These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tilo Rhywald
Wilde Jagd
#901 - 2013-05-22 12:29:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I've never stopped reading this thread, I have it open every day to keep an eye on new posts. I am very interested in what people have to say, but that's not the same thing as designing by straw poll.

I'm also primarily looking at arguments made, not frequency of posting. So volume doesn't get you some kind of advantage Buhhdust. The honest truth is that if we had seen a convincing argument for why this change is a bad idea we would have been open to adjustments as always, but at the end of the day we need to make the best decisions we can for EVE's balance and sometimes that means disagreeing with a subset of passionate players.



First of all, nice to hear that you still monitor this thread. :)

However, simply stating how you don't find arguments convincing enough won't do it... It's along the lines of "because I said so". At the very least address some of the stronger counter-arguments and actually discuss the issue rather than imposing this change on that supposed "subset of passionate players" in such a seemingly non-self-critical manner.

Cheers
Tilo R.
Doddy
Excidium.
#902 - 2013-05-22 13:40:46 UTC
These are very good and much needed changes (which will probably need to be pshed to 3% eventually). Its a real shame you can't get fixes for things like nighthawk and eagle in early though, as these already broken ships are getting burried by these general changes (esp nighthawk which was hammered by hml change) then having to wait for rebalancing.

Something that alot of the resist bonus defenders are choosing to ignore is that the resist bonus boosts both passive and active tanks at the same time. So while resist bonused ship may have a marginally weaker active tank it has more ehp and so is better in situations where you cannot fully tank the damage, and also where an enemies damage between your cycles threatens to kill you through bleeding. This leaves a very small window where a rep bonus is better than a resist bonus even in the field of active tanking never mind when being used in rr or buffer tank situations.

The real question is why you didn't implement the resist change first (along with the also much needed weapon changes) before doing the tiercide. I don't think any of the already rebalanced ships will be hit too hard (merlin, punisher, moa, maller, drake all very powerful currently, ferox not so much) but it does leave a question mark over the whole rebelancing process.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#903 - 2013-05-22 13:47:02 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I've never stopped reading this thread, I have it open every day to keep an eye on new posts. I am very interested in what people have to say, but that's not the same thing as designing by straw poll.

I'm also primarily looking at arguments made, not frequency of posting. So volume doesn't get you some kind of advantage Buhhdust. The honest truth is that if we had seen a convincing argument for why this change is a bad idea we would have been open to adjustments as always, but at the end of the day we need to make the best decisions we can for EVE's balance and sometimes that means disagreeing with a subset of passionate players.

Also this idea originated with me, so if you want to give someone death threats I'm your huckleberry.


Good post Fozzie, and just so you know, there are allot more players in agreement with the changes than not.
Seth Asthereun
Blank-Space
Northern Coalition.
#904 - 2013-05-22 14:44:56 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I've never stopped reading this thread, I have it open every day to keep an eye on new posts. I am very interested in what people have to say, but that's not the same thing as designing by straw poll.

I'm also primarily looking at arguments made, not frequency of posting. So volume doesn't get you some kind of advantage Buhhdust. The honest truth is that if we had seen a convincing argument for why this change is a bad idea we would have been open to adjustments as always, but at the end of the day we need to make the best decisions we can for EVE's balance and sometimes that means disagreeing with a subset of passionate players.

Also this idea originated with me, so if you want to give someone death threats I'm your huckleberry.


Good post Fozzie, and just so you know, there are allot more players in agreement with the changes than not.


You are right, most of us agree with the change and think that shield resist was just a too good bonus. But most of us is concerned about how CCP is applying this change.

Why don't nerf the bonus while introducing ship improvements where it's needed? Is that hard to think that ships that are already suffering like punisher/vengenace/worm/moa/ferox (those are examples of ships that "should" have been balanced atm) will become even worse with this change? And heavy hictors? and the eagle? the nighthawk?

We can't always wait 6 months to get a ship playable.

Atm the strongest shield cruiser (or one of the strongest) is gallente...... better nerf Moa
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#905 - 2013-05-22 15:42:57 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Seth Asthereun wrote:
You didn't answer the most important concern. what will happen with ships that will get unbalanced but have their "class" already gone under the balance hammer?



We don't stop working on a ship after we've balanced it once. We'll keep making changes as needed to any and every ship.


rifter
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#906 - 2013-05-22 15:56:12 UTC
So Fozzie
Any plans on changing T2 resists on ships like minmatar having 90% armour resistance to EM surely thats far too high???

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#907 - 2013-05-22 15:56:43 UTC
Fozzie I like your approach to these boards and I am glad you are still reading them.

But it seems you are saying that you will never give a ship 1 really good bonus (like resist bonus) and 1 not so good one (like reduced cap need for turrets).

Instead you are trying to make all the bonuses completely equal. So they are pretty much interchangable.

IMO Thats not good for diversity/complexity of ships in eve. Do the opposite. Give a ship a 6% resist if it is otherwise lacking. And if one is overpowered then reduce it to a 4%.

IMO You should be trying to balance ships not bonuses.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
John 1135
#908 - 2013-05-22 16:01:41 UTC  |  Edited by: John 1135
FT Diomedes wrote:
If our feedback matters at all... Why don't you explain why this nerf to 44 different ships is needed? Ship by ship. Honestly, if you proposed this nerf to a handful of ships (e.g. The Abaddon, Archon, and Prophecy), you'd see about 80% less rage. It's the broad and apparently lazy manner of this nerf that causes the rage. Why do hictors need a nerf right now?

I endorse your suggestion for selectively nerfing Amarr. Amarr ships are too strong.
Cyrus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#909 - 2013-05-22 16:05:29 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Fozzie I like your approach to these boards and I am glad you are still reading them.

But it seems you are saying that you will never give a ship 1 really good bonus (like resist bonus) and 1 not so good one (like reduced cap need for turrets).

Instead you are trying to make all the bonuses completely equal. So they are pretty much interchangable.

IMO Thats not good for diversity/complexity of ships in eve. Do the opposite. Give a ship a 6% resist if it is otherwise lacking. And if one is overpowered then reduce it to a 4%.

IMO You should be trying to balance ships not bonuses.


This is actually one of the better ideas I have heard in a long time.
John 1135
#910 - 2013-05-22 16:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: John 1135
Cyrus wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Fozzie I like your approach to these boards and I am glad you are still reading them.

But it seems you are saying that you will never give a ship 1 really good bonus (like resist bonus) and 1 not so good one (like reduced cap need for turrets).

Instead you are trying to make all the bonuses completely equal. So they are pretty much interchangable.

IMO Thats not good for diversity/complexity of ships in eve. Do the opposite. Give a ship a 6% resist if it is otherwise lacking. And if one is overpowered then reduce it to a 4%.

IMO You should be trying to balance ships not bonuses.


This is actually one of the better ideas I have heard in a long time.

Design-wise I disagree with it. By balancing bonuses as a set the design team can apply them safely to ships knowing the range of results of doing so. Applying ship-by-ship values will be more unpredictable and reduce the designability of the game as a whole: making improvements and new ship and feature introductions more effortful.

What is vexing me is simply

1) Why not set RR and LR where you want it before nerfing? Buff first, prove to players s*** is OP, and nerf second. No one is claiming these ships are imba.

2) The stated problem is not directly addressed by the nerf. To my reading CCP Fozzie is not saying this class of ships are OP. But rather this bonus causes an issue with other dynamics that interact with it, making those dynamics harder to stabilise. Okay, fine: but again why nerf back ships that no one is calling imba. At the least simply swap a putative 5% resist with some amount of buffer tank. I believe +10% would be justifed.

3) It isn't proven that the illths claimed will be fixed by this nerf. What happens then? You leave 44 ships languishing while you make further nerfs? So again, why not do what you intend to RR and LR and then nerf as needed?

4) Alpha. And again alpha. This nerf will help alpha-fleet do better. Many players dislike the kind of fight front-loaded damage yields. Yes alpha should be a thing, but why are you buffing it?

5) Shield vs Armour. There is an acknowledged issue between shield and armour at present. I believe differential resists would be a tool to addressing that. Even within my comments on designability above there is no reason not to fork shield and armour: indeed they should be forked because the resists interact, and should for diversity of play interact, differently with the relevant dynamics.
Tilo Rhywald
Wilde Jagd
#911 - 2013-05-22 18:07:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tilo Rhywald
Doddy wrote:
These are very good and much needed changes (which will probably need to be pshed to 3% eventually).


According to your killboard stats you're an occasional PvPer that almost exclusively flies active-armor-bonused Gallente ships - fitted accordingly. Would I be wrong to point out a certain bias in that matter? ;) On a more serious note: If those changes were actually "much needed", how come noone ever complained about the 5% before? Show me a single ship on the nerf list that was so clearly overpowered that such a carpet bombing approach of a nerf was remotely justified.

Doddy wrote:

Something that alot of the resist bonus defenders are choosing to ignore is that the resist bonus boosts both passive and active tanks at the same time. So while resist bonused ship may have a marginally weaker active tank it has more ehp and so is better in situations where you cannot fully tank the damage, and also where an enemies damage between your cycles threatens to kill you through bleeding. This leaves a very small window where a rep bonus is better than a resist bonus even in the field of active tanking never mind when being used in rr or buffer tank situations.


So there are ships that are good at tanking and ships that are maybe even better. The characteristic you describe (higher resis keeping you alive longer between rep cycles) is simply a logical consequence of the resistance mechanics. I do doubt that this was an oversight than rather an intended attribute. And besides that it is not apparent why such an ability should be overpowered in itself nor why it should be unwanted.

Please take a closer look at certain pairs or classes of ships if one directly compares them (Hyperion/Rokh/Abaddon/Maelstrom, Merlin/Incursus/Punisher/Rifter, Moa/Vexor/Rupture/Maller etc.). It is absolutely obvious that the resistance bonused ships in those categories have significant drawbacks like slower speed, bigger signature (both of which are huge factors for tanking btw!), less damage application, smaller drone bays (dealing more damage is kind of a tank in many situations aswell), less utility highs or fitting variety in general, and soforth. Tanking is the one field in which they can be really good. As I said before: It's their "thing" - don't take it away.

Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

Good post Fozzie, and just so you know, there are allot more players in agreement with the changes than not.


Oh look! Another almost pure Gallente pilot and an active armor tanker at that... Coincidence? Roll

Cheers
Tilo R.
Cyrus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#912 - 2013-05-22 19:21:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyrus
One thing i disagree with on this change is that the whole bases of reasoning behind the change is circumstantia based on remote reps and fleet logistics. The biggest factor is the number of logi present. I think this change is gonna have a bigger impact on solo and small gang fleets where logi is lacking.


The ship resistance bonus is already one of the weakest ship bonuses. As well as one of the few resist that has a reduced effect when used with modules that do the same thing. The more resist a ship has from mods, the less Dps that becomes negated from the bonus.

If resist were ovepowered then what of hardeners and damage controls?
GreenSeed
#913 - 2013-05-22 21:20:56 UTC
lowering resists is a great idea, i made the point in the battleship cost thread that so long as a reduction on the effectiveness of local and remote reps is accompanied with a increase on raw hp the change can only be positive.

some people insist that this is bad because it benefits alpha, wrong. if anything it does the complete opposite. we have the alpha problem because RR, specially capital RR, can make ships immortal. until alpha=ehp, that is.

hopefully we can see this expand into modules too.

this game would be much more dynamic if ehp were two or tree times what it is now and resists half.

another thing that would help would be diminishing returns on RR...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#914 - 2013-05-22 22:16:45 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:
lowering resists is a great idea, i made the point in the battleship cost thread that so long as a reduction on the effectiveness of local and remote reps is accompanied with a increase on raw hp the change can only be positive.

some people insist that this is bad because it benefits alpha, wrong. if anything it does the complete opposite. we have the alpha problem because RR, specially capital RR, can make ships immortal. until alpha=ehp, that is.

hopefully we can see this expand into modules too.

this game would be much more dynamic if ehp were two or tree times what it is now and resists half.

another thing that would help would be diminishing returns on RR...


So nerf (capital) remote rep then. The part where I dislike this change is the reasoning behind what the real culprit is. I've even described this in detail. The actual culprit is remote reps, and they know it. But the current Incursion mechanics depend entirely on remote reps the way they are now. It's easier to just nerf a secondary consideration like resists than it is to have to redo Incursions as a whole to balance out remote reps.

Furthermore, what reasoning are you using that tells you that players running alpha fleet won't take advantage of a nerf to their direct competition? Because I don't think EVE players are going to be like "my overpowered tactic's counter got weaker! Time to switch to something less effective finally!".

Yeah, no.

"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.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#915 - 2013-05-22 22:34:05 UTC
John 1135 wrote:
Cyrus wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Fozzie I like your approach to these boards and I am glad you are still reading them.

But it seems you are saying that you will never give a ship 1 really good bonus (like resist bonus) and 1 not so good one (like reduced cap need for turrets).

Instead you are trying to make all the bonuses completely equal. So they are pretty much interchangable.

IMO Thats not good for diversity/complexity of ships in eve. Do the opposite. Give a ship a 6% resist if it is otherwise lacking. And if one is overpowered then reduce it to a 4%.

IMO You should be trying to balance ships not bonuses.


This is actually one of the better ideas I have heard in a long time.

Design-wise I disagree with it. By balancing bonuses as a set the design team can apply them safely to ships knowing the range of results of doing so. Applying ship-by-ship values will be more unpredictable and reduce the designability of the game as a whole: making improvements and new ship and feature introductions more effortful.

....



The design effort leads to a complex game that is fun to play. Having all bonuses identical just leads to standard fits and set ups. Whats next all cruisers must have the sam sig radius, speed, agility and hit points? And this is not just a slippery slope if ccp is already trying to make every bonus equal to every other that is already too far imo. If ship has bad mobility like the merlin and punisher had, it deserved a better bonus.

It doesn't really bother me much since I already don't fly the ships that are getting an even further nerf.

IMO balancing bonuses to the point where they all must be equal is just too contrived.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Airto TLA
Acorn's Wonder Bars
#916 - 2013-05-22 23:12:49 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I've never stopped reading this thread, I have it open every day to keep an eye on new posts. I am very interested in what people have to say, but that's not the same thing as designing by straw poll.

I'm also primarily looking at arguments made, not frequency of posting. So volume doesn't get you some kind of advantage Buhhdust. The honest truth is that if we had seen a convincing argument for why this change is a bad idea we would have been open to adjustments as always, but at the end of the day we need to make the best decisions we can for EVE's balance and sometimes that means disagreeing with a subset of passionate players.

Also this idea originated with me, so if you want to give someone death threats I'm your huckleberry.


One truly valid arugment is you are nerfing ships, some which are on the low end of the power curve and some that have already had balance passes. If you are going to do this you need to buff each of the ships in some way, I guess buffer makes the most sense, give them all 4% resist + x% to armor per level to keep it simple. If you do not you are causing less blance not more. If we were being over run by amarr and caldari ships (rather than just the pre nerf drake) you would be right.

I get that resist bonus causes an issue in heavy RR envoirment has the potential to make the ships dominent, but now they are weakened in all other envoirments.
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#917 - 2013-05-23 05:05:22 UTC
ok, being an amarr purist, i build for resists over amount. dropping % really hurts us. it also hurts all other races, but amarr and caldari the most i believe.

this post isnt to complain, but more to rationalize and offer a middle ground.


t1 ships receiving 5% is very powerful.
t2 ships receiving the same bonus isnt so bad, because of the training time and money it takes to aquire them.

now, t2 ships designed to tank everything for a long time are REALLY getting hit hard by this.

my proposal:
drop t1 ships to 4%. i can deal with that...they are BASIC ships.
t2, leave at 5%. we dont have t2 (hac/command ship) resists on ANY battleship so its not THAT powerful.

now, for the 2 ship classes that REALLY need the tank, they should receive 6%. these 2 ship classes are the hic and the command ships. with on grid boosting becoming mandatory, they NEED the tanking bonus (command) and the hics are designed to just "take a stand and keep peeps from warping off".
they are "specialized" t2 ships. so "specialized, specialized" ships.

i know you guys are going to buff the command ships shortly, but seriously, with OGB going away, they will be primaried as SOON as they hit grid. they will need tank AND mobility. thats why 1. the 6% and 2. the post the other day allowing them to use the MJD (which will allow them to remain on grid and keep links going).
hics? we all know hics take a beating. even if we have to bring the offense down a tad to give them more of a fleet tanking role for gate camps or super killing, its one thing i would be willing to do as a compromise.

seriously, i dont think the 5% is bad on t2. on t1 though? yeah, thats a powerful bonus.
on command and hics????? its devastating especially with the new on grid boosting becoming the norm.

4% on t1
5% on t2 (AF, hacs)
6% on hics/command (itll only affect 12 ships in the game which are specialized in tanking..not just your average t2 tanking ship). (and specifically to command ships, the MJD. which will allow escape on grid)
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#918 - 2013-05-23 11:06:48 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
ok, being an amarr purist, i build for resists over amount. dropping % really hurts us. it also hurts all other races, but amarr and caldari the most i believe.

this post isnt to complain, but more to rationalize and offer a middle ground.


t1 ships receiving 5% is very powerful.
t2 ships receiving the same bonus isnt so bad, because of the training time and money it takes to aquire them.

now, t2 ships designed to tank everything for a long time are REALLY getting hit hard by this.

my proposal:
drop t1 ships to 4%. i can deal with that...they are BASIC ships.
t2, leave at 5%. we dont have t2 (hac/command ship) resists on ANY battleship so its not THAT powerful.

now, for the 2 ship classes that REALLY need the tank, they should receive 6%. these 2 ship classes are the hic and the command ships. with on grid boosting becoming mandatory, they NEED the tanking bonus (command) and the hics are designed to just "take a stand and keep peeps from warping off".
they are "specialized" t2 ships. so "specialized, specialized" ships.

i know you guys are going to buff the command ships shortly, but seriously, with OGB going away, they will be primaried as SOON as they hit grid. they will need tank AND mobility. thats why 1. the 6% and 2. the post the other day allowing them to use the MJD (which will allow them to remain on grid and keep links going).
hics? we all know hics take a beating. even if we have to bring the offense down a tad to give them more of a fleet tanking role for gate camps or super killing, its one thing i would be willing to do as a compromise.

seriously, i dont think the 5% is bad on t2. on t1 though? yeah, thats a powerful bonus.
on command and hics????? its devastating especially with the new on grid boosting becoming the norm.

4% on t1
5% on t2 (AF, hacs)
6% on hics/command (itll only affect 12 ships in the game which are specialized in tanking..not just your average t2 tanking ship). (and specifically to command ships, the MJD. which will allow escape on grid)

+1 Shocked
this is very interesting and imho fair.
So CCP do it, doooo it!
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#919 - 2013-05-23 12:16:34 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
So Fozzie
Any plans on changing T2 resists on ships like minmatar having 90% armour resistance to EM surely thats far too high???



The T2 resistance is SAME on alla races. Al lraces get a 75% buff on the priamary enemy damage type and 50% on secondary.


The effect is the SAME!!!!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
13 Degree
Fenrir's Dogs of War
#920 - 2013-05-23 13:25:35 UTC  |  Edited by: 13 Degree
Mole Guy wrote:
ok, being an amarr purist, i build for resists over amount. dropping % really hurts us. it also hurts all other races, but amarr and caldari the most i believe.

this post isnt to complain, but more to rationalize and offer a middle ground.


t1 ships receiving 5% is very powerful.
t2 ships receiving the same bonus isnt so bad, because of the training time and money it takes to aquire them.

now, t2 ships designed to tank everything for a long time are REALLY getting hit hard by this.

my proposal:
drop t1 ships to 4%. i can deal with that...they are BASIC ships.
t2, leave at 5%. we dont have t2 (hac/command ship) resists on ANY battleship so its not THAT powerful.

now, for the 2 ship classes that REALLY need the tank, they should receive 6%. these 2 ship classes are the hic and the command ships. with on grid boosting becoming mandatory, they NEED the tanking bonus (command) and the hics are designed to just "take a stand and keep peeps from warping off".
they are "specialized" t2 ships. so "specialized, specialized" ships.

i know you guys are going to buff the command ships shortly, but seriously, with OGB going away, they will be primaried as SOON as they hit grid. they will need tank AND mobility. thats why 1. the 6% and 2. the post the other day allowing them to use the MJD (which will allow them to remain on grid and keep links going).
hics? we all know hics take a beating. even if we have to bring the offense down a tad to give them more of a fleet tanking role for gate camps or super killing, its one thing i would be willing to do as a compromise.

seriously, i dont think the 5% is bad on t2. on t1 though? yeah, thats a powerful bonus.
on command and hics????? its devastating especially with the new on grid boosting becoming the norm.

4% on t1
5% on t2 (AF, hacs)
6% on hics/command (itll only affect 12 ships in the game which are specialized in tanking..not just your average t2 tanking ship). (and specifically to command ships, the MJD. which will allow escape on grid)


Please take a deep breath and think of what exactly a %6 bonused absolution or devoter will turn into, give special attention that the bonus comes from bc and cruiser lvls respectively, so anyone who can fly it will get it. I am assuming damnation will get some sort of tank nerf, otherwise a %6 bonus to current hull is kinda scary.