These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#301 - 2013-04-13 07:50:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Knight
As we are already in balancing bonuses vs bonuses , why not balance the others?
- dont take account anything other than the bonuses and their effectiveness
THIS IS THE SAME THING WHAT FOZZIE DID

Lets compare these 2:
Hyperion:
Gallente Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% Large Hybrid Turret damage

vs

Gallente Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% Large Hybrid Turret rate of fire (replaces large hybrid turret damage)

this is just as fine to compare as the resist bonus vs self repair bonus, we dont take into accoun anything else than the effectiveness of these bonuses with lvl 5 skills

dps:
+10% Large Hybrid Turret damage -> gives 50% dps
+5% Large Hybrid Turret rate of fire -> gives 33,33% dps
alpha:
+10% Large Hybrid Turret damage -> gives 50% alpha
+5% Large Hybrid Turret rate of fire -> gives 0% alpha
ammo/cap usage:
+10% Large Hybrid Turret damage -> gives 0% ammo/cap usage
+5% Large Hybrid Turret rate of fire -> gives 33,33% ammo/cap usage

oh got what's wrong with u ccp fix that overpowered +10% Large Hybrid Turret damage
see ? how is it completly stupid to remove everything else from the comparison?

he also said:
". Resistance bonuses are stronger than they first appear for the same reason that rate of fire bonuses are stronger than damage bonuses."
so shouldnt be rof changed to 4%/lvl?

and another:
"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."
this is completly false , as the ships have hull and shield or armor hp which doesnt get affected by their resistance bonus,so
basically they dont get 33% better ehp
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2013-04-13 07:59:46 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

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.


    It does not adress the main problem. Even if you nerf resistance bonuses further active repair bonuses will still be completely and uterly useless for fleet warfare (large fleet battles).

    I think that the best approcach here should be:

    1. Make armor repair bonuses to affect ammount of remote repair.
    2. Weaken remote repair so it will still be about as effective as it now considering bonused ships.
    3. Leave resistance bonuses as they are.

    This way much more ships will be viable for large scale PvP. It could be an interesting trade-off: some ships have more EHP, other are easier to repair. This also will weaken some questionable tactics like spider-tanked slowcats without completely removing it.
    Naomi Knight
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #303 - 2013-04-13 08:09:59 UTC
    Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:


    This way much more ships will be viable for large scale PvP. It could be an interesting trade-off: some ships have more EHP, other are easier to repair. This also will weaken some questionable tactics like spider-tanked slowcats without completely removing it.


    Yes it seems they want the same thing , so repair bonused ships are viable for large scale PvP. I have no problem with that.
    But why is it so onesided? Why dont they make resist bonused ships viable for small scale PvP , if you look at the rokh , you should bring nearly anything else to a small fight cause it is that bad at that role.
    This resistance bonus nerf would be much more acceptable if they would make those ships better for small scale PvP.
    Taking away some of their effectiveness from fleet PvP(what is these ships were designed for) and giving nothing else is bad,
    they will get a nerf even for Pve or small scale pvp ,which is just absurd.
    Shingorash
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #304 - 2013-04-13 08:13:13 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    One thing I'll quickly mention is that 1 / 0.8 = 1.25. This means that the new bonus (20% resists at level 5) will actually equal a 25% increase in Effective Reps. Still very significant (in fact it's probably what a lot of people assumed the old bonus gave). However the difference between 25% and 37.5% is a lot more noticeable than the difference between 33% and 37.5%.

    But that does not address that rep bonuses are only good against sustained DPS and not high alpha damage, where resistance bonuses are good for both.


    You are right that it doesn't. I completely admit that resist bonuses remain better than active tank bonuses for the vast majority of situations. As always we will be balancing ships with the relative power of different bonuses in mind. Having the resist bonus a bit closer in power is simply something that makes finding that balance over the large number of affected ships much more achievable.


    I said this months ago in another thread, why not just get rid of the rep bonus totally and give those ships a resist bonus instead.

    You could then reduce the base resist percentage per level to whatever value you like without buffer or active tanking being overpowered.

    Doing this would also make certain ships more viable for pvp giving people more fleet options. A fleet of sentry myrms, blaster astartes, blaster hyperions instead of rokhs, arty maels that dont get owned instantly.

    This wouldnt affect pve players much either, buffer and resist tanks are better for pve generally as well.

    Reducing the percentage bonus would also affect remote reps which you guys seem to be looking at as well. The onky thing with rr you could change is to give rr and energy transfer optimal and falloff.

    If you are going to make sweeping changes can you at least sit down and think about it with input from the community. Saying we can talk to the csm doesnt really cut it. You are looking at this thread with us, the players, right now, lets talk it through and make some progress.

    Really what needs to be done is to open up ships a bit for other purposes, certain specific ships can be shoehorned if they are intended for specific roles.

    I do pvp and pve, I can tell you now, I never use actice tanking bonus ships in pve, they suck, navy scorp, tengu, drake, legion, navy domi and nightmare are my favourites, none of which I use active tanked bonus' with.

    Its an out dated bonus and shoehorns those ships to basically a pve or solo.pvp role (assuming you dont get blobbed). Its the most pointless bonus ever!
    gascanu
    Bearing Srl.
    #305 - 2013-04-13 08:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    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 = [b]a 33% increase in total EHP.


    in a stuning turns of events CCp shows once again that they have no ideea what they are talking about! Shocked
    more news at 11!

    ps. that math looks cool, but not always the quick math is also the right math...
    Roime
    Mea Culpa.
    Shadow Cartel
    #306 - 2013-04-13 08:16:50 UTC
    Fozzie,

    I hope you understand that this doesn't make the rep bonuses a single bit better, this just makes other ships worse.

    The issue with local armor tanking is not competition, but actual weakness in current meta.

    .
    Shingorash
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #307 - 2013-04-13 08:25:32 UTC
    Shingorash wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    One thing I'll quickly mention is that 1 / 0.8 = 1.25. This means that the new bonus (20% resists at level 5) will actually equal a 25% increase in Effective Reps. Still very significant (in fact it's probably what a lot of people assumed the old bonus gave). However the difference between 25% and 37.5% is a lot more noticeable than the difference between 33% and 37.5%.

    But that does not address that rep bonuses are only good against sustained DPS and not high alpha damage, where resistance bonuses are good for both.


    You are right that it doesn't. I completely admit that resist bonuses remain better than active tank bonuses for the vast majority of situations. As always we will be balancing ships with the relative power of different bonuses in mind. Having the resist bonus a bit closer in power is simply something that makes finding that balance over the large number of affected ships much more achievable.


    I said this months ago in another thread, why not just get rid of the rep bonus totally and give those ships a resist bonus instead.

    You could then reduce the base resist percentage per level to whatever value you like without buffer or active tanking being overpowered.

    Doing this would also make certain ships more viable for pvp giving people more fleet options. A fleet of sentry myrms, blaster astartes, blaster hyperions instead of rokhs, arty maels that dont get owned instantly.

    This wouldnt affect pve players much either, buffer and resist tanks are better for pve generally as well.

    Reducing the percentage bonus would also affect remote reps which you guys seem to be looking at as well. The onky thing with rr you could change is to give rr and energy transfer optimal and falloff.

    If you are going to make sweeping changes can you at least sit down and think about it with input from the community. Saying we can talk to the csm doesnt really cut it. You are looking at this thread with us, the players, right now, lets talk it through and make some progress.

    Really what needs to be done is to open up ships a bit for other purposes, certain specific ships can be shoehorned if they are intended for specific roles.

    I do pvp and pve, I can tell you now, I never use actice tanking bonus ships in pve, they suck, navy scorp, tengu, drake, legion, navy domi and nightmare are my favourites, none of which I use active tanked bonus' with.

    Its an out dated bonus and shoehorns those ships to basically a pve or solo.pvp role (assuming you dont get blobbed). Its the most pointless bonus ever!


    Forgot to add, all BS need some ehp increases, its,stupid that you can get bigger tanks on smaller ships than a battleship. You might want to take this into account in your calculations as well.
    Kyang Tia
    Matari Exodus
    #308 - 2013-04-13 08:47:34 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    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.
    ...
    While the majority of ships on this list rank among the more powerful in their classes, some (like the Eagle, Nighthawk and Vulture for instance) are already suffering. Those ships have problems that we believe to be separate from their resistance bonuses, and we are working hard to resolve those problems in the near future. Having the resistance bonus in a more balanced place will make our path to improving those ships much clearer.
    [/url]


    Your approach makes sense. I think it is the best possible direction to go with the resist bonuses. They were much too powerful, and extremely annoying for people like us who routinely fight larger gangs who have Logi support. Now, with 4%, they should be less dominant but still good. All in all, DO LIKE.

    And QFT about the Egale, Vulture, and Nighthawk. Would be really nice if tiericide hit their classes soon.
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #309 - 2013-04-13 08:49:15 UTC
    Naomi Knight wrote:
    Yes it seems they want the same thing , so repair bonused ships are viable for large scale PvP. I have no problem with that.

    Wrong way at looking at it, all it does is make choosing the resist hulls a not quite so obvious decision for quite so many situations, the rep ships are still hamstrung by being what they are but they should be able to find some previously unavailable niches to occupy in fleets.
    Naomi Knight wrote:
    But why is it so onesided?...

    It has to be, if a small scale ship is to be made truly viable in large scale fights it will completely dominate on the small. It is why the AAR had to be introduced in a significantly weakened state compared to lol-ASB's and the heating rig was pulled ..
    The correct approach is as CCP is doing it, to inch towards that most elusive golden middle where as many ships as possible are viable in as many scenarios as possible.

    The blanket reduction does however still necessitate a revisit of all the hulls affected, not all may need compensation tweaks but I'd guess most will.
    Amiar
    The Fiction Factory
    #310 - 2013-04-13 09:08:24 UTC
    Seems more to me that CCP wants to remove the difference between reacial ships. As far as i know, the resistance ships were dying just fine still? You want a more balanced game where it matter not if you train into other racial ships?
    Naomi Knight
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #311 - 2013-04-13 09:17:14 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:


    The blanket reduction does however still necessitate a revisit of all the hulls affected, not all may need compensation tweaks but I'd guess most will.

    We will see if this will be the case , but i think it wont be:=
    Especially as some of those resist bonused ships just got balanced.
    Johnson Oramara
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #312 - 2013-04-13 09:19:23 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.

    While the majority of ships on this list rank among the more powerful in their classes, some (like the Eagle, Nighthawk and Vulture for instance) are already suffering. Those ships have problems that we believe to be separate from their resistance bonuses, and we are working hard to resolve those problems in the near future. Having the resistance bonus in a more balanced place will make our path to improving those ships much clearer.

    That is great way to transfer the rage and blame from you to CSM when you push with these changes through anyway!

    And i hope the way you "fix" the ships like Eafle, Nighthawk and Vulture isn't just 1% or so shield hp right? Because i can totally see you just slapping a bit shield on them and call them balanced.
    Seth Asthereun
    Blank-Space
    Northern Coalition.
    #313 - 2013-04-13 10:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Seth Asthereun
    I want to apologize in advance for my bad english that is the reason why i do not usually post on forums. I hope Fozzie or RIse could go through my post and giving an answer.

    This is one of the worst balance ever proposed. It's so bad that it seems a blackmail to make us vote for the csm to go against.
    It's bad because trying to balance two ships you are going do disrupt everything you have done so far.

    The frigate balance was a good balance, the merlin and the hawk are ok and you are making them subpar in a class of ship where active tank is already dominant. Vengenace, punisher and the worm are already subpar(if not bad) and you are making them trash.

    The cruiser balance was "ok" except the fact that the two strongest shield cruisers are gallente, and now what happens? The moa and the maller were ok and now become subpar in a class of ships where other races are already doing better. The eagle the sacrilege aren't used now and you are making them more useless.

    The bc balance was "ok" too, they are maybe falling behind the cruiser too much but is acceptable. But now you are hitting the drake again trashing it, the Prophecy and the ferox that noone claimed to be op. The command is getting even worse you said you have plans for them, but nerfing them in advance doesn't seem a good balance.

    The Heavy ict have already a niche role, that is based mostly on how long they survive. Nerfing them is an unnecessary buff to capital ships.

    The mining ships have passed under what seemed to be an accurate balance in terms of resistences and buffer, and now what? disrupting all that work? Don't tell me that they were already balanced, planning the resistence nerf because is unlikely, just like the post ccp did after all the complains about the new npc AI

    You are ruining also a tanking mechanic of the game, the passive tank. Atm doesn't seem so OP to need a nerf and is mostly used in pve situation. Hitting the resistences of the ships that mostily do it (T3, drake, nighthawk, rattlesnake, gila etc) won't do any good.

    All this mess to balance 2 ships (Abba and rokh) that in my opinion could have been left just the way they are atm, and maybe a right nerft on the archon and the aeon.

    My point is that a bonus isn't op by itself, i becomes op on a determinate ship. The ibis won't become op if you are leaving the bonus at 5% but still you are changing it for the sake of an "it's all part of the plane" that has to be moved on.
    "The Mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans." We don't need plans, we need a balance in what is broken you are aren't doing it, you are messing just things around to justify the nerf of 2 ships
    Serith Ellecon
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #314 - 2013-04-13 10:16:24 UTC
    Beaver Retriever wrote:
    Luc Chastot wrote:
    How does this change the fact active tanking bonuses are useless for fleets, thus completely wasted? Also, how does this change the fact Gallente has 4 ships with an almost useless bonus, while Minmatar has only 3?

    So, what I'm seeing here is that not only have Caldari and Amarr plenty of ships with the better bonus, but also Gallente is in a worse position than Minmatar, while also having to deal with blasters' range and drones.

    Edit: Yay.

    They aren't 'wasted', that just means there's fleet ships and there's gang ships.

    Not every ship has to be useful in a 200-man fleet. And not every ship has to be useful in a 6-man gang. There's roles. What's wrong with variety?


    Ok, outside the logi ships, dictors and hictors, and the odd e-war ship, where's the big Gallente fleet ship? Oh, right, there isn't one. There hasn't been a Gallente based fleet doctrine in nullsec for... how long? 2 years? Yes, I mean the deprecated Goonfleet boot sentry domis.
    The Talos is a blaster boat and sucks as a long range rail sniper unlike ALL OTHER Tier 3 BC, likewise the Mega. Oh, that's right, Gallente pilots are just small gang people with those silly local rep bonuses that are utterly useless if you've even heard of anyone who can fly even a T1 logi cruiser.

    That resist bonus has been incredibly powerful for a long time now. It really needs to be abolished and replaced with something easier to keep balanced like a base hull EHP bonus perhaps?

    Inappropriate signature added.  CCP Notarealdev.
    Alphea Abbra
    Project Promethion
    #315 - 2013-04-13 10:16:57 UTC
    Toshaheri Talvinen wrote:
    Please explain to me how decreasing the resistances of all these ships is going to help the alpha fleet mentality? Isn't it just going to turn into a mechanic of whomever can fire their arties faster wins the fleet fight? It's just going to encourage it, but that's just my logic speaking to me.

    Rynnik wrote:
    I eagerly await the Alpha nerf that must be coming to balance this out.

    Sizeof Void wrote:
    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.

    Qaidan Alenko wrote:
    So, if I'm understanding this correctly... high alpha artillery just got a buff...

    Not necessarily.
    If you look at the battleship fleetdoctrines mostly in use in null-sec right now, alpha doctrines has actually fallen behind many others due to the reason why alpha grew so strong.
    Alpha became dominant mainly due to 2 reasons:
    - The lag situation (Which is now mostly solved).
    - The increase in general character skills meant more and better reps.
    The alphamaelstrom doctrine isn't a versatile doctrine. You have to bring dedicated e-war ships, you have to have good huginn numbers, half of the ship bonusses are unused, your fleet can only shoot 1 enemy per 8 or 15 seconds, it can be made vulnerable to small ship doctrines, and as soon as you fall beneath a threshold of dead maelstroms, your fleet doctrine no longer works.
    So the reason alphamaels aren't used much in null-sec as it is, is because it already was falling behind other doctrines.
    Removing a little part of the reason why alphamaelstroms were needed will not change any of the flaws in alphamaels, and will remove a part of the necessity to turn to alphadoctrines.

    I think alphadoctrine might get a small boost in use from this because of the PvP fitted maelstroms I assume are still out there, docked and waiting for the green light.
    But their usability will not improve, and that means this won't mean more alphadoctrines, just that the threshold to use ("For the last time"/"One last flight") an outdated doctrine gets lower.
    So don't blame alphadoctrines for this, they might lose the last of their niche.

    o7
    Shani Mukantagara
    Fairlight Corp
    Rooks and Kings
    #316 - 2013-04-13 10:30:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Shani Mukantagara
    The only thing CCP are doing is nerfing the smaller alliance and corps who rely on every extra % of resistance, capacitor and buffer you have while spending billions and billions on officer mods and implants to make sure your fleet is that little bit better than the blob.

    As I stated in the Geddon change rage thread, its harder to find a battleship fleet to fight these days. 0.0 Alliance members complain that they can not afford to fly battleships, because the alliance wont reimburse them, because battleships are hard to transport to 0.0, because they are expensive to make compared to their Tech 2 BPOS and endless Moon Goo.

    If there where 100s and 100s of battleship fleets out and about then I would agree with the resistance decrease but frank;y the problem with this game at the moment is the T2 cruisers and t3 BCs being too powerful for what they are.

    So the next time I deploy my Triage Archon against a blob of 200 Tech 2 ships, I will be even more at a disadvantage.
    Kujun Nashja
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #317 - 2013-04-13 10:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Kujun Nashja
    Though i agree with the math behind this, the nerf in it´s current form will just have too much of an impact on ships which it actually was not intended for. You just applied the rules of certain situations (like mid to large scale fleet warfare) to ships which will never be flown under this kind of circumstances.

    Yes, i agree that the resist bonus on some ships needs tweaking (Maller, Abba, Rokh, to name a few). But for your own good and for the good of gameplay: Do this by looking at the ships themselves. This nerf will be to generalized and hit ships which heavily rely on this bonus while not needing any nerfs at the moment, but rather buffs (Gila, Worn, Punisher, Ferox, etc.).

    It just seems...lazy. Also it would be ANOTHER hit to solo and small/scale players where RR basically plays no role. It will also heavily influence ships which can be considered "anti-blob" (t3s, triage archon, etc). However these ships come with a price. A price which actually justifies a 5% damage bonus. If you go through with this i can foresee that you will have to do some major rebalancing afterwards, looking at each ship individually. You should do this right from the start.
    Johnson Oramara
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #318 - 2013-04-13 10:35:33 UTC
    Here we have the Missile flight time VS Missile flight speed too, how are you planning to balance these? Faster missiles are completely op compared to other !

    And how do you balance those against Explosion velocity, damage and rof bonuses? Oh but wait, rof and damage aren't balanced either !

    After you start talking about balancing ship bonuses i sure hope you won't just stop there.
    Tau Cabalander
    Retirement Retreat
    Working Stiffs
    #319 - 2013-04-13 10:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    This affects 44 ships total.

    Shield:
    Ibis, Taipan, Merlin, Worm, Harpy, Cambion, Moa, Gila, Eagle, Onyx, Broadsword, Drake, Ferox, Nighthawk, Vulture, Tengu, Loki, Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk, Rokh, Scorpion Navy Issue, Rattlesnake, Chimera, Wyvern.

    Armor:
    Impairor, Punisher, Vengeance, Malice, Malediction, Maller, Sacrilege, Mimir, Vangel, Devoter, Phobos, Prophecy, Absolution, Damnation, Loki, Legion, Proteus, Abaddon, Archon, Aeon.

    Had to re-check the date to make sure this wasn't an April fool, after I spouted my tea out my nose in disbelief [especially in regards to the Chimera and Wyvern - already the weakest ships, and all HICs that need massive EHP]. It would be nice if T3 were useful vs. Sleepers too.

    Honestly, it looked like an attempt to hide the truth of where the nerfbat may strike:

    Caldari (15): Ibis, Merlin, Harpy, Moa, Eagle, Onyx, Drake, Ferox, Nighthawk, Vulture, Tengu, Rokh, Scorpion Navy Issue, Chimera, Wyvern

    Amarr (14): Impairor, Punisher, Vengeance, Malediction, Maller, Sacrilege, Devoter, Prophecy, Absolution, Damnation, Legion, Abaddon, Archon, Aeon

    Guristas (Caldari + Amarr = 4): Taipan, Worm, Gila, Rattlesnake

    Gallente (2): Phobos, Proteus

    Minmatar (2): Broadsword, Loki

    Tourney Prizes (4): Cambion, Malice, Mimir, Vangel

    ORE (3): Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk

    Also, please note that you cannot compare shield and armor equitably until they both get the same implants and modules:
    * Slaves vs. (no shield implant)
    * Crystals vs. (no armor implant)
    * EANM vs. (no shield module)
    * Reactive Armor Hardener vs. (no shield module)
    NenYim
    Janitor Corporation
    #320 - 2013-04-13 10:50:07 UTC
    "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. "

    Fozzie, have u thought of leaving the bonus as it is and adjust the EHP of the ship slowly into line as desired to get the same effect?

    take spider tanked normal caps for example:
    (this is a fit i had listed away, not sure of the exact fit been used currently)

    3x Capital Remote Armor Repair System I
    2x Capital Energy Transfer Array I

    ECCM - Radar II
    Sensor Booster II
    2xCap Recharger II

    Damage Control II
    Armor EM Hardener II
    Armor Explosive Hardener II
    Armor Kinetic Hardener II
    Armor Thermic Hardener II
    2x Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane

    3x Large Trimark Armor Pump I

    it gives u around 2.27m EHP depending on skills BUT u have given up all your fit just to tank... your a flying BRICK! and that's the power of the fit, you are meant to live, not die, to stay on field after almost every other ship has been killed.
    no offense here fozzie but the problem we have is that we the player base currently have no counter for this setup that's why its so strong, its not the bonus's them self's that have made it "OP" its just the old formula "N+1".
    without taking away the iconicness of the ships that have said resist, then maybe we need to look at other ways to balance the issue if its so powerful

    now Im going 2 stay with the Archon due to it been the biggest elephant in the room.

    1: only allow assisting of drones up to double of the person who can launch themselves (ei if someone can launch 5 drones he can have 10 assisted to him, if he can launch 10 drones out he can then have 20 assisting him(THIS IS ONLY A EXAMPLE, change as required))

    2: over the next few patches starting with Odyssey slowly reduce the EHP of said ships till u feel they are inline with other ships but remember to use average skills, around level 3-4 of 5 so if u specialize you get a benefit of the time you put into it

    3: reduce the amount of what a RR will heal the target for

    4: (the one i would use) is a combination of 2-3 but do it over time, so we can observe the effects upon the meta

    At the end of the day there is a number of paths available, if you follow through with this u may have to go back to the start and look at the balance of the ships you have already completed due to you making them obsolete VS others available.
    personally i think it should be left as is till you have completed the entirety of your tearaside, then start looking at fixing modules/bonuses as needed, if you start playing with modules/bonuses now you may be in a world of hurt later due to things not aligning properly at the end of your campaign.

    how much would it hurt not to attack the problem now but do it at a later date when its at its point of the process that you are completing, please don't bite off more then you can chew, do it once and do it right.

    thanks alot for all the work done so far, just remember to breath now and then fozzie :)