These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

"Resist bonuses are over powered" -CCP Fozzie
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-02-23 15:03:03 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
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%?


The world where they want both tanking systems to be viable and equal. Another idea is giving them a cap reduction to local repair bonus in addition to their increase in repair amount.

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
fukier
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2013-02-23 15:35:41 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
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%?


The world where they want both tanking systems to be viable and equal. Another idea is giving them a cap reduction to local repair bonus in addition to their increase in repair amount.


i like that idea!

no really i do. one of the problems with active tanks is the cap consumption... reducing the cap by 37.5% will greatly reduce the amount of either cap rechargers i need for pve or cap boosters for pvp plus wont hurt hybrid setups that much.

that with reworking the 5% to resist bonus to being a 5% to effectivness of passive resist mods will bring balance to the two respective bonus.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-02-23 16:12:19 UTC  |  Edited by: fukier
I think another way to bring balance to armor is to rework armor plates...

fozz did this kinda by reducing mass on some of the plates but even him said that plates like 50 mm are useless...

so how about rebalance all the plates then?

what i would do is turn the plates into small medium and large versions (i would change the fittings so you cant fit a medium on a small ship and a large on a medium ship)

i would also get rid of the 50 mm 100 mm and so on names and replace with ligh and heavy variates for the three fittings levels

i would first make the light plates 800mm, 200mm and 50mm and increase thier base hp increase to 75% of thier current heavy versions so a 50mm or small light would add 141 armor

and for the heavy versions i would increase the hp boost by 25%
so for 100mm, 400mm and 1600mm and then increase mass by 25%
so the new small heavy armor plate would give you 235 armour and mass adition of 46875 kg

This would make the honeycomb skill usefull for light plates.

plus give a clear role use for both light and heavy plates.

a light plate would give great hp and have really good mass adition making it good for fast setups and the heavy would add lots of hp but make the ship really slow...

so each would ahve thier trade offs but still usefull.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#44 - 2013-02-23 18:29:09 UTC
fukier wrote:

fozz did this kinda by reducing mass on some of the plates but even him said that plates like 50 mm are useless...

so how about rebalance all the plates then?

what i would do is turn the plates into small medium and large versions (i would change the fittings so you cant fit a medium on a small ship and a large on a medium ship)

i would also get rid of the 50 mm 100 mm and so on names and replace with ligh and heavy variates for the three fittings levels


There's pretty much nothing he can do to make 50mm and 100mm plates useful. His first inclination is to delete them outright.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2013-02-23 20:25:06 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
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%?


Fozzie means that in general context, rep bonus is only useful in solo/micro gang pvp, resist bonus helps in everything. However 10% rep amount bonus would be clearly superior to 5% resists when using local reps, the 7.5% already is better but by a very, very thin margin and only when you pile on the reppers.

.
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
#46 - 2013-02-23 20:49:56 UTC
Caldari 5 wrote:
WTF is this from?

Also listening to it all the way through atm, wtf is TACK?



Its from the radio show I do EVERY week. We had Fozzie on this week to talk about 1.1 and how good CCP think it has gone

Live on Eve Radio Sundays 15:00 GMT with me & friends talking about Eve and stuff. Twitter, Facebook TotalEve
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#47 - 2013-02-23 21:03:45 UTC
What's this all about? Just reduce the resist bonus from 5 to 4% and see what happens.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2013-02-23 21:08:02 UTC
Well... it's always been like this in some ways. Resist bonuses are ideal for large scale PvP with fleets and so forth since reps can almost never keep up and resists will therefore keep you from popping in the alpha of that first volley and hopefully get a couple more shots off. Even if they upped the rep bonus to 10% the 5% bonus to resist would have a role in large scale pvp between buffer fitted fleets of battleships.

Still the biggest problem with active reps in pvp in small gangs is their cost in cap. It's why the ASB and AAR will be the main modules for 'tanking' in small scale gang combat for a long time to come I'd wager. The idea of a cap stable tanking ships is almost exclusive to PvE... but maybe reducing the cap cost for local reps would encourage more variety in fittings.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#49 - 2013-02-23 21:14:36 UTC
Replace "7,5% local rep bonus per level" with "10% bonus to EHP and local rep per level".

Problem solved?
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#50 - 2013-02-23 21:30:06 UTC
I really need to focus. I thought the thread title said "Racist Bonuses", despite having seen this thread all day.

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]
Mr Ignitious
Lifeline Industries
#51 - 2013-02-23 22:29:22 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.



A lot of people are entirely missing the point of ASB and AARs: They are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FOR FLEETS. They are supposed to better for small engagements, and LSE's and plates for fleets to keep you from getting blapped.

In fact, it's becoming a problem how frequently people are using ASB's as superior buffer tanks to LSE's.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#52 - 2013-02-23 22:39:19 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
fukier wrote:

fozz did this kinda by reducing mass on some of the plates but even him said that plates like 50 mm are useless...

so how about rebalance all the plates then?

what i would do is turn the plates into small medium and large versions (i would change the fittings so you cant fit a medium on a small ship and a large on a medium ship)

i would also get rid of the 50 mm 100 mm and so on names and replace with ligh and heavy variates for the three fittings levels


There's pretty much nothing he can do to make 50mm and 100mm plates useful. His first inclination is to delete them outright.

-Liang


On a related note, what about small shield extenders?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#53 - 2013-02-24 05:29:23 UTC
DJWiggles wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
WTF is this from?

Also listening to it all the way through atm, wtf is TACK?



Its from the radio show I do EVERY week. We had Fozzie on this week to talk about 1.1 and how good CCP think it has gone


Radio Show? which station and where is it?

I re-listened to the show again, I think I figured out what the TACK was, it is a "-" Hyphen/Dash/Minus sign, I've never heard it called TACK before.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-02-24 13:22:26 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.



Exactly. The reason why I think this active repair bonus should be a little better and should be slightly increased without touching the current AAR modules. (at frigate size rep is already balanced imho)

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#55 - 2013-02-24 13:29:59 UTC
DJWiggles wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
WTF is this from?

Also listening to it all the way through atm, wtf is TACK?



Its from the radio show I do EVERY week. We had Fozzie on this week to talk about 1.1 and how good CCP think it has gone




Excellent work by the way, thank you.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-02-25 06:25:19 UTC
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.
I haven't used the AAR yet but I'm thinking that if it were to be able to run a lot more cycles than the ASB before needing to reload and if it reloaded quickly, it would be balanced just fine. It makes shields great for burst tanking and armor great for sustained tank. When you want armor for burst tank, you buffer tank. When you want shields for sustained tank, you buffer tank.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#57 - 2013-02-25 08:21:44 UTC
Does Fozzie have like a yearly nerf quota or something?

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#58 - 2013-02-25 08:25:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
Reaver Glitterstim 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.
I haven't used the AAR yet but I'm thinking that if it were to be able to run a lot more cycles than the ASB before needing to reload and if it reloaded quickly, it would be balanced just fine. It makes shields great for burst tanking and armor great for sustained tank. When you want armor for burst tank, you buffer tank. When you want shields for sustained tank, you buffer tank.

Agree. They are very clear on the "armor should not be equal to shield." and "armor is supposed to be a more sustained type of tank."

And yet, the AAR has all the downsides and none of the benefits of the ASB*

*Ok, you can run it after it's out of charges for a stupidly small amount of rep.

Edit: I'd like to add to this thread as I said in the other. Tanking is approaching balance, but the use of multiple ASB's is not good. You should not be able to permatank with a system designed for burst tank. You have to use 8 slots on a myrmidon to armor tank as well as the use of a 2 slot asb tank on the same ship. It's only reasonable that the armor tank should be sustainable for longer.

To sum it up. Set a limit to 1 on the fitting of ASB's and we are nearly there

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
#59 - 2013-02-25 17:17:21 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
DJWiggles wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
WTF is this from?

Also listening to it all the way through atm, wtf is TACK?



Its from the radio show I do EVERY week. We had Fozzie on this week to talk about 1.1 and how good CCP think it has gone




Excellent work by the way, thank you.


Your welcome, catch it every week :)

Live on Eve Radio Sundays 15:00 GMT with me & friends talking about Eve and stuff. Twitter, Facebook TotalEve
Previous page123