These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Ship Resistance Bonuses

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#181 - 2013-04-12 20:48:28 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
So sayeth the Minmatar player, who stands to gain in every way from this, as opposed to a small time Rokh pilot, who will be drastically effected negatively by this change. I don't run in megablobs, or often have access to an OGB and/or booster.


Stop acting like a nerf from 5% to 4% per level is anything drastic. You lot are being overly emotional about this fantastic and justified change proposal.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#182 - 2013-04-12 20:50:56 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
So what is the problem to raise the bonus for them then if it is an issue?

Probably nothing except CCP said they didn't want to raise the self repping bonuses.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2013-04-12 20:53:50 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
So what is the problem to raise the bonus for them then if it is an issue?

Probably nothing except CCP said they didn't want to raise the self repping bonuses.

There was the desire to avoid the power creep issue. Also I could see how an active rep bonus increase could adversely affect the situation with ASB's further making them more OP on certain ships.
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#184 - 2013-04-12 20:53:55 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
So sayeth the Minmatar player, who stands to gain in every way from this, as opposed to a small time Rokh pilot, who will be drastically effected negatively by this change. I don't run in megablobs, or often have access to an OGB and/or booster.

Then why are you making nonsensical suggestions like nerfing all resistance mods instead(lol why?!), and OGB has little to do with anything here... if you're suggesting this somehow makes OGB better... not only does it make no sense in context, you're wrong.

And you've consistently been really really really bad at math throughout this thread.
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#185 - 2013-04-12 20:56:27 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
So what is the problem to raise the bonus for them then if it is an issue?

Probably nothing except CCP said they didn't want to raise the self repping bonuses.


Read the explanation provided next time before commenting on it.

The reason behind not increasing the rep bonus to achieve the goal of improving active tanking is that it essentially makes it mandatory to fly a ship with the rep bonus for active tanking to be at all viable. It also would vastly break the balance of active tanking on shield ships. While some may say that you could just increase the rep bonus on armor ships, the better solution is to retain a static bonus between both shield and armor and go after the modules themselves. Furthermore increasing the rep bonus does nothing in alleviating the problem of the resistance bonus being over powered. Thus they nerf the resistance bonus.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#186 - 2013-04-12 20:57:23 UTC
While I love resist bonuses - because they are powerful, I am glad to see the cut amounts to 1%-5% depending on level as opposed to something more drastic.

And please show more love the the Nighthawk and Vulture. Smile

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2013-04-12 21:02:46 UTC
Petrified wrote:


And please show more love the the Nighthawk and Vulture. Smile


I really really REALLY! hope that the Command ship lineup makes it into the summer xpack. A full lineup of well balanced t2 BCs would be so fun to play with and a fantastic "end game" for many of those seeking sub cap pvp.
Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
#188 - 2013-04-12 21:12:20 UTC
Ereilian wrote:


While Foz has a decent record of being on the level, there is serious discontent brewing that these changes are specifically PVP and take no account of PVE usage of the ships involved.

You cannot balance based on PVE in a PVP game.

Sorry, you're playing the part of Eve that was added as an afterthought so CCP could say 'we have PVE' on the box in 2003. It's not the game.
Ereilian
Doomheim
#189 - 2013-04-12 21:16:12 UTC
Beaver Retriever wrote:
Ereilian wrote:


While Foz has a decent record of being on the level, there is serious discontent brewing that these changes are specifically PVP and take no account of PVE usage of the ships involved.

You cannot balance based on PVE in a PVP game.

Sorry, you're playing the part of Eve that was added as an afterthought so CCP could say 'we have PVE' on the box in 2003. It's not the game.


Not quite but I appreciate your thoughts. Without PVE there would be no game, please enlighten me as to where your ships come from, your modules (oh my T2 is PVE produced), hell even your ISK is rooted in PVE. Dismissing PVE in the fashion you have, and on a no name alt to boot, just reinforces the lack of depth your thinking has. PVP = PVE, there should be no imbalance in thinking between them.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#190 - 2013-04-12 21:18:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
CCP Fozzie wrote:
forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies


Don't lower resists make alpha-only strategies even more powerful?

If the goal is to weaken alpha-strikes, how about adding modules or game mechanics that reduce possibility of, or the impact of, a massive amount of damage incoming at the same time?

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#191 - 2013-04-12 21:19:36 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies


Don't lower resists make alpha-only strategies even more powerful?

If the goal is to weaken alpha-strikes, how about adding modules or game mechanics that reduce possibility of, or the impact of, a massive amount of damage incoming at the same time?


Then you make logi even more OP. If you're going to apply this kind of sweeping change to damage, you better do it to logi as well.
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#192 - 2013-04-12 21:20:30 UTC
I don't think a 1-5% resist drop is all that bad...

(though as a possible balance, you could appy that 1-5% drop into cap recharge.)

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2013-04-12 21:23:08 UTC
Askulf Joringer wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change.


?

I fail to see how this change is bad in any form. The modest decrease in ehp/self rep/ remote rep that will be experienced by ships with this resistance bonus is hardly game breaking at any level. The undeniable reality is that this nerf is needed and HAS been needed for years. It's something that has been talked about by veteran pvpers since like forever.

I again ask that the community try and separate themselves from their personal bias and do their best to look at the health of the game as a whole.



Now to comment on your actual suggestion rather than the "even that would be better" remark. Some form of Ewar that would have a modest effect on the amount of RR received could very well be a great solution. Currently there comes a point when fielding many logi that the fights are just far too uneventful. Long fights are fun and all but when it comes down to a fleet of 100 having the proper fleet comp not even loosing a single ship to a fleet of 70 that may not have as many logi in a brawl, something is inherently broken in the overall mechanics of RR Fleet warfare.


why is this nerf needed? it is a tanking bonus , gives you better tank in all area ,just like dmg bonus gives you better offensive
then again what is so op about these resist bonused ships? the rokh or abaddon? of course they are used primarly for fleet fights , they are designed for those ,sure they are better there than other ships which are better at roaming or small scale pvp
just look at the rokh it is pretty crap everywhere else, even here it isnt that great , low dps, no ewar, cap problems, slow as hell ,limited dmg types, still people will use it until it is nerfed to where there will be no reason to use this ship anymore ,
will this 5-4% resist change do anything, i dont think that is that significant to change fleet composition at all, but it nerfs these ships in every other area they are already isnt the prefered choice,also it hits many ships that instead of need nerfs should be boosted, this resist change it totally unreasonable

you say "fieldingmany logi that the fights are just far too uneventful" so which is broken the resist bonus or the logis?
it is a game design fault that increasing fleet +1% increases its power more than 1% ,no wonder blobbing is the standard
and there is so few things you can do to counter blobbing other than dont fight

if you start balancing out bonuses to eachother, why not start balancing out ship hulls stats to eachother?
forgot the bonuses forgot the slots layout ,just balance ship hull stats to eachother
for example:
why not nerf minmatar ships signature why are minmatar ships smaller than the other races? that is clearly OP lets nerf it
why we at it why some ships have larger drone bay/control than other similar ships? clearly op ,lets bring the nerfhammer
see where is it going?

"I again ask that the community try and separate themselves from their personal bias and do their best to look at the health of the game as a whole."
oh yeah like you or ccp or any other person isnt biased at all
so tell us what kind of ship you use with your main
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#194 - 2013-04-12 21:28:05 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Like I said before, if resists in general are the problem, then nerf the resists for all ships by nerfing the resist mods. Don't single out hulls that have an entirely resonable bonus.


Who said "resists in general are the problem?" Besides you, I mean.

All in all, I'm okay with the change - but if you're going to go any lower, you're going to have to get a lot more ship specific, and maybe remove the bonus entirely on some ships and just replace it with a better bonus.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Perihelion Olenard
#195 - 2013-04-12 21:29:23 UTC
I strongly agree with this change. Well done.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#196 - 2013-04-12 21:29:26 UTC
Rented wrote:

And you've consistently been really really really bad at math throughout this thread.


I've made corrections as I have spotted my own errors. My math is fine. I run these numbers at least once a week, so I have plenty of experience in dealing with them. I also have checked them against the output of the EvE ship fitting window, so I know they are good. Note that I am aware I didn't include the stacking penalty for the second invuln in my previous example. Telling me my math is bad without citing my errors means nothing, and is an assertion without merit.

As for nerfing the resistance mods, either ALL resists at current levels are overpowered, or they are not. Case in point, they have expanded the resist nerf to every ship that has a hull resist. If the resists are OP, then nerfing the active buff mods by increasing their cap expense and decreasing their buff amount is really a better option than nerfing hull resists, because it also takes care of people stacking 3 invulns on a resist ship (Which will still be absurdly OP even after the proposed changes.) It also avoids screwing people over who have trained to BS 5 For the Rokh and Abaddon.

Remember, this whole discussion got started when CCP got it into their heads that resists where too good compared to other bonuses, particularly the shield boost bonus.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#197 - 2013-04-12 21:32:45 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
no wonder blobbing is the standard and there is so few things you can do to counter blobbing other than dont fight


If you think there is anything - anything - that CCP can do to prevent someone bringing superior numbers to a fight . . . . you've got bigger concerns than a 1% nerf to the resist profile of certain ships.

I fly a Rokh all the time and I understand the logic behind this change. Now, if they were to soften the blow by adding a midslot and a tiny bit more CPU/PG . . . Lol

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#198 - 2013-04-12 21:35:52 UTC
Quote from the Armor Tanking 1.5 thread:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
fukier wrote:

how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare?

its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR!

presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships!


And also super overpowered.


Quote from OP:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • 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.


    • I'm glad to see you've backed off your "super overpowered" stance and come to the more numerically accurate "closer to balance" point of view.

    I still disagree with your statement that implementing this change would "further empower the current remote rep tactics", and here's why.

    Changing the local rep bonus to an incoming rep bonus would mean that the ships not listed in your OP would fare just as well under remote reps as the ones you just listed; this would not make the mechanic any more or less powerful than it currently is, it would only make the mechanic available to more ships.

    You seem to be ignoring the painfully obvious fact that only two races are being affected by this imbalance, and that the Gallente are currently stuck with both their BCs suffering from it. I've noticed a very bad trend with these glaring imbalance issues where you keep looking at the ship how it should work and leaving the problem for later. This has been the case with Hybrid Railguns, Drone mechanics, Local reps and Gang assist modules to name a few.

    Let's break this chain of "fix it later" by implementing a change that will bring the affected ships "closer to balance" and deal with the overpowered mechanic later. Balance the receiving end of the RR mechanic, that way when you finally address it, you can focus on the giving end of RR in one go.
    Van Mathias
    Dead Space Continuum
    #199 - 2013-04-12 21:36:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
    Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
    Van Mathias wrote:
    Like I said before, if resists in general are the problem, then nerf the resists for all ships by nerfing the resist mods. Don't single out hulls that have an entirely resonable bonus.


    Who said "resists in general are the problem?" Besides you, I mean.

    All in all, I'm okay with the change - but if you're going to go any lower, you're going to have to get a lot more ship specific, and maybe remove the bonus entirely on some ships and just replace it with a better bonus.


    You mean with a worse bonus. It wouldn't be a Rokh if they did that, the resist and range bonus are the heart and soul of that ship. And if resists in general aren't the problem, then why are 40+ ships up on the chopping block? That sounds like a pretty generalized problem to me.

    Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #200 - 2013-04-12 21:40:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
    Van Mathias wrote:
    Rented wrote:

    And you've consistently been really really really bad at math throughout this thread.


    I've made corrections as I have spotted my own errors. My math is fine. I run these numbers at least once a week, so I have plenty of experience in dealing with them. I also have checked them against the output of the EvE ship fitting window, so I know they are good. Note that I am aware I didn't include the stacking penalty for the second invuln in my previous example. Telling me my math is bad without citing my errors means nothing, and is an assertion without merit.

    As for nerfing the resistance mods, either ALL resists at current levels are overpowered, or they are not. Case in point, they have expanded the resist nerf to every ship that has a hull resist. If the resists are OP, then nerfing the active buff mods by increasing their cap expense and decreasing their buff amount is really a better option than nerfing hull resists, because it also takes care of people stacking 3 invulns on a resist ship (Which will still be absurdly OP even after the proposed changes.) It also avoids screwing people over who have trained to BS 5 For the Rokh and Abaddon.

    Remember, this whole discussion got started when CCP got it into their heads that resists where too good compared to other bonuses, particularly the shield boost bonus.

    Resist bonuses being problematic was in no way the same as saying resist mods are an issue. Nefring resist mods only further exasperates the issue as it creates a greater desparity than currently exists between the resist profiles of resist bonused ships and other ships after fitting.

    All this means is that buffer remote and local reps will be even better comparatively than current for bonused hulls. You are effectively asking them to raise the bonus for those ships when asking them to lower the effect of resist mods.