These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

"Resist bonuses are over powered" -CCP Fozzie
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#21 - 2013-02-22 17:04:05 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
The solution here is simple increase the repair bonus to bring it inline with the resistance bonus.

Except that it is in line. The EHP pr cycle is almost completely the same on a ship with 5% resist and a ship with 7.5% repair amount.

The problem is that the ship with resist bonus also get a lot more EHP from remote repairing and a lot bigger buffer tank.

Not sure if your statement was serious....

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-02-22 17:18:59 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
The solution here is simple increase the repair bonus to bring it inline with the resistance bonus.


Welp, if you increase that rep amount, I can still fit them to my resist bonused hull, making it exponentially better.

Resists in this case would be even better.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Notorious Fellon
#23 - 2013-02-22 17:26:43 UTC
Nerf Fozzie.

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#24 - 2013-02-22 20:46:45 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
"The 5% resist is over all a better bonus than the 7.5% rep bonuses, it's also overall better than the 10% rep bonus."

http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/Insertshownamehere.mp3

27 minutes in.

He continues to argue that it's an advantage that the AAR runs a lot longer. How is slow cycle time a good thing?

*Edit: Removed confusing and possibly offensive comparison*

So there it is. Resist bonuses are overpowered and quote "better than 10% rep in almost all cases".

I know we are only at "Armor tanking 1.5", but where will this go to make active armor tanking balanced? Will we keep the local rep bonus?

The reason that resist bonuses are better is that they apply in all cases. They work with remote rep and passive tanks and active repair amount bonuses don't. Gallente needs a bonus that isn't limited to only working in certain specific situations or the other races need bonuses that are.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2013-02-23 02:57:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
Nomad I wrote:
@Fozzie: There is a world outside one versus one.

Without resistences med sized fights with triage carriers are not doable. Logistics is always more effective with more resistences.


commas

now. what about how base armor resistances are higher than base shield resists, and more complete

also: WTS rattlesnakes with 13 charge ASBs lol

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#26 - 2013-02-23 03:02:41 UTC
Here is an entire thread full of people who are so wrapped up in a game that a balancing decision they don't agree with is compared to Hitler because of their own selfish greed. Grow the **** up. On topic: we don't know whether the armor changes are sufficient to bring armor tanking back in line. I fully believe that the only way you people would be happy is if armor tanking was so obviously overpowered that not fitting a large AAR to your dreadnaught was considered ******* stupid.

Harden the **** up and start playing the goddamn game instead of whining on the ******* forums.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-02-23 03:05:01 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
"The 5% resist is over all a better bonus than the 7.5% rep bonuses, it's also overall better than the 10% rep bonus."

http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/Insertshownamehere.mp3

27 minutes in.

He continues to argue that it's an advantage that the AAR runs a lot longer. How is slow cycle time a good thing?

*Edit: Removed confusing and possibly offensive comparison*

So there it is. Resist bonuses are overpowered and quote "better than 10% rep in almost all cases".

I know we are only at "Armor tanking 1.5", but where will this go to make active armor tanking balanced? Will we keep the local rep bonus?


he has come to that conclusion because i continually pestered him about in the tanking 1.5 thread. I argued that the tanking bonus should include incoming RR and then he said that would be op. then people got upset and said how does not make the resist bonus not op?

my fix for the situation is to make the 5% or 25% to blanked armour/shield resist to 5% to effectiveness of passive resist mods.

pretty much it would make a passive resist mod as good as an active one. but you can only select certain damage resist profiles plus this would make energy adaptive as good as an invul on certain ships.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-02-23 03:10:21 UTC
Zendon Taredi wrote:
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
that and the fact that the ASB not only uses no cap with boosters, but also makes amuch better rep burst tank, then you got the AAR that not only needs the charges but still uses cap, still has a WAY longer Cycle time for what is still a very modest rep amount boost.


Shield bc's might use an X-large ASB, while armor bc's might be using a Medium AAR.


problem is shield = oversized active tank

armor = oversized extenders...

only thing is both medium sized ships can fit the large versions of extending mods i.e. plates/shield extenders...

if this is to be true we need 3200 mm rolled plates for bs sized ships.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#29 - 2013-02-23 03:18:06 UTC
fukier wrote:

he has come to that conclusion because i continually pestered him about in the tanking 1.5 thread. I argued that the tanking bonus should include incoming RR and then he said that would be op. then people got upset and said how does not make the resist bonus not op?

my fix for the situation is to make the 5% or 25% to blanked armour/shield resist to 5% to effectiveness of passive resist mods.

pretty much it would make a passive resist mod as good as an active one. but you can only select certain damage resist profiles plus this would make energy adaptive as good as an invul on certain ships.


What I think is really important to consider is that it's simply inevitable that certain bonuses will be more powerful than other bonuses. However, what matters in the end is the overall package. So while a ship may have a resist bonus, it'll also be paired with bad fittings or other disadvantages that even things out. So, in the end it is eminently reasonable that buffing incoming RR on ships which have an active tank bonus would in all actuality be overpowered. Because the strength of their bonuses and the fittings that they have and the speed that they have were all designed with the whole package in mind.

I think it's a relatively reasonable approach to game design.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-02-23 03:33:50 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
fukier wrote:

he has come to that conclusion because i continually pestered him about in the tanking 1.5 thread. I argued that the tanking bonus should include incoming RR and then he said that would be op. then people got upset and said how does not make the resist bonus not op?

my fix for the situation is to make the 5% or 25% to blanked armour/shield resist to 5% to effectiveness of passive resist mods.

pretty much it would make a passive resist mod as good as an active one. but you can only select certain damage resist profiles plus this would make energy adaptive as good as an invul on certain ships.


What I think is really important to consider is that it's simply inevitable that certain bonuses will be more powerful than other bonuses. However, what matters in the end is the overall package. So while a ship may have a resist bonus, it'll also be paired with bad fittings or other disadvantages that even things out. So, in the end it is eminently reasonable that buffing incoming RR on ships which have an active tank bonus would in all actuality be overpowered. Because the strength of their bonuses and the fittings that they have and the speed that they have were all designed with the whole package in mind.

I think it's a relatively reasonable approach to game design.

-Liang


agreed which is why i dropped the suggestion to make the active bonus work for RR.

but i still think the resist bonus is op. (as does fozz) which leads to my new suggestion.

whether that results in a change in the bonus or not i am glad its acknowledged and that its something ccp will take into future balancing.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-02-23 03:46:04 UTC
The solution here is simple: Ditch the lacklustre rep bonus and replace it with a resistance bonus on all ships with the rep bonus. Let the players decide if they want to buffer, or active.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2013-02-23 03:49:45 UTC
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#33 - 2013-02-23 08:46:21 UTC
I'm sure CCP will address this imbalance the way they do all imbalances.

Wait 2-3years until they can sell the fix as part of a themed expansion,

then rework the entire system into something that increases the imbalance and introduces new problems.

Seriously?
I think they were on the right track, but somewhere along the line they wandered off the path and just kept walking like "whatev, I got this"

So much work and so many good ideas come out of CCP, when you look at AAR vs ASB, two modules recently balanced with each other in mind.... it hurts the brain to wonder how they could have missed the mark by SO MUCH.
Turelus
Utassi Security
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#34 - 2013-02-23 09:29:29 UTC
Nomad I wrote:
@Fozzie: There is a world outside one versus one.

Without resistences med sized fights with triage carriers are not doable. Logistics is always more effective with more resistences.

This, local reps will NEVER be able to stop 100 people shooting you without breaking small gang PVP.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#35 - 2013-02-23 11:53:14 UTC
WTF is this from?

Also listening to it all the way through atm, wtf is TACK?
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#36 - 2013-02-23 12:25:13 UTC
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
...then you got the AAR that not only needs the charges but still uses cap, still has a WAY longer Cycle time for what is still a very modest rep amount boost.


An ASB is limited by cargo space while AAR are not. So thankfully they DO use cap, becaues otherwise it would just be cheated.

And for the "modest rep amount boost", T2 large armor repair repairs 800, while T1 (remember this is T1 module) Large AAR repairs 1350. You armor guys are never satisfied aren't ya ?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#37 - 2013-02-23 13:17:18 UTC
Altrue wrote:
An ASB is limited by cargo space while AAR are not. So thankfully they DO use cap, becaues otherwise it would just be cheated.

And for the "modest rep amount boost", T2 large armor repair repairs 800, while T1 (remember this is T1 module) Large AAR repairs 1350. You armor guys are never satisfied aren't ya ?

A medium AAR repairs 45 HP/s
An L-ASB boosts 97,8 HP/s
An XL-ASB boosts 196 HP/s

You shield guys never want balance do ya?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-02-23 14:53:24 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Hannott Thanos wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
The solution here is simple increase the repair bonus to bring it inline with the resistance bonus.

Except that it is in line. The EHP pr cycle is almost completely the same on a ship with 5% resist and a ship with 7.5% repair amount.

The problem is that the ship with resist bonus also get a lot more EHP from remote repairing and a lot bigger buffer tank.

Not sure if your statement was serious....


Then obviously it is not inline otherwise we wouldn't be having that issue. I don't understand why your bringing that up in your first statement, if they are considered equal yet the active tank bonuses are still bad then its time to try increasing the active tank bonus.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-02-23 14:57:05 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
The solution here is simple increase the repair bonus to bring it inline with the resistance bonus.


Welp, if you increase that rep amount, I can still fit them to my resist bonused hull, making it exponentially better.

Resists in this case would be even better.


Not the repair amount of the module, the repair bonus on the hull.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#40 - 2013-02-23 14:58:06 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
The solution here is simple increase the repair bonus to bring it inline with the resistance bonus.


Welp, if you increase that rep amount, I can still fit them to my resist bonused hull, making it exponentially better.

Resists in this case would be even better.


Not the repair amount of the module, the repair bonus on the hull.

To what? Fozzie said that even a 10% bonus is still inferior to the 5% resist bonus.
In what world do you think they would ever increase the bonus to 15%?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Previous page123Next page