76 Reply by Annihilator

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Mroq wrote:

Speaking about weapons tho I have more thougths.

   TL:DR - Give a rebalance to base weapon AP consumption to even the weapon tunings out again.

   We got different AP consumption penalties for tuners becouse of the base AP weapon consumption. In that state you can't have it same for it will favor firearms and missiles a great deal. In current state firearms can still pack a few tuners without much significance on accumulator while magnetic weapons suffer greatly after putting even a single one on (go ahead and try firing all 6 EM guns on mesmer constantly after getting a single tuning on - without ridiculous ammount of Accumulator rechargers).
   Now someone will probably think that the weapons need to be that way becouse of realism. I would beg to differ tho. We are using up ammunition - bullets have explosive powder, slugs look like they have a sort of bobbin, missiles must have fuel in them and energy cells are essentialy a battery.

i miss the times when it was near impossible to have any t4 medium weapon "to fire constantly", and injector ammo was 1/10th of its current size (f*** jita!)

Chemist wrote:

If we talking about tuners, then Shield Hardeners and Enwar tuners must be rebalance too... Because today one HM with 5 tunings can drain into 0AP 4 HM(!) in 1 minute(!). Discuss.

well, that was my first point when it was announced.
Range extender and shield tuner are not having ANY penalty aside of their slot requirement.
ok, i remember the time when each range extender put a penalty on accumulator recharge,
and shield tuners had been active modules

both had their "penalties" removed, because "wasting a slot is penalty enough" (for the RE), and
shield hardeners made no sense to be active modules at that time.
and to top that, on missile bots, the penalty had no significant impact.

enwar tunings are ok... if zoom would ever fix their bug, and adjust the penalty to what he has implemented for other tunings wink

Go to forum: Balancing

77 Reply by Annihilator

(2 replies, posted in General discussion)

Chemist wrote:

http://updates.eveonline.com/coming/winter/

Even they thought of it. cool

i am pretty sure they also have thought about how to remove stuff from the game.
if you compare how much minerals are gathered in perp per day, and how much is destroyed, you will probably see a huge difference to what happens in EVE.

Go to forum: General discussion

78 Reply by Annihilator

(3 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

"worth" is a matter of persprective.

and it sounds like you just ignored anything from the dialoque with zoom. its not meant to replace the sequer.
and the promised changes to artifacts haven't been implemented yet

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

79 Reply by Annihilator

(2 replies, posted in Bugs)

turn off the log?

Go to forum: Bugs

80 Topic by Annihilator

(0 replies, posted in Bugs)

We got these missileading bonuses
Industrial nexus

ndustrial NEXUS modules reduce the industrial module accumulator usage of all squad members within the issuer's effect range.

the bonus is called:
"Industrial module accumulator usage"

Fast extractor NEXUS modules reduce the industrial module cycle time of all squad members within the issuer's effect range.

the bonus is called:
"Industrial module cycle time"
(this one is also used on the Cronus industrial assault)

now when i open up the market interface, under instrial modules, i find:

  • Mining Modules

  • Harvesting Modules

  • Geoscanning Modules

  • Construction Modules

  • Terraforming Modules

but only the first two are affected by those bonuses.
can we either have the bonuses renamed, or all industrial modules in that category beeing affected by them?

the later would be a nice move wink

Go to forum: Bugs

81 Topic by Annihilator

(3 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

IMHO the ugliest, visually unbalanced hybrid yet.

please replace bapho torso with waspish's. at least try it sad

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

82 Reply by Annihilator

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

TommySharks wrote:

...because if we speak about invisible state we also speaking about "afk/busy", "chatmode" and "ingame" states...

i honor your enthusiasm, but the games logic is to much driven around knowing who is online and what he does.
so AFK/Busy status wouldn't be automatic, nor used propably just because of that.

its a sad thing, but we proably will nerver see the general chat replaced with the anonymous terrain chat, where you will only become visible, if you write,
the "knowing how many guys are online"-feature of the geneal chat beeing replaced by a real online counter,
and terminal chat beeing replaced by... not having to dock with a terminal at all for any reason.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

83 Reply by Annihilator

(37 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Leary wrote:

More like unlimited trial.

Ah ok .... Well still RIP perp

why are you always so negative to even wish perp a negative future?

its game about WAR, Combat and explosions... not peace fuuu

Go to forum: Open discussion

84 Reply by Annihilator

(6 replies, posted in Balancing)

how many beta missions you do in 15 minutes?

Go to forum: Balancing

85 Reply by Annihilator

(6 replies, posted in Balancing)

you understand sarcasm, do you? fuuu

Go to forum: Balancing

86 Reply by Annihilator

(6 replies, posted in Balancing)

Line wrote:

That's just 1-2 beta missions, easy to complete. Why do you think it's too much?

because rock-paper-scissors balance sucks when its not negated by universal damage ammo.

Go to forum: Balancing

87 Reply by Annihilator

(3 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

once upon a time, the island you know as "Norhoop", was named "Geingrosh", and the terrain was so rough,
that light bots and assaults could go completely DIFFERENT routes then heavy mechs.

but then, some started to complain, that they couldn't reach each and every spot on a map, that was either a mining or mission spot, with a designated heavy mech - and the DEVs heard their calls.
They started to smooth out the procedurally generated terrain manually, opening up every spot and path for heavies.

not sure, but i think to remember that they even lowered the slope divergency between the bot classes for that.
(for sure i know that once the waspish had a better slope then other assaults)

to much manual imput required to make a good beta island atm...

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

88 Reply by Annihilator

(8 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Rovoc wrote:

again, have you ever had to scan down a gamma island?

nope, i had not reason ever to scan down a whole gamma island for each and every mineral deposit -

since everytime i was on gamma mining, i only had interest in the closest one to my drop-off terminal.
and last time i went out scanning for energy fields, it was doable in a few minutes too, because i did it in a fast light ewar and speed nexus module.

last but not least... whats the point on scanning down a whole mineral deposit at once. with the current industrial tunings, i don't miss out much by equipping a geoscanner on my riveler. with 5 tuners and the gamma auras, it wouldn't be possible for me as a human to gather minerals for an extended period of time (the cargo just fills to damn fast)

on the other hand... someone using that waypoint clicker macro, having whole deposits mapped in one scan could be benefical to reduce the set-up time for using it...

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

89 Reply by Annihilator

(4 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Good idea with the resists, I have put it on my todo.

note, it was "resists", not "resist points".

for a plain unbalanced mk2 heavy mech, 100 additional resist points will mean almost nothing... but up to 10% additional resists would be almost IMBA... almost.

Go to forum: Balancing

90 Reply by Annihilator

(4 replies, posted in Balancing)

to make it even worse, if you teleport while under the effect of the nexus,
you will end up beeing damaged, because the server will only register your relative health at despawn, and restore that when you respawn.

a simple fix would be, if the nexus would add plain x% RESISTS instead of x% hitpoints

Go to forum: Balancing

91 Reply by Annihilator

(8 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

what for?
directional scanner already point you with 100% accuracy into the direction you need to drive, and when you there you switch to tile scan and see the whole deposit in one scan (with the extension maxed)

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

92 Reply by Annihilator

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

with the free slots, you could anything that you would require if the game wouldn't be 100% carebearing.
like... shield-hardeners, masker, weapon tuning for the weapon in that one slot you have always left empty on your torso for 4 years.

ok, for the last one, i would expect the DEVs to give industrials the same damage bonus as the daidalos has, just for the other weapons, and give the weapon tunings the same treatment as the industrial ones.

Go to forum: Balancing

93 Reply by Annihilator

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Inda wrote:

Personally:

I cant PVE as efficeintly as before
I cant make Harvesting missions as effective as before (dont even talk about Noralgis farming.)

I need to change and test all my fittings on our PVP machines, and that is because of no real good changes just for the greens.

Inda... you f*** kidding me there.

pre patch, you had to cycle only a few times to get the yield for a lvl6 mission, in a 5-tuner fit symbiont.
now, a SINGLE tuning increases your yield as much as FOUR AND A HALF t4's prepatch.

in other words, a laird mk2 with with two t4 tunings is now more effective running harvest missions on alpha, then a symbiont with five pre-patch.
for beta, i heard the new mining/harvesting Assault bot is the thing, due to its higher driving speed.

correct me if i am wrong, but how can you now be LESS effective then before?
are you talking about a 5-tuner fit symbiont mk2 after patch, with a factor of 7.5 yield, is not as effective as a factor 1.6 yield pre-patch??

Go to forum: Balancing

94 Reply by Annihilator

(52 replies, posted in News and information)

Ludlow Bursar wrote:
Rovoc wrote:

Thoughts on the Hermes:  Not enough cpu to effectively run a speed nexus.  Biggest limiting factor is the cargo size.  If i had to run around and grab 1 or 2 artifacts and head back this bot would be awesome.  However, if you're looking for a long session of being out on gamma i wouldn't recommend.  I would use this bot if this were prepatch and i didn't have enough ep to max geoscanning.  Doesn't come anywhere near an artifacting sequer.

To make this a true artefact specialist I would suggest applying a bonus to artefact popping range such that with full extensions one could pop a level 3 from, say, 100m and a level 1 from, say 200m.

QFT, but... i said that like 100 times alread< since argano got that useless scan range bonus

Go to forum: News and information

95 Reply by Annihilator

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Blocker wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

Observer are meant to be THE hardest NPCs to kill.

TBH, the only thing about them i dislike, is their extreme-range demob. With everything else can be dealt with.

My issue with observers is the loot they drop.. Why not have a random chance to drop a T3 mod that has the same stats as T4 but half the weight ? You could call it T3.5 or something..


well, its the issue with all bots...  they drop mostly just t1 crap, and lots of it.
Zoom needs to implement the random attribute gear and cut down the droprate of crap loot that player are supposed to build.

just like the tuner rebalance, thats on the todo-list. and probably same thing - it will take 3 years to get down on the list to that point.

the most iminent issue right now, is that extreme low BONUS on Tuners for the extreme penalty. especially because the PENALYT is independant of the tier.
noone in the right mind, will ever use a t2 tuning anymore...

and this topic, is primarily about the medium machineguns AP consumption per shot. its twice as big as it should. even if zoom reduces it to "1 AP" per shot, MGs would not be able to combine with more tunings then other weapons, but at least the same number.

Go to forum: Balancing

96 Reply by Annihilator

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Observer are meant to be THE hardest NPCs to kill.

TBH, the only thing about them i dislike, is their extreme-range demob. With everything else can be dealt with.

Go to forum: Balancing

97 Reply by Annihilator

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

repair tanking isn't more vailid either.

armor repair always had a bad accumulator/hitpoint heal efficiency, especially with medium repair modules.
now with the penalty, they are even worse.
yes, in pvp you get hit with less DPS... but in PVE nothing has changed on that side.
just that you now need even more accumulator to repair between combat.

oh, and using any tuner below t4 seems a VERY bad idea...

Go to forum: Balancing

98 Reply by Annihilator

(52 replies, posted in News and information)

btw, DEV Zoom - was the double nerf of remote repair intentionally?

Remote repairers start with 1.75 AP per hitpoint repaired
self repair modules start with 1.43 AP per hitpoint repaired

now, using tuners, this rations will get WORSE for the remote repairer,
and better for the self repairer:

each tuning will make self repair 20% more, and remote repair 10% less energy efficient!
pre patch it was +25% for self, and +35% for remote reps

edit: with a t1 or t2 repair tuning, RR ap/hp ratio will drop by 60% per tuning!

Go to forum: News and information

99 Reply by Annihilator

(52 replies, posted in News and information)

Goffer wrote:

I say, and I keep saying this, that if veteran miner has drawback against other miner just because of maxed cycle time extensions, than this is wrong. Ofc I just need to use some credits to reduce cycle time, but this is _never_ how it should work when deploying a patch changing the mechanics.

please... numbers, real ones to show that a veteran has a disadvantage because of cycle time, especially when mining.

Go to forum: News and information

100 Reply by Annihilator

(52 replies, posted in News and information)

Rynikwiz wrote:

Anni ...was your liquzit miner cap stable or not because you implied it was and now you are saying it should not be and nor should any t4 fit bot.

my fully t4 fit miner is capstable. in case of liquid ore mining, only with the help of said scarab's hell of a industrial nexus bonus!
in case of ore mining, i would have one t4 geoscanner module, and as such, only 4 tuners.
aside from this reduction in AP consumption, i would eventually have issues with the massive micromanagement of constantly empty ground tiles and filled cargo, to even keep the miners running. (unless using mouse macros)

Annihilator wrote:

i don't see a single reason why a fully t4 equipped robot should ever be cap stable, without external help. maxed extensios or not. there

and you can be stable, with only the help of a scarab standing next to you.

im sorry, to not be precise enough - but i don't see a reason why bot needs to be without tradoffs in accumulator consumption if its fully maximised in yield/damage/Range and cycletime.

goffer and logicalNegation are saying, that maxing out your equip and extensions shall free you from any limits.
or in other words, their ideal means, that the maximum possible needs to be a single solution 5 tunings + 5 mining modules of the highest aviailiable tier.
my ideal means, that the maximum self sufficient possible, can, and should be something smaller, so i automatically get multiple outcomes - like "maximum yield per cycle" or "maximum cycle-rate" + the extra option of having both with the help of (real)teamplay

Go to forum: News and information