These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#561 - 2013-04-15 21:56:11 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
I call that difference , cause reppair bonuse ships usually faster have faster lockspeed , smaller signature and more drones.
Naomi Knight wrote:
no it , just those ships are not realy suitable for 0.0 roaming thats all, you know here sometimes you have to jump 20+ to find a good spot, larger hulls just slow down the fleet too much, and they are a hinderance too when you have to run from blob
they are more suitable for high sec/low sec where you dont need to travel that far, and dont need to run many jumps to get back home, as you can dock nearly everywhere, also i dont speak from experience but low/high sec doesnt have that huge blobs, so if you take out 4-5 ships , probably you wont have to fight 30+ , and especially when outnumbered mobility is the key thing to survive/win

In most cases they aren't faster or more agile to the point where the perform like a class or 2 below. Since by your own account certain ships are ill suited for roaming or fast moving gangs this does mean that some ships, despite in class advantages, will not see anything resembling prolific use since their bonus us ill suited for what their class of ship is best at and not competitive in other places when considering alternatives.

The result is a ship that is "different" by being more useful than others in its class in a role which doesn't really suit that class.
tasman devil
Puritans
#562 - 2013-04-15 22:15:47 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.

Like they will be in shape and on the ready for something heavy topic from the first day...

CCP Fozzie wrote:

...This imbalance was becoming more and more of a problem as we started work on battleships and command ships.

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 = a 33% increase in total EHP.

So while a 37.5% rep bonus increases effective repping by 37.5%, and a 50% armor hp bonus increases effective hitpoints by 50%, a 25% resistance bonus actually increases both by 33% (not the 25% that might be assumed at first glance).
In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus.
This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.


Huh? So by being 33% vs 37,5% they are overpowered... (your numbers, leveled by you!) yeah right... Remote reps overshadow locals because you can scale 1:1 with the number of RR teammates/reps, nothing more. This is really just a cop-out for you to reason the change you wanted to make since day 1 I believe.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Remote repair gameplay is some of the most fun gameplay we have (and is my personal favourite activity in 0.0) but is also responsible for discouraging fights and for forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies. 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 let me get this straight: Instead of nerfing the on the fly fitting capabilities of carriers (read: pantheon Archons) you are effectively messing with 44 OTHER ships... Tell me if I missed the content between the lines...

Let me get this off me chest:
By nerfing the resist you will encourage MORE alpha-doctrines because they will be even more valuable now than ever before! Spider tanks slowcats and whatnots are a direct outcome - a REACTION - for the alpha fleets, not the action (read: incentive for an alpha fleet).
By this you will just make fleets swell even bigger and then the only real method of success (I am not even calling it a tactic any more) will be to press F1 faster then the enemy.

Nice days ahead... :(

I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#563 - 2013-04-15 22:23:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Quote:
Now that I've edited it to be less of a rant and more of a valid concern, this should most definately be addressed, especially the underlined portion.


Lol, you cut one sentence? Difference of opinion I suppose, because the way I see it, we have a decided lack of information about what the real intent is behind this. From previous information and posts on other threads, seemingly this started with the Abbadon. I see little reason why it doesn't have to end there.

"Abbadon: Resists lowered to 4% per level, to bring it's EHP more in line with the tier-less battleship design"

... is all that would have to be written.

But, as you and I have both pointed out, surely the knowledge that they would imminently destroy the viability of literally more than two dozen ships (and thereby merit their largest-scale rebalancing to date) has not escaped them. Surely they understand that the task of rebalancing dozens of ships across damn near the entire spectrum of the ship classes because of this revamp is daunting, to say the least?

My question is, what now? Because the community is far from short of being a source of helpful balancing advice, as this forum itself attests.

[Edit: And another thought here. I am honestly wondering whether I expect an answer on this or not. In my mind it's definitely a possibility that they have realized they wrote themselves into a corner here, and there is no easy way out of it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#564 - 2013-04-15 23:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Now that I've edited it to be less of a rant and more of a valid concern, this should most definately be addressed, especially the underlined portion.


Lol, you cut one sentence? Difference of opinion I suppose, because the way I see it, we have a decided lack of information about what the real intent is behind this. From previous information and posts on other threads, seemingly this started with the Abbadon. I see little reason why it doesn't have to end there.

"Abbadon: Resists lowered to 4% per level, to bring it's EHP more in line with the tier-less battleship design"

... is all that would have to be written.

But, as you and I have both pointed out, surely the knowledge that they would imminently destroy the viability of literally more than two dozen ships (and thereby merit their largest-scale rebalancing to date) has not escaped them. Surely they understand that the task of rebalancing dozens of ships across damn near the entire spectrum of the ship classes because of this revamp is daunting, to say the least?

My question is, what now? Because the community is far from short of being a source of helpful balancing advice, as this forum itself attests.

[Edit: And another thought here. I am honestly wondering whether I expect an answer on this or not. In my mind it's definitely a possibility that they have realized they wrote themselves into a corner here, and there is no easy way out of it.


I wouldn't say that the community is unhelpful, only that there are many different people with different conflicting opinions on what changes should be made to eve. I may not agree with some of the ideas I hear, and god knows that I get a lot of flak for posting my ideas. However, that is the price of putting your creative work out there. You put it in a position of being attacked, and people will attack it.

That doesn't mean that our ideas are not being considered, insomuch as CCP considers any outside input. It's more like its always a big unknown, because CCP is not in the habit of keeping us up to date on its every internal creative process. It would cost far to much to keep us in the loop, anyway. But we still complain about it anyway, so that CCP keeps on it's toes and is relatively responsive.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#565 - 2013-04-16 00:02:43 UTC
Quote:
I wouldn't say that the community is unhelpful, only that there are many different people with different conflicting opinions on what changes should be made to eve.


Thus, the death of high language, although it really is what I deserve for use of a passive double negative. My intent was to say that the community at large is a helpful body, as our spirited debate and meaningful suggestions amongst dozens of players, new and veteran alike, show.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#566 - 2013-04-16 00:16:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
I wouldn't say that the community is unhelpful, only that there are many different people with different conflicting opinions on what changes should be made to eve.


Thus, the death of high language, although it really is what I deserve for use of a passive double negative. My intent was to say that the community at large is a helpful body, as our spirited debate and meaningful suggestions amongst dozens of players, new and veteran alike, show.


Well any way you slice it most of us are mature adults, however inebriated. I don't take attacks on my ideas personally, and I accept that the grand majority of player suggestions, including but not limited to my own, will not be incorporated into the game. But that won't keep me from trying. Big smile

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#567 - 2013-04-16 00:30:28 UTC
what candidate will say no to this change? ill vote for them

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Mobius Reynolds
Facepunch Industries
#568 - 2013-04-16 00:52:18 UTC
Not sure if anyone will actually read this who will do something about it but here's my 2 ISK:

Why the across the board change on resistance bonuses, in the name of standardized ship bonuses, when local rep bonuses are already non-standardized?

I'm referring to the local rep subsystems:
Legion Defensive -- Nanobot Injector
10% bonus to armor repairer effectiveness per level
Tengu Defensive -- Amplification Node
10% bonus to shield booster effectiveness per level
Proteus Defensive -- Nanobot Injector
10% bonus to armor repairer effectiveness per level
vs the standard 7.5% per level

Could you try standardizing the local rep bonuses first, either up to 10% without the nerf (not so much a buff as a standardization), or nerf the subsystems down to 7.5% to bring them in-line as part of the currently planned nerf. Alternatively, only nerf the bonuses on the battleships (sadly including my Rokh), and see how they perform? (only change one variable at a time).

And for those who say that subsystems work differently, then why are the resistance bonus subsystems being nerfed as well?
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#569 - 2013-04-16 01:41:04 UTC
I'm still secretly hoping they adopt the suggestion to reduce the bonus by 5%, but increase all BS base resists by 10%. Balance inside of the BS class, while distinguishing them from smaller ships (looking at you, faction battlecruisers).

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#570 - 2013-04-16 02:18:41 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Defensively there is probably very little that can be done to force DPS to become prevalent.
There are some mechanisms, but they are tricky to get correct.

Firstly, we need to decide what issue exactly we're trying to improve. Alpha-fleet doctrine is a sensible response to environments where repair is prevalent - killing a target before it can be repaired can massively reduce the total damage required to kill it. In that sense, the resistance nerf pushes things slightly in favour of DPS: resistance is the only target-based statistic that affects RR effectiveness, and reducing resistances from 25% to 20% reduces inbound rr by 6.25%.

Without repair, the contest is how quickly the attacker can burn through the defender's hit points. RR adds a second contest - whether the attacker can overcome the defender's repair, with the surplus from this going to the first contest. Alpha provides a way of winning the first contest before the second can get started.

One way to force the battle into the second contest is to remove alpha entirely. All damage (and repair) is applied evenly over time. Weapons stream rather than pulse. But you have now removed any direct mechanism to avoid the straight DPS vs repair fight, which will lead to risk-averse FCs stacking their fleet with even more remote repair.

Another option is to totally remove repair. Good alpha still has some advantages, but the value of your damage no longer degrades over time.

Finally, you can limit inbound damage and/or repair. This is technically simple, but good luck figuring how to do it without pushing the meta towards fewer, very powerful ships (or, if you cap contribution-per-ship rather than number-of-ships, away from it).

Van Mathias wrote:
I'm still secretly hoping they adopt the suggestion to reduce the bonus by 5%, but increase all BS base resists by 10%. Balance inside of the BS class, while distinguishing them from smaller ships
That would have exactly the opposite affect that they are trying to achieve. You don't discourage alpha doctrine by strengthening the doctrine that it counters!

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#571 - 2013-04-16 02:41:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
Debir Achen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Defensively there is probably very little that can be done to force DPS to become prevalent.
There are some mechanisms, but they are tricky to get correct.

Firstly, we need to decide what issue exactly we're trying to improve. Alpha-fleet doctrine is a sensible response to environments where repair is prevalent - killing a target before it can be repaired can massively reduce the total damage required to kill it. In that sense, the resistance nerf pushes things slightly in favour of DPS: resistance is the only target-based statistic that affects RR effectiveness, and reducing resistances from 25% to 20% reduces inbound rr by 6.25%.

Without repair, the contest is how quickly the attacker can burn through the defender's hit points. RR adds a second contest - whether the attacker can overcome the defender's repair, with the surplus from this going to the first contest. Alpha provides a way of winning the first contest before the second can get started.

One way to force the battle into the second contest is to remove alpha entirely. All damage (and repair) is applied evenly over time. Weapons stream rather than pulse. But you have now removed any direct mechanism to avoid the straight DPS vs repair fight, which will lead to risk-averse FCs stacking their fleet with even more remote repair.

Another option is to totally remove repair. Good alpha still has some advantages, but the value of your damage no longer degrades over time.

Finally, you can limit inbound damage and/or repair. This is technically simple, but good luck figuring how to do it without pushing the meta towards fewer, very powerful ships (or, if you cap contribution-per-ship rather than number-of-ships, away from it) while decreasing the specific hull resist bonus that resist bonused ships have.

Van Mathias wrote:
I'm still secretly hoping they adopt the suggestion to reduce the bonus by 5%, but increase all BS base resists by 10%. Balance inside of the BS class, while distinguishing them from smaller ships
That would have exactly the opposite affect that they are trying to achieve. You don't discourage alpha doctrine by strengthening the doctrine that it counters!


Um, I would expect discouragement of the usage of alphafleets to be the exact consequence of making battleship resists tougher. If it is slightly less effective, people will use it slightly less. Behavior that is punished decreases, and behavior that is rewarded increases.

Please also note that I'm talking about increasing resists on ALL battleships, including ones that have the repair bonus, and alphaships (the mael too).

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#572 - 2013-04-16 02:46:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Van Mathias wrote:

Um, I would expect discouragement of the usage of alphafleets to be the exact consequence of making battleship resists tougher. If it is slightly less effective, people will use it slightly less. Behavior that is punished decreases, and behavior that is rewarded increases.

While higher resists mean more EHP and more alpha required to beat it, it also means more DPS in non alpha fleets is negated through RR as higher resists make repair more effective.

And yes, this applies to all ships, not just resists bonused ones.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#573 - 2013-04-16 02:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
And that has to do with the fact that resists make RR better is an emergent property of the game as it was originally designed, and is fundamentally broken in and of itself. The solution lies in applying resists to remote reps. There is also the fact that a lack of stacking penalties for a large number of reps works into this as well. Tweaking the resist numbers will help, but will not solve the fundamental issue. The game mechanics concerning tank were not designed to deal with the effects of large numbers of people trying to break it.

Resists exist to provide a mechanism for differentiating the effects of different damage types, it is not fundamentally there to make reps better.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#574 - 2013-04-16 03:00:16 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
And that has to do with the fact that resists make RR better is an emergent property of the game as it was originally designed, and is fundamentally broken in and of itself. The solution lies in applying resists to remote reps. There is also the fact that a lack of stacking penalties for a large number of reps works into this as well. Tweaking the resist numbers will help, but will not solve the fundamental issue. The game mechanics concerning tank were not designed to deal with the effects of large numbers of people trying to break it.

Ok, I really can't understand this argument. Resists are doing exactly what they were intended to do. They magnify raw HP. Cutting resistances out of RR breaks gameplay in low and medium numbers just to compensate for the blob, which seems like a terrible game design decision.

Also stacking, while it would penalize larger fleets more, still leaves the same proportional advantages to and does nothing to address the strength of resist bonuses, which is CCP's issue.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#575 - 2013-04-16 03:19:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
It doesn't have to, there are ways to mitigate it. For instance, shield reps could be solely modified by EM resist, since that's generally the weakest resist on shield ships. The same could be done with the weakest armor resist and armor reps. RR amounts could be revisited, since a point of RR would be approximately equal to a point of damage in every case on any given ship. You wouldn't have to worry about buffing resists when you buff RR. And the stacking penalty for remote effects doesn't have to be the same as the mod stacking penalty, it can be set to have the diminishing returns point at an arbitrary number of ships. I would keep it so that local reps could still be applied without resists, as that is not really as abusable, and it would help ships with the local rep hull bonus.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#576 - 2013-04-16 03:53:07 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
It doesn't have to, there are ways to mitigate it. For instance, shield reps could be solely modified by EM resist, since that's generally the weakest resist on shield ships. The same could be done with the weakest armor resist and armor reps.
This still weakens all scales of RR which isn't needed. Especially in situations where every bit of HP matters because of the smaller numbers of ships involved. It also favors resist bonused ships as their native bonuses help reduce their resist holes.
Van Mathias wrote:
RR amounts could be revisited, since a point of RR would be approximately equal to a point of damage in every case on any given ship. You wouldn't have to worry about buffing resists when you buff RR.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Van Mathias wrote:
And the stacking penalty for remote effects doesn't have to be the same as the mod stacking penalty, it can be set to have the diminishing returns point at an arbitrary number of ships.
Regardless of the threshold it still favors the rep magnifying power of high resists. Even in conjunction with your suggestion of adjusting to the lowest resist the bonused ships are likely to have a higher overall resist profile. If the idea is to nerf RR to make alpha less prevalent then perhaps it could make a difference there, but that is a suggestion for solutions to the alpha > all in combat issue, not the strength of the resist bonus.
Van Mathias wrote:
I would keep it so that local reps could still be applied without resists, as that is not really as abusable, and it would help ships with the local rep hull bonus.
In which case we still have the same lack of disparity between the effective reps of active tanked bonuses and resist bonuses
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#577 - 2013-04-16 04:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
A lack of disparity? You meant they become approximately equal in power? How is that a bad thing? Right now there is a large disparity between resist hulls and rep hulls, hence this change. I would exclude the local stuff, because you can only fit 1 - 3 local reps at a time, so this strategy is inherently limited. In fact, it makes local rep more competitive with remote reps. This as consequence would make hulls with the local rep bonus more desirable.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#578 - 2013-04-16 04:42:43 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
A lack of disparity? You meant they become approximately equal in power? How is that a bad thing? Right now there is a large disparity between resist hulls and rep hulls, hence this change. I would exclude the local stuff, because you can only fit 1 - 3 local reps at a time, so this strategy is inherently limited. In fact, it makes local rep more competitive with remote reps. This as consequence would make hulls with the local rep bonus more desirable.

The change is in part trying to create a greater disparity for local reps between resist bonused hulls and active tank bonused hulls, not lessen it.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#579 - 2013-04-16 04:59:53 UTC
Ah, in that case, applying resists to local reps and buffing the reps would accomplish that.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#580 - 2013-04-16 05:59:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Debir Achen
Van Mathias wrote:
Um, I would expect discouragement of the usage of alphafleets to be the exact consequence of making battleship resists tougher.
No, increasing the resist profile would simply result in larger alphafleets.

Van Mathias wrote:
If it is slightly less effective, people will use it slightly less. Behavior that is punished decreases, and behavior that is rewarded increases.
Yes, but while bumping resists increases the alpha threshold (not the effectiveness, just the minimum alpha required before you can apply the technique), it also bumps the DPS vs rep issue that makes alpha attractive in the first place.

Alpha is the safety valve for Logistics.

Let's say, for example, that one logistics vessel can provide sufficient repair to counter two DPS vessels. For every DPS vessel you swap for a logistics vessel, you remove one DPS ship from your fleet in exchange for removing two from the opponent's fleet. And increasing resistances skews that comparison further and further in favour of remote rep. Unlike local rep, there is no low, hard cap on the amount of remote rep that can be brought to bear.

For what it's worth, this problem is worse in smaller fleets, as lower alpha/DPS makes the logi job more forgiving and easier to co-ordinate.

The only way to win this game is to negate the logi, either via e-war (negate the logi through non-repairable means) or alpha (negate the logi by not giving it time to respond). Lowering the alpha threshold requires less focused alpha-tactics; lowering the remote rep rate makes the logi vs DPS swap more attractive. Increasing both (eg by increasing resistances) says "you need alpha, and you need to do it really, really well".

Incidentally, when the logi vs DPS rate goes below 1:1 (one DPS ship can deal more damage than a logi can counter), fleets will switch towards DPS tanking, unless they can field superior numbers.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?