These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Phoebe] HP/Resists Tweaks for Sov Structures and Station Services

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#21 - 2014-10-09 18:35:45 UTC  |  Edited by: XavierVE
-50% EHP to SBU'S! YES! Resists instead of raw buffer HP to stations and i-hubs!

Holy ****, you guys are on a roll today.
IcyMidnight
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#22 - 2014-10-09 18:53:06 UTC
Sov repping kinda sucks. This is a great change! +Resists FTW.
Ryu Chaos
Incognito Mode
Brotherhood of Spacers
#23 - 2014-10-09 18:58:39 UTC
Basil Vulpine wrote:
If you want to prepare people for being actively rewarded for doing things encourage them to defend sooner rather than later.

Give sov structures an inverse adapative armor hardener. High resists when a fleet first starts shooting but over time the resists go down a bit.

So start offIn terms of numbers, start an IHub off at 80% omni resist. For every 15 mins spent shooting it the resists that are being hit drop by 5% with a floor value of 60% resists after 1 hour. If the structure isn't shot for 15 mins then it regains full resists.

I do like the reduction in repair drudgery. EHP is EHP, it can be chewed through in bombers if need be and caps / supers can do it a lot faster. Bandaid solution for now.


just why, why get in so much trouble.

@RyuChaos_
Black Canary Jnr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2014-10-09 19:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Canary Jnr
CCP Fozzie wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Why add resistances? Just reduce the HP by 66% or whatever.


The increased resistances are intended to make it less time-intensive to repair structures and services.


Provi just had to rep a station up from 1% structure, it was ... not fun. Like a week+ of repping not fun.

Any chance of taking a look at hull reps in the near future?
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#25 - 2014-10-09 19:15:27 UTC
SMUGLYFE

Also I'd like to point out CCP Seagull has the biggest hairiest set of Ladyballs known to man. We are not worthy!


All Hail Seagull and her band of merry men!

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Zip Slings
SCI Zenith
Flying Dangerous
#26 - 2014-10-09 19:15:33 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:
Honestly, I don't feel they need a tweak. It can be done in SBs quite effectively. I've done it maaaaannyy times. Sit back, talk to your buddies on voice and blow through ammo. Honsetly, with the number of people the big entities can field they should be able to do it if little ol' Red-headed-step-Region Providence can do it.


The whole point of these changes is that the "big entities" should not be the only ones with the ability to hold SOV
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#27 - 2014-10-09 19:28:35 UTC
I don't think decreasing srtucture EHP is a good idea (though adding resist and decreasing HP is good idea for repping them). The problem is that currently there are two roles of supers: grinding structures and hotdropping capitals. Jump nerfs take the second. The first is unaffected as you have time to prepare a regional invasion. With the EHP nerf, grinding structures in subcaps will be less of a problem so using supers can become completely redundant.

Have you considered that after these changes, why would anyone have a super? I mean, what is the designated role of them?

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
Bl1SkR1N
13th HOUR
#28 - 2014-10-09 19:47:29 UTC
Ihub and services sound like a good idea. Im not sure about SBUs tho...with current mechanics it makes it even easier to defend system, probably not what you are aiming for. Will be just dps race all the time.

In general I think this is too little. Less RF cycles for ihubs/stations please
Angry Mustache
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2014-10-09 19:52:01 UTC
The ability to disable services so quickly might be problematic. Now the health of those services is such that they can be reasonably disabled by a medium sized dread fleet in under one cycle, say, halfway through a fight, preventing reinforcements if that stations was used for staging.

While an interesting tactic in and of itself, has CCP considered how this, and the "hobojamming" changes, affect the interaction between NPC stations for staging and using outposts.

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
Crysantos Callahan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2014-10-09 19:54:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. One of the many smaller changes we have planned for Phoebe is a rebalance of the HP and resists of Sov Structures and Station Services.

In the medium-long term we are still committed to the idea that HP based objectives are a suboptimal way to swap control of sov infrastructure, but until we can transition to a new capture mechanism we want to reduce the amount of time that is needed for both shooting and repairing these objectives.

These changes are intended to go alongside the big changes coming to capital ship movement coming in Phoebe, which make large supercarrier fleets less convenient for grinding structure HP.

These changes are live on SISI now.

Station Services: (-66% EHP)
-83% Shield HP
+50% shield resists

IHUBs and Stations: (-50% EHP)
-60% Shield and Armor HP
-50% Hull HP
+20% Shield and Armor Resists

SBUs: (-50% EHP)
-50% Shield, Armor and Hull HP

Let us know what you think!


Love it, neat idea with the resists.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#31 - 2014-10-09 20:02:16 UTC
Good change. +1
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#32 - 2014-10-09 20:06:16 UTC
Black Canary Jnr wrote:


Provi just had to rep a station up from 1% structure, it was ... not fun. Like a week+ of repping not fun.

Any chance of taking a look at hull reps in the near future?



I have to agree with my honorable enemy here. Structure repping remains a pain. Any chance for the Nidhoggur bonuses to be extended to hull?

Or is hull tanking to stronk?
Elsa Nietchize
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#33 - 2014-10-09 20:06:58 UTC
Black Canary Jnr wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Why add resistances? Just reduce the HP by 66% or whatever.


The increased resistances are intended to make it less time-intensive to repair structures and services.


Provi just had to rep a station up from 1% structure, it was ... not fun. Like a week+ of repping not fun.

Any chance of taking a look at hull reps in the near future?



Not empty quoting. If you've ever saved a tower in structure, you hate everything.
theDisto
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#34 - 2014-10-09 20:08:55 UTC
Please change the Stealth Bombers torp damage bonus to an equivalent rate of fire bonus to nerf siege bomber fleets and encourage actual gameplay.
JEFFRAIDER
THIGH GUYS
#35 - 2014-10-09 20:15:52 UTC
wat
Bl1SkR1N
13th HOUR
#36 - 2014-10-09 20:28:39 UTC
theDisto wrote:
Please change the Stealth Bombers torp damage bonus to an equivalent rate of fire bonus to nerf siege bomber fleets and encourage actual gameplay.


this
JB MCW1
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-10-09 20:34:58 UTC
I can't find Outposts listed resist profile. Where can I find that/does someone have it?
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#38 - 2014-10-09 20:53:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Why add resistances? Just reduce the HP by 66% or whatever.


The increased resistances are intended to make it less time-intensive to repair structures and services.


I, for one, look forward to not having to take as long when doing sov structure saves in subcaps, which seems to be something I'm doing all the time, these days..
Soleil Fournier
Perfusus Sanguine
Pandemic Horde
#39 - 2014-10-09 21:16:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
Since were talking hp adjustments.....What about making station services 'small ship targets' and balancing hp/resists for larger roaming gangs?

With cap projection nerfs this seems much more reasonable to implement.
Elektrea
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#40 - 2014-10-09 21:49:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Elektrea
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Let us know what you think!


Is this part of Phase 2 of the changes?

Edit: just read the rest of the post, these compromises are good and something a lot of people were fearing would not happen. While the patch times are significantly faster, a lot could happen between the patch windows.