These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

POS shield hardener bug: stacking penalty impact not showing

Author
Coelomate
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2015-01-17 16:02:50 UTC
Hi spaceship friends,

While planning a vacation to wormhole space (I'll be AFK soon, and didn't want to be heavily involved with alliance stuff before disappearing), I stumbled across a major bug in how shield hardening arrays are factored into shield resistances in the POS management window.

Original post:http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2spdua/manymost_pos_fitting_tools_not_to_mention_the/

Confirmation:http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2sq8bv/starbase_hardeners_stacking_incorrectly_confirmed/

TL;DR: The POS management window doesn't apply stacking penalties to resist modules, but testing confirms they are subject to normal stacking penalties.

I imagine this is especially important for wormhole residents. If you believed the in-game POS management window, it could drastically change your decisions on building a POS and on when/how to siege a POS.

If you were taking a POS building tool at face value, the difference is staggering - you could put together a Domination large with >400 million EHP, but under fire it would have been under 200 million even using all fitting space for resistance modules. You might also have been tempted by a "resistar" Minmatar large crammed full of hardening arrays - but wouldn't actually get much benefit out of any hardener past the 3rd you onlined.

It also makes the base resistances somewhat more important - you can never get your base 0 resists above about 55%, but your base 50% can inch over 77%. Fitting tools/in-game menu lead you to believe even resists were possible, but in reality resistance holes are common.

Love,

~Coelomate

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
#2 - 2015-01-20 01:05:59 UTC
Holy crapolas! You mean my Domination Large Dullstar could take as little as 50 hours for anyone to siege, instead of 100 hours?!?!
Paul Vashar
CTHS
#3 - 2015-01-20 20:10:55 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
Holy crapolas! You mean my Domination Large Dullstar could take as little as 50 hours for anyone to siege, instead of 100 hours?!?!

Didn't want that sleep anyways.