These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alex Harumichi
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#161 - 2016-02-12 20:30:47 UTC
Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#162 - 2016-02-12 20:31:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Aethan Deimos wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Aethan Deimos wrote:
[quote=Denidil]PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant)


[Mackinaw, 2MLU]
Internal Force Field Array I
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II
Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I
Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hammerhead II x5


The 'Radical' Damage Control is strictly better than the Internal Force Field Array I. It has the resistance stats of the DCUII and uses one less CPU than the IFA I. You will actually have an extra CPU with the fit. Also, the DCUII will be obsolete.[/quote

Storylines aren't really suitable for generic use.


Ahh, good point. I assumed it was a new module since I've never seen it before. It would seem, then, that some points made are somewhat justified.



To be fair that is my assumption, but it seems likely given the stats, specifically meta level.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#163 - 2016-02-12 20:33:36 UTC
Alex Harumichi wrote:
Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently.




Right, so do that via the stats NOT the fitting. Fitting doesn't apply evenly across the games available hulls, punishing some more than others.
Alex Harumichi
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#164 - 2016-02-12 20:46:22 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Alex Harumichi wrote:
Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently.




Right, so do that via the stats NOT the fitting. Fitting doesn't apply evenly across the games available hulls, punishing some more than others.


Well, if you can't touch the fitting and have to do it via stats, you'd just have to flat-out nerf Damage Controls across the board. Hard. I'd be fine with that (like I said, I'm tired of it being a must-fit module and I guess CCP is also), but I think that sort of nerf would have large portions of the playerbase screaming bloody murder. What?

Right now, what they are trying to do is nerf the modules themselves, but counterbalance that with a buff to hull structure. I think that's a fairly reasonable path to take, honestly, even though that too will cause lots of extra rebalancing. A flat-out nerf to DCUs (with nothing to compensate) would also throw lots of balance out of whack, so there is no easy, problem-free solution here.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Noctis
Shoot First.
#165 - 2016-02-12 20:53:04 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
I'm all for making DCUs less mandatory in PVP fits. But the freighter buff is excessive and unwarranted.

Excusing it as a buff against ganking misses the point. A significantly stronger freighter means the pilot gets more time to call for help, more time to slowboat to a dock or jump...more time to find ways to not die. It's going to reduce non-gank freighter kills. I rarely gank, and have never ganked a freighter. But I've killed several freighters that were suspect or wartargets. This change is making it harder for me to kill people who foolishly put something like that in space when they can be shot.

In fact, this whole change is a buff to stupid untanked fits.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2016-02-12 20:58:48 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
boo passive DCU. Sad

btw what will happen to the hecate hull resistance bonus?


I think this is how the Hecate will play out:

Currently:
0% base resist, 60% DCII resist, 33.3% defensive mode resist.
The way resists combine, it's not 60% + 33.3% = 93.3%.
Nor is it 60% + 60%*33.3% = 80.3%.
Rather, incoming damage is resisted by 60%, then the remaining damage is resisted by 33.3%.
So the true hull resist of the Hecate is 60% + (1-60%)*33.3% = 73.3%.
(It's worth noting that there's actually no "first" or "then" in this calculation - reducing damage by 33.3% first then the remaining damage by 60% yields the exact same final resist of 73.3%)

After proposed changes:
33.3% base resist, 40% DCII resist, 33.3% defensive mode resist.
33.3% is resisted first.
Of the remaining 66.6% incoming damage, 40% is then resisted - that's an additional 26.6% damage mitigated, for a total of 60%, meaning 40% of the damage is now making it rhough. (This is why the new hull bonus + new DCII provides the exact same 60% hull resist as we have today.)
Of the remaining 40% of incoming damage, 33.3% of that is resisted - which is a further 13.3% of the original damage that is prevented.
33.3% + 26.6% + 13.3% = 73.3%, exactly the same as before.

The above is a roundabout way of saying that these changes will have no effect whatsoever on the Hecate's effective hull HP. This is neither a buff nor a nerf for the Hecate.

* - CCP descriptions say "33%" in various places, but the way the math works out it's clear they're actually using 1/3 as the number, not 0.30.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#167 - 2016-02-12 21:02:21 UTC
Alex Harumichi wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Alex Harumichi wrote:
Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently.




Right, so do that via the stats NOT the fitting. Fitting doesn't apply evenly across the games available hulls, punishing some more than others.


Well, if you can't touch the fitting and have to do it via stats, you'd just have to flat-out nerf Damage Controls across the board. Hard. I'd be fine with that (like I said, I'm tired of it being a must-fit module and I guess CCP is also), but I think that sort of nerf would have large portions of the playerbase screaming bloody murder. What?

Right now, what they are trying to do is nerf the modules themselves, but counterbalance that with a buff to hull structure. I think that's a fairly reasonable path to take, honestly, even though that too will cause lots of extra rebalancing. A flat-out nerf to DCUs (with nothing to compensate) would also throw lots of balance out of whack, so there is no easy, problem-free solution here.



Yeah but attacking the fittings is.....well it's a really weird way to go about it.

Someone else posted here that there are actually two IFFAs. Hopefully Fozzie grabbed the wrong one for the paste.

If that IFFA was 17, complaints start to drop off rapidly.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#168 - 2016-02-12 21:11:33 UTC
As for making DCU 's less mandatory, the DCU still provides better armour resists than a third EANM and is the only module to add resists to shield and the hull bonus is still pretty huge. The only ships i can see not using DCU 's are ships that didnt use them before.

Making them passive is apparently how they were always meant to be, but maybe they need nerfed harder.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2016-02-12 21:18:34 UTC
So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.

Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#170 - 2016-02-12 21:20:30 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.

Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?


It's more like 15 pages but if you feel like starting all over, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.
SilentAsTheGrave
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#171 - 2016-02-12 21:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: SilentAsTheGrave
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
But the freighter buff is excessive and unwarranted.

It is not excessive and is warranted. I for one love these changes. Blink
Roberta Gastoni
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2016-02-12 21:34:01 UTC
Quoting a very old post from when the DCU got implemented, the original dev (i don't remember who) said they wanted the DCU to be an active module with a "long cycle" and very little cap requirement to avoid to encourage AFK play styles and actually reward the player from being there, turning it on every jump / undock, compared to the player autopiloting afk.

People mostly commented about the effects of this choice against cap warfares doctrines, and the answer was that with so little cap requirements and the server ticks it was high unlikely to have it turned off.

I actually agree with this old dev post, and I think the DCU should stay an active module.

On the freighter argument, it is true that with a 5 weeks release schedule they can revert easily any buff they did, or buff something else on the gank side, if it turns out it destroys that play style.
Circumstantial Evidence
#173 - 2016-02-12 21:34:13 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?
The discussion was getting overheated and more about the argument itself, than the issues. I think the issues are well represented by what remains.
Roberta Gastoni
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2016-02-12 21:38:29 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.

Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?


I think this thread is more about "are we killing some fits with this change?" and "do you think making it passive is a good idea", rather than talking about freight balance and ganking profitability
Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2016-02-12 21:43:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jin Kugu
This OP is very uninviting for actual feedback. What is the point of giving actual feedback on a convoluted change that is only designed that way to nerf ganking?

If you just want to nerfbat ganking that is fine but don't expect decent feedback.

Some actual feedback.

- Review how balanced freighter ganking is with the recent wreck ehp buff. The wreck popping mechanic was beyond broken, it needed to be fixed. If I wanted to I could have solo killed every freighter wreck without any problems.

- If anything needs fixing about ganking, it's not EHP.

- Make damage controls passive, do a tiericide but get rid of the 33% inherent hull resist and any changes that result from it.
Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2016-02-12 21:44:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jin Kugu
Roberta Gastoni wrote:
Jin Kugu wrote:
So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.

Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?


I think this thread is more about "are we killing some fits with this change?" and "do you think making it passive is a good idea", rather than talking about freight balance and ganking profitability


I don't care what feedback ccp wants. I'm giving the feedback that is relevant to my experience in game.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#177 - 2016-02-12 21:49:33 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.

Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?



Except it was more like 15 pages of guff where you lot were just arguing in circles and the change itself was stopped being discussed after about post #3

Feedback welcome, WAA I HAT TEH GANKARSSSSZZZZ or WAAAAA TEH BEARSSSZZZZ not so much, not in this thread at least.
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#178 - 2016-02-12 21:56:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkar Omaristos
Masao Kurata wrote:
This thread is precisely about nerfing suicide ganking, the OP even says so, stop deleting posts to try to hide dissent.


See that makes sense to me. Absolutely, and that's a reason I can get behind.

But then why not just buff freighters structure HP rather than changing a module that affects almost all ships, and then add some knee-jerk reaction like changing the base HP of ALL SHIPS to compensate for the problems caused by it?

I know the answer but I feel like it's probably rude to point out that this was a make-work project for some bored devs.
Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2016-02-12 21:59:31 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
This thread is precisely about nerfing suicide ganking, the OP even says so, stop deleting posts to try to hide dissent.


See that makes sense to me.

But then why not just buff freighters structure HP rather than changing a module that affects almost all ships, and then add some knee-jerk reaction like changing to base HP of ALL SHIPS to compensate for it?

I know the answer but I feel like I'd be rude to say this was a make-work project for some bored devs.


I actually agree. Just buff freighter ehp if that's what CCP want, this proposed change is bad and convoluted
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#180 - 2016-02-12 22:00:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkar Omaristos
Jin Kugu wrote:
I actually agree. Just buff freighter ehp if that's what CCP want, this proposed change is bad and convoluted


^^ Exactly! Unnecessarily complicated for what they wanted to achieve. And there will be negative consequences to other ships because of it. :P