These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#721 - 2016-02-25 21:46:54 UTC
The Ginger Sith wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Don't have to, just need to look at the stats of the new mod.

After we take into account the 33% resists added to ships we can see that the new DCU II will get 12.5% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure. End result is... the same as we have now.




you need to learn how the hull resist from a damage control is even applied i don't have the exact math but the 33% and the 40% will not add up to 73% it will prolly be under the current 60% we get now.



now:

Hull-HP divided by 0.4 ( which is equal to 1- 60 % hull resistance) = 2.50 ehp

after patch: Hull-HP multiplied by 1.33 and divided by 0.6 (1 - 40 % hull resistance) = 2.22 ehp

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#722 - 2016-02-25 21:49:16 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Now you have moved the goal posts.
No, I haven't, just as usual you've jumped in, not bothered reading the context of the posts and started throwing your 2 cents around, completely missing that you are now countering baltecs claims yourself. I'm not getting into this discussion with you as it is already off topic.


I am not refuting anything baltec1 has written. He is merely making the point: RFF flies smart...they hardly fail a contract. Implication: Fly smarter you'll be ganked less.

Your hypothetical fantasy is where only RFF is flying freighters. Which is stupid and useless.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#723 - 2016-02-25 21:49:17 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%.

After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields.



Nope:

damage control has a bonus of 60 % to hull, 12.5 % to shield and 15 % to armor RIGHT NOW

PRE patch :)
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#724 - 2016-02-25 21:53:41 UTC
HandelsPharmi wrote:
The Ginger Sith wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Don't have to, just need to look at the stats of the new mod.

After we take into account the 33% resists added to ships we can see that the new DCU II will get 12.5% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure. End result is... the same as we have now.




you need to learn how the hull resist from a damage control is even applied i don't have the exact math but the 33% and the 40% will not add up to 73% it will prolly be under the current 60% we get now.



now:

Hull-HP divided by 0.4 ( which is equal to 1- 60 % hull resistance) = 2.50 ehp

after patch: Hull-HP multiplied by 1.33 and divided by 0.6 (1 - 40 % hull resistance) = 2.22 ehp



No. Check your formula.

1 - (1-native resists)*(1-module resists).

If you add a second module of the same type you'll also have to factor in stacking penalties. Since you can only fit on DC at a time, stacking penalties are not a factor.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#725 - 2016-02-25 21:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
HandelsPharmi wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%.

After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields.



Nope:

damage control has a bonus of 60 % to hull, 12.5 % to shield and 15 % to armor RIGHT NOW

PRE patch :)


Your math is wrong.

Here, whip out EFT, and try your formula with armor resists and check it against EFT.

Or go here.

Edit: Example using a Maller...

Native thermal armor resist: 0.48
Adding an Armor Thermic Hardener II with resists of 0.55

1 - (1 - 0.48)*(1 - 0.55) = 0.766.

EFT says: 0.766 resists.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#726 - 2016-02-26 06:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: HandelsPharmi
Teckos Pech wrote:

Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%.

After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields.



Nope:

damage control has a bonus of 60 % to hull, 12.5 % to shield and 15 % to armor RIGHT NOW

PRE patch :)


Check it ingame :)

Damge control provides a bonus to hull, armor and shield right NOW
Not after the patch only!
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#727 - 2016-02-26 12:56:24 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If RFF were the only gank targets in the game, they would be killed at a much much MUCH higher rate than they are. They aren't surviving because pro players can survive, they are surviving because given the choice between targets the gankers pick the softest and most valuable ones.


I know there's quote limits, so the rest of your quotes I'm just going to italicize.

You're making an assumption that requires multiple targets of otherwise equal value to be present at the same time, where the gankers just decide not to attack one freighter because they magically know the packages inside the NPC-pilot's cargo are from RFF. This isn't the case and it's unreasonable to assume such a case. Freighters pass through chockepoints all the time with no other freighters coming through the pipe. These areas are busy, but they're not Jita Undock busy at all times. There are many times RFF-involved freighters are the only ones on grid, and they still don't get hit. Why? Because they put in an amount of effort that dramatically raises the amount of effort gankers have to put in to achieve a kill (or profit from it). It's really that simple.

because pilots who aren't in RFF which we don't have stats for are likely killed at a much higher rate

You can double or triple a trivial base number, and you end up with a Dilbert comic that did this exact thing. When you make yourself the butt of a joke Dilbert did about ten years ago, you're know you're not on the right track.

I can quite happily dismiss the data without any problems thanks.

And you can also quite happily say the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around you. You'd be just as correct doing so and look just as smart for making that assertion. If you dismiss facts out of hand and say you live in your own reality where facts aren't real but your own gut instincts are, why do you think you deserve to be part of any rational or reasonable discussion among adults?

Here a fact for you, it's impossible to make a freighter ungankable short of refusing to undock it

And? Why is that a problem for you? Why is that something that needs to be rectified? That is a baseline fact of EVERY ship, from rookie ship to titan, that everyone else seems to understand but you. But you bring that specific line up again and again as if it's some sort of strange anomaly that only effects freighters.

Golly gosh, well clearly with you guys being in support of him, he must be right! It's not like you guys band together to attack people who's opinions oppose yours right?


So wait a minute now. Now your argument is that people that share similar opinions tend to agree?

This is an argument, how?

And you're presenting as some sort of conspiracy theory?

Yes, people who share similar opinions on a particular topic tend to, well, agree. Is this a surprise to you? When you opine on something and your friends agree, do you argue with them for the sake of arguing? Would it surprise you to learn that in the real world, lots of people with similar opinions congregate together to create things like political parties?

I thought the absolute height of idiocy was your claim that people are somehow wrong for playing the game right. But now you've managed to take a very basic element of how the real world operates, act shocked and chagrined at this apparent revelation, and then present it as some sort of conspiracy theory against yourself.

Over the course of this thread you've claimed that facts won't change your position once you've taken up an opinion on something, that people playing the game right are to be ignored and the game must continuously be changed to accommodate people who refuse to learn how to play, and that people speaking up with opinions contrary to your own are in on some sort of conspiracy against you. Dude, pack up and go home. You're done here. You have no credibility in this discussion and your connection with reality is now suspect at best.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#728 - 2016-02-26 13:07:52 UTC
Are people still trying to argue a DCU is optional*?

Lol



*Snowflake shitfits need not apply
Jean-Luc
CBC Interstellar
Goonswarm Federation
#729 - 2016-02-26 13:13:58 UTC
Yay, finally an officer damage control,

I like the new changes to hull resists, and how freighters will be more tanky.
GR455H0PPER
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#730 - 2016-02-26 13:48:24 UTC  |  Edited by: GR455H0PPER
whats the point,deleted
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
#731 - 2016-02-26 14:02:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Algarion Getz
Masao Kurata wrote:
How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT.

There is little freigher ganking? 30-50 successfull freighter ganks happen every day. Thats a lot when you consider that freighters are not dirt-cheap throw-away ships like the ganker's catalysts.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#732 - 2016-02-26 15:07:52 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
You're making an assumption that requires multiple targets of otherwise equal value to be present at the same time, where the gankers just decide not to attack one freighter because they magically know the packages inside the NPC-pilot's cargo are from RFF.
No I'm not, I just know that gankers will select targets with higher values of isk, not being escorted and having low tank first. They know that such targets exists ad will happily seek them out. If those targets weren't to exist, they would pick less appealing targets through necessity. So what I'm saying is that RFF stats are only achievable through the existence of alternate targets, so if everyone were to play perfectly (the hypothetical situation on which baltec believes the game should be balanced) the achievable level of safety wouldn't reflect the existing RFF stats. Honestly, It's not that hard a concept to understand. Personally I think the game should be balanced more around averages vOv.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
And you can also quite happily say the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around you. You'd be just as correct doing so and look just as smart for making that assertion. If you dismiss facts out of hand and say you live in your own reality where facts aren't real but your own gut instincts are, why do you think you deserve to be part of any rational or reasonable discussion among adults?
Which would be great if the data being provided were a complete picture of the situation, were provably accurate and relevant to the situation. It's like when I see an advert on TV that says 80% of people that use this product love it, followed by smallprint that tells you they asked 5 people. I dismiss that too.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
And? Why is that a problem for you? Why is that something that needs to be rectified? That is a baseline fact of EVERY ship, from rookie ship to titan, that everyone else seems to understand but you. But you bring that specific line up again and again as if it's some sort of strange anomaly that only effects freighters.
It's not something that needs to be rectified, it;s a good solid part of the game, and even after this change will still exist. The point is that nothing RFF are doing guarantees their safety. Given enough gankers they would lose 100% of the ships they undocked. So effectively what baltec is saying is that because there are a limited number of gankers and because those limited gankers more often choose non-RFF targets that all haulers should be punished and gankers should not have to adapt to changes.


Khan Wrenth wrote:
So wait a minute now. Now your argument is that people that share similar opinions tend to agree?
No, my argument is that certain people leap into attacking people opposing their arguments without actually providing any content of their own. Turning up to a thread going "you're stupid, lol" doesn't strengthen the argument against me, all it does is show how desperate these people are to save themselves from the very principles in EVE they claim to support. Pretty much if you have to resort to personal attacks in your posts, then it's a sign you're argument sucks, so well done buddy, you've just weakened your argument.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
Dude, pack up and go home. You're done here. You have no credibility in this discussion and your connection with reality is now suspect at best.
No thanks, I don't just stop having an opinion because some people go off and rant at me a bit. Put up a convincing argument for why ganking should be even easier or an alternative solution to what CCP is providing and perhaps you can convince me but repeatedly insulting me and telling me how wrong I am - for no reason other than holding a different opinion to you - only strengthens my resolve.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#733 - 2016-02-26 15:12:06 UTC
Algarion Getz wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT.

There is little freigher ganking? 30-50 successfull freighter ganks happen every day. Thats a lot when you consider that freighters are not dirt-cheap throw-away ships like the ganker's catalysts.



Try half that value. Less than 15 per day in January, and not all of those were to gankers.

Put another way, some 0.6 deaths per hour. Given the number floating about, that is a tiny fraction.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#734 - 2016-02-26 16:13:08 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Try half that value. Less than 15 per day in January, and not all of those were to gankers.

Put another way, some 0.6 deaths per hour. Given the number floating about, that is a tiny fraction.
Consider how little isk is made by a freighter pilot. Then consider how much is made by carrier ratters. Then consider that even though carriers don't even operate in highsec (so all should be exposed much more frequently to risk), then consider that only 26 per day were lost in January. So far for feb, Carriers are 23/day, freighters are 17/day. Throw dreadnaughts in with their 14/day in January and 12/day so far in feb, and this tells us that freighters are destroyed in line with other capital ships, even though most of their losses occur in a section of space designed to increase safety.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#735 - 2016-02-26 16:31:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
HandelsPharmi wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%.

After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields.



Nope:

damage control has a bonus of 60 % to hull, 12.5 % to shield and 15 % to armor RIGHT NOW

PRE patch :)


Check it ingame :)

Damge control provides a bonus to hull, armor and shield right NOW
Not after the patch only!


No, your math is wrong. Maybe the resists on the test server are different, but that does not change the fact that you are applying the wrong formula to calculate resists. I have shown how my formula works in two cases, one using a DC, pre and post patch, and also for a thermal armor hardener.

And my numbers post patch do NOT include a 60% resist to hull, but a 40% resist along with the native resists of 33%.

Okay. One. More. Time. On. The Formula.

Pre-Patch effect of slapping a DC II on a ship.

1 - (1-0.6) = 0.6

Okay, HandelsPharmi, do you see the bolded, italicized, and underlined number? That is the pre-patch resist that applies when putting a DC II on a ship.

Post-Patch effect of slapping a DC II on a ship.

1 - (1-(1/3))*(1-0.4) = 0.6

or using all fractions:

1 - (1 - (1/3))*(1 - (2/5)) = 1 - (2/3)*(3/5) = 1 - (2/5) = 1 - 0.4 = 0.6

HandelsPharmi, do you see the bolded, italicized and underlined 1/3? That is the post patch change to native hull resists. Next, do you see the bolded, italicized and underlined 0.4? That is the hull resists for putting a DC II on a ship.

Note these are POST PATCH numbers from the OP. Maybe on the test server they have different numbers which could give you a different answer, but that formula is the correct one.

Of course, maybe they changed the formula...but that would be a major change and they should be telling us, IMO. They also might have been lazy and just put in something like 0.33 vs. 1/3 which will also give you a slightly different answer (0.598 hull resists).

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#736 - 2016-02-26 16:50:34 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Try half that value. Less than 15 per day in January, and not all of those were to gankers.

Put another way, some 0.6 deaths per hour. Given the number floating about, that is a tiny fraction.
Consider how little isk is made by a freighter pilot. Then consider how much is made by carrier ratters. Then consider that even though carriers don't even operate in highsec (so all should be exposed much more frequently to risk), then consider that only 26 per day were lost in January. So far for feb, Carriers are 23/day, freighters are 17/day. Throw dreadnaughts in with their 14/day in January and 12/day so far in feb, and this tells us that freighters are destroyed in line with other capital ships, even though most of their losses occur in a section of space designed to increase safety.


Hi, I am Lucas Kell and I like to compare apples to oranges on a routine basis and pretend they are the same. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#737 - 2016-02-26 16:55:46 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Algarion Getz wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT.

There is little freigher ganking? 30-50 successfull freighter ganks happen every day. Thats a lot when you consider that freighters are not dirt-cheap throw-away ships like the ganker's catalysts.



Try half that value. Less than 15 per day in January, and not all of those were to gankers.

Put another way, some 0.6 deaths per hour. Given the number floating about, that is a tiny fraction.


What Morrigan wrote. What we need to look at is the rate of ganking. Also, we need to consider that many of those ganked are flying stupidly (way too much ISK value for the cargo, no scout, no webbing, some even AFK auto-piloting).

Try this. Get an expensive non-freighter ship, put some really blingy modules on it and start having it autopilot back and forth through the pipe from Jita to Dodixie. My guess is if you do it enough, you will get ganked. Because you were dumb. Very, very dumb. In this game being dumb comes with an actual cost.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#738 - 2016-02-26 17:03:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Hi, I am Lucas Kell and I like to compare apples to oranges on a routine basis and pretend they are the same. Roll
LOL, yes, let's not compare the loss rates with anything, let's just say how many freighters are killed and then say "that's low because I said it is". Comparing capital ships to other capital ships of similar price isn't even bad. If I were to compare them to loss rates of titans for example then it would be apples to oranges, this is more like comparing granny smiths to golden delicious.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#739 - 2016-02-26 17:05:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Hi, I am Lucas Kell and I like to compare apples to oranges on a routine basis and pretend they are the same. Roll
LOL, yes, let's not compare the loss rates with anything, let's just say how many freighters are killed and then say "that's low because I said it is". Comparing capital ships to other capital ships of similar price isn't even bad. If I were to compare them to loss rates of titans for example then it would be apples to oranges, this is more like comparing granny smiths to golden delicious.


Ratting carriers have nothing in common with freighters.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#740 - 2016-02-26 17:13:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Hi, I am Lucas Kell and I like to compare apples to oranges on a routine basis and pretend they are the same. Roll
LOL, yes, let's not compare the loss rates with anything, let's just say how many freighters are killed and then say "that's low because I said it is". Comparing capital ships to other capital ships of similar price isn't even bad. If I were to compare them to loss rates of titans for example then it would be apples to oranges, this is more like comparing granny smiths to golden delicious.


Ratting carriers have nothing in common with freighters.


Well...I guess you could argue they are both capitals, like one could argue apples and oranges are both fruit. But to try and make the point that loss rates across a category of ships like Lucas is doing is just daft.

Carriers, currently, are used in ratting, combat and triage.

Freighters, currently, are used to haul large amounts of cargo.

Why should we expect loss rates to be even close? Never mind the problem with data such as how many of each do people own, how often are they in space, etc.

Edit:

Also, most carriers are probably found in NS. Many people who use carriers may be more prudent than people using freighters. So, loss rates would be different not due to mechanics, but due to player behavior. Which is fine and a feature, IMO. Trying to ensure loss rates are the same by constantly adjusting mechanics is just simply stupid in the extreme.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online