These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jureth22
State War Academy
Caldari State
#341 - 2013-04-13 12:48:55 UTC
Jureth22 wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
How about 3% instead. 4% is still loads.


how about 1% or just completly remove bonuses from ships :D,or better yet destroy all ships slots bonuses/mix them up and see what happens :D


actualy,now thats i think about its its not a bad ideea.i mean people complaining that mindlink is ********,and somehow i have to agree with them (a thing that give you bonuses from void and make you go faster/get more rezists etc)

so why not completly remove the bonuses of ships and give them more slots acordingly?maybe more rigs/rigs slots
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#342 - 2013-04-13 12:57:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnson Oramara
Jessica Danikov wrote:
If you want to just nerf reps in general (active, passive, remote) on all these hulls, do the resistance nerf, but compensate the HP.

If you specifically want to nerf remote reps, this is not the way to do it. If you specifically want to nerf individual hulls, this is not the way to do it. Pattern Clarc is right, this is a lazy and dangerous wide-sweeping change. Each ship needs to be considered individually for such a change, rather than applying it as a blanket to try and fix the perceived issue with remote reps and hitting a bunch of other stuff at once.

The CSM is meant to promote preference, not intelligence. Intuition that something is imbalanced isn't necessarily correct- although it may hint at mitigating factors that weren't originally accounted for, balancing shouldn't be directly swayed by public opinion, but rather directed to investigate deeper when there is public outcry.

I'm more concerned about ships that are already weak and if you just add hp to them that only slightly helps with the buffer tanks, what about active tank fits on them? they are taking quite a hit. Not a balanced way to fix this at all while that is what they are claiming to do.

I mean most of the balancing is only happening with big fleets in mind and in the end they usually just gain even more advantage over the small gang or solo.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#343 - 2013-04-13 13:00:19 UTC
gascanu wrote:
i really don't care if you or your alliance don't fly alfa fleets, or if you have one or not, and that is in no way relevant

you sayd that alpha fleets are no longer used, me on the other side sayd that they are still the most important bs fleet doctrine.
and you response was to ask for a relevant alliance that still using it, other than solar; when i give you cfc example you just say "incorect" and that's it; then you trow allot of words about some wars, noone asked about, but don't give me the important answer: what's the cfc main bs fleet doctrine?
do you know or not?
Wait, did you read my posts at all?
I said that the alpha doctrine came from a specific set of circumstances that negated how bad it was in other areas. I continued to explain that now those circumstances have changed, the alphamaelstroms are falling out of favour and are discontinued as doctrine (Except for this single well-known alliance called SOLAR, who are losing a defensive war against the attackers in small part because they use outdated doctrines).
So, you say that the alphadoctrine is still most important? Well, then show me where it is used!
(I even gave you a free first example: SOLAR FLEET uses alphamaels.)

I have no idea what the CFC views as their main battleship doctrine. If it's alphamaelstroms because they haven't changed it, it just strikes me as odd that they haven't been used as a large part of the wars they have been in - dating back to Branch and Tenal in the first quarter of 2012!
Furthermore, I gave you an up-to-date list of what battleships you'll see be the core of battleship doctrines in most null-sec fleets, and gave a good example of how a better (Here meaning more versatile) ship might be used in different roles.

If you try to tell me that wars are not important for a good view of the doctrines in use currently, then you are out of touch with the game.
Mirel Dystoph
Perkone
Caldari State
#344 - 2013-04-13 13:05:43 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:


I have no idea what the CFC views as their main battleship doctrine.

They switched to Rokhs iirc.

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
Garresh
Mackies Raiders
Wild Geese.
#345 - 2013-04-13 13:11:48 UTC
An excellent and well-reasoned change that won't obsolete the ships with that particular bonus. I think we've all known for too long how absurdly powerful that bonus is. Glad to see it toned down a bit.

+1

This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#346 - 2013-04-13 13:19:59 UTC
Mirel Dystoph wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:


I have no idea what the CFC views as their main battleship doctrine.

They switched to Rokhs iirc.

That comes with no surprise to me, tbh, but thanks for the correction. Smile
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#347 - 2013-04-13 13:24:47 UTC
Garresh wrote:
An excellent and well-reasoned change that won't obsolete the ships with that particular bonus. I think we've all known for too long how absurdly powerful that bonus is. Glad to see it toned down a bit.

+1

If you would think for a while you would notice that this won't actually address the problem too well and also creates even more issues.

There could be 90% reduction in capitals ehp or 90% reduction in moongoo with some random excuse and your kind of people would be here telling how great it is.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#348 - 2013-04-13 13:28:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
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.


    Hi Fozzie, and thanks for finally adressing this issue.

    I agree that making the resist bonuses suffer from stacking penalties would be a bad solution, for the reasons you stated.

    I also think that reducing the resist bonus to 4% per level can be a good way of tackling this problem.

    However, I am confused by your argument against applying active bonuses to incoming remote reps. It wouldn't make remote rep stategies any stronger as they are now. It would just make them as strong on active bonused ships as on resist bonused ships. This way it would only grant active bonused ships the versatility you love so much in resist bonused ships. And while they would maybe be repped a little more than resist bonused ships (especially after moving to 4% per level), they would still be more vulnerable to alpha fleets than resist ships.

    I really believe that this would help many active bonused ships to find a place in fleets.

    Edit: In your last reply to this thread, you also stated that you know that resist bonuses are superior in the vast majority of situations, and that applying the active bonuses to remote reps would alleviate exactly this. So... why?

    Since the new resist bonuses equal to 25% increase in reps, why not transform the active bonuses as follows:

    Before: 7.5% increase to local repair amount per level.
    After: 7.5% increase to local repair amount and 5% increase to incoming repair amount per level.

    It wouldn't be the only bonus that has two effects (see droneboats with bonuses to drone hp AND damage in a single bonus).

    "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
    Pelea Ming
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #349 - 2013-04-13 13:31:35 UTC
    Michael Harari wrote:
    Pelea Ming wrote:
    Then I want these hulls/subsystems to pick up some minor local rep bonus as your engaging in this nerf for PvP purposes, but not offering the hulls anything for the unmentioned PvE nerf. Either that, or some other balancing needs to be done to the PvE environment to balance that against all these PvP balances. Because, to be perfectly honest with you, from a PvP aspect, I have not yet seen one single proposed change, whether a nerf or a buff, that I have any issues with beyond some small amount of nostalgia (and if you don't think I PvP, look me up on either Battleclinic or Eve-Kill... I may not PvP regularly, but I feel I do have a solid history of it), but from the perspective of missions, all I see are ships that people once went to as the strongest option to do them with getting weaker while the rats remain unchanged, and especially for someone like me who prefers to run all my missions solo when I grind them, and obviously more so for lower skilled/newer players, this issue is just becoming more and more pronounced. And I don't mean this in regards to Incursion PvE, either, that style of PvE mimics PvP close enough to not be worth commenting on, however, actual mission running (which includes the much vaunted Epic Arcs) seems to be consistently being pushed to the wayside and ignored and simply becoming an issue of ceaselessly becoming more difficult to do effectively with no end in site. Please, CCP Fozzie, Rise, any and all Devs, take a few days, give this some thought, and put up a thread concerning it. I am not asking you to rush any such issues through in time for Odyssey, as I believe this is just as, if not more so, far reaching within the game then you currently think all of these PvP changes are... because, after all, what is every new player first exposed to upon finding the game if they wish to learn how to start becoming effective in playing it? Missions!


    Level 4 missions are terribly easy and can be done in a maelstrom with about 3-4 weeks of focused training. A small nerf to the tank on ships that arent even commonly used for missions really doesnt change much.

    yes, but with the changes to the Amarr hulls, "3-4 weeks of training" won't begin to cut it for L4 missions. I had to get max skills to even think about soloing AE or WC with my Abaddon before, and now it will have less tank to attempt it with, I honestly doubt that it will work (and that's considering previously I had a fully faction dual-repped tank on it to solo it to begin with).
    Johnson Oramara
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #350 - 2013-04-13 13:34:33 UTC
    Iris Bravemount wrote:
    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.


    Hi Fozzie, and thanks for finally adressing this issue.

    I agree that making the resist bonuses suffer from stacking penalties would be a bad solution, for the reasons you stated.

    I also think that reducing the resist bonus to 4% per level can be a good way of tackling this problem.

    However, I am confused by your argument against applying active bonuses to incoming remote reps. It wouldn't make remote rep stategies any stronger as they are now. It would just make them as strong on active bonused ships as on resist bonused ships. This way it would only grant active bonused ships the versatility you love so much in resist bonused ships. And while they would maybe be repped a little more than resist bonused ships (especially after moving to 4% per level), they would still be more vulnerable to alpha fleets than resist ships.

    I really believe that this would help many active bonused ships to find a place in fleets.

    Yes i agree with you, and if they are scared of giving ships even more self repair ability the bonus could be made to give the reduced amount bonus to local reppers and slightly increased for incoming remote repair.The numbers could for example be 8% for local and 10% from incoming rr.
    Iris Bravemount
    Golden Grinding Gears
    #351 - 2013-04-13 13:45:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
    Pelea Ming wrote:
    yes, but with the changes to the Amarr hulls, "3-4 weeks of training" won't begin to cut it for L4 missions. I had to get max skills to even think about soloing AE or WC with my Abaddon before, and now it will have less tank to attempt it with, I honestly doubt that it will work (and that's considering previously I had a fully faction dual-repped tank on it to solo it to begin with).


    Currently, you shuld use an Apocalypse if you have cap issues. Consider fitting other weapons or using other races' ships for angel or guristas missions.

    After the changes, large lasers will consume less cap overall, so it should actually become easier to run missions in an Abbadon.

    Edit: And btw, I don't think it is a bad thing that you can't fly a BS after 3-4 weeks of training. My toon was 8 months old when I first sat in a BS.

    "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
    Danny Centauri
    Noir.
    Templis CALSF
    #352 - 2013-04-13 13:46:24 UTC
    Happy with the change of resistance but think it should be made as a ship class is balanaced, for example the sacriledge wasn't great now it just sucks more.

    EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players.
    Kethry Avenger
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #353 - 2013-04-13 14:05:42 UTC
    I think the Heavy Interdiction Cruisers should keep the bonuses. They have very specialized roles and unique penalties that I think are balanced for their roles. And then the Gallente and Minmatar ones could be adjusted when you get to them if needed.


    Other than that I would take a good look at all the smallest ships that have this bonus and see if adjustments need to be made in light of this change.

    I am mostly concerned about the Punisher, because I think it already has problems since the teiricide and will feel this loss more than most.
    Noslen Nosilla
    Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate
    United Interests
    #354 - 2013-04-13 14:07:43 UTC
    NO! NO! NO!

    Be polite.

    Be professional.

    But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
    Askulf Joringer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #355 - 2013-04-13 14:09:53 UTC
    Johnson Oramara wrote:

    If you would think for a while you would notice that this won't actually address the problem too well and also creates even more issues.

    There could be 90% reduction in capitals ehp or 90% reduction in moongoo with some random excuse and your kind of people would be here telling how great it is.


    Are you really comparing a reduction from 5% to 4% resistance per level to a 90% capital ship ehp nerf in the sense that people who support the resistance bonus nerf would support a super harash cap ehp nerf?

    Come now dude, you're being a bit ********.
    Garresh
    Mackies Raiders
    Wild Geese.
    #356 - 2013-04-13 14:12:54 UTC
    Johnson Oramara wrote:
    Garresh wrote:
    An excellent and well-reasoned change that won't obsolete the ships with that particular bonus. I think we've all known for too long how absurdly powerful that bonus is. Glad to see it toned down a bit.

    +1

    If you would think for a while you would notice that this won't actually address the problem too well and also creates even more issues.

    There could be 90% reduction in capitals ehp or 90% reduction in moongoo with some random excuse and your kind of people would be here telling how great it is.


    Poor nullbears.

    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #357 - 2013-04-13 14:49:50 UTC
    Iris Bravemount wrote:
    ...After the changes, large lasers will consume less cap overall, so it should actually become easier to run missions in an Abbadon...

    Eight MPII draw 40 odd cap per sec, native recharge is about a quarter of that and you think saving 4-5cap/s will have a significant impact (ie. change away from cap mods/rigs) on the ability for it to run it? Big smile

    Ships in my world that will be the hardest hit are the Punisher, Vengeance and Maller, because the EHP/Dps ratio in the sub-BC class is geared towards fast-n-furious fights where every inch counts.

    Punisher with weaker tank than current stands to lose the most as its performance is not stellar to begin with, massive cap instability in all but *yawn* buffer fits and no range/fight control to speak of.
    - Move utility to mid for fight control (indirectly helps tank), or
    - Increase damage bonus to 7.5%/level (manipulates the EHP/Dps ratio), or
    - *the boring one* Increase raw armour (manipulates the EHP/Dps ratio).
    Personally partial to the first option. Pits the resist directly against the rep bonus by mimicking the Incursus layout.

    Maller is a little better off than Punisher by having more starting EHP and grid to increase it, but it too suffers from fight control issues and is also pretty unstable .. doubly so as cruiser level fights very often include neuts.
    - Add 10m3 drones and tweak mobility and cap upwards a bit.
    - *the boring one* Increase raw armour (manipulates the EHP/Dps ratio).
    Solutions limited by Amarr cruiser dogma, 4 mids are restricted to selected hulls and it 'needs' the full high/low rack to compete.

    Vengeance is a specialized ship, the very first missile hull an Amarr pilot encounters. It is Khanid in origin which opens up for a lot of solutions (think toned down missile based Malice).
    - Move utility to mid for fight control (indirectly helps tank), or
    - Increase cap slightly and replace recharge bonus with 20% nos/neut power per level (helps defense or offense), or
    - Move utility to and tweak CPU/Grid low (directly helps tank, indirectly offense), or
    - *the boring one* Increase raw armour (manipulates the EHP/Dps ratio).
    Personally partial to the second option. Fits with everything without breaking (much) and I'd love me a gimp Malice!
    Cabooze Skadoosh
    Wilde Jagd
    #358 - 2013-04-13 14:53:32 UTC
    CCP just went full ******. Never go full ******.

    You guys in the ship balance team have done excellent job in balancing frigates and cruisers but now you want to throw all that good work away and create an imbalance between the different frig and cruiser hulls again. There will always be imbalance somewhere but now with the past changes you came close to making them equally powerful in their own niche roles that they have.

    Many people have already said that you shouldn't give a huge nerf to all these ships because the resistance bonus is "overpowered" in one aspect of the game: Blob PvP. But I guess Merlin and Moa blobs with remote reps were too much and needed a nerf. As already said you should balance the ships in individually and not nerf everything with the bonus especially when some of them were already in balance with their respective hull catagory. You, CCP Fozzie, also mentioned that some of them were already "suffering" so why nerf them some more now when some people might be using them to some success in their current form.

    In my opinion this whole resistance nerf thing is useless and the reason to do so has more to it than the ship bonus and should be looked into more carefully than this. Making Rokhs and Abaddons slightly less powerful in blob warfare, which is the main reason of this ridiculous nerf, doesn't justify nerfing every ship with the bonus and makes those two ships whole lot worse in any other use in this game not just blobs.

    The 5% resist bonus is a very versatily bonus but is it a bad thing? This change will hurt alot more active tanking setups than the original problem was: buffer blob fleets with RR. Active tanking Rokh is tanking roughly 10% less than active tanked Maelstrom after this as pointed out in the Caldari BS balance thread.

    I suggest to give more thought to this "problem" than this across the board nerf.

    Thank you for considering my whiny little proposal

    Cabooze
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #359 - 2013-04-13 15:01:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
    Cabooze Skadoosh wrote:
    The 5% resist bonus is a very versatily bonus but is it a bad thing? ...

    When it equals or surpasses the specific/dedicated tank bonuses on both the small and the large scale, then yes that is pretty bad.
    Problem with a blanket reduction is that while it sorts the discrepancy (buffer induced), it hits the active tank resist ships (small scale mostly) doubly hard which is why you should accept it and join the 'Compensation NOW' lobby (see prev. post for examples).
    Cabooze Skadoosh
    Wilde Jagd
    #360 - 2013-04-13 15:10:20 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:
    Cabooze Skadoosh wrote:
    The 5% resist bonus is a very versatily bonus but is it a bad thing? ...

    When it equals or surpasses the specific/dedicated tank bonuses on both the small and the large scale, then yes that is pretty bad.
    Problem with a blanket reduction is that while it sorts the discrepancy (buffer induced), it hits the active tank resist ships (small scale mostly) doubly hard which is why you should accept it and join the 'Compensation NOW' lobby (see prev. post for examples).


    So start balancing all over again with these ships. How long is that gonna take?