K950 wrote:Feel free to test yourself if you don't believe me:
I was trying to impart some more context for your testing, so you don't risk leaping to premature conclusions ... or worse, erroneous ones. EVE is full of misconceptions because a lot of players look only to validate the result they are looking for, instead of ruling out other reasons for your potential false positive.
For example, there's so much more to it than merely testing if neuting out two scythes will allow you to break the third etc.
- What were the distances between them? Did you rule out diminishing returns from range? Perhaps your webbing pushed one of them out of optimal range. Check their relative position to each other, not just to you (ie, two enemies 18km from you could be 36km away from each other, with you in the middle).
- Did you check if they cap themselves out anyway after prolonged excessive repping? Perhaps CCP added such a functionality and that's why you broke them.
- Where other targets shot as well, splitting the attention of the scythes? Perhaps it was repping something else.
And that's just some immediate questions that you seem to have glossed over, based on what you've said so far (perhaps you checked more than you're telling us, but I can only respond to what you've been saying). Point is, just because your action has a certain result in a particular case, doesn't mean you're done testing. That's just the first step, to get an expected result from a certain action. To verify a mechanics, you'll need to rule out that it can't happen normally, or for some other reason than the obvious.
Quickly looking at the scythes on schildwall for example, does show that CCP has started adding new
behaviorXXX attributes to the new NPCs, one of which is a discharge-attribute for the remote repairs. This could very well explain the results you're seeing K9, why their ability to rep might be subjective to neuting while nothing else is (since they have no modules, it has to be specifically added to simulate non-exiting modules turning off) ... but depending on the implementation, it could also be that they simply cap themselves out in the long run. So without testing that, it's still a bit premature to call it a day.
Anyway, I was just trying to help you see potential flaws in the way you seem to test things and warn you of the inherent risks of perpetuating the spread of premature conclusions about game mechanics.