These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#121 - 2016-02-12 07:52:12 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:

They've been doing this for faction stuff all over tiericide. It's pointless complexity and it makes no sense to me. It's exactly the kind of "flavor for no reason but flavor" that I thought tiericide was supposed to help get rid of. Just one more way new players get burned because they don't know there is an exactly identical faction alternative to the one they saw, for half the cost.

It's to allow different factions LP stores to have value, rather than forcing people to grind a particular faction rep for a faction DC.
Obviously not all factions get every single module, but a range of factions per module spreads things out.
Light Combat Drone
Bearded BattleBears
#122 - 2016-02-12 07:52:45 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
They've been doing this for faction stuff all over tiericide. It's pointless complexity and it makes no sense to me. It's exactly the kind of "flavor for no reason but flavor" that I thought tiericide was supposed to help get rid of. Just one more way new players get burned because they don't know there is an exactly identical faction alternative to the one they saw, for half the cost.

Could it have something to do with making sure faction-quality items can't be easily monopolized by a single PC entity controling a NPC area of availability?
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#123 - 2016-02-12 08:21:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack.

So can we expect a buff to ganking which is not related to Freighters then? Or will I have to roll another alt (I am glad they are free now with SP farming)?
Cat Evergreen
Doomheim
#124 - 2016-02-12 08:32:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Cat Evergreen
(Sorry if this has been said before, but I don't have the time to read through 20+ forum pages.)

My thoughts on how this will influence fittings:

How much this change will influence ship fittings, depends mainly on the type of tank, because Damage Controls are more common in certain tank types than in others.

1. Speed/Sig Tank, long range snipers, cloaky:
Usually don't have tank at all, so this change will give them a good bonus in EHP form the native hull resist, but it doesn't matter much, because the goal of those fit is to not get hit at all.

2. Buffer tank (hull, armor, shield):
Usually already have a Damage Control fitted, to maximize the overall EHP. A slight bouns from the higher resists (33% + 40% > 60%), not a significant change.

3. Active tank (armor or shield) (local and remote):
Most of those do not rely on a Damage Control, as they want to maximize EHP/s repaired so their main goal is to get their shield or armor resists as high as possible. In most cases an EANM2 or AI2 does this job better than a Damage Control. To survive reload times (on ancilliary reppers/booster), logi lock times and alpha strikes they sometimes compromise by adding buffer, but often in the form of plates or extenders. They get a significant EHP boost from the native hull resists, making those hard to crack nuts even harder to crack.

4. Active hull tank:
Those do not really exist, as hull resists couldn't be increased over 60% (without Triage or Bastion) while armor or shield easily went over 70% up to more than 90% resists. And hull repair modules are harder to fit than similar sized armor repair modules, require more cap than those and repair only as much as smaller armor repair modules.
The small increase in hull resists helps those a bit, but not as much as acitve armor or shield tanks.

TL;DR:
Overall I think this change only favours active armor and active shield tanks, but my hope for some hull tank love has been denied again.Cry
Tavion Aksmis
Perkone
Caldari State
#125 - 2016-02-12 10:29:07 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? Ugh


As of this patch you cant deny the loot from a suecide ganked freighter, in favor of the ganker. This could be offset by buffing Freighter EHP.
Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2016-02-12 10:36:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jin Kugu
Tavion Aksmis wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? Ugh


As of this patch you cant deny the loot from a suecide ganked freighter, in favor of the ganker. This could be offset by buffing Freighter EHP.


You can still very easily deny loot using the same mechanic. The wreck ehp was just silly low before, now I think it's in a balanced place.

Giving freighters more EHP is the worst way to ~counterbalance~ a loot retrieval buff. Decreasing the amount of targets will lead to another dead way of playing EvE sooner or later. No one cares that it's easier to loot when there are no more viable targets.
Anthar Thebess
#127 - 2016-02-12 10:51:23 UTC
Important thing is that this raw buff to structure resists will affect every one in eve.

Low and nullsec :
Huge buff to structure EHP will remove damage control from many fleet fittings, as buff provided by current damage control will be much lesser than additional armor resistance, or power diagnostic system.
Ships will be harder to kill, and this will be issue in fleet fights where we have logistic ships.
Huge buff to all capitals and supers.

Higsec:
All kind of ganking will be affected.
People who don't mount damage control will get flat bonus to structure EHP.


MOST IMPORTANT :
Why we don't have pirate lp store versions of this module.
Stop discriminating loyal citizens of NPC null sec!

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#128 - 2016-02-12 10:54:47 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
You can still very easily deny loot using the same mechanic.
I'd very much argue this. You'd need to get at least 2 ships instalocking and killing the wreck before the looter looted it. Considering how many times even a thrasher failed to get it in time, the chances are significantly lower following the change.

Jin Kugu wrote:
Giving freighters more EHP is the worst way to ~counterbalance~ a loot retrieval buff. Decreasing the amount of targets will lead to another dead way of playing EvE sooner or later. No one cares that it's easier to loot when there are no more viable targets.
It only decreases targets if you're too lazy to adapt. There is no such thing as an ungankable freighter, so the number of potential freighters to gank remains the same.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2016-02-12 11:12:25 UTC
Don't understand why freighters are getting the hull resists since they can't fit a DCU anyway.

Shocked

Good for my JF I guess, but doesn't make much sense to me.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
Dead Terrorists
#130 - 2016-02-12 11:29:00 UTC  |  Edited by: ArmyOfMe
thumbs up from me on this one.

1/3rd of my ships dont use a dc these days anyhow.
(and finally a nice change against all the suicide ganks happening)


Berry Nice wrote:


A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it.


Sounds balanced to me.

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#131 - 2016-02-12 12:02:45 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Fozzie, can you clarify the situation as to the compact version of the damage control, The IFFA 1 uses 17 CPU, And is the most widely used after the T2 due to it's CPU fitting requirements. The new compact is 20CPU. This does alter significantly a large range of potential ship fits.

Of course, This may be entirely intended, and a design goal, but can you clarify that this is your intention and not a copy pasta error, as it is of significance.

I did notice on Neocom that there is a IFFA (not 1) with a 20CPU requirement in the database, and I wondered if the two had been confused?
Thanks

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Alex Harumichi
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#132 - 2016-02-12 12:05:28 UTC
I like the idea of making dcus passive, needing to remember to activate that thing is sometimes a pain. Not totally sure about all the implications of moving part of dcu hull bonus to all ship hulls... we'll see.

One thing confuses me here: people are saying jump freighters in highsec are untouchable. What am I missing? I thought JFs could only jump to lowsec, and don't JFs generally have less ehp than t1 freighters? What makes them untouchable? I've never flown one (out of my price range :), so no direct experience.

Properly flown DSTs are very hard to kill (catch), that much is quite true.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#133 - 2016-02-12 12:13:42 UTC
Alex Harumichi wrote:
I like the idea of making dcus passive, needing to remember to activate that thing is sometimes a pain. Not totally sure about all the implications of moving part of dcu hull bonus to all ship hulls... we'll see.

One thing confuses me here: people are saying jump freighters in highsec are untouchable. What am I missing? I thought JFs could only jump to lowsec, and don't JFs generally have less ehp than t1 freighters? What makes them untouchable? I've never flown one (out of my price range :), so no direct experience.

Properly flown DSTs are very hard to kill (catch), that much is quite true.

Anshar now has 1 million ehp with bulkheads in lowslots. (after changes)

Picture that.

1000000 effective hitpoints.

JFs are already way too tanky, and now they are getting 50% more ehp.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Neuntausend
Rens Nursing Home
#134 - 2016-02-12 12:44:41 UTC
I'm torn about this. An HP buff for the people who do fit their frighters for defense is fair. A buff for the ones who don't is stupid.

A freighter pilot has to balance cargo space against hit points. A ganker has to balance DPS against price. Can we get a default "base DPS" on catalysts now, so people can go ganking without fitting guns?
Edward Pierce
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#135 - 2016-02-12 12:48:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Skyler Hawk wrote:
Will the shield and armor resists provided by damage controls continue to stack separately from links and other hardeners?

Yes.

Why? Is there a need for a module that does not get affected by diminishing returns? Is there any module like this out there?
Starrakatt
Celtic Anarchy
Dead Terrorists
#136 - 2016-02-12 12:59:57 UTC
Edward Pierce wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Skyler Hawk wrote:
Will the shield and armor resists provided by damage controls continue to stack separately from links and other hardeners?

Yes.

Why? Is there a need for a module that does not get affected by diminishing returns? Is there any module like this out there?
Damage Controls stacks with the Reactive Armor Hardener.
Xoceac
Incursion Republic
#137 - 2016-02-12 12:59:57 UTC
Can someone answer me this?

What is going to be the total hull resistance now? Since the T2 one was 60% in total and all ships get 33%, but the T2 is going to be dropped to 40%, does that mean 40% from 33% or 40% + 33%? Or something else?

Do you even math bro?
Ruby Gnollo
#138 - 2016-02-12 13:14:52 UTC
What's amazing is that the wreck HP change wasn't never supposed to ba a gameplay changer.

But it was a change sponsored by CSM members.

Did the CSM members sponsoring the wreck HP changes realise what they were doing, and why did they do it ?
Lion Drome
Der Wehrmacht
#139 - 2016-02-12 13:48:05 UTC
I'd say keep T2 DCM hull resist at 60% or atleast reduce the nerf to 50%, thats still ok without taking 1/3rd of a modules largest effectiveness away.

Faction/Deadspace/Officer modules could scale from that progressively, say top hull resist being 75-80% but being insanely rare from the named officer rats that many don't even see once in their lifetime, it is probably one of the most beloved modules in EVE so if you want to change it try it in smaller increments and see how things properly happen with it, I.E. keep/lower the hull resist, see how T2 does with faction/deadspace/officer ones and then adjust accordingly.
Mikey Aivo
Original Sinners
Northern Coalition.
#140 - 2016-02-12 13:50:03 UTC
Dear ccp
Why not remove this module from the game and add its flat bonus to shield/armor/hull to every ship?
I know this would present a balance pass on almost every ship given that they would most likely be replaced by a dps mod. So reduce the dps of every ship by at least 25- 40% as well. This would make fights last longer than 2 seconds and give pilots a chance to recover from a bad warp in spot. This would also make for greater fitting options and more unique fits on certain ships. It would not kill hs ganking but rather require more pilots or bigger ships to kill in hs, which is not a bad thing given the amount of griefing that hs currently has to offer.