These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Ship Resistance Bonuses

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#201 - 2013-04-12 21:40:50 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies


Don't lower resists make alpha-only strategies even more powerful?

If the goal is to weaken alpha-strikes, how about adding modules or game mechanics that reduce possibility of, or the impact of, a massive amount of damage incoming at the same time?

You could say that it will do that, yes, but the alpha-strategy arose mainly for two reasons, one being the lag (Solved) and the other being that you can power through reps or even before reps landed.
If you check most nullsec fleet concepts thesedays, alphamaels are not very popular for a reason.

In fact, you see that among the yet-to-be-balanced battleships, ship-of-the-line tend to be Abaddons or Rokhs (Or navy-issue). Alpha is not very versatile, and with one ship down every 8 or 15 seconds and no e-war, you can't really expect it to perform well in other situations than those it was specifically designed for.

The alphamaels were designed with a specific purpose in mind, and since they're bad outside of that purpose, drop out of use when the situation that necessitated it does no longer arise. Other, better/cheaper/more versatile concepts will arise.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#202 - 2013-04-12 21:41:58 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
I've made corrections as I have spotted my own errors. My math is fine . . . Telling me my math is bad without citing my errors means nothing, and is an assertion without merit.


You admit your math was bad - then you say it's fine - then you say people who called you on your bad math were "without merit?" Impressive that you managed all that in the same paragraph.

Van Mathias wrote:
As for nerfing the resistance mods, either ALL resists at current levels are overpowered, or they are not.
Could you please explain this - I honestly don't understand how you're reaching that conclusion (your "case in point" below didn't help, but I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt)[/quote]

Van Mathias wrote:
Case in point, they have expanded the resist nerf to every ship that has a hull resist. If the resists are OP, then nerfing the active buff mods by increasing their cap expense and decreasing their buff amount is really a better option than nerfing hull resists, because it also takes care of people stacking 3 invulns on a resist ship (Which will still be absurdly OP even after the proposed changes.) It also avoids screwing people over who have trained to BS 5 For the Rokh and Abaddon


You do know that stacking three adaptive invuls comes with a trade-off of losing one or more midslots, right? And that two of those mods incur stacking penalties, right? And that those stacking penalties are entirely unrelated to the hull bonus on ships like Rokhs, right? And that even those hull bonused ships can stack three adaptive invuls, making them much better than ships without the bonuses . . . right? And that Training BS V still gives that Rokh more native, unpenalized resists than it had at BS IV, right?

Do you really not see the difference between resist modules and native hull resist bonuses? You seem like you should understand, but then you type like you don't.

Van Mathias wrote:
Remember, this whole discussion got started when CCP got it into their heads that resists where too good compared to other bonuses, particularly the shield boost bonus.


Do you disagree with his logic? Maybe point out why the resists aren't too good after all (in light of the math presented in the OP, but double check your work please!) or propose other options (that make sense . . . please. Right now, your module idea doesn't).


I am not an alt of Chribba.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#203 - 2013-04-12 21:44:42 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
Like I said before, if resists in general are the problem, then nerf the resists for all ships by nerfing the resist mods. Don't single out hulls that have an entirely resonable bonus.


Who said "resists in general are the problem?" Besides you, I mean.

All in all, I'm okay with the change - but if you're going to go any lower, you're going to have to get a lot more ship specific, and maybe remove the bonus entirely on some ships and just replace it with a better bonus.


You mean with a worse bonus. It wouldn't be a Rokh if they did that, the resist and range bonus are the heart and soul of that ship. And if resists in general aren't the problem, then why are 40+ ships up on the chopping block? That sounds like a pretty generalized problem to me.


Don't dodge - who said "resists in general are the problem?"

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Rukhsana Uxor
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2013-04-12 21:49:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Rukhsana Uxor
CCP Fozzie, it still not clear for me.

If you give "comat" ships "tank" bonus ("give" - becuase they always had it even they wont be "combat" by your design) why some of them have resist bonus that works always with any fit while rep\shield active bonus works only in situatuion where you fit necessary module. Only. Its like you forcing us to fit AR\SB to get full benefit from ship. It is just not fair and balance at all. Even with this "nerf" resist bonus works always. Even if i want to fit abaddon in shield tank (it insane, but just for example) i will still have benefit from his bonus. It still makes me tough. And if i want use Hyper w\o armor reps? I just lose bonus at all.

I want to talk about Mael vs Rokh (as your example). Mael more popular because of weapon system not because of his "shield" bonus. You just cant balance ship ignoring the fact of what weapons they use. Its not right.

Yes, additional bonus for armor reps bonus ships that benefits from RR not perfect. But it will help. I underdtand that logist are everywhere and bla bla bla, but when you will redesign logist concept? Year? Two? We need solution now.

This bonus can affect RR with half of stange or something else penalty.
jackk O'neil
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#205 - 2013-04-12 21:49:36 UTC
no thanks
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2013-04-12 21:51:42 UTC
I'll give you an even easier solution to balancing out the two hull bonuses and lowering the effectiveness of RR fleets at the same time.

Change all resist bonuses to a max shield/armor bonus.

So now your buffer bonus is good on buffer tanks and the local rep bonus is good for active tanks.

The buffer bonus is still better for fleets because it makes you more resilient to alpha doctrines, but the imbalance is much less obvious and when it comes to the effectiveness of RR and logistics the active tank ships won't look nearly as bad.

You can work out the numbers to balance both bonuses out.

You're welcome.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2013-04-12 21:51:51 UTC
I am at work right not so I cannot judge how this would affect things but here goes.
Consider the possibility of making resistance bonuses from a hull increase the strength of a resistance module, for example the Abaddon would increase the strength of a armor explosive hardener by 20% making it go from a 55% resistance to a 66% resistance, or an ENAM would go from 20% to 24% and with armor compensation skills up to 30%.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#208 - 2013-04-12 21:56:07 UTC
............great. Let's just blanket nerf everything. That'll fix something right? :|

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
TinkerHell
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#209 - 2013-04-12 21:57:05 UTC
Does this nerf apply to the Vangel, Mimir and Cambion as well?

Are you seriously nerfing these? The Mimir is bad enough already it does not need a nerf...at all. Can we please not nerf the AT ships? They do not deserve it. The Blaster kiting Adrestia is already going to suffer enough from the TE nerf.

I know this does not apply to most people..but i dont see the point in nerfing ships that are barely used already, why remove what little incentive people have to actually use these ships.
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games.
Suddenly Spaceships.
#210 - 2013-04-12 22:00:10 UTC
This whole nerf is silly ccp, really, don't do it! 5% bonus is absolutely fine, always has been, you're getting in to your "not broken, yet we'll fix it anyway" moments again. PLEASE DONT DO THIS IT MAKES BAD THINGS HAPPEN!
-Buhhd
Inepsa1987
#211 - 2013-04-12 22:07:36 UTC
This change is terrible. I honestly don't understand why your poking around with this crap, it is literally not broken.

Spaceship Pilot.
Commando Jaxx
Executed Rage
#212 - 2013-04-12 22:12:55 UTC
People* suck. These changes are ridiculous... Evil

















*CCP
ZeusCommander
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#213 - 2013-04-12 22:13:28 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Does this nerf apply to the Vangel, Mimir and Cambion as well?


With them being Limited edition ships, and the value they command because of that, i think it would be wise to leave them as is. Its not like we see a fleet of 50 of them in one place where that extra 1% per level becomes an issue.
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-04-12 22:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Pierce
CCP Fozzie wrote:

In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus.
This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.


This is so misguided it's scary coming from you Fozzie.

The only good reason resist bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses is that they work in every conceivable situation, while local repair bonuses only help when there are no remote repairs present and the incoming damage is not enough to kill you in a couple of cycles of your repair modules.

It's obvious that fleet level RR mechanics need to be looked at, but even after that is eventually addressed, a 4% resist bonus will still completely overshadow the local repair bonus. I'm all for the low hanging fruit, but this change is completely avoiding the real problem.
Mirrodin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2013-04-12 22:21:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirrodin
I don't own the ships, but I do think the AT ships should be left out of this change. Any overpowered-ness of them is wholly justified, imho.

Otherwise, the tweaks are a welcome change. Don't listen to the haters, Fozzie. I hear that they very likely "gunna' hate".
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
#216 - 2013-04-12 22:26:20 UTC
Hi Fozzie,

A long overdue change imo.

While this is most likely just the beginning of a resist re-evaluation it's a good start.

Please however don't get CSM involved in this. It's just not their role. We depend on you and your team to keep the game balanced on an even keel such that ships aren't the tipping point but skills and knowledge are.
While their and our input should be considered, balance should out weigh public opinion no matter how vocal.

As you've mentioned this is just part of the problem however. Logistics and Spider tanking are another area that equally need to be reviewed for their effect in the current meta as well as Cap Trans mechanics and bonus's that make it all possible.

Please continue. We're all benefiting from it.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2013-04-12 22:30:49 UTC
Edward Pierce wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus.
This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.


This is so misguided it's scary coming from you Fozzie.

It is not though, looking at a T2 LAR it reps 800 HP un modified, a 25% resistance increase will rep 1066EHP while a 37.5% increase to the rep will repair 1100 HP.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#218 - 2013-04-12 22:31:38 UTC
Personally I'd rather that fights lasted longer, all things considered.
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#219 - 2013-04-12 22:34:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Pierce
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Edward Pierce wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus.
This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.


This is so misguided it's scary coming from you Fozzie.

It is not though, looking at a T2 LAR it reps 800 HP un modified, a 25% resistance increase will rep 1066EHP while a 37.5% increase to the rep will repair 1100 HP.


I didn't say his number were wrong, I said that is not why resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.

They're addressing the bad oral hygiene of a heart attack victim here; I'm sure it's a problem, but there are bigger issues to address...

Edit for clarity: The victims here are ships with local rep bonuses. I'm sure they'll have a great smile, but their bonus is still completely useless in anything but 1vs1.
Admiral Rufus
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#220 - 2013-04-12 22:34:10 UTC
Oh yet further destroy solo and small gang PvP by taking our ships that give us time to survive and gtfo of outnumbered engagements. Perhaps I should run a t3 booster to compensate because that obviously puts more money in ccp's pocket for the 2nd account that's required....