Player Features and Ideas Discussion

But would make the rapier incredbly overpowered :P

Unless I'm crazy, didn't they halve cycle time in 1.0?

Dear Fozzie,

Since your eyes are slightly on Target Painters, I would like to point out following change for them:

Make TP"s scripted. But only let bonused ships use scripts, and remove their TP bonuses

Non-scripted, it would act like a regular target painter.

First script is the painter bonus script. It gives a 50% boost to painter strength
Second script, however, is reversal of process. It turns painter to a logistics module that reduces targets signature.

Numbers are up to you, stacking penalty for sig reduction script should be quite large so that it wouldn`t get abused.

So now, is it expected that eWar must by overheated for general usefulness? I remember the days when overheating was considered the tactic for extreme measures like when your ship was going to explode. Now you have to overheat just to make a module perform as good as it used too (plus a little)? I always thought that sensor damps were used too little, but now are we trying to make them even less used? Who is behind all these nerfs and why are we letting them mess up drones and capitals and eWar, oh my!

Sentries are not OP. They are the most costly weapon system in the game (destructible and almost impossible to take with you in the heat of battle). You have to leave them behind to maintain alignment. You lose them to drone aggro. You have to warp back to pick them up or lose them altogether. Sentries are the stupidest weapon system around and Omnis were the only redeeming quality for them until the domi bonuses came and then got nerfed. Poor Gallente getting the shaft time and again with this last year of nerfs; and just when things were starting to look up for drone users last January. My oh my!

I approve of this too!

I did a quick skim of both threads and saw nothing about this. Please forgive me if this has already been brought up.

I corpmate of mine nudged me to do a little math regarding the red giant overheat bonus. Now correct me if I am wrong about Red Giant mechanics ( I never liked the bloody commies), but I think it will be possible to achieve over 100% effect with TD. Those who knew the incident with AHARM can see where this is going.

Now, according to EFT, with maximum links and skills, a TD bonused ship (like sentinel, curse and pilgrim) has scripted maximum effect of 79.81%. A C6 red giant gives 100% bonus to overheat effect.

79,81 * 0,9 ( 1.1 nerf) * [1 + 0,2*2 (overheat + C6 bonus)] = 100,5606 %

These conditions are the singe edge case that make it possible, unless someone has been holding out on faction TD.

Unless CCP has fixed the turret mechanics, application of this TD would give target perfect optimal and tracking for a short while.
At least, until the other Red Giant bonus burns them out.

I did not even expect they might exist. Now that they are added, base jumps to 87,99%.

While I theorycrafted, I made table for (apparently nonexistent) faction TD, which would have base rate of 87,34%. This is close enough to above so this table is usable: http://pastebin.com/LuwxBs5w

And all the missile ships I fly are shield tankers, meaning EWAR nerfs the tank. And given a ship with bonuses to webs and target painters, we end up always using webs. Why? Mainly because webs stop people running away, while TP have little impact on the combat tactics. All a TP does is let you hit harder when you can hit at all, webs change the rules of the fight so you actually get to hit the other guy.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that somewhere in the dark depths of CCP headquarters there is a room where the argument of "balancing TPs, missiles, the Phoenix, and webifiers" has been going on so long and with so much emotional investment that the argument has manifested itself physically and is used by CCP to dispose of the bodies of the people unfortunate enough to mention gold ammo or micro transactions at staff meetings.

Okay, so I probably took that one a little too far.

If they added rigs for overheating, perhaps they could make 3 flavors - high, medium, and low. Would make for some interesting fitting decisions.

Fozzie -

Please read the above post, and, while you're modeling it for yourself, ask the following question:

"Do I want to use the same easy, lazy, and global solution to an issue that specifically exists when overheating a module in a high-level wormhole that I proposed for Capital Turrets, or am I going to adjust the wormhole's affect, which is what should have been proposed in the first place?"

Also, if you're going to take the time to model the effect of TRACKING COMPUTERS for a specific ship class (Dreadnaughts) when they are overheated in a specific type of wormhole, enough that you use that as an excuse to nerf Capital Turret tracking globally by 5%, DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BOTHERED TO DO THE SAME FOR ALL OTHER MODULES?

Sloppy work like this really begs the question of how stuff like this makes it onto the forums as proposed changes. You test ONE module type, find a result that, in your mind, justifies a global reduction in performance of Capital Turrets, but decided to not do the same for anything else?

Just be damned glad that the aircraft maintenance I inspect and sign off as having been properly performed is accomplished with a hell of a lot more competence and oversight than what has been put on display here. Otherwise, you'd never have survived your first ride in an airplane.

Bluntly, your Quality Assurance is either nonexistent or non-functional. Neither is a good place to be.