| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
   |
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:14:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: soldieroffortune 258
megathron: reists: (armor)
EM: 50%
Explosive: 10%
Thermal: 35%
Kinetic: 35%
amount of low slots: 7
damage specific PASSIVE hardeners give 37.5%increased resists (t2)
you could fit:
Energized Reflective Plating II
x2 Energized Reactive Membrane II's
Energized Thermic Membrane II
Energized Magnetic Membrane II
so now the resists would be:
87.5 EM
85% Explosive
72.5% Thermal
72.5% Kinetic
now, fit 2 Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II's which give 20%increased resists to all damage types (getting all this from the item database btw)
so now your resits would be:
99.9% EM
99.9% Explosive
92.5% Thermal and
92.5% Kinetic
so those would be your resists for a normal megathron
your math is completely wrong.
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:16:00 -
[32]
When I fly my retribution I have to specialise. Now do I fit a webber, disruptor or a MWD...
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:19:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Tzar'rim
If you don't see it, then why do you care about trying to get it?
i do not care about damage. i care about many other things that are stacking nerfed. damage can be achieved by bringing more ships, but there are things like range or tracking that are not. those are the things that i would love to not have stacking nerfed.
|
soldieroffortune 258
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:23:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: soldieroffortune 258
megathron: reists: (armor)
EM: 50%
Explosive: 10%
Thermal: 35%
Kinetic: 35%
amount of low slots: 7
damage specific PASSIVE hardeners give 37.5%increased resists (t2)
you could fit:
Energized Reflective Plating II
x2 Energized Reactive Membrane II's
Energized Thermic Membrane II
Energized Magnetic Membrane II
so now the resists would be:
87.5 EM
85% Explosive
72.5% Thermal
72.5% Kinetic
now, fit 2 Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II's which give 20%increased resists to all damage types (getting all this from the item database btw)
so now your resits would be:
99.9% EM
99.9% Explosive
92.5% Thermal and
92.5% Kinetic
so those would be your resists for a normal megathron
your math is completely wrong.
i dont see how, what your asking for is NO penalties, this is what EVE would be like without penalties
i may suck at algebra, but my normal math is just fine
|
Faife
Minmatar
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:28:00 -
[35]
look, it happened before. it was broken. let it go.
- -
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:35:00 -
[36]
Originally by: soldieroffortune 258
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: soldieroffortune 258
megathron: reists: (armor)
EM: 50%
Explosive: 10%
Thermal: 35%
Kinetic: 35%
amount of low slots: 7
damage specific PASSIVE hardeners give 37.5%increased resists (t2)
you could fit:
Energized Reflective Plating II
x2 Energized Reactive Membrane II's
Energized Thermic Membrane II
Energized Magnetic Membrane II
so now the resists would be:
87.5 EM
85% Explosive
72.5% Thermal
72.5% Kinetic
now, fit 2 Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II's which give 20%increased resists to all damage types (getting all this from the item database btw)
so now your resits would be:
99.9% EM
99.9% Explosive
92.5% Thermal and
92.5% Kinetic
so those would be your resists for a normal megathron
your math is completely wrong.
i dont see how, what your asking for is NO penalties, this is what EVE would be like without penalties
i may suck at algebra, but my normal math is just fine
no, i asked for no stacking penalties, but you are doing something else, not math.
if we have a 50% resistance, and we add a 50% hardener, our total resistance is 75%, not 100%. think about it
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Ursa Stellar Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:36:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Apertotes
without cap, there is no invul. so resistance would be back to default.
EXACTLY!!! errr.... except that you're wrong. ^_^
Even without cap you get about 12-15% res on each invulnerability field.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:41:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Apertotes on 28/07/2008 16:44:04
Originally by: Faife
look, it happened before. it was broken. let it go.
i fail to see why a ship with 93k effective HP and 980 dps is not broken, but a ship with 30k effective HP and 2200 dps is.
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Apertotes
without cap, there is no invul. so resistance would be back to default.
EXACTLY!!! errr.... except that you're wrong. ^_^
Even without cap you get about 12-15% res on each invulnerability field.
and that is a total of 53% resistance, so, less than a regular T2 hardener for every damage type. nothing overpowered i would say.
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:45:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Faife
look, it happened before. it was broken. let it go.
i fail to see why a ship with 93k effective HP and 980 dps is not broken, but a ship with 30k effective HP and 2200 dps is.
Because 2200 DPS will insta fry just about anything below a battlecruiser. That would mean that if you fly a cruiser then dont bother with pvp.
|
soldieroffortune 258
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 17:16:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Faife
look, it happened before. it was broken. let it go.
agree, i do
its gone, GOOOOOONE
|
Faife
Minmatar
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 17:56:00 -
[41]
just go back to awp sniping in counterstrike. i don't think you'll like this game much.
- -
|
Demented Fury
Jita Garbage Collection LTD
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:12:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Apertotes
no, i asked for no stacking penalties, but you are doing something else, not math.
if we have a 50% resistance, and we add a 50% hardener, our total resistance is 75%, not 100%. think about it
Just how ******ed are you? You ask for no stacking penalties, then you want stacking penalties? What you just listed (50%->75%) IS EXACTLY what stacking penalty does for resists.
Go back to counterstrike/WOW, EVE is way over your head.
|
Hieronimus Rex
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:19:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Apertotes
i understand that applying bonus to damage mods would be quite overpowered cause the benefit would be higher with every new mod, but if the bonus was applied to ROF instead, we wouldnt have that problem.
Lol wrong. Let's have a quick math lesson. Suppose your guns currently do 100 dps. Then suppose you have 5 10% ROF reduction mods with no stacking penalty. That means each time you apply one you will do 100 damage in 90% of the time it took with one less mod.
1mod - 100 damage in .9 seconds = 111 dps
2 mods - 100 damage in .9^2 seconds = 123 dps
3 mods - 100 damage in .9^3 seconds = 137 dps
4 mods - 100 damage in .9^4 seconds = 152 dps
5 mods - 100 damage in .9^5 seconds = 169 dps
This will get you MORE DPS increase than a +10% no stacking penalty damage mod, which gets you about 161 dps with 5 of them.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:47:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Demented Fury
Originally by: Apertotes
no, i asked for no stacking penalties, but you are doing something else, not math.
if we have a 50% resistance, and we add a 50% hardener, our total resistance is 75%, not 100%. think about it
Just how ******ed are you? You ask for no stacking penalties, then you want stacking penalties? What you just listed (50%->75%) IS EXACTLY what stacking penalty does for resists.
Go back to counterstrike/WOW, EVE is way over your head.
if you are so dumb you shouldn say such big words.
stacking penalty is when a module is applied with less than 100% of its value. on EVE, first module is applied at 100%, second at 85% (or something like that), third 54%, etc.
thus, if we have 0% resistance and we fit 2 50% hardeners, without stacking penalties we would get 75% total resistance.
with stacking penalties we would get 71.25%
that is mathematical. now, you can keep losing the argument again if you want.
really, i dont know if you are a complete ignorant, or just an eve ignorant. i hope just the latter.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:51:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Faife
just go back to awp sniping in counterstrike. i don't think you'll like this game much.
wow, that sure is something to think about. when facts and arguments turn their back on you, trying to end the discussion with "go back to xxxx" is really something to be proud of.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:55:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Hieronimus Rex
Originally by: Apertotes
i understand that applying bonus to damage mods would be quite overpowered cause the benefit would be higher with every new mod, but if the bonus was applied to ROF instead, we wouldnt have that problem.
Lol wrong. Let's have a quick math lesson. Suppose your guns currently do 100 dps. Then suppose you have 5 10% ROF reduction mods with no stacking penalty. That means each time you apply one you will do 100 damage in 90% of the time it took with one less mod.
1mod - 100 damage in .9 seconds = 111 dps
2 mods - 100 damage in .9^2 seconds = 123 dps
3 mods - 100 damage in .9^3 seconds = 137 dps
4 mods - 100 damage in .9^4 seconds = 152 dps
5 mods - 100 damage in .9^5 seconds = 169 dps
This will get you MORE DPS increase than a +10% no stacking penalty damage mod, which gets you about 161 dps with 5 of them.
you are right, i didnt explain myself good.
i didnt mean that the bonus is less, but if the bonus is applied to ROF instead than direct damage, the bonus is not instantaneous, and is applied over time, so that we wouldnt have alphas of 9k or 10k.
another advantadge is that if the bonus goes to ROF, at least the pilot needs to expend ammo/cap, while bonus to direct damage are free on that .
|
Christina Bamar
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 19:06:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Demented Fury
Originally by: Apertotes
no, i asked for no stacking penalties, but you are doing something else, not math.
if we have a 50% resistance, and we add a 50% hardener, our total resistance is 75%, not 100%. think about it
Just how ******ed are you? You ask for no stacking penalties, then you want stacking penalties? What you just listed (50%->75%) IS EXACTLY what stacking penalty does for resists.
Go back to counterstrike/WOW, EVE is way over your head.
Actually Apertotes is correct. The benefit of hardeners is multiplicative not additive. A 50% hardener reduces the damage you take by 50%, so if you were already taking 50% of lets say 100 damage, or 50 damage, the hardener would cause you to take half of that, 25 damage. This has nothing to do with the stacking penalty which would penalize additional hardeners, causing them to reduce damage by less than 50%.
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 19:18:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Demented Fury
Originally by: Apertotes
no, i asked for no stacking penalties, but you are doing something else, not math.
if we have a 50% resistance, and we add a 50% hardener, our total resistance is 75%, not 100%. think about it
Just how ******ed are you? You ask for no stacking penalties, then you want stacking penalties? What you just listed (50%->75%) IS EXACTLY what stacking penalty does for resists.
Go back to counterstrike/WOW, EVE is way over your head.
Um, no. That's not what a stacking penalty is, that's just the way that modules work. A stack penalty is something else again.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 19:20:00 -
[49]
This entire thread would make a math teacher cry.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
justsometrader
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 19:24:00 -
[50]
all mids: invul fiels
all lows: damage mod
high: rocketing guns
tadaaaa you have the highly specialised wtfpwnbbq mobile...GG
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 20:31:00 -
[51]
Originally by: justsometrader
all mids: invul fiels
all lows: damage mod
high: rocketing guns
tadaaaa you have the highly specialised wtfpwnbbq mobile...GG
if you didnt bother to read the thread, why did you bother to post at all?
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 20:45:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: justsometrader
all mids: invul fiels
all lows: damage mod
high: rocketing guns
tadaaaa you have the highly specialised wtfpwnbbq mobile...GG
if you didnt bother to read the thread, why did you bother to post at all?
Because he didn't need to read the thread to mock you and your ideas.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 20:55:00 -
[53]
Originally by: TheG2
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: justsometrader
all mids: invul fiels
all lows: damage mod
high: rocketing guns
tadaaaa you have the highly specialised wtfpwnbbq mobile...GG
if you didnt bother to read the thread, why did you bother to post at all?
Because he didn't need to read the thread to mock you and your ideas.
wow, i guess at home they tought you that being a clown was better than being respectful. i pity you.
or maybe its just the internet that makes you an *******
|
OutofSight
Caldari
DIVINE DIVIDE
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:01:00 -
[54]
I dont get it. Ive read the whole thread, read the arguements and although some are a little flawed I still don't see why you arnt won over Apertotes.
1v1 I could see why neut and ecm ship could shut down one of these ridiculous gank ships with 6 invulns and whatever, but thats a theoretical situation. In eve you will never know who youll meet and the chances of someone flying the exact counter to your ship is remote. And as many others had mentioned people wont fly alone in EVE. One of your neut domis and these ganks ravens or geddons would be unstoppable as people have demonstrated. In the end wouldnt this just lead to more and more people flying domis and scorps to shut down these ganks ships? Anything smaller than a battleship doesnt really stand a chance. So instead of being able to specialise everyone would be forced to fit one of these two types of ships. For me in eve if you want to specialise in EVE you go down the route that leads you to a t2 ship with bonuses to do what you want it do. Sure not every speciality is catered for but there quite a diversity already and people are regularly turning set-ups and fittings upside down in new and unexpected ways.
Im sure you defeated yourself in one of your posts but I want to go back and read it more carefully before I make it any more comment
------------------------------------
In times of War the law falls silent...
OutofSight, OutofMind |
VoiceInTheDesert
Gallente
ANGELS SIX HIGH
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:02:00 -
[55]
I cannot believe how many replies this troll is getting...
|
GallenteCitizen20080615
Gallente
Federation War News
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:04:00 -
[56]
can i rub it in your face a bit to op
concord dont face stacking penalities go and work for them 
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
We are pleased to aim!
Or was that the other way around?
|
Nyza Lobot
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:21:00 -
[57]
Apertotes <-- greatest troll in months
you all are stupid (including myself) for even bothering to reply to this ridiculous thread
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:48:00 -
[58]
Originally by: OutofSight
One of your neut domis and these ganks ravens or geddons would be unstoppable as people have demonstrated.
no, people havent demostrated anything, they just give hipothetical situations and the outcome they believe it will have. demostrations are a very different thing. and the only time i've bothered to put the numbers down and explain how a 7 HeatSink II Abaddon would be a bad idea, then everybody, instead of accepting that they were blinded by the 2200 dps idea and hadnt think about the real performance of the ship against another similar ship, they just restorted to calling names and being clowns. and i am the troll, of course.
so, a gang of 1 domi, 1 raven and 1 geddon is able to completely destroy whatever ship they face. dude, they do not need super setups for that. i do not see how that is any proof that my idea is awful. 3 vs 1, and you are talking about demostration?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |