These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#441 - 2013-04-14 11:15:09 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:


ach.. i think HACS need to be taken away from sniping as they can't compete with ABC's in anyway really they should head in the direction of the deimos/vaga.

so 8 ship should compete for the same role? that is impossible to balance , especially as that role are already favour by matar/gall here deimos/vaga, so what would they become a weaker version of those ships?


well you cerb and sacrilege for HAMS shield/armour tank
Eagle and deimos for shield/armour tank
vaga and muninn shield/armour tank
zealot and ishtar are fairly unique

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Bluemelon
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#442 - 2013-04-14 11:17:51 UTC
Please leave the bonus on my Vangels. There are only 50 of them and they deserve to be a little OP

-Blue

For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread
octahexx Charante
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#443 - 2013-04-14 11:35:07 UTC
so you want less supers and titans ingame yet you nerf the HIC who has the only prupose in game to point and tank without assistance?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#444 - 2013-04-14 13:03:36 UTC
Akturous wrote:



2nd.

Very uncreative nerf this. How about making remote repair effects stacking penalised, possibly with different stacking numbers for capital and sub-cap? Instantly fix slow cats.


Tell you what, you can have remote reps have stacking penalties if I can have incoming DPS have stacking penalties so the more ships that shoot at me, the less effective each one becomes.
That should instantly fix blob warfare right?

Of course, if you find that a silly idea (as you should) then why should remote reps suffer stacking. To get more remote reps, you need more ships. Just the same as to get more DPS.
Tilo Rhywald
Wilde Jagd
#445 - 2013-04-14 13:12:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tilo Rhywald
Liang Nuren wrote:
First, let me say that resist bonuses are very powerful. I think we all know and agree with this. However, I was personally fond of your previous approach to balancing resist bonuses: by restricting the ships in other ways. The implication here is that ships with a resist bonus are frequently slower ships, or have less fittings, or less damage, or less range, etc. You specifically bring up nerfing the Nighthawk, despite neither the ship or it's tank being that big of a deal. Furthermore, you're talking of changing ships that already work as intended, and would need to be rebalanced again. I contend that nerfing resist bonuses is an untargeted solution that ignores actual ship balance.

Another thing I want to bring up is that you're concerned that buffing active tanking ships to benefit more directly from remote repair would be a buff to remote repair. I contend that's probably not true. Resist bonuses are still strongly favored due to the extra EHP and the active tanking ships in question would still be the weak link in the kind of logi blob we're talking about.

That said, I'm completely ok with active tanking ships not getting the RR bonus, because there should be ships that are better in certain metas than others. It's ok that certain ships are good in fleets and others aren't. It's ok that certain ships are good solo and others aren't. From my perspective, it's even ok that entire races are heavily biased towards one meta or another.

I don't think you need to nerf resist bonuses.

-Liang


Sad I can't like that post twice...

Aside from the self-evident fact that indiscriminately nerfing a bonus across all kinds of ship classes and roles is generally a horrible idea, let me add my opinion specifically towards the Caldari line-up (some arguments might apply to Amarr ships aswell, but as I prefer shield tanking I hardly fly them at all):

When I first subscribed to EVE Online (3 years ago) I chose Caldari as my go-to race for asthetic reasons mostly, Merlin, Ferox and Rokh being the forfront incentives. I had actually read up on the race's advantages or disadvantages for PvP before, and even when I had entered the game as a toon concentrating on Caldari ships despite all arguments like the then so typical "Caldari, PvP, solo - choose two" nobody ever suggested to me to fly a Caldari ship for anything outside PVE except the Tengu and the Drake. Always were there some better options - mostly of Minmatar origin. I aspired to fly a blaster-Rokh right from the beginning, and I accepted the fact that I'd probably pay a lot of Euros until I could actually pilot it with maxed skills. The classic PvP-video "Built like a Rokh" encouraged me even more. Not a single time have I ever been told by anyone that the blaster Rokh is a strong setup until people suddenly broadly became aware of the thing called "active shield tanking" with the introduction of ASBs. Still, the Maelstrom dominated, but occasionally one saw a Rokh flying solo or in small gangs - a thing I had NEVER seen outside of my own ship or in some videos like XDMR's beautiful "Shields of Glory". What I had come across however almost every time I had logged on was: Slaved armor battleships, either "solo" or on small gangs with RR or spider-tanked... One of the (rightfully) most despised gang to use RR tactics in hi/lowsec was - and in sometimes still is - the Godsquad... I have never encountered a single one of them (and I've seen all, thanks to many wars) in a Rokh.

The reputation of the Rokh before the rebalancing of large railguns was so bad that not seldomly the first comments in local upon me showing up flashy in that hull was: "lol! A Rokh!" Often enough this is what happens from time to time even nowadays!! Sationary Tornados and Oracles trying to "snipe" me from less than 50 km away are a clear indication that people rarely encounter blaster Rokhs - otherwise they'd know how stupid such behaviour is. I have many killmails proving this. So, how again is the ship overpowered if its usage in small engagements can only be described as marginal?

As Liang pointed out, there are a lot of other drawbacks for ships with shield-resistance boni: They are slow, mostly have a huge sig relative to other hulls (so suffered DPS in actual game play is not as low as pure numbers suggest). AND: shield-resi bonused ships are pretty much one-trick-ponys in solo PvP... when was the last time you've seen one of them with more e-war than just tackle and the occasional target painter?! They are balanced by slot layout and other characteristics. That this would be disregarded is not only frustrating beyond belief, it's also completely unsuspected coming from guys like CCP Rise/kil2 who - at least formerly - advocated solo and small-scale combat.

If anything, the Rokh deserved a buff by at least adding 25 m^3 to its pathetic drone bay, now it's getting nerfed instead...

Some of the other 40+ ships with resi-boni that actually performed well since the latest rounds of rebalancing also fall victim to this carpet-bombing approach. But obviously the huge Ferox-RR-blobs needed a downgrade and so did the T1frig solo pilot in a Merlin or Punisher who never flies w/o RR... oh wait! those don't exist! Roll The obvious reason noone ever sees Vultures outside of of POS shields and Nighthaws anywhere near a battle must be that they are so completely overpowered that flying them makes no sense at all because every possible foe would run anway...

As I have stated in the T1 Caldari BS rebalancing/nerfing thread... I have seen many changes, and vainly waited for even more. I accepted it all... But this time you went too far, and I'm pissed off at this seemilingly small yet cataclysmic change in a way I never thought possible over a game.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#446 - 2013-04-14 13:31:18 UTC
octahexx Charante wrote:
so you want less supers and titans ingame yet you nerf the HIC who has the only prupose in game to point and tank without assistance?



obviously your hic was too op for its role....to whom I don't know but I'd like what they are smoking lol.


This balance.....is jsut stinking of laziness. CCP seems to have opened up a select * query, searched for all ships with 5% per level resit bonus and looked at the results and said.....too much work to properly rebalance, apply the sledgehammer.


YOur hics just part of of many that need any edge to get thier job done. If ccp wanted to hit the ships that abused this badly, by all means nerf them. But this kill em all let god sort em out crap is just bad. Some ships all they had was a resist base tank. Like rokh. Its main appeal to me is resists. Range was nice but you can't fully use it...unless getting on grid ass gaped your thing.

And the applicationt o the tourney ships....either they were earned in the trials of combat or someone coughed up lots of isk for em. Is it that hard to run the if-then-else to exclude them? I don't see these pilots going awww yeah, I have this op 5% bonus and blotting out the sun to terrorize the server.

Even wargaming.net who does lots of things I think are wrong does not touch its more rare commodity items. they have gold "op" tanks they let be op (or percieved to be so) for quite sometime. Presumably under the premise if they change their premium hard ot get tanks (type 59 for example) they kill off interest in those areas since who is going to shell out money for a tank bought for its nice stats...that then get nerfed later.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#447 - 2013-04-14 13:41:55 UTC
Bluemelon wrote:
Please leave the bonus on my Vangels. There are only 50 of them and they deserve to be a little OP

-Blue


This is literally what I was thinking. I am disappointed with the idea of this change for Sub BS ships. I also do not like the fact that they feel a "Blanket Change" is a smart move.

Even funnier, alliance tourney ships like the Cambion and Vangel are getting nerfed too. I dont see the point in nerfing a limited edition frigate worth billions.
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#448 - 2013-04-14 14:22:52 UTC
This change is another one of those changes, that bring small-to-mid scale pew-pew to a blob-usual 1 minute contests of "who calls primaries faster" instead of long and interesting battles where pilot skill actually matter.

Someone stop Fozzie plz, for the sake of the Game
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#449 - 2013-04-14 14:56:12 UTC
Toshaheri Talvinen wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
Askulf, you privately suggested to me that this nerf in combination with a 10% omni resist boost for all battleships might be a good combination. I would like to publicly offer support to this idea, because it's a good one. There is an imbalance between BS hulls, but BS hulls really need to be made tougher in comparison to smaller ship classes. There just isn't enough right now to differentiate them from Navy BC's at this point.

Edit: In fact, I'm might be a good idea to look at having a different base resist layout for each class size of ship. It would add some variety, and make balancing different classes of ship against each other easier and more granular.

This idea. This is a good idea. Battleships are falling behind the curve ball. There will soon be no reason to fly them due to the tank of a battlecruiser and faction battlecruiser being so close.

Battleships should be able to tank more than any other subcap ship in my opinion, while not being able to hit smaller vessels particularly well. Hitting battlecruisers for nearly full damage is a reasonable idea in my book, because many have immense tanks. But once you fall below that, I would expect battleships to have difficulty killing anything below (frigs, dessies, and cruisers). Fix the EHP gap.

- - Tosh

Yes, fix the gap.
David Kir
Hotbirds
#450 - 2013-04-14 14:59:02 UTC
Please do not extend this changement to T3 cruisers, as it would only hit the Loki.

Tengu has the Suplemental Screening subsystem, that gives it an HP bonus, as well as the Amplification Node, that gives a local tank bonus.

Proteus and Legion both have Augmented Plating (HP bonus) and Nanobot Injector (local tank bonus) subsystems.

Thus, these 3 have resist, HP and local tank bonuses.

The Loki, meanwhile, only has resist bonuses (and a fairly unused sig radius bonus).

PvE Tengus use the Amplification Node, PVP ones either the Suplemental Screening or the Adaptive Shielding subsystems.

PvE Legions and Proteii use the Nanobot Injector, PVP ones almost always use the Augmented Plating subsystem.

Both PvE and PvP Lokis use resist bonuses.

The reduction of this bonuses would only hurt the Loki, which is already the weakest tanker and damage dealer of all the T3 ships.

The resist issue is a matter of internal ship class balance:
Abddon>Hyperion
Prophecy>Myrmidon
Archon>Thanatos
and so on and on.

The reduction of this bonus to 4% is meant to make Active Tanking ships usable once again.

But all the T3 ships, except for the Loki, have multiple tank bonuses.

What will happen once the resist bonus is lowered?

Legion and Proteus Augmented Plating tanks will still be infamous, the Proteus still being one of the best tanking ships there are, without relying on the resist bonused subsystem, and they will still be able to active tank via Nanobot Injectors.

The Tengu will be able to perform similarly with the HP and the active tanked bonused subsystems.

The Loki will be left with two gimped subsystems, and an even worse tank.

Both when active and buffer tanked, the Loki would be the only T3 to be hit.

The Loki has never been overpowered, and has no niche to fit in, unlike the Proteus.

Ok, the Legion is still terrible, but the main T3 issue has always been the Tengu.

The Loki is the only T3 performing exactly as intended, without being OP in any way.


Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#451 - 2013-04-14 15:01:06 UTC
I think you need to remember that T3's will be nerfed down to default resistances as they are being put on a navy level tank/bonuses...... which is long overdue as they have ludicrous resists

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#452 - 2013-04-14 15:02:34 UTC
Leskit wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:

Actually, a friend of mine who is a Loki pilot that had matching skills with me (a Legion pilot) once sat down and figured out comparable fits between the two for PvP, and what we ended up with was the loki ended up with about 1/3 more tank but almost half the DPS. Then of course, we had to test them out and set to each other... I'll wait a few days to see what some people think the outcome should be before I reveal it :D


Yeah, I fly the legion, ham tengu (for shield fleets), and many in my corp fly loki's, and my toon is just starting to use them. The resistance profile is quite nice coupled with its low signature. My concern is that they're the only two truly viable defense subs. The sig radius subsystem? laughable.
On a side note, this is also going to hit all the passive tanked ships out there. regen tanking c1-c3 wh's is very doable, but in most cases it's only through the use of a ship with a resistance bonus (loki, gila, tengu, drake). I've been against passive shield tanking more often than not, but this is a little niche that really only works in lower-class pve.

Actually, the sig rad subsystem is useful in making it very difficult (with the right fit and in high classification WHs, well nigh impossible) to probe the ship down.. while not as useful in PvE, a pretty good PvP defense.
David Kir
Hotbirds
#453 - 2013-04-14 15:04:11 UTC  |  Edited by: David Kir
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I think you need to remember that T3's will be nerfed down to default resistances as they are being put on a navy level tank/bonuses...... which is long overdue as they have ludicrous resists


I think you need to remember that only the Loki regularly uses the resist bonused subsystems, of all the T3.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#454 - 2013-04-14 15:09:50 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tell you what, you can have remote reps have stacking penalties if I can have incoming DPS have stacking penalties so the more ships that shoot at me, the less effective each one becomes.
That should instantly fix blob warfare right?

Of course, if you find that a silly idea (as you should) then why should remote reps suffer stacking. To get more remote reps, you need more ships. Just the same as to get more DPS.

Actually, i sort of like this idea, of incoming fire suffering stacking penalties, just imagine how that would force all sorts of chaos with blob warfare tactics, suddenly, they'd actually have to also use strategy in them!
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#455 - 2013-04-14 15:13:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
Pelea Ming wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tell you what, you can have remote reps have stacking penalties if I can have incoming DPS have stacking penalties so the more ships that shoot at me, the less effective each one becomes.
That should instantly fix blob warfare right?

Of course, if you find that a silly idea (as you should) then why should remote reps suffer stacking. To get more remote reps, you need more ships. Just the same as to get more DPS.

Actually, i sort of like this idea, of incoming fire suffering stacking penalties, just imagine how that would force all sorts of chaos with blob warfare tactics, suddenly, they'd actually have to also use strategy in them!


Reps would also have to have the same penalties then, and implementing resist to reps would also probably work into this as well. You would also have to give a size bonus to the stacking penalty for smaller ships attacking larger ones.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#456 - 2013-04-14 15:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruze
Pelea Ming wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tell you what, you can have remote reps have stacking penalties if I can have incoming DPS have stacking penalties so the more ships that shoot at me, the less effective each one becomes.
That should instantly fix blob warfare right?

Of course, if you find that a silly idea (as you should) then why should remote reps suffer stacking. To get more remote reps, you need more ships. Just the same as to get more DPS.

Actually, i sort of like this idea, of incoming fire suffering stacking penalties, just imagine how that would force all sorts of chaos with blob warfare tactics, suddenly, they'd actually have to also use strategy in them!

I honestly feel that applying stacking penalties to incoming fire is a mechanic that absolutely needs put in place.

And as Van said, it would have to go both ways with reps, ewar, etc.

This is how you make small gangs viable, by making them statistically more effective and efficient.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#457 - 2013-04-14 15:24:56 UTC
Tilo Rhywald wrote:
Aside from the self-evident fact that indiscriminately nerfing a bonus across all kinds of ship classes and roles is generally a horrible idea, let me add my opinion specifically towards the Caldari line-up (some arguments might apply to Amarr ships aswell, but as I prefer shield tanking I hardly fly them at all):

When I first subscribed to EVE Online (3 years ago) I chose Caldari as my go-to race for asthetic reasons mostly, Merlin, Ferox and Rokh being the forfront incentives. I had actually read up on the race's advantages or disadvantages for PvP before, and even when I had entered the game as a toon concentrating on Caldari ships despite all arguments like the then so typical "Caldari, PvP, solo - choose two" nobody ever suggested to me to fly a Caldari ship for anything outside PVE except the Tengu and the Drake. Always were there some better options - mostly of Minmatar origin. I aspired to fly a blaster-Rokh right from the beginning, and I accepted the fact that I'd probably pay a lot of Euros until I could actually pilot it with maxed skills. The classic PvP-video "Built like a Rokh" encouraged me even more. Not a single time have I ever been told by anyone that the blaster Rokh is a strong setup until people suddenly broadly became aware of the thing called "active shield tanking" with the introduction of ASBs. Still, the Maelstrom dominated, but occasionally one saw a Rokh flying solo or in small gangs - a thing I had NEVER seen outside of my own ship or in some videos like XDMR's beautiful "Shields of Glory". What I had come across however almost every time I had logged on was: Slaved armor battleships, either "solo" or on small gangs with RR or spider-tanked... One of the (rightfully) most despised gang to use RR tactics in hi/lowsec was - and in sometimes still is - the Godsquad... I have never encountered a single one of them (and I've seen all, thanks to many wars) in a Rokh.

The reputation of the Rokh before the rebalancing of large railguns was so bad that not seldomly the first comments in local upon me showing up flashy in that hull was: "lol! A Rokh!" Often enough this is what happens from time to time even nowadays!! Sationary Tornados and Oracles trying to "snipe" me from less than 50 km away are a clear indication that people rarely encounter blaster Rokhs - otherwise they'd know how stupid such behaviour is. I have many killmails proving this. So, how again is the ship overpowered if its usage in small engagements can only be described as marginal?

As Liang pointed out, there are a lot of other drawbacks for ships with shield-resistance boni: They are slow, mostly have a huge sig relative to other hulls (so suffered DPS in actual game play is not as low as pure numbers suggest). AND: shield-resi bonused ships are pretty much one-trick-ponys in solo PvP... when was the last time you've seen one of them with more e-war than just tackle and the occasional target painter?! They are balanced by slot layout and other characteristics. That this would be disregarded is not only frustrating beyond belief, it's also completely unsuspected coming from guys like CCP Rise/kil2 who - at least formerly - advocated solo and small-scale combat.

If anything, the Rokh deserved a buff by at least adding 25 m^3 to its pathetic drone bay, now it's getting nerfed instead...

Some of the other 40+ ships with resi-boni that actually performed well since the latest rounds of rebalancing also fall victim to this carpet-bombing approach. But obviously the huge Ferox-RR-blobs needed a downgrade and so did the T1frig solo pilot in a Merlin or Punisher who never flies w/o RR... oh wait! those don't exist! Roll The obvious reason noone ever sees Vultures outside of of POS shields and Nighthaws anywhere near a battle must be that they are so completely overpowered that flying them makes no sense at all because every possible foe would run anway...

As I have stated in the T1 Caldari BS rebalancing/nerfing thread... I have seen many changes, and vainly waited for even more. I accepted it all... But this time you went too far, and I'm pissed off at this seemilingly small yet cataclysmic change in a way I never thought possible over a game.

and from someone who prefers for aesthetic reasons to use laser boats despite all of those so obvious drawbacks they suffer, I blatantly quote this to populate it on the thread as the argument applies to my beautiful golden targets too! :P
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#458 - 2013-04-14 15:27:34 UTC
David Kir wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I think you need to remember that T3's will be nerfed down to default resistances as they are being put on a navy level tank/bonuses...... which is long overdue as they have ludicrous resists


I think you need to remember that only the Loki regularly uses the resist bonused subsystems, of all the T3.



gonna say you got a point here.


Shield or armour this is a common sub. I have been theory crafting loki's a bit for spice up eve....and I alwasy find my way to this sub for either tank. Funny thing is people whine about damn off grid boosting loki....if ccp trying to fix this this not the way to do it. Its 1 more reason to run off grid till when/if ccp fixes ogb lol.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#459 - 2013-04-14 15:33:37 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tell you what, you can have remote reps have stacking penalties if I can have incoming DPS have stacking penalties so the more ships that shoot at me, the less effective each one becomes.
That should instantly fix blob warfare right?

Of course, if you find that a silly idea (as you should) then why should remote reps suffer stacking. To get more remote reps, you need more ships. Just the same as to get more DPS.

Actually, i sort of like this idea, of incoming fire suffering stacking penalties, just imagine how that would force all sorts of chaos with blob warfare tactics, suddenly, they'd actually have to also use strategy in them!


Reps would also have to have the same penalties then, and implementing resist to reps would also probably work into this as well. You would also have to give a size bonus to the stacking penalty for smaller ships attacking larger ones.

again, I rather like it, lmao!
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#460 - 2013-04-14 15:55:40 UTC
Looks like a good change ..

review it on test. and if needed shave another 1% off

3% per level is still plenty imho