Player Features and Ideas Discussion

At the rate of removing tanky from this game we'll be back to speed wars in no time. Also, I realize its the wrong thread but before you nerf their tank why not make Caldari worth shooting, let alone flying.

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.

So much ****** ITT.

Also, most of the recent changes suggest that CCP prefers the Meta of everybody Manmode Prom style (TE nerf, Geddon Changes etc) and sit at 5k.

A slight reduction in tanking on these boats doesnt actually hurt them that much, once you add links and mods to standard fleet fits on the Rokh/Baddon they lose around 1% resists across the board, thats hardly killing them.

Why, when we can tell you directly? I mean this is the 21st century, technology lets us communicate way better. Why resort to that broken system where I tell someone who already has their own agenda how I feel, so that they can ignore me? That might work for government but even the strongest supporters of democracy admit that it's not a perfect system. If CCP wants to listen to the players, well, HERE WE ARE.

Note that nerfing the effect of the module may not make sense, splitting the mod into 3 sizes and changing the base cycle cost for each size certainly does. Invulns are way too cheap cap wise for what you get at this point on the large subcap end of ships.

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

Dude I really think you should NOT take that 1% away from Mackinaw and Hulks for 2 huge reasons:

1. Mining Barges are not used for PVP

2. Destroyers already suicide gank Mining Barges as it is.

DONT NERF THE TANK ON THE BARGES ITS POINTLESS.

This cannnot be said enough. Giving Amarr the same cap recharge as every other race and only slightly (~5%) more total cap almost begs the player to use nothing but Scorch. This ignores the fact that Tach's can't physically be fit on any of the BS's without a PG module even with the new changes (this makes Amarr the only race to have this problem). Amarr has higher PG weapon fits AND is still expected to armor tank with the negative value of PG leftover after guns but still receives the same PG as every other race, great design choice CCP.

You can say "well lets see what happens when these changes hit SISI" but that isn't really necessary. Fitting anything but Scorch on a BS is idiotic given the current numbers and still requires a cap booster, SISI won't change that.

There are some mechanisms, but they are tricky to get correct.

Firstly, we need to decide what issue exactly we're trying to improve. Alpha-fleet doctrine is a sensible response to environments where repair is prevalent - killing a target before it can be repaired can massively reduce the total damage required to kill it. In that sense, the resistance nerf pushes things slightly in favour of DPS: resistance is the only target-based statistic that affects RR effectiveness, and reducing resistances from 25% to 20% reduces inbound rr by 6.25%.

Without repair, the contest is how quickly the attacker can burn through the defender's hit points. RR adds a second contest - whether the attacker can overcome the defender's repair, with the surplus from this going to the first contest. Alpha provides a way of winning the first contest before the second can get started.

One way to force the battle into the second contest is to remove alpha entirely. All damage (and repair) is applied evenly over time. Weapons stream rather than pulse. But you have now removed any direct mechanism to avoid the straight DPS vs repair fight, which will lead to risk-averse FCs stacking their fleet with even more remote repair.

Another option is to totally remove repair. Good alpha still has some advantages, but the value of your damage no longer degrades over time.

Finally, you can limit inbound damage and/or repair. This is technically simple, but good luck figuring how to do it without pushing the meta towards fewer, very powerful ships (or, if you cap contribution-per-ship rather than number-of-ships, away from it).

That would have exactly the opposite affect that they are trying to achieve. You don't discourage alpha doctrine by strengthening the doctrine that it counters!

Actually, not really. To use the Abaddon and the new resist nerf levels at BS V, before the hull bonus it's 50/20/25/35, after the hull bonus it's 60/24/30/42. As you can see, the highest resist recieves the most benefit, so that essentially this widens that resist hole gap. Yes, it overall improves the resists, duh, just pointing out that it doesn't help to fix the 'hole' in it.

You are ignoring that I have suggested applying resists to the remote reps, making them less effective as resistance climbs. I fail to see how making 1 point of RR = 1 point of damage in all cases hurts alpha. This helps alpha by making ships with higher resists harder to rep. So resists would come with at least 1 tradeoff instead of having 3+ independent benefits with no downside whatsoever. The fact that it is good in so many ways is what is making it broken. This isn't just a 1 point plan like the proposed resist bonus change, it's more comprehensive.

Also, the DC benefit is always calculated in last, so while it doesn't get a stacking penalty in the normal sense, its going to have the least effect of any resist bonus unless it is alone in providing such a bonus.

Actually, not really. To use the Abaddon and the new resist nerf levels at BS V, before the hull bonus it's 50/20/25/35, after the hull bonus it's 60/24/30/42. As you can see, the highest resist recieves the most benefit, so that essentially this widens that resist hole gap. Yes, it overall improves the resists, duh, just pointing out that it doesn't help to fix the 'hole' in it.

Also, the DC benefit is always calculated in last, so while it doesn't get a stacking penalty in the normal sense, its going to have the least effect of any resist bonus unless it is alone in providing such a bonus.