Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 106 post(s) |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
148
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:08:00 -
[211] - Quote
Hey Team Superfriends, CCP Punkturis hope you're past the worst of the flu.
Quick one. The new webbing drones, regardless of size have 110m Signature each, where as say, the cap drain drones, scale down from large to small (110m Signature being large).
Is this deliberate, or just an oversight at this stage. Many thanks. Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
450
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:17:00 -
[212] - Quote
THAT is a terrible idea & would be broken. I'll just leave you guys to think about why. Think about SPR tanking, only amplify it with that idea lol.
I think you (the players) are missing the point of the boosters. They aren't supposed to replace the traditional method of boosting. They are supposed to be an alternative for ships that have a limited number of grid/cpu or slots for propulsion, tackle, and tank.
ie: cyclone hulls, ferox hulls, & and some battleships/frigates
The number one ship in my mind is the Nighthawk. It's no anemic on grid/cpu that these boosters (working properly) would make the ship incredibly good.
These boosters (should you decide to fit them) should be FLYING through cap. This should allow CCP to have another angle at balancing by something other than fitting & slots; I'm talking about cargo. Shield tanker with a high number of mids (ie: Tengu / Blackbirds)? Smaller cargo. Shield tanker with a lower number of mids (ie: Ferox Hulls)? Bigger cargo. Then you can go about adjusting those cargo number based on approximating how much damage a ship is capable of or what it can fit etc..
-áwww.promsrage.com |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
380
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:19:00 -
[213] - Quote
What is the point of the shifting armor hardener?
In terms of PVE, it just seems to provide the convenience of having to swap hardeners less often.
In PVP, its role seems like an EANM, but better...A way to omnitank without having to worry about resist holes..So, makes damage type selection and taking note of your resist holes less important.
What was CCP trying to solve by adding it to the game? |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:30:00 -
[214] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:THAT is a terrible idea & would be broken. I'll just leave you guys to think about why.
You're right, there's a good chance you could fit multiple of them and keep it up infinitely.
What about the module having a 1 minute cycle timer, but giving you ~40% of your shields back? It wouldn't be active tanking, but would be something of a compliment to passive tanking I guess. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:43:00 -
[215] - Quote
Kahega Amielden wrote:What is the point of the shifting armor hardener?
In terms of PVE, it just seems to provide the convenience of having to swap hardeners less often.
In PVP, its role seems like an EANM, but better...A way to omnitank without having to worry about resist holes..So, makes damage type selection and taking note of your resist holes less important.
What was CCP trying to solve by adding it to the game?
silly your gonna get alpha'd when u're damage type switches from your enemy, or possibly on you r first cycle due to the fact you'll only have what 10% resist? lol |
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
421
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:45:00 -
[216] - Quote
I fail to see why shield tanks need even MORE burst tank, while they already vastly outclass armor tanks in that regard.
Armor already has to deal with being stupidly slow due to the rigs/modules needed. Why more shield love? |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 01:23:00 -
[217] - Quote
I gotta say that a lot of these modules seem very underwhelming.
The Drone upgrades require 40tf for only a 12% damage boost while other weapon mods provide a 10% damage boost and a 10.5% rate of fire boost for 30-40 tf.
The Adaptive Armor Hardener seems to only change at a rate of 1% every 10 seconds. By the time it adapts to the right values, either you are dead or the target is dead. Better off using another ENAM or a DCU. It might have use if it doesn't have a stacking penalty, but even then its use is limited.
The Overclock CPU rigs have a ridiculous callibration cost for a small increase in CPU. 300 for a 9% increase in cpu? ACR give 10-15% increase in PG for 100-150 calibration respectively.
The Ancillary Shield booster is not worth it. I'd much rather sacrifice another midslot for a cap and shield booster. Once you have to reload caps, you are rice paper for a full minute. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
331
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 02:27:00 -
[218] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:
If you can, could you please describe to me a scenario when the ancillary shield booster is more effective than a regular shield booster and a cap injector? I am unable to think of such a situation.
Assuming they make it worthwhile:
- Tank that is Nuet Resistant
- You can burst active tank ships that normally don't have the capacitor to active tank - think Jaguar or even Vagabond.
- Rather then completely skip a buffer in exchange for a booster and cap booster you can have both worlds with a buffer and an Ancillary Shield Booster.
- It frees up your own capactitor to fit other things - nuets on a Cyclone for example.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 03:04:00 -
[219] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:
If you can, could you please describe to me a scenario when the ancillary shield booster is more effective than a regular shield booster and a cap injector? I am unable to think of such a situation.
Assuming they make it worthwhile:
- Tank that is Nuet Resistant
- You can burst active tank ships that normally don't have the capacitor to active tank - think Jaguar or even Vagabond.
- Rather then completely skip a buffer in exchange for a booster and cap booster you can have both worlds with a buffer and an Ancillary Shield Booster.
- It frees up your own capactitor to fit other things - nuets on a Cyclone for example.
Yeah, I meant in the current state.
If they implement it correctly, you would be able to active tank a number of new ships and it would be interesting. Currently, there is no point. |
Frood Frooster
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 07:19:00 -
[220] - Quote
Why do you break the principle of making meta 0 modules producable by a seeded BPO by making some of the new items only producable by a dropped BPC?
If you don't want the new modules to spread like a meta 0 module, can't you just give them a higher meta level and keep the coherence of modules in the game. |
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
836
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 07:32:00 -
[221] - Quote
Oh my god, what the hell? Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:00:00 -
[222] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:THAT is a terrible idea & would be broken. I'll just leave you guys to think about why.
You're right, there's a good chance you could fit multiple of them and keep it up infinitely. What about the module having a 1 minute cycle timer, but giving you ~40% of your shields back? It wouldn't be active tanking, but would be something of a compliment to passive tanking I guess.
Sound pretty nice.
Side note : It seems, even with the Auto-realod on, that the module continues to work. It is only when you cut the SB that the reload start and lock the SB. A change session cut also the reload and allow to activate the Ancillary SB.
60 seconds reload is maybe too long ? Let say 30sec but only one ancillary can be fitted ?
|
Terza Torre
Vanguard Frontiers Intrepid Crossing
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:16:00 -
[223] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - We were *very* conservative with the initial numbers and fully expected to up them from the 9/12% they currently are. So we will probably improve them in the near future (stats and/or CPU). But they will remain a low slot module.
War cost - remember that the changed version is NOT YET on Sisi, what is on Sisi right now is the original, old changes we implemented before Fanfest. Expect new version tomorrow.
CPU rigs - We'll take a look at the calibration cost, as there was a bit of debate on which way to go - we took the conservative approach, but might consider lowering it.
Drone dmg mod low slot: that's an error, no one uses drones boats and dps cannons, if you put that low slot the mod will be useless, high slot at the place of one cannon is the right way to go.
Please don't make new mods useless!!!!
My 2 cents, TT |
malaire
389
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:20:00 -
[224] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Oh my god, what the hell? CCP has already said that formula has been changed, and newest formula might not yet be in SiSi. New to EVE? Don't forget to read: The Manual * The Wiki * The Career Options * and everything else |
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:26:00 -
[225] - Quote
About the Adaptive Armor Hardener
The adjustement by cycle works pretty well but take too much time to adjust resists over time. It is a nice PvE module only.
There is no use in PvP even in 1 vs1 scenario. (well not completely true as it is already an EANM without the benefit of Armor comp) it would become useful if we have a full adjustement resist at the end of the 3rd cycle = 30 sec |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
100
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:54:00 -
[226] - Quote
I am not involved in wars currently but hell, 4 billions to declare a war are too much anyway.
Small groups can no more declare war on large groups. This sucks. The formula should take into account the attacker number. The less they are, the less the war should cost. It could be gamed upon, yes, but CCP could lock the wardeccing corp/alliance so that they cannot recruit anyone during a war they have declared, or make wars "personal" in the sense that people joining a corporation after a war is declared are excluded by the war until the right fee is paid (the next week). |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1961
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 09:04:00 -
[227] - Quote
SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Lady Vorax
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 09:13:00 -
[228] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Vessper wrote:Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?
It's an active module with a 10 sec cycle, every cycle it checks the damage received in the cycle and adjust the resistance bonus the module gives based on that. It takes the top two damage types and increases the resistance against them while reducing the other two by the same amount (if you have received only a single damage type, it adjust only that one). It's a zero-sum system, meaning for instance that if the resistance bonus for a damage type is at 0, it can't be reduced further and the one's to be increased don't increase as much.
yay indirect nerf to lasers....... |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 09:16:00 -
[229] - Quote
Sutha Moliko wrote:About the Adaptive Armor Hardener
The adjustement by cycle works pretty well but take too much time to adjust resists over time. It is a nice PvE module only.
There is no use in PvP even in 1 vs1 scenario. (well not completely true as it is already an EANM without the benefit of Armor comp) it would become useful if we have a full adjustement resist at the end of the 3rd cycle = 30 sec
Sounds like you already used it ingame. Where can I get hte new modules? |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
100
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 09:34:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó
Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. |
|
Ines Fy
Heroes of the Past Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 10:25:00 -
[231] - Quote
Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible.
The new formula is:
50M + (Alliance == "Goonswarm Federation" ? 10M * number of members : 5k * number of members)
You should know already that all developers have characters in GSF and CCP is secretly run by The Mitanni |
gfldex
497
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 11:31:00 -
[232] - Quote
I had a look at the new shield booster. Got me a navy domi with one of those, 2x shield boost amps, 3x hardeners, 3x shield resi rigs -- all T2. On top of that a large crystal set and a strong blue pill. I was not able to tank a single geddon.
What exactly is this module for?
When someone burns down your sandcasle, bring sausages. |
Divine Storm
Cold Steel Evolution Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 11:41:00 -
[233] - Quote
I don't like how the new Armor Adaptive Hardener does not correctly consider the amount of damage received by a single volley. For example when using EMP ammo (which does 41.4EM, 9.2expl and 4.6kin base damage) the hardener adjusts towards 30%em/expl and 0%kin/therm resists. Using kinetic missiles on the other hand the hardener adjusts towards full 60% kinetic resits.
Even though it takes quite some time until the hardener's resists are actually fully adapted (2% of absolute resist points are shifted per module cycle) it is still a heavy penalty for missile and drone based ships because the hardener not only faster but also better adepts against missile/drone damage (or any other damage source only doing one type of damage) than to turret damage.
Note that a 30%/30% resist against a damage source dealing 75%/16%/9% (for EMP) is worse than a proper resist distribution.
Also note that the module only ignores different damage types by a single volley. When dealing damage from multiple sources all doing different damage types it correctly adjusts its resists towards the highest types of damage done (e.g. a few warriors doing expl. damage are almost ignored when shooting the target with heavy lasers).
This doesn't seem right to me and doesn't seem to be a huge problem on the technical side either.
Besides of that its a great module, the basic idea is awsome! :) |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 11:51:00 -
[234] - Quote
Guys? Where are those mods seeded? can't find any in market! |
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:34:00 -
[235] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:Sutha Moliko wrote:About the Adaptive Armor Hardener
The adjustement by cycle works pretty well but take too much time to adjust resists over time. It is a nice PvE module only.
There is no use in PvP even in 1 vs1 scenario. (well not completely true as it is already an EANM without the benefit of Armor comp) it would become useful if we have a full adjustement resist at the end of the 3rd cycle = 30 sec Sounds like you already used it ingame. Where can I get hte new modules?
Found few Adaptive Hardener, Ancillary Shield Booster and Extrinsic Damage modifier in Rens this morning prior to my reply. Don't ask me how come they were there at 5.000.000 ISK... I did not think too much, I just bought them for a quick test on a Pilgrim (Extrinsic + Adaptive Armor Hardener) |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:44:00 -
[236] - Quote
Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible.
no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is
it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:52:00 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 13:11:00 -
[238] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback
you're all going to be arguing about it anyways CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 13:14:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback you're all going to be arguing about it anyways True but I would want atleast one player pass(becides the CSM hopefully) before you put it in a Devblog. |
|
CCP Paradox
262
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 13:54:00 -
[240] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback you're all going to be arguing about it anyways True but I would want atleast one player pass(becides the CSM hopefully) before you put it in a Devblog.
This is not how a Dev Blog works. CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |