These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2016-02-12 22:08:43 UTC
I'm not going back to review what posts were deleted so i'm reiterating.

What is CCP's feeling about the exhumer rebalance so many patches ago? Do they really need even more free ehp?

I think they can only agree that they killed a lot of interesting gameplay and some of the biggest player run events. CCP should go look at a high sec Ice belt and just feel terrible about what they have done to a once intersting part of the game.

They are about to make similar mistake with these changes. The meta will shift to where freighter ganking is something you can only do for fun on a saturday with friends, not a way to play this game.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#182 - 2016-02-12 22:14:41 UTC
Tbh the whole idea needs a rethink. The idea that all ships should have this kind of buff, is ridiculous. I'm also dubious that making them passive is a good idea. The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation.

Please rethink this. Oh and if you're so concerned about keeping balance, then gankers are missing a few buffs. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2016-02-12 22:39:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
As a Freighter Pilot, why I think this change needs more thought:

In June 2014 when Freighters/JFs were given lowslots to provide choices around play, one aspect of the increased tank was that the changes provided some good options for smart players to mitigate their risk:

CCP Fozzie (2014) wrote:
...we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.

We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.


That was a welcome change as it gave options for tank or cargo and smart players that do manage risk gained an advantage over their competitors because they could easily run max cargo, while keeping themselves safe.

For quite a while now CCP have been talking about the benefits of rich experiences as having a positive benefit on player retention and wanting players to be involved in more group based activities.

So why buff AFK play at all, which is what this change does, while giving no benefit to those that already manage their risk effectively?

This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance.

Up to now, there has been an advantage that they can fit max cargo, take larger contracts, take more smaller contracts at a time and potentially out earn the solo AFK haulers who need to fit max tank in order to manage some of the risk of being AFK.

Now however, that playing field has been leveled. AFK play is receiving a significant buff to the point where they'll more easily be able to fit max tank and successfully haul AFK. The ability of group play to earn more than solo play is being reduced and in some cases, 2 players working cooperatively might end up earning less individually than a solo AFK hauler.

Giving an EHP buff to solo haulers so that they don't need to manage their risk, reduces the exact thing that was highlighted as a plus from the previous change.

This change provides nothing to those smart players identified before, and only benefits the lazy pilots they compete with.

At least, if this stays as is, change the default warp to distance for autopilot from 15km to 30km, so that the greater EHP of AFK haulers is balanced by the longer time it will take them to haul, providing an ability to maintain a competitive advantage by actually playing the game actively and with others.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#184 - 2016-02-12 22:40:31 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?

No, 10 pages were wasted on whether or not freighters should be banked or whether banking was good/bad/hard/easy. The fact that we diverged to spats on isk tanking for entire pages shows how far off track they got.
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#185 - 2016-02-12 22:57:46 UTC
If it's about freighter ganking, then this is an unnecessarily complicated fix to a simple problem. Buff freighter EHP only. Problem solved (without dicking around with every other ship in the game).
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#186 - 2016-02-12 22:59:20 UTC
Even though its a valid playstyle; I really could care less whether or not the freighters or exhumers are getting an HP buff or not. Bring more friends and choose different targets - crisis adverted.

I am more so concerned at the possibility of how much this will buff Gallente ship lines further. The passive 33% will be applied to all, but particularly buff Gallente ships.

Might be good, who knows. I do like the fact that it encourages fitting more modules other then the standard DCU.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#187 - 2016-02-12 23:00:27 UTC
Pandora Deninard wrote:
If it's about freighter ganking, then this is an unnecessarily complicated fix to a simple problem. Buff freighter EHP only. Problem solved (without dicking around with every other ship in the game).


I think its more so an issue of people nit picking that particular comment. Which was said as more of a "We know you will get upset about this gankers" as opposed to "We are only changing every DCU and all the fits its relevant to in the game because Freighters Hurr"
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2016-02-12 23:06:18 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
Mag's wrote:
Tbh the whole idea needs a rethink. The idea that all ships should have this kind of buff, is ridiculous. I'm also dubious that making them passive is a good idea. The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation.

Please rethink this. Oh and if you're so concerned about keeping balance, then gankers are missing a few buffs. Blink


Notwithstanding the whole ganker vs anti-ganker fight, for many pvp fits now it's going to be an actual fitting choice, rather than a requirement, to fit a DCU. This is going to shake up the meta, especially for armor and kiting fits. For example, it might be advantageous to fit an EANM instead of a DCU to a tormentor, or simply another heat sink. In any event, it gives players a new set of options, instead of making one module mandatory. Not a bad thing at all, it's simply a change that gives players new choices.

Also, I'd like to address this:

Quote:
The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation.


This particular 'keep EVE hard' line of reasoning adds little to the game but unneeded complexity. It's just one more keystroke, one extra button press that adds an extra opportunity for module lag or to take away from actually piloting your spacecraft. Functionally, the cap cost did nothing, even under neut pressure. Like training skills or death clones, it does nothing to add fun and meaningful game play for players. By extending this line of reasoning, do you think it would be a good idea to give all passive modules a trivial capacitor cost and cycle time in the name of emergent game play, or at some point does it simply become keystrokes for the sake of keystrokes?

I'm happy that CCP has done the right thing here and excised the majority of the ganker vs anti-ganker argument. Between the two of them, they're a toxic community that poison every discussion they're a part of. They're so caught up in their war with one another that they refuse to even acknowledge that other players might have a stake, or even input into this.
Circumstantial Evidence
#189 - 2016-02-12 23:11:41 UTC
This change isn't about freighter ganking, although those ships benefit. The first lines of the OP state giving every ship some hull resist % and reducing DCU hull resist % is designed to create a choice in fitting a DCU or not, where no choice seemed to exist before.
Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2016-02-12 23:18:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
This change isn't about freighter ganking, although those ships benefit. The first lines of the OP state giving every ship some hull resist % and reducing DCU hull resist % is designed to create a choice in fitting a DCU or not, where no choice seemed to exist before.

Yes, I totally agree. It's not directly, it just has an indirect benefit to those ships.

For a lot of situations, this is a great change. For pvp fits, a DC is just about compulsory in many cases and when working on a new fit, it's one of the first modules to consider fitting because of the benefit it provides.

But, since this is about rebalancing the DC and fitting options around its use, why buff ships that can't even fit it?

They don't have the option now at all, so it isn't a consideration of play with those ships anyway. Why buff those ships, when previous buffs have already accounted for their inability to fit a DC?

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2016-02-12 23:31:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
FT Cold wrote:
Mag's wrote:
]The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation.


This particular 'keep EVE hard' line of reasoning adds little to the game but unneeded complexity.

I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed.

It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots.

T1/T2 industrials, Orca and Bowhead are good examples. I can fit a Damage Control on all of them and when I haul, I gain advantage over AFK pilots because I can activate the module to gain the additional resists.

Switching the module to passive provides equal benefit to AFK pilots that they don't currently gain, particularly for example when autopiloting.

I'm not saying this change is bad, just that it isn't a 'keep Eve hard' change. There's nothing hard about activating a DC, but you do have to be present to do so.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#192 - 2016-02-12 23:38:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkar Omaristos
ALSO, this is NOT tiericide. Tiericide was initiated to get rid of all the "tiered" modules like meta 3 etc. that nobody ever used. None of these new threads are tiericide, they are nerfs in disguise. Increased CPU costs, lowered scram ranges, lowered hull resists (but a buff to structure EHP across the board), etc.

These changes consist mostly of rebalances. Ones that nobody asked for or wanted as far as I can tell. If it was tiericide there would be no change to the CPU costs or effects of these items, only removal of the unnecessary clutter of a bunch of different Meta varieties (which doesn't seem to be happening here).
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#193 - 2016-02-13 00:05:11 UTC
Violet Crumble wrote:

I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed.

It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots..

No, it was literally 'We don't have the codebase to make this a passive module'. They've said that themselves many times that it was originally intended to be passive but they had to make it active to work at the time.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#194 - 2016-02-13 00:31:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Jin Kugu wrote:
I actually agree. Just buff freighter ehp if that's what CCP want, this proposed change is bad and convoluted
But then that's not what the change is for, the change is part of the normal tiercide that is happening to all modules, the fact that it balances out ganking a bit is a minor part of the change.

All around it's a pretty good idea, reduces damage control as straight dependency and gets rid of the additional click by making it passive. Like they said way back when they removed clone levels, having something you have to click because that is the only good option is not good gameplay.

Thumbs up CCP.

Violet Crumble wrote:
This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance.
Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked.

Violet Crumble wrote:
But, since this is about rebalancing the DC and fitting options around its use, why buff ships that can't even fit it?
Because if they didn't fit it to all ships, then there would be a whole line of ships left behind the others. Giving it to ships that currently use the module still gives them that benefit plus the benefit of an extra slot available, so it stands to reason that all ships should gain the base stats, just some won't get the extra module space to go with it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2016-02-13 00:42:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:

I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed.

It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots..

No, it was literally 'We don't have the codebase to make this a passive module'. They've said that themselves many times that it was originally intended to be passive but they had to make it active to work at the time.

I'm currently looking for quotes either way. Haven't found any yet. Will keep looking.

No problem if I'm wrong on that history. I just remember something being said along those lines. It's not a big issue for me either way really. I don't mind that change in the slightest.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2016-02-13 00:46:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Lucas Kell wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:
This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance.
Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked.

Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid.

There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe.

And yes, of course AFK haulers will still be the primary target of gankers. I didn't say anything different. The balance between active, group based hauling and AFK hauling is still changed though for a situation that doesn't ever currently benefit from a Damage Control.

Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#197 - 2016-02-13 00:48:28 UTC
Violet Crumble wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:
This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance.
Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked.

Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid.

There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe.



+1

If you need your EHP in a non-combat ship something has gone fundamentally wrong somewhere.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#198 - 2016-02-13 00:53:39 UTC
Violet Crumble wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:
This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance.
Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked.

Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid.

There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe.

And yes, of course AFK haulers will still be the primary target of gankers. I didn't say anything different. The balance is still changed though for a situation that doesn't ever currently benefit from a Damage Control.

Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now.

Don't mind our friend Lucas here,

I totally agree with you
Afk don't need a buff
It'll just attract more bots

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#199 - 2016-02-13 00:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Could nerf freighter structure hp by 33%. Or slightly less if you feel it balances with the wreck hp change.

edit-wreck not structure

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

Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2016-02-13 01:08:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Could nerf freighter structure hp by 33%. Or slightly less if you feel it balances with the structure hp change.

This change is about balance for the Damage Control. That's where it should stay.

Freighters can't fit a damage control, so don't need a buff because of a Damage Control nerf.

They just don't need to be affected by this change at all, since it's about a module that isn't relevant to them.

edit: Didn't see your edit, so my response is to your original post, not the change making it about wrecks.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime