These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: New Tech2 modules

First post First post
Author
bornaa
GRiD.
#161 - 2011-11-21 19:19:05 UTC
about that "T2 Mining Laser Field Enhancemnet Module"
I did a little math...
its giving 4% boost over T1 module Lol
that's funny, and that's not worth it at all Roll

with T1 link you have range of 23,8km, and with this T1 you get range of 24,7km
I don't see why you introduced this link at all Roll
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
bornaa
GRiD.
#162 - 2011-11-21 19:57:03 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
if someone dont believe me
Here is math in 3 decimals which corresponds to the actual in game values:

Maximum Skills, Orca
Mining Foreman Link - Laser Optimization (2%)
T1 Mining Foreman Link - Mining Laser Field Enhancement (4.5%)
T2 Mining Foreman Link - Mining Laser Field Enhancement (5%)


with T1 gang links:

Range Link Bonus = 0.045 * 5 * (1 + 5 * 0.10) * (1 + 5 * 0.03) * (1 + 0.50) = 0.5821875

Maximum Laser Range = 15 km * (1 + 0.5821875) = 23.732 km



with T2 gang links:

Range Link Bonus = 0.05 * 5 * (1 + 5 * 0.10) * (1 + 5 * 0.03) * (1 + 0.50) = 0.646875

Maximum Laser Range = 15 km * (1 + 0.646875) = 24.703 km
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
Sigras
Conglomo
#163 - 2011-11-21 20:25:07 UTC
you guys who are complaining about the T2 gang links only giving you a 5% bonus, you do realize that all hardeners (armor and shield) all of the armor plating etc and most of the rigs only go up +5% from meta 0 to T2 right?

And youre complaining about 5% in applied effectiveness, which is way better than 5% in base stats because thats still cut down by stacking penalty etc.

youre looking at a 25% increase in base stats, and Id say thats plenty.
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club
#164 - 2011-11-21 21:15:00 UTC
I would like to see activated Gang Links apply their bonuses only on the grid of the buffing Ship, as long as some gang member is in that system (self buff even when no other member is on grid)

Carefully worded, normal gang bonuses are good as they are, and it would be sad to loose fitting variations on some self boosting "solo" BC/CS fits.

I would much more appreciate it to fly even a combat irrelevant full boosting CS right in the fight and maybe die, then hide my ass and miss all the explosions.

Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2011-11-22 02:46:21 UTC
I think the ganglink increase is dangerous; it makes having a booster more mandatory and smaller groups without any boosters won't stand a chance. I'm sure there are some fellow WH'ers who will attest to how this will affect their pvp in T3s with already overtanked ships.

I think the 2.0 to 2.5% increase is just too drastic. a 2.0 to 2.25% would have been just fine.
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#166 - 2011-11-22 03:27:13 UTC
ssshhhhhhh
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2011-11-22 03:47:49 UTC
Cap Tyrian wrote:
I would like to see activated Gang Links apply their bonuses only on the grid of the buffing Ship, as long as some gang member is in that system (self buff even when no other member is on grid)

Carefully worded, normal gang bonuses are good as they are, and it would be sad to loose fitting variations on some self boosting "solo" BC/CS fits.

I would much more appreciate it to fly even a combat irrelevant full boosting CS right in the fight and maybe die, then hide my ass and miss all the explosions.



CCP makes more money if you hide one account and bring the other to the field...
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#168 - 2011-11-22 04:02:13 UTC
Gang link bonuses with a range, maybe with decreased effect as range gets out past optimal would be nice but they might introduce too much lag into large fleet fights.

Basically, let a non-specialized ship only give full boosts out to 30km with falloff to 60km while a level V skilled command ship would have an optimal of 100km (with falloff out to 200km). Maybe with some base level of boosts that you would get anywhere in the system (25% effective?).

Plus modules/rigs that let you extend your falloff or optimal (just like various e-war and logistics).
Lek Arthie
Doomheim
#169 - 2011-11-22 09:48:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lek Arthie
Jaigar wrote:
I think the ganglink increase is dangerous; it makes having a booster more mandatory and smaller groups without any boosters won't stand a chance. I'm sure there are some fellow WH'ers who will attest to how this will affect their pvp in T3s with already overtanked ships.

I think the 2.0 to 2.5% increase is just too drastic. a 2.0 to 2.25% would have been just fine.


Have you actually done any calculations yourself or you just want to make T2 links useless cause you cant use them and you will have disadvantage?
2,5% is already low, i think it should be around 3%. Asking for nerfs with the excuse that it will become useful and that you will need one are two opposite things. If it becomes useful it means its in a good state. Btw even T1 links are useful and many FCs are using/asking them. Also the smaller the group the less the impact boosters have. Its clear you have never used gang links, its ok, but first use them and then ask for nerf. Having T2 links is also very time intensive and doesn't really benefit your own single character since you cant use it when not in fleet or if you are not flying a CS.

Quote:
with already overtanked ships.


Overtanked ships benefit the least from resist link.

Quote:
Basically, let a non-specialized ship only give full boosts out to 30km with falloff to 60km while a level V skilled command ship would have an optimal of 100km (with falloff out to 200km). Maybe with some base level of boosts that you would get anywhere in the system (25% effective?).


I think this is a bit too much. Nerfing it so you can give boost only if you are in grid ok, but giving a range and falloff is a bit too much. Btw does anyone use a "non-specialized ship" to give boosts... Even if they want to, they cant, due to CPU req.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#170 - 2011-11-22 19:48:28 UTC
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
Svennig wrote:
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
yeah, our average fit is about 12 bil cheaper and still stable. that was our ceo's pimp fit one.


Can you link this fit, for science? Cool


meh, i tried to link it for you but, ccp doesnt like hyper links to kbs so much. you can find it on our kb under two steps losses however. not too hard to find it.


Gee, thanks Zaraki....

This is our more normal fit:
[Archon, Two step's Archon]
Capital Inefficient Armor Repair Unit
Capital Inefficient Armor Repair Unit
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II

Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II

Capital Energy Transfer Array I
Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector
Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector
Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector
Triage Module I

Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I


(though usually with 2x CCC II's in the rig slot)

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2011-11-22 21:32:09 UTC
not throwin you under the bus TS. i know some others have lost some too but, i knew you did for sure and i can not remember who the others were off the top of my head. just was using yours as a reference.
Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2011-11-23 06:15:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaigar
Lek Arthie wrote:
Jaigar wrote:
I think the ganglink increase is dangerous; it makes having a booster more mandatory and smaller groups without any boosters won't stand a chance. I'm sure there are some fellow WH'ers who will attest to how this will affect their pvp in T3s with already overtanked ships.

I think the 2.0 to 2.5% increase is just too drastic. a 2.0 to 2.25% would have been just fine.


Have you actually done any calculations yourself or you just want to make T2 links useless cause you cant use them and you will have disadvantage?
2,5% is already low, i think it should be around 3%. Asking for nerfs with the excuse that it will become useful and that you will need one are two opposite things. If it becomes useful it means its in a good state. Btw even T1 links are useful and many FCs are using/asking them. Also the smaller the group the less the impact boosters have. Its clear you have never used gang links, its ok, but first use them and then ask for nerf. Having T2 links is also very time intensive and doesn't really benefit your own single character since you cant use it when not in fleet or if you are not flying a CS.

Quote:
with already overtanked ships.


Overtanked ships benefit the least from resist link.

You do understand that T2 shares the same leadership requirements as the Mindlink right? There is nothing new to train for for these links and will only need the T2 BPCs to get.

Ok heres some simple numbers for you, using a no-bonus ship, no mind-link, and max Warfare Link Specialist+ Siege Warfare Specialist (say nighthawk) with the shield harmonizing link. With the 2.0% mindlink, it gets a 15% bonus. With a 2.5% mindlink it gets a 18.75% bonus, and with 2.25% it'd get a 16.875% bonus. Without the mindlink you can already see the 2.5% implant running away.

Now, throw in the Mindlink and a Warfare Link Tengu. WIth 2.0% you get 28.125%. With 2.5% you get 35.15%. WIth 2.25% you would get 31.64%, right in the middle ground. The same applies to the armor warfare links on a legion, and thats a pretty huge difference.

I'm going to break down how this affects damage very simply. Saying you are getting hit from a certain damage source for 100 dmg with this 28.125% resistance. Consequently, you would take 71.875 damage. Now switch that to the T2 Ganglink with 35.15% resistance and you will take 64.85 damage. That is a 9.77% reduction over the current T1 Ganglink. That is pretty significant, and counting in the other ganglinks as well, that is also an additional 9.77% reduction in cycle time and cap usage. Consider how this affects logistics ships: not only are they getting an additional 11% reps because of reduced cycle time over the T1 variant ganglinks (meta4 armor reps: 3.59 secs vs. 3.25), they are also getting UP TO 11% stronger reps because of the higher resistances.

And as far as it making overtanked T3s even more overtanked: because of stacking penalties,this bonus will be first or 2nd added in because of its amount (because of resistance specific hardeners or CN Invuls). Max compensation puts a imperial navy EANM at 28.125% (coincidence?) and a T2 EANM at 25%. Since your second resistance gives you a stacking penalty of 87%, you will still gain about 8.5% reduction in damage with the T2 Ganglink vs. the T1. So assuming that you are using an Imp Navy EANM AND and additional resistance mod, you would gain 30.58% from the ganglink and 16.03% from the ENAM, vs 24.47% and 16.03% otherwise. Not counting that highest mod, thats a total 42% dmg reduction vs. a 36.5% dmg reduction. This is basicly showing that even if they are overtanked they are gaining significant damage reduction bonuses.

This same effect can be seen on Tengus fitting T2 dmg rigs. If you stuff 4 BCUs in the lows and fit a T1 dmg rig, you gain 6 DPS, whereas the T2 gives you 34 DPS. This is because the 15% from the T2 rig is being counted FIRST now, whereas the 10% from the T1 matches the 10% from the BCU, only giving 10.5% of that 10% (1.05% dmg). This same principle applies to armor like stated above, with the T2 ganglink bonuses acting the same way.

And 3% is just plain silly. In a Legion, thats 3*5*1.25*1.5*1.5=42.1875% ganglink effects. Thats better than the best officer EANM.
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2011-11-23 17:16:21 UTC
getting really close to patch day and there is no word on the final state of T2 triage...
Hamatitio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#174 - 2011-11-23 21:06:55 UTC
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
getting really close to patch day and there is no word on the final state of T2 triage...


We're stuck with this one till the next round of changes me thinks.
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2011-11-23 21:11:19 UTC
from what tallest said today on the hybrid thread we are indeed. oh well
Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#176 - 2011-11-23 21:42:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaigar
Yeah, only useful thing about the T2 Triage is the 75 stront per cycle instead of 125..

And Two Step, Im assuming you are using strong mindflood/exile if the situation turns dire?
Lek Arthie
Doomheim
#177 - 2011-11-23 23:04:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lek Arthie
Jaigar wrote:
[quote=Lek Arthie][quote=Jaigar] That is a 9.77% reduction over the current T1 Ganglink. That is pretty significant, and counting in the other ganglinks as well, that is also an additional 9.77% reduction in cycle time and cap usage.


I dont understand what your purpose here is. It SHOULD be significant. Have you compared T1 and T2 guns? There is a significant dps change between the two. Saying that a T1 gun cant beat a T2 gun so the T2 gun needs a nerf is just wrong.... I really dont get it. Your goal is to make the T2 module useless?.... If there is no real beenfit of using the T2 module, whats the point of the T2 module to exist?
Even with a 2,5% it still is not enough, it needs more. Saying that T2 modules have the same reqs as mindlink is just useless.... So what if they have same reqs. It still needs a lot of time and it still is very time consuming with the charisma req. You need a remap to train effectively.
So to conclude, dont ask for nerfs because you cant use the T2 module. If you think your enemy gains too much advantage get a T2 booster pilot.
Your whole post and your arguments are completely off and wrong.
Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#178 - 2011-11-24 05:01:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaigar
Lek Arthie wrote:
Jaigar wrote:
[quote=Lek Arthie][quote=Jaigar] That is a 9.77% reduction over the current T1 Ganglink. That is pretty significant, and counting in the other ganglinks as well, that is also an additional 9.77% reduction in cycle time and cap usage.


I dont understand what your purpose here is. It SHOULD be significant. Have you compared T1 and T2 guns? There is a significant dps change between the two. Saying that a T1 gun cant beat a T2 gun so the T2 gun needs a nerf is just wrong.... I really dont get it. Your goal is to make the T2 module useless?.... If there is no real beenfit of using the T2 module, whats the point of the T2 module to exist?
Even with a 2,5% it still is not enough, it needs more. Saying that T2 modules have the same reqs as mindlink is just useless.... So what if they have same reqs. It still needs a lot of time and it still is very time consuming with the charisma req. You need a remap to train effectively.
So to conclude, dont ask for nerfs because you cant use the T2 module. If you think your enemy gains too much advantage get a T2 booster pilot.
Your whole post and your arguments are completely off and wrong.

The point being that when you get the T2 ganglink requirements, all you need is cybernetics 5 to get 50% more effectiveness from the mindlink; there is already more than enough incentive to train those skills.

Ganglinks already make a big enough difference as is. If you make them any stronger, you are making them mandatory.

The current T2 Ganglink for shield resists compared to the T1 is simular to the gap between invulnerability field IIs and Caldari Navy Invuls. Upgrading from T1 to T2 ganglinks is replacing that invul II worth of resists with a CN invul.

The decreased rep cycle+ additional resistance benefit gives up to a 21% tanking benefit for just UPGRADING FROM THE T1. In the end, the T2 Ganglink gives an additional 54% repping power through cycle reduction time alone vs. the current 39% max.

There is a tipping point where ganglinks turn from being something nice to have to being required to be competitive. Combine that with the change in boosters that is comming, and the newer guys/smaller fleets have even a bigger disadvantage.

From here on out I'm going to assume that you are trolling me.
Carulis
Scarab Technological Industries
#179 - 2011-11-24 09:48:22 UTC
CCP Are you reading these issues??

Please balance the bonuses on these T2 Gang Link Modules so we can test them out



T1 Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity base Bonus of 3%
T2 Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity base Bonus of 3.75%

T1 Mining Foreman Link - Mining Laser Field Enhancement base Bonus of 4.5%
T2 Mining Foreman Link - Mining Laser Field Enhancement base Bonus of 5.625

T1 Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Manuvers base bonus of 3%
T2 Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Manuvers base bonus of 3.75%

CCP Please respond
Crucis Cassiopeiae
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#180 - 2011-11-24 11:49:23 UTC
CCP???
Anyone??
give us a word here...

Vote Issler Dainze for CSM7! http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=470