These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#241 - 2013-04-12 23:33:04 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Then why not increase the active tank bonus from 7.5% to 10%, like range bonuses? Oh, right, CCP hates tough tanks on ships.


Been explained many many times. 10% per level is too powerful in the sense that it is solving the issue with active tanking in the wrong way. What a 10% per level to rep amount per level does is make it almost mandatory to use a ship with this bonus to active tank. The solution, as was stated during the armor 1.5 discussion is to improve the modules themselves.

Furthermore, 10% rep per level on shield ships would be completely out of whack. ASB and deadspace shield boosters are already so much better than their armor cousins it's not even funny. Last thing we need is to make them even more broken.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#242 - 2013-04-12 23:33:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
Askulf Joringer wrote:
Admiral Rufus wrote:
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....



How in the **** is nerfing a predominately fleet oriented bonus nerfing small scale pvp?



Because, as has been said before, resist bonuses are without a doubt the most versatile bonus in the game, having numerous benefits. Not even I am arguing that point.

Also, Askulf, why are we dealing with weaknesses in armor mods by nerfing hulls (including a nerf to armor resist, making that situation even worse), instead of say, nerfing shield mods, or boosting armor mods?
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#243 - 2013-04-12 23:36:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rented
Van Mathias wrote:
As for math, check this out:

3x Invuln Rokh before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 * .739 * .829 = Base * .32163127 or ~.323
3x Invuln Rokh after CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 *.739 * .829 = Base * .34307336 0r ~.343

Thusly, you have a total change of about 2% for large fleet rokhs. This is easily absorbed by current loadouts for this role.

But lets look at my solo/small gang rokh, which has no LSE's, and only 1 invuln:
1x Invuln Rokh Before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 = Base * .525
1x Invuln Rokh After CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 = Base * .56

3.5%! Thats nearly a 80% marginal difference. This proposed change is almost twice as punishing on my preferred Rokh fit . . .


As requested... a demonstration as to why your math is bad.


---Argument 1---

.32163127 or ~.323
.34307336 or ~.343

"a total change of about 2%"

---Argument 2---

.525
.56

"3.5%!"

---Your conclusion---

"Thats nearly a 80% marginal difference. This proposed change is almost twice as punishing on my preferred Rokh fit"



---The Magic---

In your two arguments you assert the change for the fleet rokh is '2%' whilst the change for your solo rokh is '3.5%'. While technically correct, these figures are nearly meaningless since they're an additive difference in terms of a percentage resistance calculation.


The true difference (in terms of percentage additional damage taken)-

---Arg1---

.32163127 or ~.323
.34307336 or ~.343

"~6.667% additional damage taken"

---Arg2---

.525
.56

"~6.667% additional damage taken"


As you can see, in terms percentage additional damage taken, this change affects both rokhs virtually the same (aside from any potentially extremely tiny floating point rounding differences, it in fact affects them exactly the same). Not to mention your assertion that your highly misleading additive comparisons differed by 80% was just plain exagerrated.



---The real kicker---

All of this math was meaningless, this change is to non-stacking-penalized ship bonuses; thusly, there is no variation in its relative effects based on ship fittings, it affects all applicable ships regardless of their fittings to exactly the same degree. You seem to have missed this concept in its entirety.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#244 - 2013-04-12 23:37:24 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
All credibility is subjective, that is the nature of the thing. Anyway, this looks like they are not going to change their minds until they implement this crap alongside Faction BC's and overturn the proverbial table on the current meta. Perhaps when much has been given up for little gain they will reconsider. Or maybe they will decide to nerf it some more and our resist bonus will be 2.5% a level! Exciting! Then Rokh's and Abaddon's won't be overused in large fleets because they won't be worth playing.

Wait, rep bonuses arent good enough to compete with resists, yet at the same time ancillary reps are overpowered? How do you reconcile those 2 positions?

Furthermore, why should using a hull for a strategy that the hull is not bonused for be made viable?

Ancillary reps have already been acknowledged in their first iteration as being too strong and were nerfed, raising active rep bonuses again could see us right back on that issue for those ships while at the same time leaving other ships using other active tanks severely lacking. But i guess if you think active tanking should only ever be workable on rep bonused hulls that doesn't matter to you.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#245 - 2013-04-12 23:45:20 UTC
Askulf Joringer wrote:
Furthermore, 10% rep per level on shield ships would be completely out of whack. ASB and deadspace shield boosters are already so much better than their armor cousins it's not even funny. Last thing we need is to make them even more broken.
Any changes to active hull repping bonuses don't have to mirror shield and armor exactly. Not really sure why you'd make this assumption. I don't think the 10% is the way to go with armor, btw, since it would just further marginalized local armor tanks on non bonused hulls.

But I mean there are glaring differences with shield effectiveness and armor. For example, if you want a stronger shield booster--not even ASB--you can use a Shield Boost Amplifier and your cap doesn't suffer. If you want more armor reps? More reppers is it at double the cap cost. And that's not even mentioning the fact that you can double or triple fit ASBs (or fit oversized ones). Armor ships can't fit multiple AARs or even think about fitting an oversized one.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#246 - 2013-04-12 23:58:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
Because only one Rokh fit/role is problematic game play wise. All other fits are lackluster compared to their competitors, and this change will make the situation worse. You don't see Rokh's pushing out other battleships of the Solo/Small gang ecology in the same way that you see Rokh's and Abaddons pushing out other competitors in the blaapfleet + logi meta.

If this were limited to the Rokh you might have had a point, but it isn't even limited to the BS class. This clearly can't be targeting blob fleet BS's, much less one fit of one particular BS, when it spans across all ships with the bonus in all classes.

yup ,
it is targeted against caldari and amarr , thats all have to say
Nergart
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#247 - 2013-04-12 23:59:19 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
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.



come on there are only a few of these ships around most will spend their time in hangars being looked at, why give ppl less incentive to use them

Eve does not have a learning curve, its a learning cliff. Either learn to fly on the way down or its going to be a hard landing

Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#248 - 2013-04-13 00:02:04 UTC
Then I want these hulls/subsystems to pick up some minor local rep bonus as your engaging in this nerf for PvP purposes, but not offering the hulls anything for the unmentioned PvE nerf. Either that, or some other balancing needs to be done to the PvE environment to balance that against all these PvP balances. Because, to be perfectly honest with you, from a PvP aspect, I have not yet seen one single proposed change, whether a nerf or a buff, that I have any issues with beyond some small amount of nostalgia (and if you don't think I PvP, look me up on either Battleclinic or Eve-Kill... I may not PvP regularly, but I feel I do have a solid history of it), but from the perspective of missions, all I see are ships that people once went to as the strongest option to do them with getting weaker while the rats remain unchanged, and especially for someone like me who prefers to run all my missions solo when I grind them, and obviously more so for lower skilled/newer players, this issue is just becoming more and more pronounced. And I don't mean this in regards to Incursion PvE, either, that style of PvE mimics PvP close enough to not be worth commenting on, however, actual mission running (which includes the much vaunted Epic Arcs) seems to be consistently being pushed to the wayside and ignored and simply becoming an issue of ceaselessly becoming more difficult to do effectively with no end in site. Please, CCP Fozzie, Rise, any and all Devs, take a few days, give this some thought, and put up a thread concerning it. I am not asking you to rush any such issues through in time for Odyssey, as I believe this is just as, if not more so, far reaching within the game then you currently think all of these PvP changes are... because, after all, what is every new player first exposed to upon finding the game if they wish to learn how to start becoming effective in playing it? Missions!
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#249 - 2013-04-13 00:02:04 UTC
Rented, your math is disingenous because a 6.7% damage bonus at 50% resists is not the same as a 6.7% damage bonus at 80% resists. In the former case, 6.7% damage bonus against a weap that does 1000dps is about 33 DPS difference, whereas in the latter case, its about 13.5 DPS, which is an even more exaggerated marginal difference than what I stated before. Thats a pretty big difference in the effective tank nerf of the respective fits, even before calculating the added effect of LSE's
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2013-04-13 00:08:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Askulf Joringer wrote:
Furthermore, 10% rep per level on shield ships would be completely out of whack. ASB and deadspace shield boosters are already so much better than their armor cousins it's not even funny. Last thing we need is to make them even more broken.
Any changes to active hull repping bonuses don't have to mirror shield and armor exactly. Not really sure why you'd make this assumption. I don't think the 10% is the way to go with armor, btw, since it would just further marginalized local armor tanks on non bonused hulls.

But I mean there are glaring differences with shield effectiveness and armor. For example, if you want a stronger shield booster--not even ASB--you can use a Shield Boost Amplifier and your cap doesn't suffer. If you want more armor reps? More reppers is it at double the cap cost. And that's not even mentioning the fact that you can double or triple fit ASBs (or fit oversized ones). Armor ships can't fit multiple AARs or even think about fitting an oversized one.

In order to achieve the same spread post nerf for local active tank efficiency between the bonuses while maintaining the 5% per lvl would be a ~9.3% bonus. Moving armor repair less negates a part of the desired effect and going even at that level likely has the same affects you pointed out.

I'm not seeing a good value for it, and that leaves the complications of active shields aside.
Naomi Knight wrote:
yup ,
it is targeted against caldari and amarr , thats all have to say

I admit, the changes do focus on those races very heavily, yet I still would have no qualms with a 4% resist/lvl hyperion.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2013-04-13 00:12:15 UTC
Miners are safe as long as they properly tank rather than build for efficiency

and now hulk, mackinaw, and skiff need to follow that rule even more as this lessens their defences.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#252 - 2013-04-13 00:18:14 UTC
I can definintly understand why they want to slice some points off the top, but its a problem with no simple, straightforward answers. It will take multiple rebalances to get this right, so we are going to be talking about this for a while, becuase all I see is choice between some pretty ****** options on trying to reign in the fact that resists above 75% or so on subcaps scale up to become overpowered with relatively little fitting effort and expense. Even though the hull bonus does not suffer stacking penalty, it is still only one 25% bonus that has to be complimented with a specific module set to take advantage of this broken gameplay.

In short, they are not going to get away with balancing resists that easily. I really think that this will end up coming back to rebalancing shield tank modules, and rounding out the armor tank module set with the things it needs to compete. And that is not even considering the way remote reps works into all of this.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#253 - 2013-04-13 00:18:18 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Then I want these hulls/subsystems to pick up some minor local rep bonus as your engaging in this nerf for PvP purposes, but not offering the hulls anything for the unmentioned PvE nerf. Either that, or some other balancing needs to be done to the PvE environment to balance that against all these PvP balances. Because, to be perfectly honest with you, from a PvP aspect, I have not yet seen one single proposed change, whether a nerf or a buff, that I have any issues with beyond some small amount of nostalgia (and if you don't think I PvP, look me up on either Battleclinic or Eve-Kill... I may not PvP regularly, but I feel I do have a solid history of it), but from the perspective of missions, all I see are ships that people once went to as the strongest option to do them with getting weaker while the rats remain unchanged, and especially for someone like me who prefers to run all my missions solo when I grind them, and obviously more so for lower skilled/newer players, this issue is just becoming more and more pronounced. And I don't mean this in regards to Incursion PvE, either, that style of PvE mimics PvP close enough to not be worth commenting on, however, actual mission running (which includes the much vaunted Epic Arcs) seems to be consistently being pushed to the wayside and ignored and simply becoming an issue of ceaselessly becoming more difficult to do effectively with no end in site. Please, CCP Fozzie, Rise, any and all Devs, take a few days, give this some thought, and put up a thread concerning it. I am not asking you to rush any such issues through in time for Odyssey, as I believe this is just as, if not more so, far reaching within the game then you currently think all of these PvP changes are... because, after all, what is every new player first exposed to upon finding the game if they wish to learn how to start becoming effective in playing it? Missions!


Level 4 missions are terribly easy and can be done in a maelstrom with about 3-4 weeks of focused training. A small nerf to the tank on ships that arent even commonly used for missions really doesnt change much.
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#254 - 2013-04-13 00:25:25 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Rented, your math is disingenous because a 6.7% damage bonus at 50% resists is not the same as a 6.7% damage bonus at 80% resists. In the former case, 6.7% damage bonus against a weap that does 1000dps is about 33 DPS difference, whereas in the latter case, its about 13.5 DPS, which is an even more exaggerated marginal difference than what I stated before. Thats a pretty big difference in the effective tank nerf of the respective fits, even before calculating the added effect of LSE's


Can you not read? You would take ~6.667% more damage (with max skills) after this change, period. There are no exceptions. It doesn't matter what fitting the ship has. It doesn't matter what resistance numbers you have. After the change you take ~6.667% more damage. Really not that complicated.
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#255 - 2013-04-13 00:25:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Flyinghotpocket
-1 disapprove

quiet alot of amarr ships get reduced res, and almost no minmatar ships getting this as well. not enough that our lasers are stuck with only 2 damage types and the minnie are resisted against it. but gonna take our tank away to?

GG amarr

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#256 - 2013-04-13 00:28:54 UTC
Rented wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
Rented, your math is disingenous because a 6.7% damage bonus at 50% resists is not the same as a 6.7% damage bonus at 80% resists. In the former case, 6.7% damage bonus against a weap that does 1000dps is about 33 DPS difference, whereas in the latter case, its about 13.5 DPS, which is an even more exaggerated marginal difference than what I stated before. Thats a pretty big difference in the effective tank nerf of the respective fits, even before calculating the added effect of LSE's


Can you not read? You would take ~6.667% more damage (with max skills) after this change, period. There are no exceptions. It doesn't matter what fitting the ship has. It doesn't matter what resistance numbers you have. After the change you take ~6.667% more damage. Really not that complicated.



Do you not understand that each addtional point of resist has a more powerful effect than the last? And that 6.7% of x is not 6.7% of y if x does not equal y? I have a degree in math buddy, don't tell me something is equal when it is obviously not.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#257 - 2013-04-13 00:36:31 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Rented wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
Rented, your math is disingenous because a 6.7% damage bonus at 50% resists is not the same as a 6.7% damage bonus at 80% resists. In the former case, 6.7% damage bonus against a weap that does 1000dps is about 33 DPS difference, whereas in the latter case, its about 13.5 DPS, which is an even more exaggerated marginal difference than what I stated before. Thats a pretty big difference in the effective tank nerf of the respective fits, even before calculating the added effect of LSE's


Can you not read? You would take ~6.667% more damage (with max skills) after this change, period. There are no exceptions. It doesn't matter what fitting the ship has. It doesn't matter what resistance numbers you have. After the change you take ~6.667% more damage. Really not that complicated.



Do you not understand that each addtional point of resist has a more powerful effect than the last? And that 6.7% of x is not 6.7% of y if x does not equal y? I have a degree in math buddy, don't tell me something is equal when it is obviously not.

Ignore anything you put on your ship, everything you put on your ship. Now you will take 6.667% more damage due to the 5% loss in resistances.
How you fit your ship is irrelevant as the resistance bonus from the hull does not have a stacking penalty.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#258 - 2013-04-13 00:46:14 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Rented wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
Rented, your math is disingenous because a 6.7% damage bonus at 50% resists is not the same as a 6.7% damage bonus at 80% resists. In the former case, 6.7% damage bonus against a weap that does 1000dps is about 33 DPS difference, whereas in the latter case, its about 13.5 DPS, which is an even more exaggerated marginal difference than what I stated before. Thats a pretty big difference in the effective tank nerf of the respective fits, even before calculating the added effect of LSE's


Can you not read? You would take ~6.667% more damage (with max skills) after this change, period. There are no exceptions. It doesn't matter what fitting the ship has. It doesn't matter what resistance numbers you have. After the change you take ~6.667% more damage. Really not that complicated.



Do you not understand that each addtional point of resist has a more powerful effect than the last? And that 6.7% of x is not 6.7% of y if x does not equal y? I have a degree in math buddy, don't tell me something is equal when it is obviously not.


Congratulations, you've come to the realization that you can be shot by different things that can potentially do different amounts of damage. Good for you.

Guess what actually matters! After this change all those different things, no matter what amount of damage they do... will do ~6.667% more damage than they would have done before the change!

Welcome to the internet, where so far the only degree you have is in really really bad math. You're still talking about additive points of resistance in a system that exclusively uses multiplicative variables, the misguided nature of this is beyond me.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#259 - 2013-04-13 00:50:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
How I fit my ship is very relevant, because how much actual raw dps is sliced off at the end of the calculation is dependent on where my resists are at the time. I have already done the math for you, explaining to you how this works.

Indeed, it is this phenomena that has directly lead to the discussion and planned implementation of the proposed nerf. If what I was saying was false, we wouldn't be having this conversation. After all, a 13 Dps bonus will eat thru your ship a lot more slowly than a 30 DPS bonus, even though both bonuses are given by the same proportional stat adjustment.

Also, the previous example uses the same DPS against two different resistances. No difference in original damage was made. So I'm now starting to wonder if you are even reading what I'm writing.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2013-04-13 00:52:39 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
How I fit my ship is very relevant, because how much actual raw dps is sliced off at the end of the calculation is dependent on where my resists are at the time. I have already done the math for you, explaining to you how this works.

Indeed, it is this phenomena that has directly lead to the discussion and planned implementation of the proposed nerf. If what I was saying was false, we wouldn't be having this conversation. After all, a 13 Dps bonus will eat thru your ship a lot more slowly than a 30 DPS bonus, even though both bonuses are given by the same proportional stat adjustment.

Yes, we all know how DPS works, you fail to understand is that no matter how you fit your ship post patch you will take an additional 6.667% damage. Or if this makes it eaiser your EHP will drop by 6.667%

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.