These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#541 - 2013-04-15 18:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Jessica Danikov wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Jessica Danikov wrote:


I'm all for nerfing such a strong bonus as it really does hamstring new players and their effectiveness in such ships.


How does it hamstring new players? Because they haven't trained the appropriate ship skill to Level 5?

It won't get any easier for them after this nerf... instead of getting 20% bonus to resistances with Level 4 skill, they'll only be getting 16%.


With sub-level 5 skills, you are in essence using a sub-standard version of the hull- with covert ops previously, it was so bad, it was unusuable, because the nerf for not having level 4 or 5 skills was substantial. The same goes for the resistances. Because it's such a strong effect, level 5 becomes mandatory, because anything apart from it is hamstringing your effectiveness with the ship.

By narrowing that gap without changing the result (e.g. move 5% of the bonus onto the hull, drop the bonus to 4% per level), you actually accomplish to move the end-result (high resists) onto the base hull somewhat and highlight any potential imbalances for any individual hull far better on a hull by hull basis, while making the ship far more usable at low skill levels because its performance will not be so distant from the maximum.

To do a little more practical math with a practical Rokh fit, there was a 13k EHP difference between level 1 and level 5. After the change, that would drop to a 9k difference (making stopping/making do at level 4 that bit less painful).

That isn't to say that you can't go too far in the other direction and make a bonus pointless and ineffective- but that obviously isn't the case here with a bonus everyone agrees is strong. You have to tune the effectiveness of the ship- how the ship looks with all level 5 skills- separately from how quickly and how much skills contribute to that effectiveness.


By that standard new players are always flying substandard hulls. Remove all ship bonuses...

There were plenty of people in Drake fleets with BC IV and there are still plenty of folks in boot fleets with Amarr Carrier IV.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#542 - 2013-04-15 18:41:03 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

By that standard new players are always flying substandard hulls. Remove all ship bonuses...


Way to go ignoring most of my whole post and making a single, one line distortion of what I was saying.

Removing ship bonuses is the other ludicrous extreme. If bonuses are too weak, you're right, why have them at all? If they're too strong, why have 5 different levels, why are level 1 skilled people so heavily penalised, why have levels at all, other than to screw people over for not max'ing the skill. There has to be a balance on how big a bonus is for it to make sense to only partly progress it at any given time.

This is entirely independent of a ships stats, with maxed bonuses, which affects the ship's balance with other ships. You have to 'remove' bonuses from the equation (e.g. consider all level 5 skills) to fairly compare and balance ships with each other. That doesn't mean bonuses shouldn't exist.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#543 - 2013-04-15 18:45:28 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

So you think the resist bonus should obsolete all other tanking bonuses? Why then have the others at all? And even among the ships you point out there are no active tanking bonused ones. Possibly an unintended omission?

But to answer your question directly, having a bonus to all types of tank in and of itself is not an issue, but when that bonus overshadows the bonus to a specific tanking type bonus in its respective area, that is an issue.

Resist bonus doesnt obsolote any bonuses at all.
Only those think that one bonus could obsolet anything, who wants to compare bonus vs bonus only without ship stats and fitting.
Every bonus has its place. A more limited bonus can make the ship is focused onto a play style/role.

Cause we dont use combat bc-s or battleships for roaming. We use mainly t2/pirate frigs,cruisers, attack bc, and dictors nothing else. As you can see it has nothing to do with resist bonus vs repping bonus.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#544 - 2013-04-15 18:48:33 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
I don't see why some ships cant have a buffer bonus per skill level, e.g. +5% bonus to armour/shields/hull etc depending on ship design and race etc. I don't know what the exact numbers should be that's for the balance team (that I do not support). But if a ship naturally lends itself to buffer what's wrong with that?

Also it's been stated by the balance team that they are also considering the effects of players fitting their ships without regard to the hull bonuses. As far as I can see that's a stupid way to balance the game. I mean if you do not work with your ships design then you deserve what you get.

No, what they are trying to say is that if too many people are fitting a ship in such a way as to ignore it's hull bonuses then it is obviously because that ship performs a role better with the way everyone is fitting it rather then the role it's bonuses are meant to inclinate it to.

Ergo, if the majority are avoiding using the ship per it's role (by it's hull bonuses) then that ship obviously needs something fixed.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#545 - 2013-04-15 18:52:00 UTC
Melek D'Ivri wrote:
I am curious why ship resistance bonuses aren't being reworked in the background on natural ship attributes, and using a new or different bonus in exchange.

This. If resist bonused hulls are too "OP" then why not see about modifying the resist profile and HP of these ships and exchange the bonus for something more fun, Hmm, an Abaddon with an agility hull boost.... *starts having nasty visions about that*
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#546 - 2013-04-15 19:23:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Naomi Knight wrote:
Resist bonus doesnt obsolote any bonuses at all.

Then what do you call the situation when a resist bonused ship can rep nearly the same as an active tank bonused ship with the same tank fitting while at the same time supporting greater buffer so the reps have a greater chance to hit in time?
Naomi Knight wrote:
Only those think that one bonus could obsolet anything, who wants to compare bonus vs bonus only without ship stats and fitting.

Yet we have instances of the bonus in ship classes where the role is not immobile damage sponge.
Naomi Knight wrote:
Every bonus has its place. A more limited bonus can make the ship is focused onto a play style/role.

Except that the resist bonus doesn't pigeonhole you into any role. The other attributes may, but we aren't talking about a bonus exclusively present on larger ships.
Naomi Knight wrote:

Cause we dont use combat bc-s or battleships for roaming. We use mainly t2/pirate frigs,cruisers, attack bc, and dictors nothing else. As you can see it has nothing to do with resist bonus vs repping bonus.

By this logic anything So anything bigger than a cruiser with an active tank bonus wastes that bonus.

Edit: Just wanting to clarify, are you saying none of the combat BC's are suitable for roaming or generalizing the class?
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#547 - 2013-04-15 19:40:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
Resist bonus doesnt obsolote any bonuses at all.

Then what do you call the situation when a resist bonused ship can rep nearly the same as an active tank bonused ship with the same tank fitting while at the same time supporting greater buffer so the reps have a greater chance to hit in time?
Naomi Knight wrote:
Only those think that one bonus could obsolet anything, who wants to compare bonus vs bonus only without ship stats and fitting.

Yet we have instances of the bonus in ship classes where the role is not immobile damage sponge.
Every bonus has its place. A more limited bonus can make the ship is focused onto a play style/role.

Except that the resist bonus doesn't pigeonhole you into any role. The other attributes may, but we aren't talking about a bonus exclusively present on larger ships.
Naomi Knight wrote:

Cause we dont use combat bc-s or battleships for roaming. We use mainly t2/pirate frigs,cruisers, attack bc, and dictors nothing else. As you can see it has nothing to do with resist bonus vs repping bonus.
By this logic anything So anything bigger than a cruiser with an active tank bonus wastes that bonus.

Edit: Just wanting to clarify, are you saying none of the combat BC's are suitable for roaming or generalizing the class?


Sounds like the interaction between resists and reps are broken, not resists or reps in and of themselves. Several suggestions have been given to fix this, including applying resists to reps, rep stacking penalties, and making resists modules harder to use. I think any of them would be better than the current course of action, but I don't think CCP pays all that much attention to player suggestions. Unless said suggestion is made en masse on the Jita monument. But balance changes don't seem to be the sort of thing to trigger that sort of protest.

The short of it all is that there are a class of interactions in the game that become exponentially stronger as you add more people doing it, when there should only be a linear increase of effectiveness. Damage, reps, resists, and certain status effects become way too good when applied en masse with no sort of stacking penalty to offset them. Many people do not see this, because they think that linear increases in stats gives linear increases of effectiveness.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#548 - 2013-04-15 19:59:30 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
...I don't think CCP pays all that much attention to player suggestions...


I think CCP Fozzie has done a good job of not matching up to that stereotype with a lot of his forum threads and the tiercide initiative. It's frankly insulting to bring that up and I'm fairly sure he'll read that and be a bit saddened that you think that.

There's a difference between paying attention and having to be level-handed and take everyone under consideration. Just because you don't get what you wanted, doesn't mean you weren't considered.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#549 - 2013-04-15 19:59:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Van Mathias wrote:

Sounds like the interaction between resists and reps are broken, not resists or reps in and of themselves. Several suggestions have been given to fix this, including applying resists to reps, rep stacking penalties, and making resists modules harder to use. I think any of them would be better than the current course of action, but I don't think CCP pays all that much attention to player suggestions. Unless said suggestion is made en masse on the Jita monument. But balance changes don't seem to be the sort of thing to trigger that sort of protest.

The short of it all is that there are a class of interactions in the game that become exponentially stronger as you add more people doing it, when there should only be a linear increase of effectiveness. Damage, reps, resists, and certain status effects become way too good when applied en masse with no sort of stacking penalty to offset them. Many people do not see this, because they think that linear increases in stats gives linear increases of effectiveness.

I've seen many of the suggestions you are talking about, but I don't see how most of them help the situation. Taking a few examples into account:

- Penalize RR/local tank of resist bonused hulls
If we are going to do this we may as well change resist bonuses to HP bonuses. It accomplishes the same thing while being much less complicated.

- Rep stacking penalties
This will lower the relative repping power of RR as gang sizes increase, but won't change the effects of resists, and by extension resist bonuses, on their relative effectiveness.

- Reducing resist mode effectiveness and/or making them harder to use/fit
This magnifies the affect of resist bonuses, which seems to be the exact opposite of the desired effect

- Reduce base HP on affected hulls
The role of resist bonused ships being used for their EHP to resist alpha is likely to be reduced by the same amount as the suggestion being put forth if not more

- Reduce base resists on affected hulls
Why nerf the hull and give it a bonus just to return it to being on par? It also has the same issues with alpha as stated above

Most of the solutions being presented either have no effect on the issue at hand or are more easily solved by removing the bonus and replacing it with something less versatile.

Edit: To your second paragraph, a defensive bonus which performs in all situations and which can be scaled linearly by adding more people won't be weakened by penalizing additional DPS. The resulting emphasis on tank as a result of that scaling far faster than DPS if DPS were somehow stacking nerfed would only further emphasize the importance of bonuses like these.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#550 - 2013-04-15 20:06:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Knight
"Then what do you call the situation when a resist bonused ship can rep nearly the same as an active tank bonused ship with the same tank fitting while at the same time supporting greater buffer so the reps have a greater chance to hit in time?"

I call that difference , cause reppair bonuse ships usually faster have faster lockspeed , smaller signature and more drones.

"Yet we have instances of the bonus in ship classes where the role is not immobile damage sponge."
hmm? it makes the ship tankier, it doesnt have to be immobile

"Except that the resist bonus doesn't pigeonhole you into any role. The other attributes may, but we aren't talking about a bonus exclusively present on larger ships."

yes it doesnt , is that a problem ? i cant see why . Still i cant see why other than large ships couldn't get a bonus to make them tankier than the other ships in the same class

"By this logic anything So anything bigger than a cruiser with an active tank bonus wastes that bonus."

no it , just those ships are not realy suitable for 0.0 roaming thats all, you know here sometimes you have to jump 20+ to find a good spot, larger hulls just slow down the fleet too much, and they are a hinderance too when you have to run from blob
they are more suitable for high sec/low sec where you dont need to travel that far, and dont need to run many jumps to get back home, as you can dock nearly everywhere, also i dont speak from experience but low/high sec doesnt have that huge blobs, so if you take out 4-5 ships , probably you wont have to fight 30+ , and especially when outnumbered mobility is the key thing to survive/win

Quote:
"Sounds like the interaction between resists and reps are broken, not resists or reps in and of themselves. Several suggestions have been given to fix this, including applying resists to reps, rep stacking penalties, and making resists modules harder to use. I think any of them would be better than the current course of action, but I don't think CCP pays all that much attention to player suggestions. Unless said suggestion is made en masse on the Jita monument. But balance changes don't seem to be the sort of thing to trigger that sort of protest."

"The short of it all is that there are a class of interactions in the game that become exponentially stronger as you add more people doing it, when there should only be a linear increase of effectiveness. Damage, reps, resists, and certain status effects become way too good when applied en masse with no sort of stacking penalty to offset them. Many people do not see this, because they think that linear increases in stats gives linear increases of effectiveness."


I dont think that resists and reps are broken togeather
Yes there are several suggestions ,but i still cant see what is the problem, i cant accept that the resist bonus is better than rep bonus is the problem cause it nearly gives as much repair effectiveness, it just takes out too many things like ship stats and fittings
maybe ccp ( the ex balance devs) just made these rep bonuses to limit these ships to be good at only small fleets as self repair only works there and pve, as if they would give them a more diverse bonus could make them overpowered and first pick for every role


hmm I just posted the same think pages ago, that the fleet strength increases more than the number of pilots in it ,
it is a huge problem , and imho main job of ccp should be to make counters vs blobbing,
bombers are great but their effective only on small type of ships , other clever counters should be added to the game

edit: sorry for the edit but it only allows 5 quotes so had to use ""
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#551 - 2013-04-15 20:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
Jessica Danikov wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
...I don't think CCP pays all that much attention to player suggestions...


I think CCP Fozzie has done a good job of not matching up to that stereotype with a lot of his forum threads and the tiercide initiative. It's frankly insulting to bring that up and I'm fairly sure he'll read that and be a bit saddened that you think that.

There's a difference between paying attention and having to be level-handed and take everyone under consideration. Just because you don't get what you wanted, doesn't mean you weren't considered.


CCP Fozzie's behavior aside, he is one dev of many, and I am considering the track record of CCP as a whole. So it wasn't directed at Foz specifically, and even if he is substantially better about it, he still has to deal with CCP's history and resultant reputation. We are known by the company we keep.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#552 - 2013-04-15 20:28:39 UTC
FT Diomedes 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 bears repeating. It doesn't overshadow the bonus to a specific tanking type bonus - those tanking type bonuses are still better on self-rep ships. It's just that those self-rep bonuses do not make ships better for fleet combat. Resistance bonuses do work for fleet combat or self-rep set ups.

With all the drama about resistance bonuses, it bears mentioning that the Maelstrom, not the Rokh is the most common fleet BS. The Maelstrom is clearly crippled by its active rep bonus.

that is actually sort of what the Devs are claiming they are trying to fix with this nerf, they claim that the reason alpha fleets (aka, Maelstroms, etc) are so prevalent is these resist bonuses. Personally, I think that that's a load, and alpha strike fleet unless the opposing fleet is specifically compositioned to counter it will prevail over a majority of other fleet doctrines regardless, and this nerf will only ensure that something like a slowcat fleet is only less able to be one of those counters.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#553 - 2013-04-15 20:36:46 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:

By that standard new players are always flying substandard hulls. Remove all ship bonuses...


Way to go ignoring most of my whole post and making a single, one line distortion of what I was saying.

Removing ship bonuses is the other ludicrous extreme. If bonuses are too weak, you're right, why have them at all? If they're too strong, why have 5 different levels, why are level 1 skilled people so heavily penalised, why have levels at all, other than to screw people over for not max'ing the skill. There has to be a balance on how big a bonus is for it to make sense to only partly progress it at any given time.

This is entirely independent of a ships stats, with maxed bonuses, which affects the ship's balance with other ships. You have to 'remove' bonuses from the equation (e.g. consider all level 5 skills) to fairly compare and balance ships with each other. That doesn't mean bonuses shouldn't exist.

To respond to the underlined section, that is the point of having skill levels, that newer players will be at a disadvantage to older players. To present them with a valid option to "catch up" and be competitive with older players, they are working on presenting them with good options in the terms of ship roles for them to focus their training on, and then later on they can work on expanding their training to encompass a broader spectrum.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#554 - 2013-04-15 20:43:41 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One thing I'll quickly mention is that 1 / 0.8 = 1.25. This means that the new bonus (20% resists at level 5) will actually equal a 25% increase in Effective Reps. Still very significant (in fact it's probably what a lot of people assumed the old bonus gave). However the difference between 25% and 37.5% is a lot more noticeable than the difference between 33% and 37.5%.

But that does not address that rep bonuses are only good against sustained DPS and not high alpha damage, where resistance bonuses are good for both.


You are right that it doesn't. I completely admit that resist bonuses remain better than active tank bonuses for the vast majority of situations. As always we will be balancing ships with the relative power of different bonuses in mind. Having the resist bonus a bit closer in power is simply something that makes finding that balance over the large number of affected ships much more achievable.


do that means my expensive CNS might still have a chance to keep its 5% resist bonus so it is worth its premium?
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#555 - 2013-04-15 21:11:07 UTC
Shield tank is obviously OP compared to armor tank. This change will hurt armor tank much more than shield tank. I guess you guys are focused on completely breaking armor tank.

I'm glad I'm training from Amarr into Caldari. The Tengu and Caldari ships will remain the king of this game for some time, it seems... while Amarr got the nerf bat (again).
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#556 - 2013-04-15 21:14:27 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Shield tank is obviously OP compared to armor tank. This change will hurt armor tank much more than shield tank. I guess you guys are focused on completely breaking armor tank.

I'm glad I'm training from Amarr into Caldari. The Tengu and Caldari ships will remain the king of this game for some time, it seems... while Amarr got the nerf bat (again).

yeah comments like this show us how some people are completly out of touch of the game
you will be still playing in your dreamworld no matter what we say to you , so go have fun with your chimera
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#557 - 2013-04-15 21:20:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

- Reduce base HP on affected hulls
The role of resist bonused ships being used for their EHP to resist alpha is likely to be reduced by the same amount as the suggestion being put forth if not more

reducing the base HP will indeed reduce their ability to counter Alpha fleets as well as reducing the resist bonuses, and yet that appears to be Fozzie's main concern in instituting this nerf. Now, how making slowcat and other such high resist buffer fleets ability to resist alpha fleets is going to make them less prevalent is beyond me.

As for the sub-BS hulls, considering the T1 versions have already been tiericided and thus officially are already balanced, and the Navy faction hulls are on the slate for Odyssey already and thus already going through their own individualized rebalancing, makes me fail to understand why they are being put through this nerf to begin with.

In regards to the Tournament Prize and other Special Edition ships, they were always meant to be OP, and while I highly doubt that I will ever own one, I certainly do not agree with nerfing them to begin with since all nerfs are an attempt at balance, and the few of these ships that still survive are quite obviously already balanced in that everyone and their mother will try to gank them as soon as they see them anyways.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#558 - 2013-04-15 21:23:28 UTC
I've finally gotten a handle on why I find this so irritating.

Because this is basically an attempt to nerf the Abbadon. This whole thing first started up in the tiericide posts about the T1 battleships, where we heard that the Abbadon's bonus was (apparently) too strong. That cascaded into this discussion about nerfing resists across the board, because they (apparently) cause remote reps to be too effective. IMO, tank is losing to gank, and grievously so, but I digress.

The real reason this rubs me the wrong way is that this is very literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. You want to nerf a few of the ships on that list that are conceivably OP. So you nerf 45 ships to get to those few.

Why not just nerf the base resists of the damn Abbadon then? Why make this enormous sweeping broad brush change and potentially destroy a significant portion of the Caldari and Amarr ship lineup? Because you cannot in all seriousness tell me that you intend to rebalance all of those ships against the resist bonus they lost, and that most of them seriously needed to be even semi competitive.

If you do intend to make this right, by all means let us know. But this silence on Rise's part just lets the resentment and the alarm build at, pun intended, an alarming rate.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#559 - 2013-04-15 21:33:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
This whole thing first started up in the tiericide posts about the T1 battleships, where we heard that the Abbadon's bonus was (apparently) too strong. That cascaded into this discussion about nerfing resists across the board, because they (apparently) cause remote reps to be too effective. IMO, tank is losing to gank, and grievously so, but I digress.

The real reason this rubs me the wrong way is that this is very literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. You want to nerf a few of the ships on that list that are conceivably OP. So you nerf 45 ships to get to those few.

Why make this enormous sweeping broad brush change and potentially destroy a significant portion of the Caldari and Amarr ship lineup? Because you cannot in all seriousness tell me that you intend to rebalance all of those ships against the resist bonus they los, and that most of them seriously needed to be even semi competitive.

If you do intend to make this right, by all means let us know. But this silence on Rise's part just lets the resentment and the alarm build at, pun intended, an alarming rate.

Now that I've edited it to be less of a rant and more of a valid concern, this should most definately be addressed, especially the underlined portion.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#560 - 2013-04-15 21:46:19 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

- Reduce base HP on affected hulls
The role of resist bonused ships being used for their EHP to resist alpha is likely to be reduced by the same amount as the suggestion being put forth if not more

reducing the base HP will indeed reduce their ability to counter Alpha fleets as well as reducing the resist bonuses, and yet that appears to be Fozzie's main concern in instituting this nerf. Now, how making slowcat and other such high resist buffer fleets ability to resist alpha fleets is going to make them less prevalent is beyond me.

As for the sub-BS hulls, considering the T1 versions have already been tiericided and thus officially are already balanced, and the Navy faction hulls are on the slate for Odyssey already and thus already going through their own individualized rebalancing, makes me fail to understand why they are being put through this nerf to begin with.

In regards to the Tournament Prize and other Special Edition ships, they were always meant to be OP, and while I highly doubt that I will ever own one, I certainly do not agree with nerfing them to begin with since all nerfs are an attempt at balance, and the few of these ships that still survive are quite obviously already balanced in that everyone and their mother will try to gank them as soon as they see them anyways.

Already been balanced is a bit of a false statement. We've already see tweaks at levels of ships which have already had their run through tiericide. CCP has already evidenced that their statement "balancing is never done" wasn't just smoke and mirrors. This will be another test to see if that remains true though. Likely before they start making changes they will need to look closely and observe what the real effects are since a large number of the responses here are more charged with emotion than reason.

One thing to take into consideration though is that in the consideration of DPS vs. alpha, the DPS side won't be helped by high EHP or resists and highly effective RR. Defensively there is probably very little that can be done to force DPS to become prevalent.