These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Module Tiericide - Neutralizers and Nosferatu

First post
Author
Cristl
#101 - 2015-11-06 12:58:45 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • Added Effectiveness Falloff
  • This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula
  • at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only)


is this will work at those percentages, or will apply at those percentages?

in other words at 100% optimal + 100% falloff will it have a 50% chance to hit, or will it hit for 50% of transfer amount?


50% Effectiveness, or 50% Transfer. Not a chance-to-hit.

A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs?
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#102 - 2015-11-06 13:12:35 UTC
Small neuts can be effective even on cruisers, the only thing that justifies the fitting cost of medium neuts is the range.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#103 - 2015-11-06 13:34:34 UTC
Cristl wrote:
A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs?


While valid, a question can neither ne quick or slow but long or short.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

To mare
Advanced Technology
#104 - 2015-11-06 14:02:16 UTC
this is one of the changes i`m having a hard time deciding if it`s a buff or a nerf, i guess time will tell.
Cristl
#105 - 2015-11-06 14:29:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Cristl
elitatwo wrote:
Cristl wrote:
A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs?


While valid, a question can neither ne quick or slow but long or short.

Keep up Charles Dickens. Here's a graph showing the relative frequencies of quick/short/brief/small question. 'quick question' pulled ahead in 1990 and hasn't looked back, mate.

My apologies, I can't make the link work. This is a copy of the url:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=quick+question%2Cshort+question%2Csmall+question%2Cbrief+question&year_start=1800&year_end=2015&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cquick%20question%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cshort%20question%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csmall%20question%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbrief%20question%3B%2Cc0

I'm aware frequency isn't necessarily the best metric, but saying 'quick question' is incorrect is positively Jurassic.

edit: I think the link works!
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#106 - 2015-11-06 15:09:00 UTC
Cristl wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • Added Effectiveness Falloff
  • This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula
  • at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only)


is this will work at those percentages, or will apply at those percentages?

in other words at 100% optimal + 100% falloff will it have a 50% chance to hit, or will it hit for 50% of transfer amount?


50% Effectiveness, or 50% Transfer. Not a chance-to-hit.

A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs?

Tracking disruptors are chance to hit based? Or the turrets they disrupt?
imnotangry
Royton Patronnus
#107 - 2015-11-06 15:15:42 UTC
Alexander McKeon wrote:
It definitely seems like officer neuts are getting hit rather hard here; both in terms of effective neuting capability at current ranges where they're an important defensive tool for capitals and relative to the (presumably) far more prevalent deadspace variants. Is there any possibility of a decreased cycle time or something to distinguish the officer modules? 10 less CPU and 9% more neut power seem like a very small benefit over other variants as compared to that enjoyed smartbombs or tackle modules over their non-officer counterparts.


Yeah this is my point i made earlier.. they really kind need to give officer versions something else.. they should have lower fitting requirements or more neut power the higher you go on the meta scale like a chelms neut having 900 neut power or something.. or giving them their old range back + fall off i mean like its meta17?? it should have a edge over a deadspace counterpart
Cristl
#108 - 2015-11-06 15:19:42 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Cristl wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • Added Effectiveness Falloff
  • This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula
  • at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only)


is this will work at those percentages, or will apply at those percentages?

in other words at 100% optimal + 100% falloff will it have a 50% chance to hit, or will it hit for 50% of transfer amount?


50% Effectiveness, or 50% Transfer. Not a chance-to-hit.

A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs?

Tracking disruptors are chance to hit based? Or the turrets they disrupt?

At optimal + falloff there is a roughly 50% chance that the tracking disruptor effect (whether range or tracking) gets applied.

I just want to know why the magnitude of the penalties aren't reduced to about 50% of their value instead.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#109 - 2015-11-06 17:48:38 UTC
so just to clarify, they will be 0% effective at optimal +2x falloff?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Harumi Akiga
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#110 - 2015-11-06 17:55:49 UTC
More buffs for already vastly overpowered sentinel and curse ... well played CCP.
Harumi Akiga
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#111 - 2015-11-06 17:57:03 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
so just to clarify, they will be 0% effective at optimal +2x falloff?


Opposite its still gonna neut you there just for small amounts , but yeah i can clarify opposite to what you said. Read first post in the thread again.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2015-11-06 18:24:38 UTC
Cristl wrote:
A quick question: why don't mods such as tracking disruptors use this? Why are they chance to hit based? Simpler server calcs?

Older server calcs. If CCP built them today, they would use the modern system they are using for neutralizers. Likely they will update the other modules to do it this way as well.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#113 - 2015-11-06 18:26:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Changes
[list]
  • Added Effectiveness Falloff
  • This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula
  • at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only)



    So I if I am neuting someone at 100% optimal and 100% falloff do I still lose all of my cap even though the neut is only 50% effective?

    If so then this combined with the reduced optimal seem like a nerf.

    Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #114 - 2015-11-06 19:06:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
    Cearain wrote:
    CCP Larrikin wrote:

    Changes
    [list]
  • Added Effectiveness Falloff
  • This works by reducing the effectivness of the module when in falloff. Formula is the same as gun falloff formula
  • at 100% Optimal + 0% Falloff = 100% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 100% Falloff = 50% Effectivness (approx figures only)
    at 100% Optimal + 200% Falloff = 6% Effectivness (approx figures only)



    So I if I am neuting someone at 100% optimal and 100% falloff do I still lose all of my cap even though the neut is only 50% effective?

    If so then this combined with the reduced falloff seem like a nerf.

    This is a small nerf, slightly more so to ships which have a bonus to nuet / nos range.

    Most people would be using the unstable power fluctuator which is getting a range and nuet amount nerf. The range nerf is slightly less if you use the scoped version although that uses extra CPU which will make it unviable for a lot of current fits.

    To keep things pretty much as they are you now need to use the T2 version which uses quite a bit of extra PG and CPU which again will make it unviable for a lot of current fits.

    Ships with bonuses will be getting a very small extra nerf as they will have half the bonus to the falloff range although this is quite insignificant as falloff is only a small part of the total range.

    On the other hand being able to activate the Nos/Nuet when outside of range is a big advantage and being able to have the option to Nos/Neut when a ship is at falloff or beyond is again a big advantage particularly for heavy versions which are still going to be effective against smaller ships.

    All in all these are good changes, although I think the scoped versions should have the same range as the T2 versions as they need more of a benefit over the compact version for the extra PG and CPU. T2 will still be preferred due to the extra nuet amount.

    (Also please have a look again at T2 MWDs, I said it before that they were going to be useless compared to the Quad-Lif versions, and as of yet I have not had any reason to use a T2 MWD on any of my fits over the Quad-Lif)
    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #115 - 2015-11-06 19:13:22 UTC
    Harumi Akiga wrote:
    More buffs for already vastly overpowered sentinel and curse ... well played CCP.

    Read my post above. This is a nerf and more so for ships with bonuses. Being able to activate outside of range is a quality of life improvement, but in terms of raw performance they will take a small hit.
    Cearain
    Plus 10 NV
    #116 - 2015-11-06 19:51:13 UTC
    Its interesting that the goal portion of the op was left blank.

    I'm not sure I understand the goal other than:

    1) Nerf tech one mods.

    2) Help larger ships deal with smaller kiting ships.

    Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

    Lyron-Baktos
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #117 - 2015-11-06 23:56:14 UTC
    Deadspace neut Bhaalgorn :)
    Jus'not N'miFace
    Dead's Prostitutes
    The Initiative.
    #118 - 2015-11-07 00:44:16 UTC
    the optimal should stay the same its not as if neuts are over powered -1
    Masao Kurata
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #119 - 2015-11-07 00:55:58 UTC
    Jus'not N'miFace wrote:
    the optimal should stay the same its not as if neuts are over powered -1


    Oh they will be overpowered soon enough.
    Trinkets friend
    Sudden Buggery
    Sending Thots And Players
    #120 - 2015-11-07 01:00:43 UTC
    This is awesomesauce. Heavy neuts are going to be the deadliest part of BS arsenals now - 24 +12 for normal, and 38 + 18 for a Geddon at 50% effectiveness is going to make some mid-range cruisers really, really sore in the pants zone.

    The deadspace Nos/neuts are going to be deadly on the Sentinel, curse and Bhaal. Yus.