EVE Search - Shield Amplifiers

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Shield Amplifiers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.03.24 07:42:00 - [31] Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Johnster Great to see this is being looked into again. This is maybe not the place for this, but since your looking into module changes, would it be possible to look at fixing missiles so that they move faster (200% to 500% or so) for less time (equal to the speed increase), so that in PVP, we (a) actually hit something before the fleet blows it up and (b) can at least hit nano ships (even though damage will still be extremely low when you do). This is a huge issue since the speed rigs were introduced. Note that this would also reduce lag in fleet battles as the missiles will not be active for as long. Go for secondary targets. They are missiles... you want to go after tertiary if you ever hope to get them there before primary AND secondary pop -- My Sig got pwnt by Cortes :(
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.03.25 05:13:00 - [32] Back to the top. Hopefully, Nozh has had some time to think about the shield amps over the long weekend and has an interest solution ready :) -- My Sig got pwnt by Cortes :(

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2008.03.25 20:20:00 - [33] Alright gang, check this spreadsheet out and see if I overlooked something. The resistanceBonus values may seem a bit weird since I made them with my mad maths. But I wanted more values than the standard 1.5% increase produced to be able to deviate them a bit more (maybe I did the exact opposite by bringing the values too close together, I quite like them though). I'll take a look at this thread in a few hours before I go to bed. Remember, I like constructive posts. I just noticed the Gistum C-Type needs its cpu reduced to 25. Can't be bothered to create another screen shot, it's after working hours already. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.25 20:34:00 - [34] Those mod stats look much better now. But why is Dread Guristas amp weaker by 0.6% than it used to be? It used to be 40% People aren't gonna be happy about that. But everything else looks good
Hectaire Glade Forum Jockey	Posted - 2008.03.25 20:43:00 - [35] Nozh, gets my vote, sits well with the officer/complex/faction alignment as discussed. Thanks for taking another look at this. These values sit better and closer to the spread in the energized plate armor alternatives.
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.03.25 21:33:00 - [36] Originally by: CCP Nozh I just noticed the Gistum C-Type needs its cpu reduced to 25. Can't be bothered to create another screen shot, it's after working hours already. Much much better now. Of concern is the current domination amps, which has the lowest CPU usage at 15. In the new chart, Gistum modules (which belong to the Angel / domination line) have had their CPU usage raised, along with their resistance bonuses (Gistum A went from 25tf/-34% to 29tf/-43.2%). Would it make sense, then, to raise the Domination base cpu usage from 15tf to the 17-19tf range, to keep it more consistent with the new values? Also, I notice Tobias' keeps the same CPU as Gistum A, but has a higher resistance (-44.1 instead of 43.2) Is this consistent with the rest of the Gistum A / Tobias relationship? Or is Tobias more in line with Gistum X modules (which we don't have any of in the shield resistance amplifier chart). Thanks again for taking a 2nd look at this whole line. Overall, the new values look much improved. -- My Sig got pwnt by Cortes :(

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2008.03.26 01:16:00 - [37] Edited by: CCP Nozh on 26/03/2008 01:16:36 Originally by: Willow Whisp Much much better now. Of concern is the current domination amps, which has the lowest CPU usage at 15. In the new chart, Gistum modules (which belong to the Angel / domination line) have had their CPU usage raised, along with their resistance bonuses (Gistum A went from 25tf/-34% to 29tf/-43.2%). Would it make sense, then, to raise the Domination base cpu usage from 15tf to the 17-19tf range, to keep it more consistent with the new values? Yeah, I was thinking that, but since it's so much lower than the other shield amps and it's been at 15tf since they were released I feel bad nerfing them, some people might have spent money on acquiring them for the "perfect fit", but on the other hand since they sucked a lot before... raising their to 17-19tf might not be such a bad idea. Originally by: Willow Whisp Also, I notice Tobias' keeps the same CPU as Gistum A, but has a higher resistance (-44.1 instead of 43.2) Is this consistent with the rest of the Gistum A / Tobias relationship? Or is Tobias more in line with Gistum X modules (which we don't have any of in the shield resistance amplifier chart). The Tobias shield booster is in line with the Gistum X-Type, thats what I based it of... other shield related Tobias modules seem to suck and need a look at.. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Cordus Advanced Combat Machines and Equipment Independent Faction	Posted - 2008.03.26 01:30:00 - [38] I'm a little disappointed that we no longer have the 40% resistance on the shield resistance amplifiers. (Really, would the other 0.4% have been that much of a reach around?) The way everything unfolded, it made it neat to maximize the related shield compensation skill to level 5 with that great mod -- accessible to everyone (sort of) despite the great expense -- to get an even 50% resistance. However, I do greatly appreciate the effort to unnerf them as much as has been done.
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.03.26 01:55:00 - [39] Originally by: CCP Nozh Yeah, I was thinking that, but since it's so much lower than the other shield amps and it's been at 15tf since they were released I feel bad nerfing them, some people might have spent money on acquiring them for the "perfect fit", but on the other hand since they sucked a lot before... raising their to 17-19tf might not be such a bad idea. Their resist % has gone from -32.5 in the original chart, to 37.5 with your latest changes, so a slight increase in CPU to 17-19tf seems to be in line. Generally, CPU is something that passive tanks aren't really short on anyway, so it continues to be an overall boost regardless, while continuing to keep the faction flavor of lower fitting. Originally by: CCP Nozh The Tobias shield booster is in line with the Gistum X-Type, thats what I based it of... other shield related Tobias modules seem to suck and need a look at.. Ok, this makes sense to me. I have noticed on some shield and propulsion modules, Tobias matches Gistum X, while in others they used to match Gistum A, so making Tobias consisten with Gistum X is a better overall change, and probably going over the Officers to double check consistency is not a bad idea overall. Thanks for all your hard work on this, -Willow -- My Sig got pwnt by Cortes :(
Reatu Krentor Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2008.03.26 03:49:00 - [40] Originally by: CCP Nozh Alright gang, check this spreadsheet out and see if I overlooked something. The resistanceBonus values may seem a bit weird since I made them with my mad maths. But I wanted more values than the standard 1.5% increase produced to be able to deviate them a bit more (maybe I did the exact opposite by bringing the values too close together, I quite like them though). I'll take a look at this thread in a few hours before I go to bed. Remember, I like constructive posts. I just noticed the Gistum C-Type needs its cpu reduced to 25. Can't be bothered to create another screen shot, it's after working hours already. First, \/ my hero Second, is it intentional that Republic Fleet is "worse" then Domination for shield amps? It seems inconsistent with other Republic Fleet items which have the same stats as their Domination equivalents. As a final question, could you also take a look at the active hardeners(both armor and shield) for domination and republic fleet. Because right now they are the same as the named version of the hardener with a capacitor reduction. Which is nice but not nice enough to settle for a resist reduction. Perhaps a small increase to them could be nice(like bump it up to 52.5% for specific and 27.5% for invulnerability field)? -- stuff --

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2008.03.26 05:31:00 - [41] Originally by: Reatu Krentor Originally by: CCP Nozh Alright gang, check this spreadsheet out and see if I overlooked something. The resistanceBonus values may seem a bit weird since I made them with my mad maths. But I wanted more values than the standard 1.5% increase produced to be able to deviate them a bit more (maybe I did the exact opposite by bringing the values too close together, I quite like them though). I'll take a look at this thread in a few hours before I go to bed. Remember, I like constructive posts. I just noticed the Gistum C-Type needs its cpu reduced to 25. Can't be bothered to create another screen shot, it's after working hours already. First, \/ my hero Second, is it intentional that Republic Fleet is "worse" then Domination for shield amps? It seems inconsistent with other Republic Fleet items which have the same stats as their Domination equivalents. As a final question, could you also take a look at the active hardeners(both armor and shield) for domination and republic fleet. Because right now they are the same as the named version of the hardener with a capacitor reduction. Which is nice but not nice enough to settle for a resist reduction. Perhaps a small increase to them could be nice(like bump it up to 52.5% for specific and 27.5% for invulnerability field)? I'm not sure about the relationship between Republic Fleet and Domination shield mods, I'll take a look tomorrow. Actually while looking into the Shield Amps closer I noticed a lot of underpowered modules and inconsistencies, so I guess I'm just going to have to take a look at all high meta stuff. 5:30, more work in 4 hours or so. 3 hour sleep here I come. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.03.26 05:56:00 - [42] Originally by: CCP Nozh 5:30, more work in 4 hours or so. 3 hour sleep here I come. Nozh, you're a beast! -- My Sig got pwnt by Cortes :(
Zarch AlDain Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.26 10:20:00 - [43] Good work Nozh, it looks a lot better now. Can I just say it's really nice to see a developer interacting with players like this and taking feedback on board! Zarch AlDain ---- My corp is recruiting. See the recruitment thread here.
Laila Eldgorn Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.03.26 16:00:00 - [44] Edited by: Laila Eldgorn on 26/03/2008 16:02:11 Please do not compare shield modules on armor counterparts, there isn't any. Shield tank works essentially in different way than armor tank and shield resists are already lower (that's why explosive resist nerf on shield wtf?). Instead of nerfing shield amps or faction hardeners maybe check stats so they're actually useful for shield tanking. I think everyone was happily fitting faction resist amps on their cruisers or smaller ships where they were useful, but you don't fit those on battleships which active tank etc. I don't actually get this whole shield tank nerf at all, are minmatar overpowered? nerf minmatar. 75% em base resist on t2 woo-woo. Nanoers don't use shield buffer because shields are so good, but because nanos are so nom nom. edit: also those new stats on tables look much more sensible now.
Mioelnir KULT Production Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.03.26 16:28:00 - [45] This. is. awesome.
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.03.26 16:33:00 - [46] Originally by: Laila Eldgorn edit: also those new stats on tables look much more sensible now. Yes, that was the point in this whole discussion. How to bring passive resist modules to a point where they are actually useful, without being overpowered. The whole line is now better, with a few overpowered mods taken down a notch. Overall a much better balance and better lineup. Now most of the high meta shield amps are worth fitting. -- My Sig got pwnt by Cortes :(
Hectaire Glade Forum Jockey	Posted - 2008.03.26 16:47:00 - [47] Originally by: CCP Nozh stuff Would like to say Nozh, that having personally been a bit jacked off with the direction of Eve and CCP lately your responsiveness to the feedback given on this change has been a breath of fresh air and clear role model for how things can work, good stuff!
Back Again Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.03.26 17:21:00 - [48] Originally by: Hectaire Glade Originally by: CCP Nozh stuff Would like to say Nozh, that having personally been a bit jacked off with the direction of Eve and CCP lately your responsiveness to the feedback given on this change has been a breath of fresh air and clear role model for how things can work, good stuff! Same here. Please, Nozh, keep this communication channel opened, you can count on several constructive posts full of arguments you can think about. And we can think about your arguments too as, you can see, agreement is not impossible, to the contrary. Thanks again. No signature here, only the bright light of a ship exploding right in front of me... Ohhh, wait, I'm in a pod!! It was my ship!!!
Reecoh Soltar Exotic Dancer Talent Agency United Corporations Against Macros	Posted - 2008.03.26 18:32:00 - [49] Originally by: Hectaire Glade Would like to say Nozh, that having personally been a bit jacked off with the direction of Eve and CCP lately your responsiveness to the feedback given on this change has been a breath of fresh air and clear role model for how things can work, good stuff! I'll concur on this as well. While I have not contributed to this discussion, I've been following it (and learning a lot). Thanks Nozh! As it sounds like you are reviewing a lot of the items, I'm wondering if you are also going to check the related COSMOS/Storyline modules?
Ulstan Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.03.26 18:32:00 - [50] Edited by: Ulstan on 26/03/2008 18:33:40 Quote: The resistanceBonus values may seem a bit weird since I made them with my mad maths. But I wanted more values than the standard 1.5% increase produced to be able to deviate them a bit more (maybe I did the exact opposite by bringing the values too close together, I quite like them though). I'll take a look at this thread in a few hours before I go to bed. Remember, I like constructive posts. I just noticed the Gistum C-Type needs its cpu reduced to 25. Can't be bothered to create another screen shot, it's after working hours already. Superb changes. Looks a lot better now. And yeah, the relatively high CPU for the gist c type was the only thing that really jumped out at me. these new values are so much better than the previous set - they maintain the same general power level as before (so people don't feel like their mods are getting hit with the nerf bat) while maintaining consistency inside a faction line and maintaining the flavor of each faction line (gist cheaper fitting, lower effects, pith high fitting, higher effects, etc) Quote: Actually while looking into the Shield Amps closer I noticed a lot of underpowered modules and inconsistencies, so I guess I'm just going to have to take a look at all high meta stuff. Yeah, there are a few. :) Overhauling the 'useless' faction mods scattered around would be a welcome, though rather involved, endeavor. if you try to tackle it I am quite sure the forum goers here would be happy to provide feedback as you go :)
Johnster Mining Bytes Inc. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.27 20:49:00 - [51] Originally by: Willow Whisp Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Johnster Great to see this is being looked into again. This is maybe not the place for this, but since your looking into module changes, would it be possible to look at fixing missiles so that they move faster (200% to 500% or so) for less time (equal to the speed increase), so that in PVP, we (a) actually hit something before the fleet blows it up and (b) can at least hit nano ships (even though damage will still be extremely low when you do). This is a huge issue since the speed rigs were introduced. Note that this would also reduce lag in fleet battles as the missiles will not be active for as long. Go for secondary targets. They are missiles... you want to go after tertiary if you ever hope to get them there before primary AND secondary pop Exactly. Many alliances don't even let players use missile ships any more, they have just become useless since the nano craze, and in fleet battles the missiles dont have time to get to the target. I hope this can be looked into so that caldari finally become something other then an ECM race. As stated earlier in the thread, drones have a similar issue. Maybe they could get a speed boost too? You and your alliance will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.30 02:28:00 - [52] One set of faction modules that needs fixing are the shield transporters. They have a worse energy/shield xfer ratio than base tech I modules and tech II beats the crap out of them :p Both pithi and gisti require far too much energy, and the gisti also boosts for too much. The small pith shield transporters in particular, are something I don't see anyone fitting ever.
Wesley Baird D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.30 04:18:00 - [53] Originally by: Hectaire Glade Originally by: CCP Nozh stuff Would like to say Nozh, that having personally been a bit jacked off with the direction of Eve and CCP lately your responsiveness to the feedback given on this change has been a breath of fresh air and clear role model for how things can work, good stuff! Couldnt have said it better myself, thank you Nozh interaction like this really helps us keep the faith.
Agock Onie	Posted - 2008.03.31 20:05:00 - [54] Did we get a date when these changes are going into effect?
DogSlime Wilde Cards	Posted - 2008.03.31 21:23:00 - [55] Just re-visited this thread. Thanks to Nozh for the updates. It really is (almost) enough to restore faith in CCP's Dev team.
Back Again	Posted - 2008.04.04 00:06:00 - [56] Indeed, some ETA would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. No signature here, only the bright light of a ship exploding right in front of me... Ohhh, wait, I'm in a pod!! It was my ship!!!
Lynkon Lawg Second Six Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.07 14:09:00 - [57] I know I, for one, am still breathlessly awaiting an ETA for the next change on this. Is it slated for the next patch?
Back Again Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.04.10 23:35:00 - [58] Trinity 1.2 Patch coming in April 15 and no mention on this issue in the patch notes. Lets not forget it again, please.
Fastercart Gallente Ihatalo Heavy Industries Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.11 16:10:00 - [59] Originally by: Back Again Trinity 1.2 Patch coming in April 15 and no mention on this issue in the patch notes. Lets not forget it again, please. Looks like they forgot... Nozh's proposal: http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/forum/nozh/sa-new-new.gif Current (53049) Sisi screenshot: http://img36.picoodle.com/img/img36/4/4/11/fastcart/f_sacurrentm_10e1e9e.png Which is the same as the current TQ values. __ Rorqual AKA Mega Maid Oh, my God. It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to blow.
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.04.11 20:33:00 - [60] So, when is all this coming to TQ? -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.