| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
   |
Posted - 2008.07.28 11:37:00 -
[1]
i would love to know devs opinion on highly specialiced fittings. by applying stacking penalties to most modules you are nerfing our ability to create highly specialiced setups. surely there must be a reason behind that.
i can understand how specialized fittings may look overpowered sometimes, but we have to remember that these pilots are devoting almost all their slots to one single goal (speed, armor, shield, tracking, cargo capacity, etc) and that means that they have huge weakness. we all know what happens to a vaga when it has been webbed and scrambled. or how useless are the overloaded guns on mega when she is jammed. or how well does the malestrom tank without cap.
then, why are specialiced fittings penalized on EVE?
so, why are hardeners (both shield and armor) penalized but not plates/extenders? this is just an example. i believe cap rechargers are not penalized either, nor cap boosters. cargo expanders are not penalized either. but nanofibers are, and damage mods, and tracking computers.
so, right now speed is a problem, among other things cause guns cant track them nor missiles hit them. so, why not lift the penalty on stacking tracking computers? this way, a muninn with 3 tracking computers and 5 tracking enhancers, and a friend on a scimitar with 3 tracking links would be able to track a vagabond with overheated gist MWD, full snake set, 2 nanos, 2 OD and polycarbs and a friend on a claymore. so, a highly specialiced fitting would be countered by another one. but your current rules do not permit this. why? do you feel it is better to just nerf speed instead of offering a way to beat them on their own terms?
why can we effectively use 9 or 10 slots + rigs for tanking without incurring on stacking penalties, but we can not do the same for gank?
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.
so, what is the reason for not letting players use highly specialiced fittings and limiting the number of modules affecting any atributte to 2 or 3?
|
Lui Kai
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 11:42:00 -
[2]
Let's look at the world if stacking was not penalized.
Using a common, cheap ship: Raven.
Invuln II in all the mid slots - 99.99r% resistance to all damage types.
BCU II in all the low slots - Firing for 50% more damage 52.5% more often.
So, you'd have everyone going around shooting for BIG numbers, while getting hit for TINY numbers. Essentially - you want 1v1 engagements to take longer than killing a POS with a cruiser.
----------------
Ambulation Answers
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 11:48:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Lui Kai
Let's look at the world if stacking was not penalized.
Using a common, cheap ship: Raven.
Invuln II in all the mid slots - 99.99r% resistance to all damage types.
well, probably a few modules would need to be tweaked. but 6 invuls means no web, no scrambler, no cap booster.
Originally by: Lui Kai
BCU II in all the low slots - Firing for 50% more damage 52.5% more often.
yes, right now its only 35% more damage and 30% more often. i do not see a extreme diference.
|
Lui Kai
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 11:50:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Apertotes
well, probably a few modules would need to be tweaked. but 6 invuls means no web, no scrambler, no cap booster.
It also means a ship that can not be killed in any reasonable manner. It would literally take 20+ doomsday blasts to pop that Raven.
Getting rid of stacking would not allow for "more creative" fits - it would just remove the very slight modi****of intelligence required to fit well in the here and now.
----------------
Ambulation Answers
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:00:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Apertotes on 28/07/2008 12:01:03
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Apertotes
well, probably a few modules would need to be tweaked. but 6 invuls means no web, no scrambler, no cap booster.
It also means a ship that can not be killed in any reasonable manner. It would literally take 20+ doomsday blasts to pop that Raven.
Getting rid of stacking would not allow for "more creative" fits - it would just remove the very slight modi****of intelligence required to fit well in the here and now.
no, all it would need is a ship with ECM + neuts.
ps: not even ECM, just by going faster than cruise missile expl. velocity (quite easy) + neuts
|
Lui Kai
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:03:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Apertotes
no, all it would need is a ship with ECM + neuts.
ps: not even ECM, just by going faster than cruise missile expl. velocity (quite easy) + neuts
I think you misunderstand how resistances and shield regen work - the raven above, for every 100 damage you shot at it, would take 0.01 damage to it's shield. So even if you locked it down, jammed it up, and neuted away the entirety of the cap - the shield is going to regen far, far faster all on it's own than you'd possibly be able to damage it.
I really don't know smaller words to explain this with.
----------------
Ambulation Answers
|
Shintai
Gallente
Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:04:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Shintai on 28/07/2008 12:06:06
Edited by: Shintai on 28/07/2008 12:04:48
Originally by: Apertotes
i would love to know devs opinion on highly specialiced fittings. by applying stacking penalties to most modules you are nerfing our ability to create highly specialiced setups. surely there must be a reason behind that.
i can understand how specialized fittings may look overpowered sometimes, but we have to remember that these pilots are devoting almost all their slots to one single goal (speed, armor, shield, tracking, cargo capacity, etc) and that means that they have huge weakness. we all know what happens to a vaga when it has been webbed and scrambled. or how useless are the overloaded guns on mega when she is jammed. or how well does the malestrom tank without cap.
then, why are specialiced fittings penalized on EVE?
so, why are hardeners (both shield and armor) penalized but not plates/extenders? this is just an example. i believe cap rechargers are not penalized either, nor cap boosters. cargo expanders are not penalized either. but nanofibers are, and damage mods, and tracking computers.
so, right now speed is a problem, among other things cause guns cant track them nor missiles hit them. so, why not lift the penalty on stacking tracking computers? this way, a muninn with 3 tracking computers and 5 tracking enhancers, and a friend on a scimitar with 3 tracking links would be able to track a vagabond with overheated gist MWD, full snake set, 2 nanos, 2 OD and polycarbs and a friend on a claymore. so, a highly specialiced fitting would be countered by another one. but your current rules do not permit this. why? do you feel it is better to just nerf speed instead of offering a way to beat them on their own terms?
why can we effectively use 9 or 10 slots + rigs for tanking without incurring on stacking penalties, but we can not do the same for gank?
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.
so, what is the reason for not letting players use highly specialiced fittings and limiting the number of modules affecting any atributte to 2 or 3?
Since you are obviously not old enough to know it.
Without the stacking penalties. We had cruisers almost oneshot others, I talked 7 BS and 4 cruisers for 3+ min in a Megathron. And still got away alive. And Admageddons was ultra pure gankage. Or Scorps that would MWD at 90000Km/sec
Stacking pentaly doesnt disallow specialized fitting. It balances and remove the "insert wtfpwn build of the time".
Same reason we are now getting a speed adjustment. And it just shows its a nano whine since you try and justifying needing 2 ships to counter 1.
--------------------------------------
Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:15:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Apertotes
no, all it would need is a ship with ECM + neuts.
ps: not even ECM, just by going faster than cruise missile expl. velocity (quite easy) + neuts
I think you misunderstand how resistances and shield regen work - the raven above, for every 100 damage you shot at it, would take 0.01 damage to it's shield. So even if you locked it down, jammed it up, and neuted away the entirety of the cap - the shield is going to regen far, far faster all on it's own than you'd possibly be able to damage it.
I really don't know smaller words to explain this with.
without cap, there is no invul. so resistance would be back to default.
|
Shintai
Gallente
Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:18:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Apertotes
no, all it would need is a ship with ECM + neuts.
ps: not even ECM, just by going faster than cruise missile expl. velocity (quite easy) + neuts
I think you misunderstand how resistances and shield regen work - the raven above, for every 100 damage you shot at it, would take 0.01 damage to it's shield. So even if you locked it down, jammed it up, and neuted away the entirety of the cap - the shield is going to regen far, far faster all on it's own than you'd possibly be able to damage it.
I really don't know smaller words to explain this with.
without cap, there is no invul. so resistance would be back to default.
Im sure you can mix 2 commandships together in something even 50 titans couldnt kill if they fired their DDs the same time. All passive tanked.
--------------------------------------
Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
Gabbot
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:18:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Apertotes
no, all it would need is a ship with ECM + neuts.
ps: not even ECM, just by going faster than cruise missile expl. velocity (quite easy) + neuts
I think you misunderstand how resistances and shield regen work - the raven above, for every 100 damage you shot at it, would take 0.01 damage to it's shield. So even if you locked it down, jammed it up, and neuted away the entirety of the cap - the shield is going to regen far, far faster all on it's own than you'd possibly be able to damage it.
I really don't know smaller words to explain this with.
neuts make invuls switch off making your ship actually do damage, so for every 100 em damage you hit it for, it would take around 90 making the ship dead.
If ur gonna poast on the forums, do it properly
|
Wil Smithx
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:18:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Wil Smithx on 28/07/2008 12:21:59
Edited by: Wil Smithx on 28/07/2008 12:21:35
Because an apocalypse with 8 tachyon beam lasers, 7 heat sinks and 4 sensor boosters is what we got in 2003 and I NEVER want to see one again!
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:19:00 -
[12]
armageddon without stacking penalties:
8 mega pulse, 3 sensor boosters, 8 heat sinks
80% more damage per hit, -80% RoF.
The rof alone would be something along the line of 1.5 Sec. Think 5000 DPS.
It would melt even plated cruisers in max 5 seconds. BS in 10-12 seconds. Etc...
------------------------------------------
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:19:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Shintai
Without the stacking penalties. We had cruisers almost oneshot others, I talked 7 BS and 4 cruisers for 3+ min in a Megathron. And still got away alive. And Admageddons was ultra pure gankage. Or Scorps that would MWD at 90000Km/sec
i guess you are talking about an arma with 6 or 7 heatsinks. but that means no tank. and if she gets jammed, all those heatsinks are completely useless.
about scorps with multiple MWD, that is another topic. MWD are not stacking penalized, they limited to 1 per ship, just like damage controls.
Originally by: Shintai
Same reason we are now getting a speed adjustment. And it just shows its a nano whine since you try and justifying needing 2 ships to counter 1.
dude, you should read better. on my example it was scimitar + muninn vs vagabond + claymore. i do not see any 2 vs 1 over there.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:22:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Shintai
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Apertotes
no, all it would need is a ship with ECM + neuts.
ps: not even ECM, just by going faster than cruise missile expl. velocity (quite easy) + neuts
I think you misunderstand how resistances and shield regen work - the raven above, for every 100 damage you shot at it, would take 0.01 damage to it's shield. So even if you locked it down, jammed it up, and neuted away the entirety of the cap - the shield is going to regen far, far faster all on it's own than you'd possibly be able to damage it.
I really don't know smaller words to explain this with.
without cap, there is no invul. so resistance would be back to default.
Im sure you can mix 2 commandships together in something even 50 titans couldnt kill if they fired their DDs the same time. All passive tanked.
what is the point of having 2 ships that do nothing but tank? they will not scramble or web anything, and if you jamm one of them, the links are broken.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:26:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Shadowsword
armageddon without stacking penalties:
8 mega pulse, 3 sensor boosters, 8 heat sinks
80% more damage per hit, -80% RoF.
The rof alone would be something along the line of 1.5 Sec. Think 5000 DPS.
It would melt even plated cruisers in max 5 seconds. BS in 10-12 seconds. Etc...
yes, 5000 DPS, 0 tank, no resistance to ECM, no scrambler, extremely bad tracking...
it would be like a dread on siege mode, but without the tank and the flexibility of med and low slots.
i do not see as a brainless fitting.
|
Tennotsukai
Minmatar
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:54:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Apertotes
yes, 5000 DPS, 0 tank, no resistance to ECM, no scrambler, extremely bad tracking...
it would be like a dread on siege mode, but without the tank and the flexibility of med and low slots.
i do not see as a brainless fitting.
So i guess you wasn't about when the gankageddon set up was exactly that, and was one of the most commonly used ships in close range pvp and 0.0 gat camps.
You could melt a bs in seconds with one of those, as for not being able to scramble.. thats what tacklers was for, and they didn't really have to worry as by the time they was locked the ship they was tackling was dead. 
|
Theo Samaritan
Gallente
Eve-Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 12:58:00 -
[17]
To me this is asking for what we had in 03/early 04 but with more modules available.
________________________
Lord WarATron:
"To do the Abaddon Hadoken, you need to do the following manover with the joypad. ↓ .... ↓→ .... → + ● |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:01:00 -
[18]
Op, what they are talking about is the fact that these guys wouldn't just fly solo. PvP in EvE is not a solo, one on one affair. It's two or three on one. So here's the scenario:
Bob is in a gank-a-geddon. Steve is in a Nano-Domi. Earl has his caldari boat fitted to the brim with EW. Three ships, three separate purposes.
Bob, Steve and Earl decide to camp a gate. The moment you uncloak, Earl hits you with a half-second target lock, jams your sensors and prevents you from targeting back. Steve pushes two MWD's to get next to you with web and scramble. And by the time Bob has you locked, you haven't even finished your turn. Your ships gone, and it didn't take 10 seconds.
Time for the next target.
This kind of thing happened CONSTANTLY. There was no counter. You couldn't make a ship fast enough to get away. It was all luck. A fleet running with several BS's could not be stood against. There was no 'getting away', unless you were a stab user who would be nano'd and stabbed to the point where that was your only tool ... getting away.
But logic and experience won't 'win' this argument, because the way it was is how you want it to be again. Thank God it's not, and won't, because players used to do some ridiculous things to get ahead in this game.
Genesis Project |
Nomakai Delateriel
Amarr
Shadow Company
Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:08:00 -
[19]
Anyone who remembers the Gankageddon days knows what overspecialization leads to.
A squad of 10 gankageddons locked almost immediately and could vaporize anything in just a second or two. You simply couldn't fly anything BUT gankageddons and fits that were specialized to in some way take on gankageddons.
And that's bad gameplay.
______________________________________________
-You can never earn my respect, only lose it. It's given freely, and only grudgingly retracted when necessary. |
Shintai
Gallente
Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Shintai
Without the stacking penalties. We had cruisers almost oneshot others, I talked 7 BS and 4 cruisers for 3+ min in a Megathron. And still got away alive. And Admageddons was ultra pure gankage. Or Scorps that would MWD at 90000Km/sec
i guess you are talking about an arma with 6 or 7 heatsinks. but that means no tank. and if she gets jammed, all those heatsinks are completely useless.
about scorps with multiple MWD, that is another topic. MWD are not stacking penalized, they limited to 1 per ship, just like damage controls.
Originally by: Shintai
Same reason we are now getting a speed adjustment. And it just shows its a nano whine since you try and justifying needing 2 ships to counter 1.
dude, you should read better. on my example it was scimitar + muninn vs vagabond + claymore. i do not see any 2 vs 1 over there.
You dont need tank. PvP is about who kills who first.
Also MWD/AB was the first to get the stacking penalty. Just with 1 only. As I said, you are obviously not old enough in terms of playing EvE.
Whatever you fit is useless if you are jammed. Heatsinks or not. But with 3-4 sensor boosters you gonna lock pretty fast. And the one that would jam you would be dead in the first shot usually.
--------------------------------------
Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
Shintai
Gallente
Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:11:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Shintai
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Apertotes
no, all it would need is a ship with ECM + neuts.
ps: not even ECM, just by going faster than cruise missile expl. velocity (quite easy) + neuts
I think you misunderstand how resistances and shield regen work - the raven above, for every 100 damage you shot at it, would take 0.01 damage to it's shield. So even if you locked it down, jammed it up, and neuted away the entirety of the cap - the shield is going to regen far, far faster all on it's own than you'd possibly be able to damage it.
I really don't know smaller words to explain this with.
without cap, there is no invul. so resistance would be back to default.
Im sure you can mix 2 commandships together in something even 50 titans couldnt kill if they fired their DDs the same time. All passive tanked.
what is the point of having 2 ships that do nothing but tank? they will not scramble or web anything, and if you jamm one of them, the links are broken.
They could perfectly fine still shoot. Its just an example of an instant "not lose" situation.
--------------------------------------
Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
Shintai
Gallente
Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:15:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel
Anyone who remembers the Gankageddon days knows what overspecialization leads to.
A squad of 10 gankageddons locked almost immediately and could vaporize anything in just a second or two. You simply couldn't fly anything BUT gankageddons and fits that were specialized to in some way take on gankageddons.
And that's bad gameplay.
Just think of it if you overload too now...
--------------------------------------
Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:21:00 -
[23]
This has to be a troll thread.
People have explain at least 5 times why this was removed from EVE and he keeps pushing it..
Stacking penalties were needed, end of story.
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:23:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Apertotes
without cap, there is no invul. so resistance would be back to default.
You do know that Active Hardeners work to some extent even when offline, right?
With level 5 comp skills an Invul II will still work at 50% capacity - 15% across the board.
...
|
Lui Kai
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:23:00 -
[25]
Originally by: TheG2
This has to be a troll thread.
People have explain at least 5 times why this was removed from EVE and he keeps pushing it..
Stacking penalties were needed, end of story.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
----------------
Ambulation Answers
|
Major Stallion
The Dark Horses
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:29:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Lui Kai
It also means a ship that can not be killed in any reasonable manner. It would literally take 20+ doomsday blasts to pop that Raven.
or one neut domi...
|
Wil Smithx
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 13:47:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel
Anyone who remembers the Gankageddon days knows what overspecialization leads to.
A squad of 10 gankageddons locked almost immediately and could vaporize anything in just a second or two. You simply couldn't fly anything BUT gankageddons and fits that were specialized to in some way take on gankageddons.
And that's bad gameplay.
Could you imagine what a gank baddon could do now with T2 fittings and faction ammo...
abaddon with tachs:
8 tachs base with 524 dps and a 4713 alpha before damage mods...
1.1^7 = 1.948 = an alpha of 9184
then rof reductions:
0.895^7 = 0.46 of the rof
Comes together to mean 2219 dps for a standard T2 fitting.
Geddon with megapulse comes out at 214% damage increase adding 2 duration rigs with megapulse gives 66.79% decreased rof
gives a damage increase of 6.44 on 450 = 2899 dps with an alpha of 4093
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 14:52:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Wil Smithx
abaddon with tachs:
8 tachs base with 524 dps and a 4713 alpha before damage mods...
1.1^7 = 1.948 = an alpha of 9184
then rof reductions:
0.895^7 = 0.46 of the rof
Comes together to mean 2219 dps for a standard T2 fitting.
now, a regular fitting (3 heatsinks, 2 EAN II, 1 DCII, 1 1600 II)
damage: 524 x 1.1 ^3= 697.444
rof: 0.895^3= 0.716
dps: 972.837
thermal dps (multifreq): 972.837 x (20/48) = 405.35
for armor i will use thermal resistance, since its neither the lowest nor the highest, but you can use any other.
your uberbaddon,
armor HP: 8500x1.25= 10625
thermal resist: 51.25%
total armor HP: 21794.87
hull HP: 8000x1.25=10000
total armor + Hull HP= 31794.87
total dps = 2219
total thermal dps (mulfreq) = 2219 x (20/48) = 924.58
now, my regular T2 abbadon:
armor HP: (8500 + 4200)x1.25 = 15875
thermal resist: 76.70%
total armor HP: 68107.95
hull HP: 8000x1.25=10000
hull resistance= 60%
total hull HP: 25000
total armor + Hull HP= 93107.95
so, your ubberbaddon would need 100 seconds to kill my regular T2 abbadon, while my abbadon would need 53 seconds to kill your OMFGWhatthapawn abaddon.
so, its not all about dps. a balanced fitting is superior most of the times than a extreme one.
|
TheG2
Gallente
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 14:58:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Apertotes
so, its not all about dps. a balanced fitting is superior most of the times than a extreme one.
Congratulations, you just /thread'd your own thread.
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:12:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Lui Kai
Let's look at the world if stacking was not penalized.
Using a common, cheap ship: Raven.
Invuln II in all the mid slots - 99.99r% resistance to all damage types.
well, probably a few modules would need to be tweaked. but 6 invuls means no web, no scrambler, no cap booster.
Originally by: Lui Kai
BCU II in all the low slots - Firing for 50% more damage 52.5% more often.
yes, right now its only 35% more damage and 30% more often. i do not see a extreme diference.
If you don't see it, then why do you care about trying to get it?
|
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] |