Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shin Ra
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:25:00 -
[31 ]
Edited by: Shin Ra on 22/01/2006 13:27:39 Originally by: Joerd Toastius http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=276561&page=3#64 You were censored for it last time. You decided to do it again. Aside from the fact your not supposed to discuss moderation, that incident was in a completly different context. In particular: "Abusing exploits or encouraging others to do so can get you in a lot of trouble." I am not abusing this personally and certainly not encouraging anyone else to use it unless CCP say its okay. That is one of the points of this thread.
Sarmaul
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:29:00 -
[32 ]
this is not an exploit - this is exactly how ccp have designed the game mechanics. it's completely unfair and overpowered, but it's not an exploit.
Sarmaul
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:30:00 -
[33 ]
btw, could someone tell me if this applies to a cyclone with it's built-in boost bonus?
Shin Ra
Posted - 2006.01.22 13:32:00 -
[34 ]
Originally by: Sarmaul btw, could someone tell me if this applies to a cyclone with it's built-in boost bonus? Built in bonuses should not apply in stacking forumlae. I would highly doubt it. Still usiing 3 shield boost amps on a cyclone will give u a solid shield tank to say the least.
Roga Midrennie
Posted - 2006.01.22 15:19:00 -
[35 ]
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? You dont even need 8. I just tried this out with my terrible shield skills (shield comp lvl 1, the other 2 at lvl 4). xl c5l, 2 amps, multispec hardener 6 relays, 1 named damage control average of 53% resis repping 178hp/sec forever. 2 large accomos with maxed skills gives 128hp/sec and can also be run forever using same amount of slots and has 62.5 average resis (thats 3 tech 1 damage specific hardeners).
Azuriel Talloth
Posted - 2006.01.22 15:26:00 -
[36 ]
Respect for not keeping it to yourself for abusage. Gogo CCP QA Division Interdictors: Destroyer-class vessels, designed to pull other vessels out of warp .
j0sephine
Posted - 2006.01.22 16:08:00 -
[37 ]
"If this was an exploit, surely the mods would deal with it the same way they dealt with the Wasp situation?" IIRC they did erase Farjung's post describing this effect, on that very basis (exploit info) I'd guess it is considered exactly that (exploit, unintended side-effect giving unfair advantage) because the whole CPR shield boost penalty was introduced to prevent people from filling low slots with relays and then having fully sustainable high performance shield tank in the mids. Which is what the change in stacking allows again, now. Difference between this situation and the Wasp exploit is, it's easy enough to notice the Wasps are involved -- they show on your killmail. But there's no "proof" someone is running the uer shield tank until you manage to kill them and find all mods in their can.... and with this sort of defense, killing can become quite problematic. :s
Equinox II
Posted - 2006.01.22 16:14:00 -
[38 ]
CCP, fix this, tracking disruptors, sensor damps and cyno-field on recon now! How many bug reports and patches do you really need? CCP Hammer > Next patch we will make sure to boost Amarr and Nerf Caldari.
Ante
Posted - 2006.01.22 16:32:00 -
[39 ]
I wonder if this is why I witnessed a solo Raven tank 2 Megathrons and 2 ceptors + drones, eventually managing to beat them all back...
Face Lifter
Posted - 2006.01.22 16:35:00 -
[40 ]
since I really want to PvP using this technique, I'd like a statement from CCP Is this an exploit or not? As far as I know, the positive and negative stacking effect has been brought to attention of CCP before the last patch. They openly said that they will consider its effects. They decided that the effects are acceptable since there was no fix in the last patch. So technically, this is not an exploit, but I'd say it unbalances the game somewhat, in favor of much stronger tanks. Do we want to keep better tanking? CCP has moved in that direction already, maybe we should think of it as just another step forward
Wee Dave
Posted - 2006.01.22 16:42:00 -
[41 ]
Exploit or not, either way expect to have about ten days to use it, max.
Antoinette Civari
Posted - 2006.01.22 16:43:00 -
[42 ]
Thanks Shin Ra for breaking EvE :) Seriously, if this becomes well known ( and it will become well known ) we'll soon see a lot ravens that are tanked to **** which results in breaking the balance in pvp situations. Hooray. I hope CCP acts fast on fixing this, but i seriously doubt it. :\
James Lyrus
Posted - 2006.01.22 17:03:00 -
[43 ]
If you want to confirm whether it's an exploit or not, pressy on that thar f12. --We are recruiting Carriers on sale
Blind Man
Posted - 2006.01.22 17:11:00 -
[44 ]
Edited by: Blind Man on 22/01/2006 17:11:48 /trains caldari bs 4 o ya and cyclone + XL booster + 4 amps + 4 cap relays, 4tw.
Joshua Foiritain
Posted - 2006.01.22 17:17:00 -
[45 ]
Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 22/01/2006 17:18:01 Hmm gotta go buy me some shield boost amps for my raven. Awesomeness On the bright side, if this is an exploit then so would fitting Sensor boosters be... -------------
Ranger 1
Posted - 2006.01.22 17:28:00 -
[46 ]
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 22/01/2006 17:18:01 Hmm gotta go buy me some shield boost amps for my raven. Awesomeness On the bright side, if this is an exploit then so would fitting Sensor boosters be... Exactly.
Karazaan
Posted - 2006.01.22 17:30:00 -
[47 ]
Originally by: Shin Ra Edited by: Shin Ra on 22/01/2006 13:27:39 Originally by: Joerd Toastius http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=276561&page=3#64 You were censored for it last time. You decided to do it again. Aside from the fact your not supposed to discuss moderation, that incident was in a completly different context. In particular: "Abusing exploits or encouraging others to do so can get you in a lot of trouble." I am not abusing this personally and certainly not encouraging anyone else to use it unless CCP say its okay. That is one of the points of this thread. There is only one way to see this, you should be banned from the forum for a few months, to think about it. You are truly transforming the truth to achieve your goal, worse, you are now sacrificing all of Eve balance to reach it. What's next? A massacre in Jita? You have become an annoyance for the devs and the community. This is my feeling and I'm sharing them.
James Lyrus
Posted - 2006.01.22 17:33:00 -
[48 ]
Originally by: Blind Man Edited by: Blind Man on 22/01/2006 17:11:48 /trains caldari bs 4 o ya and cyclone + XL booster + 4 amps + 4 cap relays, 4tw. Actually you only need 2 amps - invulnerability fields go quite well in the other slots. --We are recruiting Carriers on sale
Ranger 1
Posted - 2006.01.22 17:46:00 -
[49 ]
For crying out loud... This explains several odd things I have noticed lately. Shin Ra is OBVIOUSLY not the only person to have figured this out. However, the others are using it to their advantage. I'd much rather we all know how the current game mechanic is working and plan for it, rather than be raped by those that no qualms using this "secret method" to themselves. I quite understand the argument to keep it as quiet as possible until it is fixed... but frankly, it was already to late for that even before this thread. The issue's with the new stacking formula were coming to light before the last patch and frankly, if it wasn't addressed in the last patch then (in this case) CCP is not devoting enough resources to the problem. I don't really see this as an exploit or a bug. This is a new game mechanic that is working as intended, however it is having evidently unforseen results that literally affect every vessel in the game in one way or the other. If it were limited to a few ships or situations, it might be a different story. That is not the case. We need clarification on this, and we need it NOW. Keeping it a secret is NOT going to achieve this.
j0sephine
Posted - 2006.01.22 17:50:00 -
[50 ]
"Actually you only need 2 amps" Even one is enough for that matter; completely offsets the penalty from all cpr's you'd fit, and still gives ~20% increase of booster efficiency...
De ath
Posted - 2006.01.22 18:28:00 -
[51 ]
I would say this is best described as a bug, if you take a quick look at the descriptions of the six modules you mention the stacking penalty (or bonus in this case) is not intended to apply to Cap Relays.Piccies of 6 mods for easy reference Merits of the stacking penalty favouring defenders and not attackers in the other two situations aside it is at least clearly advertised in the module description that this will occur. The same is not true for Cap Relays, therefore its a bug, or exploit if people are using it in combat to their advantage. I would say the stack penalty is functioning as intended in the other case, why shouldn't defensive mods nullify offensive mods? I do however think Shield Amps nullifying Cap Relay penalties is wrong.
Gierling
Posted - 2006.01.22 18:37:00 -
[52 ]
I would say that there are probably more broken modules using this logic. They need to be found and documented.*snip* That's not very appropriate. - Teblin
Farjung
Posted - 2006.01.22 19:44:00 -
[53 ]
Originally by: j0sephine "If this was an exploit, surely the mods would deal with it the same way they dealt with the Wasp situation?" IIRC they did erase Farjung's post describing this effect, on that very basis (exploit info) I'd guess it is considered exactly that (exploit, unintended side-effect giving unfair advantage) because the whole CPR shield boost penalty was introduced to prevent people from filling low slots with relays and then having fully sustainable high performance shield tank in the mids. Which is what the change in stacking allows again, now. Difference between this situation and the Wasp exploit is, it's easy enough to notice the Wasps are involved -- they show on your killmail. But there's no "proof" someone is running the uer shield tank until you manage to kill them and find all mods in their can.... and with this sort of defense, killing can become quite problematic. :sVerily ;\ I still think it's wrong to call it an exploit, as it seems an inevitable result of the new stacking penalty, but whatever. Might as well call anyone running dual sensor boosters/tracking comps a filthy sploiter. But anyway, I spent quite a while on sisi trying to come up with a setup that could really take advantage of this and the results were a bit meh to be perfectly honest. You have to give up quite a lot of slots to make it work, it generally makes more sense to just go for a cap injector and free up a bunch of slots anyway.
Farjung
Posted - 2006.01.22 19:44:00 -
[54 ]
Originally by: j0sephine "If this was an exploit, surely the mods would deal with it the same way they dealt with the Wasp situation?" IIRC they did erase Farjung's post describing this effect, on that very basis (exploit info) I'd guess it is considered exactly that (exploit, unintended side-effect giving unfair advantage) because the whole CPR shield boost penalty was introduced to prevent people from filling low slots with relays and then having fully sustainable high performance shield tank in the mids. Which is what the change in stacking allows again, now. Difference between this situation and the Wasp exploit is, it's easy enough to notice the Wasps are involved -- they show on your killmail. But there's no "proof" someone is running the uer shield tank until you manage to kill them and find all mods in their can.... and with this sort of defense, killing can become quite problematicEVE Online | EVE Insider | Forums
ArchenTheGreat
Posted - 2006.01.22 20:54:00 -
[55 ]
Originally by: Farjung But anyway, I spent quite a while on sisi trying to come up with a setup that could really take advantage of this and the results were a bit meh to be perfectly honest. You have to give up quite a lot of slots to make it work, it generally makes more sense to just go for a cap injector and free up a bunch of slots anyway. It could be nice setup for mission runners. 2 hardeners and XL booster running in auto mode forever. Damage is good enough mostly - it's tank which is a problem during missions.
Valea Silpha
Posted - 2006.01.22 21:21:00 -
[56 ]
Despite all the bad press being slung at Shin Ra, i think that exposing the problem widely is the best way to deal with it from a community stand point anyway. It does indeed appear to be a bug, but as theres been no specific advice on if using this type of set-up is an exploit or not, we are all caught in a kinda limbo. Now its well known at least the decent parts of community who are self-regulating and want to avoid using exploits or exploia-a-like effects will be better placed to decide if they want to continue using the set-up.
Neon Genesis
Posted - 2006.01.22 21:26:00 -
[57 ]
So basically you're saying eve has regressed to how it was 6 months in? /neon logs in....There, i just contributed nothing to your thread
j0sephine
Posted - 2006.01.22 21:36:00 -
[58 ]
"But anyway, I spent quite a while on sisi trying to come up with a setup that could really take advantage of this and the results were a bit meh to be perfectly honest. You have to give up quite a lot of slots to make it work, it generally makes more sense to just go for a cap injector and free up a bunch of slots anyway." Well, i kind of like this one: * 2x invul field II, 2x shield amp, large booster II + medium booster II, cap relays. ... cap neutral, equivalent of x-large tech.2 booster running non stop with 48% or so to all resists, but without grid / cpu issues --can fit tech.2 sieges easily-- ... and not limited to short tanking time offered with cap booster (plus, the extra space to fit ammo due to no room taken by cap charges is nice) It's possible to swap parts a bit there and make room for target painter / sensor booster / scrambler while maintaning the tank ability... would be a tad bit more expensive, though, and more demanding on the skills. Damage is obviously lesser than the gank setup will dish out, but the extra tank ability can quite make up for it in certain cases...
NebulousBlur
Posted - 2006.01.22 21:39:00 -
[59 ]
Thanks Shin Ra. Unlike some of the others, I don't believe you have done anything wrong. I'd rather know about quirks in the combinations of modules that people may be equipping against me and my friends than to be in the dark (and at a disadvantage) I hope CCP fixes this positive/negative modifier stacking to work more sensibly.
Hugh Ruka
Posted - 2006.01.22 21:39:00 -
[60 ]
I would say Shin Ra is right on reporting this. I read the previous sensor modules problem, but did not think in such a large scope. There are many out there that did and are now using this to their advantage. If this is an exploit, the devs should warn about it as they did with the wasps issue. Not doing so is a silent approval for me. Considering the issue itself, seems the stacking penalty was worked out on paper with nice numbers, then was tested on the obvious modules and implemented. Nobody took a deeper look it seems. ------------------------------Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well ...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page