Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:09:00 -
[1]
As most of you will be aware. Sensor dampners and Sensor boosters effectively stack. I wont go over this again, suffice to say it needs to be fixed. After I realised they had broken them on the test server, people quickly discovered that tracking disruptors too were broken in the same way. Well now, I have discovered a 3rd module effected by this.
Shield Boost Amplifiers & Capacitor Power Relays stack!
A capacitor power relay gives a much larger bonus to cap recharge rate than PDUs. A while ago, CCP introduced a -20% shield boost penalty to them to balance shield tanking. Unfortunatly, this penalty stacks with the positive bonus which shield boost amps give (+30% shield boost). Meaning that if a ship fits 3 or more shield boost amps, this all but cancels out the penalty which cap power relays give to shield boosting since positive mods stack before negative mods and because the the +ve and -ve effects are in the same pool.
This essentially means a well setup raven or scorp has a much much stronger shield tank that can be run indeffinatly with the right set of skills and mods.
I am sure this was unintential but it clearly needs a fix as I think its really unfair to armor tankers.
I'm merely lobbying CCP to fix the stacking on these 3 modules:
Remote Sensor dampners + Sensor Booster Tracking Disruptors + Tracking Computers Shield boost amps + Cap power relays
Can we get confirmation that this is not an intended effect?
Shin Ra
|
ParMizaN
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:12:00 -
[2]
fitting 3 amps to have a near sustainable tank seems ok to me .. and i fly only amarr
Phenomena of ironies, cast the litany aside How intelligible, blessed be the forgetful |
Aakron
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:14:00 -
[3]
Not being able to fly amarr I cant test this but are you saying an Apoc can fit 8 cap relays an XL and 3 amps and run it indefinitely?
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Aakron Not being able to fly amarr I cant test this but are you saying an Apoc can fit 8 cap relays an XL and 3 amps and run it indefinitely?
Yeah. It would have no resistances tho.
On a tempest or dominix tho, you can fit an invulnerability field too. On a raven you can fit 2 invulnerability fields making it a REALLY strong tank.
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:20:00 -
[5]
Damn why didn't I think of that!
how could I overlook suck powerful setup opportunity, I knew about the RMR stacking effects. Thanks for not keeping it secret
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:26:00 -
[6]
this was posted by someone already
it didnt get much attenshion though since it wasnt written out too well.
|
Bazman
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:27:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Bazman on 22/01/2006 11:30:17 How can Boost amps possibly stack with cap relays? -----
Hi TomB! All out Do or Die Blasterboat for tier 3 Gallente battleship please! Make it look cool too. Thanks. |
Kalast Raven
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:30:00 -
[8]
Shin Ra, I think you found what you needed to find. Nice work. ------- K. Raven
|
Renox
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:32:00 -
[9]
Hm.. wonder it works that way with the tech II ammo too. I mean if you fit 3 tracking comps and then the ammo that reduce tracking, would it work the same way and not apply with tracking penalty? I don't have access to the game atm so I can't test it, but funny thought none the less.
TheJay > grrr slow stupid garlic eating surrender monkeys |
Renox
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Bazman Edited by: Bazman on 22/01/2006 11:30:17 How can Boost amps possibly stack with cap relays?
I believe it's because the amps bonus affect the same attribute as the cap relays penalty and if CCP made it so that only 3 changes (be it bonus or penalty) will be applied for each attribute and the positive are added first...
TheJay > grrr slow stupid garlic eating surrender monkeys |
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:34:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Renox Hm.. wonder it works that way with the tech II ammo too. I mean if you fit 3 tracking comps and then the ammo that reduce tracking, would it work the same way and not apply with tracking penalty? I don't have access to the game atm so I can't test it, but funny thought none the less.
good point: ill test that when servers go back up
|
Adril Alatar
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:39:00 -
[12]
So there should also be a way to get around the cap recharge penalty of shield power relays?
Fitting 3 - 4 mods that give cap recharge bonus (pdu's) and a few shield power relays should give good shield recharge rate and dont drop your cap recharge rate. will test this after downtime.
CCP FIX THIS!!
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:45:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Bazman Edited by: Bazman on 22/01/2006 11:30:17 How can Boost amps possibly stack with cap relays?
As I explained:
Shield boost amps Shield boost bonus 30%
Capacitor Power Relay Capacitor recharge rate 20% Shield boost bonus -10% (not really a bonus, but a penalty)
Since both these mods are effecting the same stat, shield boost bonus, only 4 can stack. And the positive will stack first. So a ship with 3 shield boost amps will and 5 cap power relays: 3 shield boost amps will apply, then 1 cap power relay will apply. This means that in reality, having 5 cap power relays on this ship will give a -1 or -2% penalty to shield boost in total. The other 4 cap power relays will take the stacking formula beyond 4 mods, meaning they will give almsot no noticable difference.
Also, cap recharge is unaffected by the stacking nerf so it compounds this setup.
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:48:00 -
[14]
OMG...
Perma tanked vindicator, anyone? :) Oh or omg, rattlesnake.
I use no guns... i smack to death. |
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:49:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Shin Ra on 22/01/2006 11:50:02
Originally by: Adril Alatar So there should also be a way to get around the cap recharge penalty of shield power relays?
Fitting 3 - 4 mods that give cap recharge bonus (pdu's) and a few shield power relays should give good shield recharge rate and dont drop your cap recharge rate. will test this after downtime.
CCP FIX THIS!!
Yeah this will work too!
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 11:58:00 -
[16]
Originally by: LUKEC OMG...
Perma tanked vindicator, anyone? :) Oh or omg, rattlesnake.
The insane tanking is possible with noraml mods.
If you bring in faction mods into the equation, you get some STUPIDLY powerful tanks. Pith XL shield booster, with 50% invul field, with 45% shield boost amps and 32.5% cap power relays gives you a tank so stupidly powerful, its just rediculous.
|
Goberth Ludwig
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:08:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Goberth Ludwig on 22/01/2006 12:09:02 Very good job Shin Ra finding this out.
EDIT: just came to my mind, what about mwd and pdus ?
- Gob (also known as Admiral Goberius) |
Antic
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:14:00 -
[18]
any heads up on the tech 2 ammo and tracking computers ? I dont have a supply of that kind of ammo so cant test.
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:23:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig EDIT: just came to my mind, what about mwd and pdus ?
They are not subject to stacking penalty.
And now this really needs fixing... Like if shield tanking weren't already overpowered, now we can have the 'uber-tank-forever'-ravens back.
Drink up, shoot in. Let the beating begin. Distributor of pain. Your loss becomes my gain...
|
Grut
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:31:00 -
[20]
Originally by: dalman
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig EDIT: just came to my mind, what about mwd and pdus ?
They are not subject to stacking penalty.
And now this really needs fixing... Like if shield tanking weren't already overpowered, now we can have the 'uber-tank-forever'-ravens back.
nah ravens have things to put in their lows now apart from cprs.
Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know...
Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought |
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:32:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Antic any heads up on the tech 2 ammo and tracking computers ? I dont have a supply of that kind of ammo so cant test.
I'm almost certain they do NOT stack. This is because the the tracking info on the ammo is labeled 0.75% yet the tracking computers are 20%. This already means that they are clearly using a different pools to bring a total tracking speed together. This is how they can solve the bugs with the other 3 mods. Pool them seperatly.
|
franny
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:45:00 -
[22]
this maybe will get damps fixed nice find Shin Ra
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:46:00 -
[23]
Originally by: franny this maybe will get damps fixed nice find Shin Ra
We can but hope
|
Shinnen
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 12:49:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Shin Ra
I'm merely lobbying CCP to fix the stacking on these 3 modules:
Remote Sensor dampners + Sensor Booster Tracking Disruptors + Tracking Computers Shield boost amps + Cap power relays
Can we get confirmation that this is not an intended effect?
Shin Ra
I fully support you in your rallies! :)
Lets hope they give us some info ---
INFOD |
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:07:00 -
[25]
this is getting ******* stupid now. did ccp actually test the effects of the new stacking penalty at all?
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:11:00 -
[26]
You selfish immature [expletive]
1) Naughty Boy and myself figured this one out about two weeks ago 2) We both self-censored ourselves when we realised the magnitude of the problem, and NB bugreported it 3) Shin Ra obviously read it and continued to post about it in that thread 4) We had to get a mod in to deal with what is obviously publishing an exploit
Grow up or get lost. This kind of thing IS NOT CLEVER OR FUNNY. This cannot be fixed quickly; I'm sure CCP are working on it as they're aware of this problem and will want this hole plugged. By publishing this again you're not only causing unnecessary and untold headaches, you've probably delayed a proper fix while CCP rush to close what is now a public loophole, quite possibly with a special-case exception for this case which reduces the urgency of fixing damps and disrupters.
Be thankful I'm not a developer because I would ban you outright with no appeal for pulling something like this.
|
Goberth Ludwig
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:12:00 -
[27]
MWD and PDU cap modifiers are listed with the same name
"Capacitor Bonus"
Since pdu stacks will 3 pdu cancel the mwd penalty?
- Gob (also known as Admiral Goberius) |
DarK
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:13:00 -
[28]
So cyclone ?
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:15:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Joerd Toastius You selfish immature [expletive]
1) Naughty Boy and myself figured this one out about two weeks ago 2) We both self-censored ourselves when we realised the magnitude of the problem, and NB bugreported it 3) Shin Ra obviously read it and continued to post about it in that thread 4) We had to get a mod in to deal with what is obviously publishing an exploit
Grow up or get lost. This kind of thing IS NOT CLEVER OR FUNNY. This cannot be fixed quickly; I'm sure CCP are working on it as they're aware of this problem and will want this hole plugged. By publishing this again you're not only causing unnecessary and untold headaches, you've probably delayed a proper fix while CCP rush to close what is now a public loophole, quite possibly with a special-case exception for this case which reduces the urgency of fixing damps and disrupters.
Be thankful I'm not a developer because I would ban you outright with no appeal for pulling something like this.
If this was an exploit, surely the mods would deal with it the same way they dealt with the Wasp situation?
This is probably not an exploit seeing as no "don't use this" warnings have been published despite, as you say, you having bugreported it.
Did the guy who publicised the problem with WASP drones get banned? No, everyone knew about the problem and priority was given to the fix.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:22:00 -
[30]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=276561&page=3#64
You were censored for it last time. You decided to do it again.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |