These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#481 - 2013-04-14 22:01:29 UTC
Anyone up for Burn Jita 2.0?

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
F1nNsCh3r
Deep Space 69
#482 - 2013-04-14 22:09:08 UTC
x up for the old torp effect!!! that new1 is **y as hell
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#483 - 2013-04-14 22:15:23 UTC
I would like to keep the status quo but give options to counter or move the role of the ships to more of a defensive ship

ie - The Gellentee and Minmitar 7.5% repair amount move to also include remote ships. so as to compete with their enimies

allow these ships to syphon the damage taken from near by ships to them selves, making them act more cover for the weaker ships.

so maybe reduce their offensive skill by a bit but allow them to also syphon neighbor damaged ships or allow ships to block line of site attacks

may be impossible with the current programming by the Meat shield roll in most MMO's is missing in PVP.

Either case I am mainly a miner so I don't know much about Resists.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#484 - 2013-04-14 22:39:05 UTC
Two things, CCP Fozzie:

  1. Don't confuse "balanced" with "homogenous"
  2. When are exhumers getting the PG and CPU needed to fit proper tanks?


Back in the Dungeons and Dragons days, one would often be granted items which had very nice positives (such as a magical dagger +3 to hit) with an associated negative (such as a drawback for -2 stam). Thus one could make the decision to use the items which provided a better bonus while accepting the drawbacks.

So one might, for example, adjust resist bonuses so that they provide greater EHP while penalising local or remote reps: thus securely fixing resist bonuses as "gank buffer" while people looking for sustained tanks would be drawn to the ships with active repair bonuses (for either local or remote reps).

Thus a Rokh could keep its 5% per level bonus to shield resistances while suffering a -5% bonus to local or remote repair amount per level.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#485 - 2013-04-14 22:40:11 UTC
Gevlin wrote:
I would like to keep the status quo but give options to counter or move the role of the ships to more of a defensive ship

ie - The Gellentee and Minmitar 7.5% repair amount move to also include remote ships. so as to compete with their enimies

allow these ships to syphon the damage taken from near by ships to them selves, making them act more cover for the weaker ships.

so maybe reduce their offensive skill by a bit but allow them to also syphon neighbor damaged ships or allow ships to block line of site attacks

may be impossible with the current programming by the Meat shield roll in most MMO's is missing in PVP.

Either case I am mainly a miner so I don't know much about Resists.


The fact that you are a miner is the reason why you should know everything about resists. The smart miner fits for tank these days, not yield. Blink

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#486 - 2013-04-14 22:41:41 UTC
Gevlin wrote:
allow these ships to syphon the damage taken from near by ships to them selves, making them act more cover for the weaker ships.


A similar type of ship to what you are looking for is already in game as Logistics cruisers: Guardian, Basilisk, Oneiros, Scimitar.

Gevlin wrote:
… or allow ships to block line of site attacks.


This would be nice, and it would change the face of space combat all over EVE. CCP has avoided it due to the fear of melting down their servers.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#487 - 2013-04-14 23:53:06 UTC
I have a comment not on the change, but the timing
it's a bit late notice for CSM candidates to start campaigning off of these changes, I get the feel that's deliberate;
so you can just roll them through as the new CSM's finding it's own metagame....

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#488 - 2013-04-15 00:09:08 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
I have a comment not on the change, but the timing
it's a bit late notice for CSM candidates to start campaigning off of these changes, I get the feel that's deliberate;
so you can just roll them through as the new CSM's finding it's own metagame....


I voted specifically for the few individuals who I feel will represent me. I feel confident that they'll hold my interests, as they are there own interests, when they get to CSM.

That's how I personally think a republic works, anyhow. Representation and all.

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?
Alxea
Unstable Pirate Sharks Of The Damed Sea
#489 - 2013-04-15 00:23:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm going to throw this here since I have a feeling a lot of questions coming up will be along this line:

  • Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?
    • This is a question that comes up often in any thread where we are discussing decreasing the power of an item or ship. I can completely understand where it's coming from. Buffing things makes people happy in much larger numbers, it simply feels good to see the effectiveness of your equipment increase. Many other games rely on constantly improving gear to drive engagement in their content and that method of development can work very well for those games.

    I'm going to start by quoting my answer to this question from the Heavy Missile thread before Retribution, because what I said there still applies.
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be conscious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.

    I would be lying if I said that we never allow power creep in EVE. It's quite simply much much easier to balance upwards and considering how powerful of a tool it is for creating short term customer satisfaction, some power creep is very hard to avoid. However we do need to be very mindful of how much we let ourselves indulge. There are cases where for the long term health of the game ecosystem we simply have to reduce the power of certain items and ships. We believe this is one of those times. I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term.
    Seriously you want to nerf every bonused ship in the game? Nerfing T1 ships is fine but when you start messing with T2 and T3 ships then there is a problem. Do you realize those ships are x2 or x3 times more expensive then what they were several years ago. Sure you do. Nerfing the tanking ability of ships is going to destroy eve fleets and solo alike. Heavy Interdictors need that resist bonus to stay alive so do HAC's and other T2 and T3 ships. People will fly them a lot less when you start messing with them. So what is up with the major power trips over the years its gotten worse with developers over balancing ships and breaking the game. All these changes keep on making radical game changes and play styles.

    Its always been adapt or die but now its just getting out of hand. Honestly Heavy Interdictors need 2x more tank then they have right now because they are always primary. I could live with the little changes that have happened over the years but when you start messing with T2 and T3 ships that much then its just madness. That is more then just affecting the ships themselves but also the worth of the training time involved in training for those ships to begin with. Your killing years worth of training time for some of us vets! Reducing the effectiveness of all ships in the game is just crazy. Eve is starting to become nothing like it was and that's a bad thing. On the sci-fi side it makes no sense in Eve's lore that ships would deadvance instead of become more advance as time passed. The lore in eve for technological advancement is not happening. It makes no sense for T3 or T2 ships to lose their technological advantage when over time they should become stronger and not weaker! Of all things T2 ships need a serious buff and not a nerf!

    I have never opposed nerfs before really all that much but I feel like this is going too far in breaking and changing the game. Now is the time to stand up to the madness before eve changes so much that it will nolonger be the game I fell in love with all these years ago. if something isn't broke don't fix it. And I know your going to say its broken... tell me then how a ship bonus that has been in eve for 10 years or so just now get fixed? It never was broken until a developer says its broken.
    Alxea
    Unstable Pirate Sharks Of The Damed Sea
    #490 - 2013-04-15 00:42:34 UTC
    Mara Rinn wrote:
    Two things, CCP Fozzie:

    1. Don't confuse "balanced" with "homogenous"
    2. When are exhumers getting the PG and CPU needed to fit proper tanks?


    Back in the Dungeons and Dragons days, one would often be granted items which had very nice positives (such as a magical dagger +3 to hit) with an associated negative (such as a drawback for -2 stam). Thus one could make the decision to use the items which provided a better bonus while accepting the drawbacks.

    So one might, for example, adjust resist bonuses so that they provide greater EHP while penalising local or remote reps: thus securely fixing resist bonuses as "gank buffer" while people looking for sustained tanks would be drawn to the ships with active repair bonuses (for either local or remote reps).

    Thus a Rokh could keep its 5% per level bonus to shield resistances while suffering a -5% bonus to local or remote repair amount per level.

    This post was clearly made by a carebear who doesn't like being ganked by a few destroyers in highsec. Exhumers have more then enough tank for most gankers. You can fit like 40k ehp on a mack and the only solo ship that can kill that is a Talos in a 0.5. Highsec doesn't mean safe space. If you want to tank use a skiff! But if a group of people really want to pop you in highsec they will bring enough friends and firepower to do it. Skiffs can fit more then 100k ehp. Fly that if you don't want to be ganked so much! Btw Exhumers are not meant to be ungankable safeboats in highsec for you to mine care free. Once you undock no matter what ship your in your in pvp mode no place is safe or should ever be safe! Jump freighters have more then 300k ehp and they get ganked in highsec by suicide gankers. The EHP didn't stop them. Doesn't mean you should be able to tank like a capital ship in a exhumer or even a battleship for that matter. If Exhumers had the same tank as a battleship then there would be something horribly wrong. haha
    The Sinister
    Interbellum
    #491 - 2013-04-15 01:04:08 UTC
    Dude I really think you should NOT take that 1% away from Mackinaw and Hulks for 2 huge reasons:

    1. Mining Barges are not used for PVP

    2. Destroyers already suicide gank Mining Barges as it is.

    DONT NERF THE TANK ON THE BARGES ITS POINTLESS.
    Quindaster
    Infernal Laboratory
    Infernal Octopus
    #492 - 2013-04-15 01:23:48 UTC
    Remove this, nerf that...you killing this game and people do not have reason to play it more because they always apset and feel, theys skills and time now worth nothing.
    If you want to create some balance - create new ships with new abbilities and bonuses, and leave Amarr ships like they are, and simply create new ships, or new guns. But no, you from BMW try to do AUDI and from AUDI try to do some chinies cheap copy, and in the end after few changes we will all get some metal scrabs.

    Try to create new ships, and not modify 10 times 8 years old ships.
    If we will have ships with new abbility - we will have ballance in game by this new combinations of fleets and not reusing 100 times same tactics and after your "ballance" we need to find how the f**k we can do the same now...
    Askulf Joringer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #493 - 2013-04-15 03:17:44 UTC
    Quindaster wrote:
    Remove this, nerf that...you killing this game and people do not have reason to play it more because they always apset and feel, theys skills and time now worth nothing.
    If you want to create some balance - create new ships with new abbilities and bonuses, and leave Amarr ships like they are, and simply create new ships, or new guns. But no, you from BMW try to do AUDI and from AUDI try to do some chinies cheap copy, and in the end after few changes we will all get some metal scrabs.

    Try to create new ships, and not modify 10 times 8 years old ships.
    If we will have ships with new abbility - we will have ballance in game by this new combinations of fleets and not reusing 100 times same tactics and after your "ballance" we need to find how the f**k we can do the same now...


    /facepalm
    raging star
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #494 - 2013-04-15 04:28:48 UTC  |  Edited by: raging star
    Crazy KSK wrote:
    I think changing all of those ships at once will be far too much damage for anyone to handle if it goes wrong
    as you can see yourself some already bad ships will become worse with this change and I bet some alright ships will become bad and will have to bee looked at quickly
    there are quite a few ships that have been build around this bonus and not all of them are op the ferox is just barely competitive
    the gila is living of the resist bonus too those and probably others would have to receive a buff in their base hp to make up for this change



    I can see this going so wrong so fast!
    Why is ccp so against not just pvp in general but solo pvp, the tier 3 are getting nerf now the resist to the other ships that make it even viable.
    personally I think this sucks!
    raging star
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #495 - 2013-04-15 04:32:19 UTC
    Alxea wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    I'm going to throw this here since I have a feeling a lot of questions coming up will be along this line:

  • Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?
    • This is a question that comes up often in any thread where we are discussing decreasing the power of an item or ship. I can completely understand where it's coming from. Buffing things makes people happy in much larger numbers, it simply feels good to see the effectiveness of your equipment increase. Many other games rely on constantly improving gear to drive engagement in their content and that method of development can work very well for those games.

    I'm going to start by quoting my answer to this question from the Heavy Missile thread before Retribution, because what I said there still applies.
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be conscious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.

    I would be lying if I said that we never allow power creep in EVE. It's quite simply much much easier to balance upwards and considering how powerful of a tool it is for creating short term customer satisfaction, some power creep is very hard to avoid. However we do need to be very mindful of how much we let ourselves indulge. There are cases where for the long term health of the game ecosystem we simply have to reduce the power of certain items and ships. We believe this is one of those times. I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term.
    Seriously you want to nerf every bonused ship in the game? Nerfing T1 ships is fine but when you start messing with T2 and T3 ships then there is a problem. Do you realize those ships are x2 or x3 times more expensive then what they were several years ago. Sure you do. Nerfing the tanking ability of ships is going to destroy eve fleets and solo alike. Heavy Interdictors need that resist bonus to stay alive so do HAC's and other T2 and T3 ships. People will fly them a lot less when you start messing with them. So what is up with the major power trips over the years its gotten worse with developers over balancing ships and breaking the game. All these changes keep on making radical game changes and play styles.

    Its always been adapt or die but now its just getting out of hand. Honestly Heavy Interdictors need 2x more tank then they have right now because they are always primary. I could live with the little changes that have happened over the years but when you start messing with T2 and T3 ships that much then its just madness. That is more then just affecting the ships themselves but also the worth of the training time involved in training for those ships to begin with. Your killing years worth of training time for some of us vets! Reducing the effectiveness of all ships in the game is just crazy. Eve is starting to become nothing like it was and that's a bad thing. On the sci-fi side it makes no sense in Eve's lore that ships would deadvance instead of become more advance as time passed. The lore in eve for technological advancement is not happening. It makes no sense for T3 or T2 ships to lose their technological advantage when over time they should become stronger and not weaker! Of all things T2 ships need a serious buff and not a nerf!

    I have never opposed nerfs before really all that much but I feel like this is going too far in breaking and changing the game. Now is the time to stand up to the madness before eve changes so much that it will nolonger be the game I fell in love with all these years ago. if something isn't broke don't fix it. And I know your going to say its broken... tell me then how a ship bonus that has been in eve for 10 years or so just now get fixed? It never was broken until a developer says its broken.

    Perfectly said!!!!
    Officer Nyota Uhura
    #496 - 2013-04-15 05:07:48 UTC
    So now when we've ordered about 30-40 of our guys to train for Amarr carriers you'll tell us that you change those carriers.

    Can we get those soon-to-be-useless skillpoints back so that we can reassign them to something useful?

    How about some consistency and long-term planning, CCP? Slowcats have only been a major doctrine for a year, which means that those who started to train for them some time after they were made a major doctrine will have their training finished around now.
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #497 - 2013-04-15 05:16:03 UTC
    Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
    So now when we've ordered about 30-40 of our guys to train for Amarr carriers you'll tell us that you change those carriers.

    Can we get those soon-to-be-useless skillpoints back so that we can reassign them to something useful?

    How about some consistency and long-term planning, CCP? Slowcats have only been a major doctrine for a year, which means that those who started to train for them some time after they were made a major doctrine will have their training finished around now.

    Is a 5% difference in resists assuming carrier V going to break the doctrine?
    Naomi Knight
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #498 - 2013-04-15 05:26:06 UTC
    Mara Rinn wrote:
    Two things, CCP Fozzie:

    1. Don't confuse "balanced" with "homogenous"
    2. When are exhumers getting the PG and CPU needed to fit proper tanks?


    Back in the Dungeons and Dragons days, one would often be granted items which had very nice positives (such as a magical dagger +3 to hit) with an associated negative (such as a drawback for -2 stam). Thus one could make the decision to use the items which provided a better bonus while accepting the drawbacks.

    So one might, for example, adjust resist bonuses so that they provide greater EHP while penalising local or remote reps: thus securely fixing resist bonuses as "gank buffer" while people looking for sustained tanks would be drawn to the ships with active repair bonuses (for either local or remote reps).

    Thus a Rokh could keep its 5% per level bonus to shield resistances while suffering a -5% bonus to local or remote repair amount per level.

    I always wonder how some people can be so "special".
    If you completly negate all repair effectivenes ,then why not have a hp bonus only in the first place?
    Naomi Knight
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #499 - 2013-04-15 05:26:53 UTC
    Tyberius Franklin wrote:
    Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
    So now when we've ordered about 30-40 of our guys to train for Amarr carriers you'll tell us that you change those carriers.

    Can we get those soon-to-be-useless skillpoints back so that we can reassign them to something useful?

    How about some consistency and long-term planning, CCP? Slowcats have only been a major doctrine for a year, which means that those who started to train for them some time after they were made a major doctrine will have their training finished around now.

    Is a 5% difference in resists assuming carrier V going to break the doctrine?

    Yes
    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #500 - 2013-04-15 05:30:26 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
    I do not think this change is necessary or a good idea. Sure, a resistance bonus is powerful. So is a rate of fire bonus. That's not a reason to remove it or nerf it. And it is immensely stupid to apply the nerf across the board without regard to whether it is OP.

    If it is too powerful when used in conjunction with a buffer tank, slightly lower the armor/shield HP amount on a ship-by-ship basis.

    Seriously think long and hard about this before you go nerfing expensive ships like Supercarriers, Dreads, Carriers, T3s, etc.

    The only thing keeping many T2 or even T3 ships viable in PvP or PvE are the high resistances.

    Additionally, remember that it almost NEVER matters that a resistance bonus makes a ship better at both buffer tank and local tank because the ship is going to rely on one or the other. It just means the ship has some versatility and can be fit more than one way.

    CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.