Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I am giving you the benefit of doubt here and don't write you off as that stupid, so take this opportunity to plead your case. I am assuming that there is a very specific balance you must be referring to because the content-driving "balance" in EVE right now is Alpha on free platforms (Goons) vs. Supers (PL). If you'd refer to some balance in general, that would be it.

The amount of bad math in this thread is doing my head in. Let's work out some practical examples here:

Firstly, let's consider just a single hull. Rokh is your typical 'overpowered' shield-based resistance-bonused hull. Let's also assume all Level V skills for simplicity. We'll also consider reps from a Logi V Basilisk (5x Large meta4 shield reps). Without modules:

Retribution:
25/40/55/62.5 Shield Resists (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp)
10625/19540/41878 Shield HP/Shield EHP/EHP
732 dps under reps.

Odyssee:
20/36/52/60 Shield Resists (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp)
10625/18319/40657 Shield HP/Shield EHP/EHP
686 dps under reps.

A ~6.25% reduction in shield EHP, ~6.28% reduction to reps. Overall EHP reduction is ~2.92%. Note how the smallest resists appear to be hit the hardest, but the reduction is actually the same by percentage.


Let's now consider fits. Let's try max resists to see how remote reps factor under ideal conditions. This turns out to be DC2, 2/2/1/1 fields and 1/0/1/1 rigs:

Retribution:
87.2/87.7/86.9/89.1 Shield Resists (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp)
10625/86518/125206 Shield HP/Shield EHP/EHP
3242 dps under reps.

Odyssee:
86.4/86.8/86/88.4 Shield Resists (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp)
10625/81111/119799 Shield HP/Shield EHP/EHP
3040 dps under reps.

The reduction in shield EHP is identical- ~6.25%, but the reduction in overall EHP is now higher because of the larger shield contribution- ~4.23%. The reduction in reps is ~6.23%. Noticing a pattern here?


How about max EHP (by both resists and other mods)? DC2, EM+Therm Field, 2 Invuls, 2 LSEs and 3x CDFE rigs:

Retribution:
81.9/85.5/79.6/83 Shield Resists (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp)
26140/149520/188218 Shield HP/Shield EHP/EHP
2396 dps under reps.

Odyssee:
80.7/84.6/78.3/81.9 Shield Resists (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp)
26140/140184/178872 Shield HP/Shield EHP/EHP
2246 dps under reps.

Wanna guess? ~6.24% reduction in shield EHP. ~6.26% reduction in reps. ~5% reduction in overall EHP. In practical terms, that is 9,350 shield EHP lost and 150 dps reps lost. In a fleet, it's like losing 1 in 16 of your Basilisks and 1 in 20 of your Rokhs (by EHP). Against a 10k alpha, you only need one less volley.


Conclusion: this change is a flat nerf by 6.25% of resist bonused repped dps, local and remote, a flat nerf of 6.25% of bonused tank EHP, dropping practically to 2.5%-5% overall EHP loss, to every ship listed. As Fozzie correctly stated, these bonuses have effectively been a 33.3% increase on base levels and are dropping to a 25% bonus (the 6.25% comes from 6.25% of 133.3% (current levels) = 8.3% of 100% (base level), 133.3% - 8.3% = 125% in base EHP, just as 100% - 6.25% = 93.75% in current max EHP.

It's really important to note this is effective a 33% bonus to BOTH reps and EHP, in essence a double bonus, but the EHP bonus can be mitigated by changes to the base HP.

The question is whether all the ships listed individually needed to be nerfed as such- you can make ships that are strong under reps (33.3% bonus) only by retaining the 5% resist bonus, but removing 1/4th of their base HP (~133% -> 100%), while remaining weaker than the local rep bonus such as Maelstroms (7.5% per level = 37.5% overall, but quickly eclipsed by multiple logi). Or you could reduce the bonuses to 3% per level and get overall 17.6% bonuses to both EHP and reps to make ships that try to do both at weaker levels.

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).

"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?

over the next few patches starting with Odyssey slowly reduce the EHP of said ships till u feel they are inline with other ships

Really lemonade stand and ....No snapper has owned and does own a buisness that EMPLYESS 24 PEOPLE NOW and the last one was 80 people building highway bridges and no sadley just owns a bar but provideds health insurance so JACKASS I DO KNOW WHAT IM TALKING about ..... i built highway brides and now own a bar i have a clue tard and if i had 300dps squaresd minus 450 lqs divided by 50 times 20 svb i would have a total of 456 dfg ....WTF really

I believe there is a difference between math and reality. You cannot just compare the numbers for some active tanking setup (which is btw. not the main form of tanking in this game).

To be honest, most ships with a resistance bonus are quite okay, but not overly powerful within their leage.

Zealot is by far more used than Sacrilege. Because Speed and Damageprojection is a greater advantage than resistance.
Abaddon is strong with LOTS of support. Do 1on1 vs. a cheap Typhoon and you simply lose. Also in Fleets, more and more people use NavyGeddon and NavyApoc - both without resist bonus and still better.

Vengeance or Punisher is a brick but can hardly catch anything. Retribution the same. How many of the very successfull frig-pilots use them? Not the most. Most people fly other frigs without resist boni, because other values are WAY more important in PvP.

Archon is the best carrier, but not because of its resist bonus, but because of the capacitor amount and the ability to feed armor and cap. Also very good to fit, unlike chimera. The resist bonus plays an absolute minor role in its domination.

Prophecy: had its resist bonus for years and was the by far worst battlecruiser. So much for the numbers.

Drake: was dominant because of the massive HM-imbalance. Shortrange every drake is simply eaten alive by a Brutix, Harbinger or Hurricane. The Resistbonus was nice but far from being the base of its strength.

You can look at almost every single ship with a resistance bonus and you will come to the same conclusion:
- the resistance bonus is not the reason why they are good
or
- they even suck with resistance bonus

Fact is, most of the ships with a resistance bonus lack agility, speed or damageprojection or any combination of these. They NEED the "stronger" tanking bonus in order to survive long enough to even compete with the other ships. You mathematics on paper has nothing to do how these ships perform in reality.

Would muddy the waters needlessly to have bonuses of different values all over the place.

If you sort the list Fozzie provided, you'll see that the vast majority of ships being affected are pirate/navy, T2 and collectors ships .. the first two have barely been been touched by tiericide (only just gotten to cruisers) and the latter are so brokenly OP and rarely see combat that they remain unperturbed.
T2 will probably see a shake-up of similar magnitude to what T1 has seen as will the larger faction hulls, when the time comes keep an eye on them and if CCP neglects to account for the blanket nerf when presenting the revision, then you can scream bloody murder .. until then, focus on the existing ships (ie. tiericided T1) affected and let the rest lie until the shroud is lifted.

I think you are making a serious mistake, and that is based on the underlined part. What you say is definately related, but i would argue that the issue lie in the complete opposite of what was underlined:

The unchecked power of alpha and numerical scaling is what has cemented the popularity of buffer-RR and dumbed the game down to alpha-only strategies.

It's disheartening to see that CCP do not learn from their mistakes.



We do not have alpha-only strategies because that is the only way to deal with powerful resistances, buffers and RR; we have alpha-only strategies because that has gradually become the most powerful way to deal with any resistance, buffer or RR. The buffer-RR tanking strategies splashing over into Carriers is simply the result of buffer-projection scaling to the next level. This does not provide alternatives to subcapital blobs any more than the HP-nerf provided alternatives to supercapital blobs. The king is dead, long live the king.

Lowering buffers lower the barrier of entry to alpha-only strategy, but it does not encourage other tactics, smaller ships, smaller gangs or fighting undermanned. The first few months of BC3 should have taught you this. What happened to all those (smaller-) gangs roaming the map in BC3?

Most of the interesting smaller-scale action (think: RnK movies) in the game involve defensible gangs, utilization of other effects (EW, control) than sheer volley damage and sticking one's neck out in order to overcome the status quo. When that status quo exist you also see all those other inventive ways to deal with buffers and RR.

Look at any undermanned action and you will see that they favour highly defensible gangs (100mn, cloaking, drops etc.).



It's a terrible shame to see you getting it backwards, again, and heading towards implementing changes that feed the blob, discourage undermanned engagement (so we get more "nah, they had more dudes, let's not even try to fight them") and send more smaller entities from the holistic interactive sandbox and into peer-active themeparks... again.

Baddons, Rokhs, Loki, Tengu, Archons et. al. are favoured because too many ships or weapons Alpha other options more easily, and send the tactical aspect of the game into a "trade blows" (alpha-only) scenario earlier in the scaling. Tackling people has also become far too easy so it's just a matter of sitting still and projecting both tackle and damage. Who sticks their neck out, take that risk chasing after those targets to land that precious tackle anymore? Who grabs that extreme damage SR weapon and overheat his guns like a madman to break through anymore? Now, we'll have even less reason to do it.