These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#921 - 2013-05-23 13:56:04 UTC
yeah, altho i love my damnation tank, i think to myself "holy crap...400k EHP?"

wouldnt bother me to give a little nerf as long as they get the resistance up a lil for this "on grid" debuff.

if you arent getting primaried, the opposing fleet fc is crazy.
and i have thought about what 6% would do. i would give up a lil devoter tank for some more firepower.
all races start with 5 weapons. amarr starts with 4. they get a bonus to damage, we get a rof bonus. at rank 5, amarr gets the rof of 5 unbonused guns where everyone else gets 25% bonus to damage on their 5 guns/missiles.
the tank is great, but if it cannot fight its way out of a paper sack...

what i was getting at, yer only talking about 12 ships in the game. 12 ships that REALLY need tanking.
the other t2 can stay the same.. wouldnt bother me any.
the t1's tho...giving 5% (mael, prophecy etc.) is a tough bonus. it makes them pretty indestructable.
altho i have to admit, i havent played with the prophecy since the drone patch, but they USED to be tough. i know my mael can tank like a beast. maybe a lil much to for a t1 ship.

but the other 12...really need the lil extra %. it wouldnt be that much. not like 200% damage bonus like one of the new frigs, or 50% bonus to range and then another 50% bonus to range.

some of these bonuses are a lil out there...
we're talking 12 ships that really need it.
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#922 - 2013-05-23 15:15:35 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.

You're a ******* liar.

The majority of ships being nerfed are already underpowered.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#923 - 2013-05-23 19:18:41 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
You're seriously nerfing my eagle and ferox. Why would you do that? They're already awful. Could you perhaps not do the change on ships that are currently terrible, then do it when you get around to making them good?

So if they are already awful then why are you flying them? If it's for the challenge then you should be happy because these ships will now be much more challenging to fly. Big smile (sorry, couldn't resist, back to our scheduled programming)
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#924 - 2013-05-23 19:40:35 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.



This idea and similar ideas were never really supported by players.

Here is an example of a nerf amarr and caldari reisist bonus thread in assembly hall. Notice how much it was approved.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1701321#post1701321

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Lugalzagezi666
#925 - 2013-05-23 21:13:42 UTC
Cearain wrote:
This idea and similar ideas were never really supported by players.

Here is an example of a nerf amarr and caldari reisist bonus thread in assembly hall. Notice how much it was approved.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1701321#post1701321


Maybe it has to do something with fact that most of the listed ships could actually use some buffs instead of nerfing and waiting god knows how many years for "rebalancing."
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#926 - 2013-05-23 22:43:11 UTC
Or perhaps it was because the proposal called for the resistance bonus to be removed entirely and replaced with a HP bonus. Fozzie is going easy with the nerfbat and this is the thanks he gets? Big smile
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#927 - 2013-05-23 23:23:34 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Or perhaps it was because the proposal called for the resistance bonus to be removed entirely and replaced with a HP bonus. Fozzie is going easy with the nerfbat and this is the thanks he gets? Big smile


Most of the nerfs in EVE were 'easy'. For people who have been here for 10 years it has been death by a thousand paper cuts. The question is, what are we trying to solve? what problem comes up that is the result of a resist bonus on these ships?

It must be a back house issue because I'm not seeing it in the game. Baddons melt pretty quick when they are under focus fire. Ask anyone who has lost one.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#928 - 2013-05-24 02:38:56 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Or perhaps it was because the proposal called for the resistance bonus to be removed entirely and replaced with a HP bonus. Fozzie is going easy with the nerfbat and this is the thanks he gets? Big smile



The issue came up in various variations. The upshot was always that the ships in question had other drawbacks that made the resist bonus ok. I remember discussing the comparison of the cyclone and the ferox. Cyclone had better agility and speed compared to the ferox. The ferox had better overall hp which made it perhaps better but the resist bonus wasn't really a big issue.

Anyway if ccp wants to give the ships that do local active tank a sort of buff versus caldari and amarr I don't mind, and can even support it. But I don't like the rational of making all bonuses equivalent and interchangable. Some bonuses are better and that is ok.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Lugalzagezi666
#929 - 2013-05-24 06:50:14 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Or perhaps it was because the proposal called for the resistance bonus to be removed entirely and replaced with a HP bonus. Fozzie is going easy with the nerfbat and this is the thanks he gets? Big smile


Are you sure that Ibis, Taipan, Merlin, Worm, Harpy, Cambion, Moa, Gila, Eagle, Onyx, Broadsword, Ferox, Nighthawk, Vulture, Loki, Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk, Rokh, Impairor, Punisher, Vengeance, Malice, Malediction, Maller, Sacrilege, Mimir, Vangel, Devoter, Phobos, Prophecy, Absolution, Loki, Legion, Proteus, Abaddon deserve this "easy nerfbat."

Well Im for sure not going to thank anyone who is planning unnecessary nerf to noobships (like seriously?), special tournament ships, ships that rely on defense bonus because of their role (hello hics and commands) or ships that are already lacking behind competition so much they arent worth flying compared to their t1 cousins or are forced to fit other races weapon systems. Oh wait, dont tell me, I know, in 18 months they are going to get balanced...
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#930 - 2013-05-24 11:19:01 UTC
These changes are clearly aimed at some sort of simplified code and has nothing to do with balance of game mechanics.

Is it good, is it bad? It's irrelevant.

Smaller engagements revolve around tackle. Larger engagements revolve around fleet alpha. Gank beats tank, it always has in EVE. Do what you want.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#931 - 2013-05-24 13:55:02 UTC
The following post is a bit dramatic but I think there is a grain of truth to it.

I think ccp is making ships and bonuses more the same in the quest for balance. It is the easy/lazy way to balance.

Not only is this bonus getting made to be equivalent to every other but we see this in other areas of balance.

First lasers hit far out so they buffed autocannons by having them hit far out due to tes effecting fall off.

Then blasters got more range with null so they can hit like autocannons. Oh yeah and they reduced cap necessary to use hybrids.

Now they are reducing the cap necessary for lasers and giving amarr ships less cap (relative to thother ships) and adding a bunch of tracking bonuses for amarr.

If this trend continues why not call all turrets autocannons? Yes it will be balanced but it will also not be as fun of a game.

The effect is that instead of balancing disparate ships and equipment ccp is sacrificing the uniqueness of the ships and equipment on the alter of balance.

It's not bad now. And I am not that concerned about what I see. But it seems to be a trend. I would love to see some changes that reverse this trend, and make some ships and equipment have more powerfull bonuses combined with more severe drawbacks.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Kay Ahn
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#932 - 2013-05-24 18:27:29 UTC
I guess I am the only one that dislikes the resistance changes based on aesthetics (or maybe you could call that OCD)?

Even though I am of course very well aware it should be about cold, hard numbers and not about some subjective feelings, that multiplication by 4 just feels wrong... What?
Airto TLA
Acorn's Wonder Bars
#933 - 2013-05-24 18:44:21 UTC
Sisohiv wrote:
These changes are clearly aimed at some sort of simplified code and has nothing to do with balance of game mechanics.

Is it good, is it bad? It's irrelevant.

Smaller engagements revolve around tackle. Larger engagements revolve around fleet alpha. Gank beats tank, it always has in EVE. Do what you want.



I am hoping that it is exactly what they said it is, they were trying to balance some mechanics in the game and realized that the resist bonus were causing a disproportionate impact. They needed to fix this first then, they can fix the ral issue. This is a reasonable long term goal, but from the players point of view it more like, hey my ship was subpar before and now you are nerfing it ?
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#934 - 2013-05-24 19:01:16 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Ocih wrote:
The question is, what are we trying to solve? what problem comes up that is the result of a resist bonus on these ships?


To answer this question, let's go back to the original post in this thread:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

So while a 37.5% rep bonus increases effective repping by 37.5%, and a 50% armor hp bonus increases effective hitpoints by 50%, a 25% resistance bonus actually increases both by 33% (not the 25% that might be assumed at first glance).
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.

For example: The difference between an active tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon - at active tanking - is minimal. The difference between a buffer tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon is disproportionately large.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#935 - 2013-05-24 19:50:29 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Ocih wrote:
The question is, what are we trying to solve? what problem comes up that is the result of a resist bonus on these ships?


To answer this question, let's go back to the original post in this thread:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

So while a 37.5% rep bonus increases effective repping by 37.5%, and a 50% armor hp bonus increases effective hitpoints by 50%, a 25% resistance bonus actually increases both by 33% (not the 25% that might be assumed at first glance).
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.

For example: The difference between an active tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon - at active tanking - is minimal. The difference between a buffer tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon is disproportionately large.


Except that the differences between an active tanking Prophecy and a similar Myrmidon are that the Myrm is far more vulnerable to alpha, because the Prophecy gets free buffer with its 33% bonused active tank, and it also gets 33% better reps from anything that decides to augment its local tank.

Local tank bonuses come with downsides. Resist tank bonuses don't. That's the problem.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#936 - 2013-05-24 20:31:19 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Ocih wrote:
The question is, what are we trying to solve? what problem comes up that is the result of a resist bonus on these ships?


To answer this question, let's go back to the original post in this thread:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

So while a 37.5% rep bonus increases effective repping by 37.5%, and a 50% armor hp bonus increases effective hitpoints by 50%, a 25% resistance bonus actually increases both by 33% (not the 25% that might be assumed at first glance).
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.

For example: The difference between an active tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon - at active tanking - is minimal. The difference between a buffer tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon is disproportionately large.


Except that the differences between an active tanking Prophecy and a similar Myrmidon are that the Myrm is far more vulnerable to alpha, because the Prophecy gets free buffer with its 33% bonused active tank, and it also gets 33% better reps from anything that decides to augment its local tank.

Local tank bonuses come with downsides. Resist tank bonuses don't. That's the problem.


It's only a "problem" if you assume all bonuses need to be exactly equivalent.

Even if the resist bonus was arguably a better bonus, I still saw allot more myrmidons than prophecys. You would think that was impossible after reading that fairly myopic discussion of percentages of armor repped.

I saw more myrms because under the old philosophy they didn't try to do a 1 to 1 coorespondence on every trait of the ship and every piece of equipment. They let certain things be out of balance and balanced the races in other ways. Now there is no talk about the general balancing of races. Its each and every ship and module and indeed every bonus on every ship and module must be exactly equivalent.

The most obvious indicator of this trend may have been when they were going to have tracking disruptors work on missiles. I am glad ccp dropped that. Not because missiles might not need some balancing, but because making everything the same is not good for those who like the complexity of eve.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#937 - 2013-05-24 22:39:30 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Ocih wrote:
The question is, what are we trying to solve? what problem comes up that is the result of a resist bonus on these ships?


To answer this question, let's go back to the original post in this thread:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

So while a 37.5% rep bonus increases effective repping by 37.5%, and a 50% armor hp bonus increases effective hitpoints by 50%, a 25% resistance bonus actually increases both by 33% (not the 25% that might be assumed at first glance).
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.

For example: The difference between an active tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon - at active tanking - is minimal. The difference between a buffer tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon is disproportionately large.


Except that the differences between an active tanking Prophecy and a similar Myrmidon are that the Myrm is far more vulnerable to alpha, because the Prophecy gets free buffer with its 33% bonused active tank, and it also gets 33% better reps from anything that decides to augment its local tank.

Local tank bonuses come with downsides. Resist tank bonuses don't. That's the problem.


It's only a "problem" if you assume all bonuses need to be exactly equivalent.

Even if the resist bonus was arguably a better bonus, I still saw allot more myrmidons than prophecys. You would think that was impossible after reading that fairly myopic discussion of percentages of armor repped.

I saw more myrms because under the old philosophy they didn't try to do a 1 to 1 coorespondence on every trait of the ship and every piece of equipment. They let certain things be out of balance and balanced the races in other ways. Now there is no talk about the general balancing of races. Its each and every ship and module and indeed every bonus on every ship and module must be exactly equivalent.

The most obvious indicator of this trend may have been when they were going to have tracking disruptors work on missiles. I am glad ccp dropped that. Not because missiles might not need some balancing, but because making everything the same is not good for those who like the complexity of eve.

If a TD for missiles was made it hardly does anything to bridge the mechanics of missiles and turrets. Also, as I recall it wasn't scrapped, but delayed pending a more detailed look at large missile systems.

Also having more options, such as adding missile affecting ewar, doesn't reduce complexity. It increases it.
Darkhorseman
XR-T17
#938 - 2013-05-24 22:57:19 UTC
I'll just say what a lot of people are probably thinking: It worries me to see this type of "drive for equality" between ship types. There's no reason players can't simply train the more powerful ships they need for a given role. I'd suggest taking a long hard look at what's happening to Blizzard as a result of their attempts to make every class and play style "equal," while ignoring the investment players have made in specializing their play stiles to exploit imbalances in strategic situations. It alienates players who have taken pride in learning to exploit various strengths of their characters and play stiles, while removing the reward for doing so from new players. I don't think this particular nerf will break anything in of itself, but I would say: be careful of the road you're taking this game down.

There are two things that inevitably blow out the subscriber base of an MMO: attempting to "balance" all play stiles, and trying to make content exclusive to hard-core players more "accessible" to casual players.
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#939 - 2013-05-25 01:53:17 UTC
Airto TLA wrote:
Sisohiv wrote:
These changes are clearly aimed at some sort of simplified code and has nothing to do with balance of game mechanics.

Is it good, is it bad? It's irrelevant.

Smaller engagements revolve around tackle. Larger engagements revolve around fleet alpha. Gank beats tank, it always has in EVE. Do what you want.



I am hoping that it is exactly what they said it is, they were trying to balance some mechanics in the game and realized that the resist bonus were causing a disproportionate impact. They needed to fix this first then, they can fix the ral issue. This is a reasonable long term goal, but from the players point of view it more like, hey my ship was subpar before and now you are nerfing it ?


Nobody ever had a problem killing ships with resist bonuses. If anything they only served to give people a false sense of security. No ship in EVE is immune to gank. Again, this seems to me to be a change based on some formulation factor they can't come to at the server end. A Dust one no doubt. I really don't see this factoring in to more or less killmails.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#940 - 2013-05-25 03:34:53 UTC
Sisohiv wrote:
Airto TLA wrote:
Sisohiv wrote:
These changes are clearly aimed at some sort of simplified code and has nothing to do with balance of game mechanics.

Is it good, is it bad? It's irrelevant.

Smaller engagements revolve around tackle. Larger engagements revolve around fleet alpha. Gank beats tank, it always has in EVE. Do what you want.



I am hoping that it is exactly what they said it is, they were trying to balance some mechanics in the game and realized that the resist bonus were causing a disproportionate impact. They needed to fix this first then, they can fix the ral issue. This is a reasonable long term goal, but from the players point of view it more like, hey my ship was subpar before and now you are nerfing it ?


Nobody ever had a problem killing ships with resist bonuses. If anything they only served to give people a false sense of security. No ship in EVE is immune to gank. Again, this seems to me to be a change based on some formulation factor they can't come to at the server end. A Dust one no doubt. I really don't see this factoring in to more or less killmails.

If it were that I'd question why we haven't seen the change sooner, like when dust was integrated into TQ. Your reasoning feels somewhat like grasping at straws. In the end the bonus will function the same with a lower number. That being the case I don't see any conceivable way that a server problem would be the cause of it. Unless you think Dust code is somehow allergic to counting in multiples of 5?