These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#281 - 2013-04-13 04:52:07 UTC
Ruze wrote:
Bane Veradun wrote:
You know...with all the changes being made to the game within the last year or so, I'm really beginning to question just how it survived to it's ten year anniversary in the first place. It's rather obvious that many of the latest changes were not game-breaking or otherwise adversely affecting the game for just one group.

Elsa Nietchize wrote:
The question stands as "is this a good change for the game".
The change is palatable because it's small. The real question is "will it change the game?"
The answer is simple: No


If the change is so small, then why make it at all? Once again, Eve made it this far, are the changes really necessary? If it's such a minute balance, then it should be questioned as to whether or not it may be worth the adverse results or balancing issues it may create in an attempt to balance such a small thing.

I don't know, maybe it's time to just keep on trucking. I severely doubt CCP really cares what a common player thinks about this game or these changes anymore.


Sadly, I disagree with you. I came back after a two year break. The changes within this last 'season' were the best, most well rounded and necessary I've gotten to witness.

Ships that were never flown are now at it again. Playstyles that weren't valid are there. Personally, the only issue I really have is the proposed Armageddon change (more out of nostalgia for the boat than anything else), and the continuous lack of serious stand-out armor ability that Amarr faction line deserves.

It's all a matter of perspective. Change isn't bad. Even change we don't like for personal opinion reasons isn't bad ... just annoying and sad. But can we all say that we're angry about the changes because of personal reasons, or a ship we used one way can no longer be used that way?

I doubt they'll break anything. For every time they have, it was back up again in a year or two.


No questions the recent changes of the last year have been universally excellent, but this one gives me pause. We will see how it bears out, but if it doesn't work out like CCP wants, I hope they remember that they always have an undo button. However, 4/5 hits isn't a bad average at all. Lets see what the finalized stats for the BS's look like before passing judgement.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Auferre
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#282 - 2013-04-13 04:55:01 UTC
Sigras wrote:
These changes needed to be made on an across the board level because the resist bonuses are better than the rep bonuses on an across the board level.


Reps and rep bonuses are entirely beside the point for some of the affected ships. Does anyone ever apply reps to an Exhumer under attack? It's all about alpha.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#283 - 2013-04-13 05:07:55 UTC
Ruze wrote:
Bane Veradun wrote:
You know...with all the changes being made to the game within the last year or so, I'm really beginning to question just how it survived to it's ten year anniversary in the first place. It's rather obvious that many of the latest changes were not game-breaking or otherwise adversely affecting the game for just one group.

Elsa Nietchize wrote:
The question stands as "is this a good change for the game".
The change is palatable because it's small. The real question is "will it change the game?"
The answer is simple: No


If the change is so small, then why make it at all? Once again, Eve made it this far, are the changes really necessary? If it's such a minute balance, then it should be questioned as to whether or not it may be worth the adverse results or balancing issues it may create in an attempt to balance such a small thing.

I don't know, maybe it's time to just keep on trucking. I severely doubt CCP really cares what a common player thinks about this game or these changes anymore.


Sadly, I disagree with you. I came back after a two year break. The changes within this last 'season' were the best, most well rounded and necessary I've gotten to witness.

Ships that were never flown are now at it again. Playstyles that weren't valid are there. Personally, the only issue I really have is the proposed Armageddon change (more out of nostalgia for the boat than anything else), and the continuous lack of serious stand-out armor ability that Amarr faction line deserves.

It's all a matter of perspective. Change isn't bad. Even change we don't like for personal opinion reasons isn't bad ... just annoying and sad. But can we all say that we're angry about the changes because of personal reasons, or a ship we used one way can no longer be used that way?

I doubt they'll break anything. For every time they have, it was back up again in a year or two.

Now that was pretty fairly spoken.

At the moment we are in the emotional, knee jerk reaction stage. I think things will begin to get real (and valid) once things hit the test server and we have a chance to try things out.

Personally on this particular issue I think some adjustments will also need to be made to make active tanking more efficient, yet still keep it's unique flavor. We'll see, it's still early yet.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#284 - 2013-04-13 05:19:09 UTC
Auferre wrote:
Sigras wrote:
These changes needed to be made on an across the board level because the resist bonuses are better than the rep bonuses on an across the board level.


Reps and rep bonuses are entirely beside the point for some of the affected ships. Does anyone ever apply reps to an Exhumer under attack? It's all about alpha.

That would probably explain why they made a point of saying that some ships have other issues which will need to be addressed. This change is to address an overall disparity in the various bonuses affecting the different tanking systems.

I hope you weren't suggesting that Exhumers be an exception, or worse, need a buff. Smile

There are counters to Alpha fleets. However most fleets opt to simply try to defeat the alpha damage by relying on ships with extremely high resistance bonuses. Now they may need to explore other options, or it may end up that under these conditions alpha damage may need a slight adjustment downward. Testing will tell the tale.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#285 - 2013-04-13 05:23:01 UTC
Nice to see a dev who doesn't fear tweaking the numbers down, rather than always up.

Regarding (predictable) concerns that reducing the resists makes certain vulnerable ships even more overly vulnerable to alpha damage, clearly the next step should be to nerf alpha damage, also across the board. It, too, has become a bit ridiculous over the past few years.
Celestial One
Militant Miners
#286 - 2013-04-13 05:29:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Shield:
... Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk,...


Thrown in for the tears or was this really an issue with these hull?
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#287 - 2013-04-13 05:37:40 UTC
Celestial One wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Shield:
... Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk,...


Thrown in for the tears or was this really an issue with these hull?


OMG, a 6.6%(something) nerf to damage taken totally break the hull!.....

If people are trying to suicide gank you, they will. This really changes nothing. Stop grasping at straws.
Auferre
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#288 - 2013-04-13 05:44:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Auferre
Ranger 1 wrote:
That would probably explain why they made a point of saying that some ships have other issues which will need to be addressed. This change is to address an overall disparity in the various bonuses affecting the different tanking systems.

I hope you weren't suggesting that Exhumers be an exception, or worse, need a buff. Smile


No, I wasn't suggesting that. Despite being a mostly-PvE carebear, I think they're about right where they are - it takes a bit of coordination between pilots to gank one in hisec, but it's not prohibitively expensive. (Which is good. I may be an industrialist, but I know where my money comes from - destroyed ships and modules.)

Thing is, Exhumers weren't mentioned among the ships that have other issues and will need further balancing, (probably because they're fine where they are in their roles) and earlier in the post Fozzie specifically says they have no plans to convert resist bonuses to HP bonuses. It doesn't sound like they have any plans to tweak Exhumers in light of this change.

-Edited for clarity - apparently I shouldn't post after 10PM.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#289 - 2013-04-13 05:54:24 UTC
Suyer wrote:
Glad that CCP Fozzie assumes evreybody has level 5 skills.

Too bad in the real game we don't all get ALL V ccp characters.

Looking forward to ****** T3s especially after the incoming nerf they don't deserve but I'm sure you will implement.
The nerf will affect pilots with sub-V skills less than the Skill V types, in both relative and absolute terms.
Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
#290 - 2013-04-13 05:57:38 UTC
So, if I'm understanding this correctly... high alpha artillery just got a buff...
Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#291 - 2013-04-13 06:00:40 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Suyer wrote:
Glad that CCP Fozzie assumes evreybody has level 5 skills.

Too bad in the real game we don't all get ALL V ccp characters.

Looking forward to ****** T3s especially after the incoming nerf they don't deserve but I'm sure you will implement.
The nerf will affect pilots with sub-V skills less than the Skill V types, in both relative and absolute terms.


As a skill V type, I agree wholeheartedly. As for all the other non-skill V types, they can eat me. I have more butthurt for this one point than the actual reduction in tank that's coming.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#292 - 2013-04-13 06:01:28 UTC
Qaidan Alenko wrote:
So, if I'm understanding this correctly... high alpha artillery just got a buff...

Against a subset of ships with a particular bonus sure, but so did low alpha weapons against those same ships.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#293 - 2013-04-13 06:11:48 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Qaidan Alenko wrote:
So, if I'm understanding this correctly... high alpha artillery just got a buff...

Against a subset of ships with a particular bonus sure, but so did low alpha weapons against those same ships.


You mean the exact subset of ships that was best at resisting high-alpha damage? Because alpha fleets pretty much blaap everything else given enough members to overpower any ship with an ordinary tank within 2 - 3 weapon cycles. Which is not that difficult. Hey CCP Rise, if you are going to troll us tankies with this change, why not give autocannons some travel time? Transonic ammo should not do damage at hitscan (zero) delay. Especially not on a target miles out. Pirate

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#294 - 2013-04-13 06:15:14 UTC
This is an AWFUL change, I already complained and gave my reasons why it is a bad change in both the Caldari BS and the Amarr BS changes thread. This change DIRECTLY buffs the Malestrum alpha fleet doctrine which is already the most used BS fleet doctrine and the only way to fight them without using capitals was to either have more Malestrums, OR to use either a rail fit Rokh which can last through an alpha malestrum volley if you are lucky just long enough to catch reps, same general concept with the Amarr equivalent. Nurffing this bonus is a considerable nurff to the EHP of these BS thus further strengthening the alpha Malestrum fleet doctrine. I do not know why you are nurffing this bonus as no one of any PvP merit has ever complained about this bonus in the first place, on the contrary there has been TONS of complains about alpha doctrines and you somehow have decided that the malestrum is fine in its current iteration, even though it is well known that it is by far and away the best large scale fleet BS in the game.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#295 - 2013-04-13 06:16:29 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.

It's not resistances overall that seem to be considered the main problem, but hull bonuses to them.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2013-04-13 06:48:39 UTC
Ereilian wrote:

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.

While this is true, it is far easier to balance NPC ships around PC ships after achieving the PVP balance you want, than it is to try and balance PVP after having done your PVE balancing. NPC ships are simpler, have less variety (no modules to have to balance) and the devs can 'cheat' with them and buff or nerf their stats without affecting PC ship stats in any way.
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#297 - 2013-04-13 07:05:12 UTC
What about this option?
T1 ships have 4% resists bonuses, meantime T2 still have 5 (or maybe even 6)?
Karak Bol
Low-Sec Survival Ltd.
#298 - 2013-04-13 07:20:59 UTC
I support this. Its was weird to notice, that the Prophecy has a better active Tank than the Myrmidon with the same fit.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#299 - 2013-04-13 07:38:46 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:



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.




i'm sorry what? we have a problem with extremely powerful remote repair sytems and you try to fix it by nerfing res bonuses on some ships, many of those being already subpar and most of them having none or very few conections with rr??? Shocked

I'm sure that math of yours look fancy enough and that here are allot of ppl that like " the art pollice thingy", and like that "all the things should be equal: and stuff, but let me break it for you a bit so you can understand:

atm shield rr>armor rr by far, and that from many reasons i'm not ging to explain here, mosty about how rr apply and alpha

at bs level, atm we have 2 options, again i'm not going to explain here why only 2, and tose options are maelstrom and rokh; now you came and" because of math" you nerf rokh!? wth do you think it's going to happen??? oh yea, more maelstrom fleets, that's going to happen!( and yea, your bs rebalance won't change it)

so again, we have a problem atm with " the rise of alpha-only strategies", and CCP decide to nerf res bonuses on some 40 ships "because it's look fair". and if this won't fix the reall problem, "don't you worry guys we will fix nex time for sure!"

and speaking about "extremely powerful remote repair sytems" i'm really glad CCP didn't really boosted rr by adding 4 new ships only few month ago... yea i'm sure those 1000% bonuses look very cool and fair to the "art police"

and if you think that the solution to the slowcats fleets is nerfing the res bonus on the archon... my god, do you even play this game? cose if you play it, i'm sorry to say this, but you are doing it the wrong way...

p.s. and speaking about armor fleets, what's the main ship it those fleets, btw? artyabbadon?
kyrieee
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2013-04-13 07:40:51 UTC  |  Edited by: kyrieee
Not that it really matters, but I don't think you should nerf the Cambion. Consistency doesn't matter, it's a very limited issue ship that already has bonuses not found on any other hull. Same thing with the other tournament ships with resist bonuses.