Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Charlotte Vanderbeam
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 14:48:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Charlotte Vanderbeam on 30/10/2008 14:52:42 First lets look at the bonuses of nanofibers with the stacking formula applied:
1st nano t2: 9.4% velocity / 15,8% inertia 2nd nano t2: 8.08% velocity / 13,59% inertia 3rd nano t2: 5.36% velocity / 9% inertia
so with 3 nanofibers t2 we gain in total: 24,57% velocity / 43,37% inertia
Ok, lets try to get a nice amount of speed and inertia with the single bonused more specialized mods next,using the same amount of slots, which is three:
1st overdrive t2: 12,5% velocity 2nd overdrive t2: 10.75% velocity
1st I-stab t2: 20% inertia 2nd I-stab t2: 17.2% inertia
1. combination: 2 ODs, 1 I-stab:
24,59% velocity / 20% inertia
2. combination: 1 OD, 2 I-stabs:
12,5% velocity / 40.6% inertia
Hmm, no matter how we turn it, we cant reach a similar value with the more specialized mods using the same amount of slots. Lets try using one slot more, so four slots:
3. combination: 2 OD, 2 I-stabs
25.59% velocity / 40.6% inertia
Ok, now we are on par in the velocity department and almost on par (yet still a few % behind even) in the inertia section, but we used one more slot for that not to mention we took a 4th penalty as well.
How can it be that using a combination of more specialized mods with only a single bonus that even take up one slot more still is inferior to the jack-of-both-trades nanofiber?
That does hardly seem balanced to me. Wasn't the very same thing true for first the origninal nanofibers and then later the I-stabs before they got nerfed/changed (and rightly so)?
I see repeating a pattern here that can and should be avoided.
Conclusion is very simple: Either nanofibers need to be nerfed or the specialized modules need a buff (or a combination of that).
Here is what I propose:
Nanofiber t2: 8.5% velocity / 12.5% inertia Overdrive t2: 15% velocity I-stab t2: 20% inertia (same as before)
(The other tier mods get adjusted accordingly of course)
That way using specialized mods and nanofibers are still attractive when you want to dedicate less low slots for speed mods and want to e.g. fit more damage mods instead.
|
Rivqua
Caldari Omega Wing Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 14:52:00 -
[2]
Actually, I am pretty sure they are balanced quite well.
If you are flying solo, with a general fit, you fit nanofibers.
If you need extreme speed or agility, you fit the specific mods.
If you are flying in a gang with a claymore, you fit overdrives, and let the claymore handle the agility boosts.
You choose to generealize, or specalize, or group. There is somewhere there for everyone :)
/Riv
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 15:59:00 -
[3]
Ill explain it to you:
There is slot efficient way and "max stats" way. nanofibers are 1st cattegory - they give you best boosts per slot used. BUT when you want to max speed/agility they are WORST choice. Understood?
|
Charlotte Vanderbeam
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 19:51:00 -
[4]
I am well aware of that, my point is nanofibers with their current stats are a little too "slot efficient" to be balanced. I can still recall the time everyone fitted nanofibers because they affected speed and agility and then later the time they changed i-stabs to affect inertia and mass so everyone fitted them, that simply wasn't good design.
Then there was the change where they gave each of the 3 mods a unique stat and people started to fit all of them in various combination and now the intention is to make a module that is one-size-fits-all again? hmm
|
Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 20:10:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Nahkep Narmelion on 30/10/2008 20:12:21
Quote: Ok, lets try to get a nice amount of speed and inertia with the single bonused more specialized mods next,using the same amount of slots, which is three:
Didn't the initial post about the speed nerf indicate that three nano fibers would be equal to 2 Overdrives (ODI) and 2 Inertial stabilizers? If so, and using your ODI/Istab numbers it would work out that the Nanos should produce
24.59% velocity / 40.6% inertia
which compares nicely to your Nano numbers,
24.57% velocity / 43.37% inertia.
In short, you've proven what the Dev Blog on Speed Rebalance stated.
And all three modules are all getting nerfed in terms of their bonuses. Sure, nanos are "slot efficient", but you can't achieve ludicrious speed via "slot efficiency". Nerfing nanos hull upgrades anymore and you might as well simply remove them from the game and be done with it.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 20:12:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Murina on 30/10/2008 20:13:21 Math proof?.
Try logging in and working in a gang and in combat, EFT warriors and armchair generals are the worst thing for a game.
|
Charlotte Vanderbeam
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 22:49:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion Didn't the initial post about the speed nerf indicate that three nano fibers would be equal to 2 Overdrives (ODI) and 2 Inertial stabilizers?
I was not aware that they stated that but even if they did it does not change that it is a bad design decision imho. They are basically contradicting themselves then as they said when the last speed module revamp was done one of the reasons was to remove the overpowered I-stab and provide every module only with a single bonus for balance reasons.
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
And all three modules are all getting nerfed in terms of their bonuses.
The point is they are not all getting nerfed, overdrives took a big hit from 20% velocity down to 12.5% that is true, nanos went from 12.5% mass and 12,5% inertia to 9.4% velocity and 15.8% inertia so they did not nearly take such a big hit if any hit at all.
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 30/10/2008 20:13:21 Math proof?.
Try logging in and working in a gang and in combat, EFT warriors and armchair generals are the worst thing for a game.
Imho whiners that cry for unneeded nerfs instead of adapting tactics are the worst thing for a game, too bad they get open ears.
Also unlike whiners, trolls and flamers math tells about facts and doesn't make for content-free posts Apart from that I dont need EFT to do such simple calculations for me.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:00:00 -
[8]
Still does it matter? With death of speedtanking those mods can as well get removed from game because they will be used only on specific/rare ocassions.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:03:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Still does it matter? With death of speedtanking those mods can as well get removed from game because they will be used only on specific/rare ocassions.
Interceptors will still use them.
________________ God is my Wingman |
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:06:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 30/10/2008 23:05:46
Originally by: DeadDuck
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Still does it matter? With death of speedtanking those mods can as well get removed from game because they will be used only on specific/rare ocassions.
Interceptors will still use them.
Not worth it. Better stack on active tanking mods to endure that "1v1 tackle". Rep+CPR (which is stupid idea anyways) will give more efficient tank than AB+speedmods (yeah i was looking at my old pulsesader setup). Plus "interceptors" is the "specific/rare" ocassion i was talking about.
|
|
Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:37:00 -
[11]
You still aren't telling us why it is a bad design decision. So it is "slot efficient" so what? About the only time someone is going to look at using 3 nanos is when they want to run away from the enemy fast in certain ships (maybe a hauler or improvised hauler--e.g. exequror) and maybe interceptors if people still fly them after the nerf. So, this has your worried?
Unbalancing? Don't see it. Overpowered? Don't see it. Game breaking? No way. People might have them sitting around in their hangars and get them out once in a while. Not a problem.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |