These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Odyssey] Ship Resistance Bonuses

First post First post
Author
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2013-04-12 15:44:27 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you feel strongly about this change, either liking or disliking it, you should vote for CSM 8 and tell your representatives how you feel. CSM 8 will be taking office before the launch of Odyssey.
Vote from now until April 18th here.


Hey everyone, I know there's been a lot of questions raised by the Abaddon and Rokh changes, sorry for not having this thread ready earlier.

I'd like to chat with you guys a little bit about ship resistance bonuses, their place in the grand picture and what we want to do with them in Odyssey. I've talked in this forum before about our belief that 5% armor/shield resistance bonuses are one of the most powerful bonuses we give to significant numbers of ships. Resistances have the huge advantage of applying equally well as a buffer bonus, a magnifier of local reps, and a magnifier of incoming remote reps.
This imbalance was becoming more and more of a problem as we started work on battleships and command ships.

To understand why they are so powerful, we need to start with some quick math. Resistance bonuses are stronger than they first appear for the same reason that rate of fire bonuses are stronger than damage bonuses. This isn't entirely intuitive but it's something that long-time EVE theorycrafters have all gotten used to since it shows up so often in the context of our game.

The key thing to remember is that a 25% bonus that is applied by division (like resistances that divide incoming damage, or RoF which divides the duration between module activations) have a much bigger effect than a 25% bonus that applies by multiplication (like a weapon damage bonus or a bonus to raw hitpoints).

For example a 25% increase in armor hitpoints applies quite intuitively: (Base HP) * 1.25 = a 25% increase in total EHP.

In contrast a resistance bonus actually benefits your ships by decreasing incoming damage. So a ship with 25% resistance bonus takes 25% less damage from hostiles. This ends up applying to their effective hitpoints as: (Base HP) / 0.75 = a 33% increase in total EHP.

So while a 37.5% rep bonus increases effective repping by 37.5%, and a 50% armor hp bonus increases effective hitpoints by 50%, a 25% resistance bonus actually increases both by 33% (not the 25% that might be assumed at first glance).
In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus.
This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.

Resistance bonuses also have several other huge advantages over our other tanking bonuses. At the end of the day what tanking bonuses really do is keep you alive longer. Active bonuses are strongest when the damage you are taking is weaker, while passive EHP bonuses help more when incoming DPS is higher, but both serve to increase the amount of time you can remain on the battlefield under fire. Since it applies to both reps (local or remote) and to passive EHP, a resistance bonus dominates in most situations.

Ship resistance bonuses also have the huge advantage of not being stacking penalized in a bonus category that is very often a few layers deep into the stacking penalty once the ship is fully fitted.

Finally it's important to look at the value of these resistance bonuses combined with remote repair modules. Remote repair systems are extremely powerful in the current EVE meta, and I have stated in the past that we do not intend to increase the power of the highest end repair strategies (Tech Two Logistics and capital remote repairing) because they are on the edge of overpowered. Remote repair gameplay is some of the most fun gameplay we have (and is my personal favourite activity in 0.0) but is also responsible for discouraging fights and for forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies. Spidertanking strategies like Slowcat carriers are some of the post powerful tactics in the game, and it's no accident that those strategies rely entirely on resist bonused ships.


So we consider resistance bonuses to be a bit too powerful in modern EVE. The next question to answer was how exactly we should adjust them.
  • Making them stacking penalized with modules and rigs would deal with most of the imbalance, but this would be the only ship bonuses stacking penalized with modules and the inconstancy adds its own kind of complexity to learning the game. Not ideal.
  • Extending armor and shield repair bonuses to apply to remote reps would bring them much closer to balance with resist bonuses, but would also further empower the current remote rep tactics that are as strong as we feel we can allow them to be.
  • Converting the resist bonuses to HP buffer bonuses would be much easier to balance as it affects a smaller set of mechanics, but that also removes what I think are a very iconic set of bonuses. The fact that the resistance bonus is so versatile is something we like about it, it's just the fact that it is so good at so many things that causes it to overshadow other bonuses. We also plan to continue using straight HP bonuses in the future as a defensive bonus with its own flavour distinct from the other defensive bonus options.

  • So our plan for Odyssey is to remove 1% per level from all the standard ship and subsystem resistance bonuses, setting them at 4% per level.

    At 4% I believe these bonuses are still very powerful, and this may not actually go all the way we need it to. However I think it's an area we can make the small adjustment and then tweak further as necessary.
    The fact that this is a very moderate shave off the top of the bonus instead of a more significant change is intentional, as we plan to watch the effects of this tweak on the ecosystem and learn from our observations.

    This affects 44 ships total.

    Shield:
    Ibis, Taipan, Merlin, Worm, Harpy, Cambion, Moa,...

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

    Two step
    Aperture Harmonics
    #2 - 2013-04-12 15:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Two step
    In a (probably futile) attempt to catch up with Fozzie on likes, if you don't like this, go unlike a past awesome Fozzie post

    And my actual response to the thread is that I think this will require a re-look at some of the already balanced ships that had this bonus, and possibly some adjustments. I do agree that resist bonuses are very good, but the fact that some of the ships listed are terrible means that the bonus isn't completely OP.

    CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

    SMT008
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #3 - 2013-04-12 15:49:45 UTC
    Alright, sounds reasonable.

    Good change.
    Pertuabo Enkidgan
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #4 - 2013-04-12 15:51:00 UTC
    Ow.....this will hurt a bit.
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #5 - 2013-04-12 15:51:27 UTC
    How about 3% instead. 4% is still loads.
    mynnna
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #6 - 2013-04-12 15:51:48 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you feel strongly about this change, either liking or disliking it, you should vote for CSM 8 and tell your representatives how you feel. CSM 8 will be taking office before the launch of Odyssey.
    Vote from now until April 18th here.


    I'll tell you that it's a good change and you should kiss off, but if you dislike the change, maybe you'll get lucky and Travis Musgrat will get elected. You'll probably find a sympathetic ear from him... he just loves overpowered things. Lol

    Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

    Ersahi Kir
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #7 - 2013-04-12 15:53:47 UTC
    I would consider leaving the bonus on the heavy interdictors. Other than that I'm fine with this change.
    Alphea Abbra
    Project Promethion
    #8 - 2013-04-12 15:54:31 UTC
    I like it.
    Omnathious Deninard
    Ministry of Silly Walks.
    Parasitic Legion.
    #9 - 2013-04-12 15:54:35 UTC
    Resistance bonuses will always be better as they will help you survive high alpha, where no matter how high your active rep bonus is, if you cannot take the alpha you are dead.

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

    Jonas Sukarala
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #10 - 2013-04-12 15:55:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
    so after reading all that..... tiring :P
    you didn't say if this change means local rep based ships are now worth using over resist based ships what is the difference now?

    'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

    Mr Hyde113
    #11 - 2013-04-12 15:55:24 UTC
    First the terribad Amarr BS changes, now the Archon and the rest too?

    RIP Amarr
    Buhhdust Princess
    Mind Games.
    WE FORM V0LTA
    #12 - 2013-04-12 15:55:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Buhhdust Princess
    So now we've:
    1) Removed the 8th low slot of every Amarr Battleship
    and
    2) Removed 1% of the extra resist that would of probably kept them balanced.

    Personally, I don't see a need to remove that 1%, I was killing Amarr perfectly fine.

    Also, doing it to capitals is silly, it's a lot of time/effort to build them, and a lot of ISK to buy them. Removing a percentage of their bonuses just seems a bit dodgy.
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #13 - 2013-04-12 15:56:38 UTC
    I'm going to throw this here since I have a feeling a lot of questions coming up will be along this line:

  • Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?
  • This is a question that comes up often in any thread where we are discussing decreasing the power of an item or ship. I can completely understand where it's coming from. Buffing things makes people happy in much larger numbers, it simply feels good to see the effectiveness of your equipment increase. Many other games rely on constantly improving gear to drive engagement in their content and that method of development can work very well for those games.

    I'm going to start by quoting my answer to this question from the Heavy Missile thread before Retribution, because what I said there still applies.
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be conscious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.

    I would be lying if I said that we never allow power creep in EVE. It's quite simply much much easier to balance upwards and considering how powerful of a tool it is for creating short term customer satisfaction, some power creep is very hard to avoid. However we do need to be very mindful of how much we let ourselves indulge. There are cases where for the long term health of the game ecosystem we simply have to reduce the power of certain items and ships. We believe this is one of those times. I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

    Unforgiven Storm
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #14 - 2013-04-12 15:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Unforgiven Storm
    my solo Tengu for mazes... Ugh

    Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)

    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #15 - 2013-04-12 16:00:35 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    I'm going to throw this here since I have a feeling a lot of questions coming up will be along this line:

  • Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?
  • This is a question that comes up often in any thread where we are discussing decreasing the power of an item or ship. I can completely understand where it's coming from. Buffing things makes people happy in much larger numbers, it simply feels good to see the effectiveness of your equipment increase. Many other games rely on constantly improving gear to drive engagement in their content and that method of development can work very well for those games.

    I'm going to start by quoting my answer to this question from the Heavy Missile thread before Retribution, because what I said there still applies.
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be conscious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.

    I would be lying if I said that we never allow power creep in EVE. It's quite simply much much easier to balance upwards and considering how powerful of a tool it is for creating short term customer satisfaction, some power creep is very hard to avoid. However we do need to be very mindful of how much we let ourselves indulge. There are cases where for the long term health of the game ecosystem we simply have to reduce the power of certain items and ships. We believe this is one of those times. I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term.


    Cool, so when are the big nerfs to overpowered things coming?
    Dav Varan
    State Protectorate
    Caldari State
    #16 - 2013-04-12 16:00:39 UTC
    Overall a good change as some differintiation from local rep amount bonus was needed.

    This change makes
    <<< local rep weaker as required
    <<< Remote rep weaker ( Not Required ) no easy solution
    <<< Buffer HP weaker ( Not Required )

    Buffer HP for resist bnoused ships should not be affected by this change as that is where resists bonuses are supposed to be better than Local Rep bonuses ( survive time in high damage as you stated )

    The ships affected should get a 5% base shield or armor hp boost in compensation.


    Zarnak Wulf
    Amarrian Vengeance
    Team Amarrica
    #17 - 2013-04-12 16:01:40 UTC
    Ground Floor. Hard to argue with the math. Supported.
    Omnathious Deninard
    Ministry of Silly Walks.
    Parasitic Legion.
    #18 - 2013-04-12 16:02:03 UTC
    I also wonder why it is that the ships that get the resistance bonus usually get more native tanking slots than ships that get the rep bonus.

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #19 - 2013-04-12 16:02:34 UTC
    Two step wrote:
    In a (probably futile) attempt to catch up with Fozzie on likes, if you don't like this, go unlike a past awesome Fozzie post

    And my actual response to the thread is that I think this will require a re-look at some of the already balanced ships that had this bonus, and possibly some adjustments. I do agree that resist bonuses are very good, but the fact that some of the ships listed are terrible means that the bonus isn't completely OP.


    None of the listed ships that aren't good are bad because they don't have good enough resists. If anything the resist bonuses just overshadow the actual problems with the ships.

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

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

    Dav Varan
    State Protectorate
    Caldari State
    #20 - 2013-04-12 16:03:22 UTC
    Dav Varan wrote:
    Overall a good change as some differintiation from local rep amount bonus was needed.

    This change makes
    <<< local rep weaker as required
    <<< Remote rep weaker ( Not Required ) no easy solution
    <<< Buffer HP weaker ( Not Required )

    Buffer HP for resist bnoused ships should not be affected by this change as that is where resists bonuses are supposed to be better than Local Rep bonuses ( survive time in high damage as you stated )

    The ships affected should get a 5% base shield or armor hp boost in compensation.





    Actually not sure of the 5% but I think EHP Buffer Before == EHP Buffer After
    123Next pageLast page