUD. It would really help with enthusiasm about new combat features. ______________________________________________________ I forget which station container has my memory implants.
Jimbob McKracken Caldari The Tidemark Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.01 00:15:00 - [38] my big worry with this is that it is just more and more and more stuff to think about before undocking. If you want a good example go and look at Jeremy Clarkson's review of the BMW M5 - having to click 400 buttons just to make it have full power is not his or my idea of a good time, why is a Ferrari more fun ? Because you put the key in and go drive. As a general rule the smaller the ship I fly the more fun I have - why ? because its simple to fit and fly. Eve is incredibly complex, but surely this is just a level of complication that is too far, with a ship UI that is already to difficult to manage in laggy situations. So preflight check list - mods, ammo, rigs, boosters, scripts, implants........ sure there's going to be variation in ship loadouts but my word I wouldn't want to try explaining it to a new player. Can't you just give us T1 modules that don't use scripts and then T2 ones that can be customised to fit a role, just like T2 ammo ?????
Occara	Posted - 2007.11.01 00:36:00 - [39] yay for breaking my tracking computers... that i already spend 1/2 my mid slots on....
Yukisa	Posted - 2007.11.01 02:00:00 - [40] You just broke all armarr BS for fleet sniping with this change. Beams/Tachs = Shortest range weapon on ships without tracking bonuses. Armarr ships = Low mid slots. (Mega has tracking bonus, rails got longer range by default. Rohk has huge range, it can devote only to tracking script and work) Armarr need both the range boost and tracking boost to make sniping viable. Without the mids to devote to 2 separate bonuses, they will face problems. This is also an issue with the tempest/maelstrom as well, though they have more mid slots so it isn't as nasty. As for the EW changes, scripts need to modify ONE stat to the current strength. Please reconsider and modify accordingly.
Sinnbad Mayhem Amarr Suicidal Mercenaries Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.01 02:02:00 - [41] Scripts should not be loadable, they should be selectable. Are snipers and tracking the problem in EVE atm? I dont think so. If anything long-range combat needs to be boosted to help with lag. You guys are making this more complicated than it should be. I would like to know why Snipers are being targeted? Is this really the path you are following? Next thing you will do is introduce more scripts to manage the scripts .... NERF SCRIPTS. Toggle Switches \o/ (or better yet kill this) S&M
Trojanman190 Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.11.01 03:50:00 - [42] This is ********? can you please stop nerfing stuff? non of these modules need it. Do you people just sit around deciding what you can nerf next? Nobody complains about the dual bonuses on these things... why are you changing them? please... stop nerfing and start boosting.
Arenis Xemdal Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.01 05:14:00 - [43] Originally by: Nian Banks Originally by: Arenis Xemdal 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). Sounds like you forget something, True many people would stick with the base stats if they were the same, but thats their choice. Scripts can add functionality to those who want to use it, giving them the advantage. So why should we nerf them to inferiority before use? I see no justification to it. So your saying if we want one of the two bonuses back to how they were, we must all but forget about the second bonus? Sounds a little backwards to me. This is not a good idea from CCP's little brain stormers. Only, and I repeat Only Because they have halved the bonuses on the modules before you add scripts. If they truly want scripts to be seen as a new tool to increase choice and diversity then they are best to leave the modules bonuses as they were originally and allow the changes through scripts only. I don't see how simpler I can make this: two massive bonuses each giving bonuses in the high percentage values is broken and ridiculous. What you're suggesting is that CCP NOT nerf them, but still introduce scripts to allow people to augment one of the stats even further. Do you not understand that scripts are only the means, and not the end? Let me repeat this once again, the modules are too powerful and need balancing. If this is something you disagree with, then I pity you. Any alliance boob only needs to find their organization's combat/war forum to see that sensor boosters and tracking computers are on virtually every fleet setup worth standardizing. You can tell a whole fleet of competent pilots to fit for hitting with highest damage possible at 170km, and they will come up with the same stuff. This has been going on for years, and its about time they started balancing the game without forgetting the entire fleet concept. So no, I have not 'forgotten' anything. What CCP have chosen to do here is probably the smartest way of doing it, and I applaud them. And as someone on the first page suggested, make the reload of scripts more than 1 second, and they become fun additions to tactical warfare.
Arenis Xemdal Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.01 05:16:00 - [44] Originally by: bldyannoyed 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. I too hope its 0% and not some marginal effect that means nothing, but is there to annoy you.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.11.01 06:48:00 - [45] Originally by: Trojanman190 This is ********? can you please stop nerfing stuff? non of these modules need it. Do you people just sit around deciding what you can nerf next? Nobody complains about the dual bonuses on these things... why are you changing them? please... stop nerfing and start boosting. Actually, last few times I've been in a fleet, they've been pretty much mandatory mods - fleet snipers win everything. Losing tracking computers and sensor boosters as 'ownage mode' seems like a good plan to me. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
Tyr Zewa Caldari MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.01 07:33:00 - [46] A module that needs 3 modules to counter, why are you surprised it's getting nerfed? I took a 2 year break and i was VERY surprised to see RSD had not been nerfed yet, the module was to strong and needed balancing. Dislike the fact that track comps and sensor booster's and remote sensor booster and track links get a nerf. These modules were not that powerful, and actually already failed to counter their counter modules. Tracking Links and Remote Boosters were already so weak and stack so badly that they're almost never used.
Kitia STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.01 09:03:00 - [47] Originally by: Tyr Zewa A module that needs 3 modules to counter, why are you surprised it's getting nerfed? I took a 2 year break and i was VERY surprised to see RSD had not been nerfed yet, the module was to strong and needed balancing. 3 modules Tyr, Remote Sensor Dampener II Scan resolution Bonus -48 Targeting Range Bonus -48 Activation cost 36 Activation Time 10Sec. Sensor Booster II Targeting Range Bonus 60% Scan Resolution bonus 60% Activation cost 10 Activation Time 20Sec. So the counter module for damps already is 12% more effective with a lower energy cost, and you think damps need nurfing more? Kitia
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2007.11.01 09:27:00 - [48] @ Kitia. Your maths fails. Take 100km base lock range as an example. +1 Sensor Booster II you'd get 160km Lockrange. Hit that with a 48% RSD, it goes down to 83km, LESS than you started with. OR start with 100km lock range, minus 1 47% RSD, down to 52 KM lockrange. Add 1 60% SB, and yuo end up with 83KM lock range. To make it simple, to counter 1 50% RSD ( obtainable on non-spec ships with signal suppression at 1 or 2 ), you need a Sensor Booster that gives 100% bonus. Which dont exist. Ergo, 3 RSD'd CANNOT be effectively countered.
El'essar Viocragh Minmatar FSK23	Posted - 2007.11.01 09:39:00 - [49] 0.52 * 1.6 = 0.832 0.52 * 1.6 * 1.522 = 1.266 Or in other words, one Sensor Booster II does not counter one Remote Sensor Dampener II, you need two to still have a 26.6% positive effect. Combine that with the fact that there is a skill to increase the strength of the RSD's effect while there is none for the Sensor Booster, and the picture is another thing entirely (here: skill at 4). 0.424 * 1.6 = 0.6784 0.424 * 1.6 * 1.522 = 1.033 So, with the Ewar strength skill for RSDs at 4, you need two SBs to counter its effect. The "3 modules to counter it" is only valid on ships with RSD bonus. With Signal Supression 4 and Shipskill 4 here you get these numbers: 0.309 * 1.6 * 1.522 * 1.324 = 0.996 So with SigSupression 5 and/or shipskill 5 you can't cancel out the effect of one RSDII on a bonused ship with three SBII. And if you go for the infight, your lock takes ages because of the same effect on your scan resolution. -- [17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim

CCP Gangleri	Posted - 2007.11.01 10:46:00 - [50] Scripts will reduce one bonus by 100% and boost the other by 100% as they are today, I'm hoping I can seed them on Sisi next monday.

bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2007.11.01 11:07:00 - [51] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Scripts will reduce one bonus by 100% and boost the other by 100% as they are today, I'm hoping I can seed them on Sisi next monday. So what you're saying is that a Sensor Booster II with a lock range script will give 60% targetting range and 0% scan res? Well bugger me if that isn't the mother of all nerfs.
Zirator Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.01 11:35:00 - [52] Am I the only one seeing a connection here. Since I started playing EVE CCP added new features like Heat, the new gang system, Eve voice etc. etc. And since they started adding all these features EVE started lagging more and more. Now we get another "cool" feature that will give us more work while flying our ships, and it will end up: A: causing more lag in the firtst place because more information has to be processed by the server / client. B: will make fights even more impossible cause there is even more thing we have to click and then wait a couple of minutes to take effect. Please CCP for the love of EVE fix the lag that has been getting worse and worse since I started playing before you add other features that will probably only increase the current lag lvl of any engagement that involves more then 1 individual. But seeing that you problably don't consider lag to be priority and want to push this feature in make it so that: A: running a script doesn't put a penalty on the unscripted attribute. So at least Amarr and Minmatar don't get shafted to hell and back in anything considering long range fleet fights. B: introduce it in such a way that Recons before and after the addition of this "feature" keep their level of dampening, tracking disrupting etc. Remember that a lot of the nerf damps rabble rabble omg cry cry noobcrap is comming due to these modules being used on ships that aren't supposed to be using them in the first place ( or at least don't recieve any bonusses towards them IE nano- ( enter random t2 cruiser here ) ) Z out
Koala Bare eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.01 12:01:00 - [53] Scripts are essentially tweaks to the on board computer systems right - must be a mighty slow ship AI on each ship in EVE if it takes a second to load >.< The point on lag is pretty valid .. anything which takes any cycle to load or reload becomes a real pain during combat. As for the BPO's, why not have these drop via exploration only in the drone regions :-)
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.01 12:20:00 - [54] About bloody time too tbh. This is one of the most needed changes to Eve game mechanics, and has been waiting in the wings for a long time. I can't even remember when splitting dual bonus modules was first suggested (which is effectively what this is), but it seems like forever. I think there are a lot of knee-jerk whines here, without full consideration of quite how important this change actually is. Think about, for example, gate camps. All those nasty BS sitting outside sentry gun range, instapopping passing ships. Well, now they have to choose between fast locking or range. Do they tank the sentry guns to ensure a fast enough lock, or do they play it safe and snipe, and probably miss more targets? Fleet combat & tracking computers. If you are using the TC to boost your turret range, why are you so concerned about tracking? At long ranges tracking is much less of an issue anyway. I honestly don't know many people who look at the tracking of their turrets when fitting a fleet ship, rather than the optimal range. So, current fleet combat tactics (at long to very long range) will involve longer lock times, and worse tracking - but they will be otherwise pretty much unchanged. The question will be, are those tactics still optimal? With the advantage of better tracking and faster locks, maybe getting in close will overcome the drawbacks it currently endures? There will be more tactical considerations, and that is a good thing. I am very much in favour of this progression in Eve combat, and I can't wait to see how it evolves. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2007.11.01 12:41:00 - [55] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Scripts will reduce one bonus by 100% and boost the other by 100% as they are today, I'm hoping I can seed them on Sisi next monday. So let me get this right, you have already reduced the bonuses on all these modules by 50% and now to get one of the bonuses to the same as it was originally on the module before this big assed nerf, you have to reduce one bonus to nothing? Well gee this is great, I mean fantastic. This must surely be the largest nerf in CCP history, Were talking nerfing a module to HALF I mean HALF 1/2 50% HALF of its original effectiveness. Well blow me down with a sledge hammer. You guys are on drugs.
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.01 12:56:00 - [56] Avon is correct on how changing sensor boosters and tracking computers is a great idea. Right now, when you fit two sensor boosters on a battleship so you can lock out to sniper range (150km-200km), you also get sensor resolution comparable to or better than a cruiser. When you put two sensor boosters on a anti-support HAC like an Eagle or a Muninn, you get both the lock range and sensor resolution similar to a frigate but with many times the range. But if they split the effects of Sensor Boosters and Tracking Computers, then tacklers have a better chance of burning towards another fleet, making the disadvantages of forming "power balls" more apparent. You'll need to spread your forces out so that anti-support can get a better shot at tacklers with different angles, which opens opportunities for flanking (or as close to flanking as you're going to get in EVE) and other options. Splitting the effects of sensor boosters and tracking computers also opens up a wide variety of ships that are no longer ineffective in fleet combat. For starters, destroyers may become useful again as closer range anti-support instead of sniping HACs, and even pulse laser battleships could find some use in the right situation. This change also could swing the favor towards missile boats like Ravens and Drakes, which are often best at mid-range. It also makes certain forms of electronic warfare useful again, such as Tracking Disruptors, which aren't too useful right now because of their very limited effective range. It could even make assault frigates and autocannon/blaster cruisers (not including the Vagabond or Stabber) useful in fleets instead of just too slow and heavy to be effective. It could even be considered a stealth buff to amarr, since they have many lowslots that can be used for Tracking Enhancers and Heat Sinks, which don't have their effects split. So yes, you should be in favor of the changes to sensor boosters and tracking computers, because it could be the best thing to happen to fleet combat in a very long time.
Gner Dechast Gallente Flashman Services	Posted - 2007.11.01 13:08:00 - [57] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Scripts will reduce one bonus by 100% and boost the other by 100% as they are today, I'm hoping I can seed them on Sisi next monday. May I ask, if the stacking penalties are also reworked? Currently Remote Sensor Damps are subject to stacking penalties, and this would create some very unpleasant situations for a small gang where one has damps to reduce locking range and one damps to reduce locking time... Please tell me that these will be two different stacking categories. Sincerely, G
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.01 13:33:00 - [58] I'm in Avon's camp on this one, and (cautiously) see this as a good thing for the game in general.
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.01 14:19:00 - [59] Edited by: Veng3ance on 01/11/2007 14:29:05 Originally by: CCP Gangleri Scripts will reduce one bonus by 100% and boost the other by 100% as they are today, I'm hoping I can seed them on Sisi next monday. GREAT. Thanks a **en lot! 100% nerf! Thats what you REALLY meant to say. And you still en avoiding the Amarr and Minmatar concerns for OBVIOUS reasons. The reason is "oh , we didn't do anything about that, I guess those guys are SOL". ** this!
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2007.11.01 14:22:00 - [60] While i can understand how this change can will positively affect many aspects of the game, there are, as usual, some ships which will simply be nerfed by this. Muninn. Designed primarily an an artillery boat. Only 3 mids. Will require 2 sensor boosters on range mode to be able to lock up to its own optimal and 1 tracking comp on optimal to be able to gets its range out to anything really usefull. Result is that ship that only functions well as a fast alpha strike boat can no longer achieve a fast alpha strike. Eagle- A ship with a long and well documented list of problems will no longer be able to achieve long range AND good tracking, about the only thing that anyone can agree it does reasonably well. How is a Tempest, which once loading a 1400II with Tremor has tracking comparable to a Dreadnought supposed to funtion if it can essentially only choose range OR tracking?

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.