1 (edited by Celebro 2014-11-21 20:56:32)

Topic: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

Take the old pre-patch Riv Mk2 t4 tunings from wiki:

First tuning => 121 x 1.1 +10 = 143.1 % (mining amount/cycle, from base yield)
Second tuning => 143 x 1.1 + 10 = 167.41 %
Third tuning => 167.41 x 1.1 + 10 = 194.151 %
Fourth tuning => 94.151 x 1.1 + 10 = 223,5661 %
Fifth tuning => 223,5661 x 1.1 +10 = 255.92271 %


There's a multiplier of 10% for each tuning not only that but the 10% is added for each tuning but not to the base of 121%, but there is more, on each tuning an extra 10% is added. I really don't get it tbh. The tunings don't really add 10% but much more as you keep stacking in a way you are rewarded for bland fits.

So it should be like this:

First tuning => 121+10 = 141 % (mining amount/cycle, from base yield)
Second tuning => 143+10 = 153 %
Third tuning => 167 + 10 = 176. %
Fourth tuning => 176+10 = 186 %
Fifth tuning => 186+10 = 196 %

They are both percentages so this is the way to add them up imo. Remember there is no stacking penalty here but it makes much more sense to say, do I need that extra 10% boost or maybe some tank would come in handy, simple.

Now for simple stacking penalties:


First tuning => 121+(10) = 141 % (mining amount/cycle, from base yield)
Second tuning => 143+(10/2) = 147 %
Third tuning => 147 + (10/4) = 149.5. %
Fourth tuning => 149.5+(10/6) = 151.666 %
Fifth tuning => 151.6+(10/8) = 152.85 %

You still get some boosting but certainly not worth it for losing valuable slots. This will nerf mining so lets give a tuning buff:

First tuning => 121+(30) = 151 % (mining amount/cycle, from base yield)
Second tuning => 151+(30/2) = 166 %
Third tuning => 166 + (30/4) = 173.5 %
Fourth tuning => 173.5+(30/6) = 178.5%
Fifth tuning => 178.5+(30/8) = 182.25 %

As you can see tunings give now 30% huge buff on the first tuning, but the 2nd stacking gives 50% boost the 5th gives 1/8th boost. Things can get more creative now on how to use your slots. There is still a nerf but this is just an example.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

-1

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

I can see why you would want to replace Perpetuums system with Eves. It's been said before and I think it avoids balancing problems to a certain extent but also cuts down on specialisation options. If it was in place we would never have had the long range demob zenith for instance which is a great addition to the game. I'm torn either way.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

4 (edited by Celebro 2014-11-22 13:57:27)

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

This is not only about about using stacking penalties, there is also an issue which they way bonuses stack. The first 10% boost tuner does not give you 10% boost but 22% whilst the last 5th stacking gives your a 32% boost!.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

This would be a huge hit to miners/harvesters.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

Ville wrote:

This would be a huge hit to miners/harvesters.

every change of anything hits someone.

whats your point?

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

7 (edited by Burial 2014-11-22 17:00:36)

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

EVE punishes and Perpetuum encourages stacking.

I've always thought all additional tuners/extenders/etc should use the base value instead of the augmented value for it's bonus calculation. That way the bonus is the same for every module.

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

Ville wrote:

This would be a huge hit to miners/harvesters.

Miners just got a 50% boost, and the modules would need to be boosted anyways, have you read the OP.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

Celebro wrote:
Ville wrote:

This would be a huge hit to miners/harvesters.

Miners just got a 50% boost, and the modules would need to be boosted anyways, have you read the OP.

No.  I was busy going OMG my tuners!!!

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

he wrote something about reading comprehension skills in that other topic.

btw, nice try celebro. you're introduction is just using that strange formula from the wiki... hmm

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

11 (edited by Celebro 2014-11-22 21:42:01)

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

Ville wrote:
Celebro wrote:
Ville wrote:

This would be a huge hit to miners/harvesters.

Miners just got a 50% boost, and the modules would need to be boosted anyways, have you read the OP.

No.  I was busy going OMG my tuners!!!

I see it as; OMG more slots available! wink

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

-1

Nerfing stacking (ala EVE) leads to less fitting options.

BAAAD idea.

"...we will take undefended gammas and stations."  -Cassius of STC

13 (edited by Zortarg 2014-11-24 14:52:33)

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

i also like the option of stacking tuners. it is not a viable fit for everything anyway. but sure gives options...

how perp handles it is another thing.

i dont see a big problem for miners. yes it increses the yield a lot, but hey, what else do you want to do with your head slots in a miner. its there to mine as much as possible.
how the boni play out here (for mining) is irrelevant. all that matters is who much yield you want to have at the end. and taking the crys into consideration after the last patch whith the mining nerv it seams to me that the yield should not be lowerd.

for combat tuners its a different thing.
first you could make the % add to the base dmg. so if you have 100% base and each dmg adds up then there is no problem.
lets just give the example. say each tuner would give 10% then 5 tuners would bring dmg to 150%.

atm its a total different thing. first we do not just increse dmg. we inrease dmg, rof and crit. that means 3 stats that benefit from each other. that way the actual dps does not increase linear, it increases exponential with each tuner.

so if needed things could be changed here. but things will greatly decrease dps for tuner based fittings trasticly.

in general im greatly against stacking penalties.
atm we have exponential growth. this could be flatened out to a more linear way. if its nessessary is another question.

then in the end the question comes: whats the maximum and whats the minimum that you want to have. and how should the curve look in between.

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

problem without any stacking penalties is for example slot-count.

tuners are individually weak because of:
1. tier scaling
2. min-maxing "maximum possible" on the bot with the most slots availiable.

same is true for extensions btw - each extensionlevel effect is so minimalistic, because the parameter has to scale across 10 levels, with the top level required to be not "overpowered"

Mining bots are best example for why stacking penalties are beneficial. the worth of the mining bots efficiency is based on:
1. number of mining modules and their size, capstable at max RoF
2. number of headslots for tunings.
3. last is the yield bonus from the robot itself, because its the same on all bots (with mk2 having an extra yield bonus that is based on the same extension on all mining bots too)

Dimishing return would free miner headslots for stuff that will be necessary once you cannot go un-defended mining on alpha

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

Well said Anni. The intention here is not to nerf dmg/yield or tank. The intention is the slots available can be used other than the bots intended purpose giving it a wider or different roles, for the mining role it goes without saying you would need maximum yield so the intended fit is a no brainer, now if the last 2 stacking slots give you a very small boost you would think other modules would be preferable ie. tank.

Something I also forgot to mention is when new bots arrive with 8-10 head/leg slots then the stacking problem is compounding and will lead to OP bots.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: The issue with module stacking -How to fix with Penalties.

-1