These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#661 - 2013-04-19 02:52:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

If 500m hardners were only able to be fitted on ships without resist bonuses you would have a point. But their statement was pretty clear. RR is "balanced" until resist bonuses come into play. So you can shoot 44 ships in the foot or all of them.


how is RR balanced if they complain about it? How about we reverse your statement? Resistance are balanced until RR comes into play? How is the resistance bonus overpowered if you exclude RR?

Then i would suggest to remove the overheat-Button. If you get primary overheat tank, then w8 for RR, then w8 for the enemy to switch or kill you. Cancel overheat, repair modules with paste. It may not always work but its not something thats overpowered.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#662 - 2013-04-19 02:52:25 UTC
quite honestly, CCP isn't stating that RR in and of itself is a problem, he is stating that RR in regards to hulls with resist bonuses is a problem. I've avoided touching this subject personally since I haven't yet been able to come up with a more reasonable option to fixing that specific interelation myself then what some people had suggested about allowing only hull resist boosts to a small extent to also apply to them... but after much long thought (the length of time this thread has existed, honestly) I think that that would honestly be a more optimal solution instead of inserting a nerf that not only applies to RR on these hulls, but every situation where damage is applied to a hull specifically designed around having this resist bonus. So, yes, I think it would be much more viable to create a formula for hull resists to 'resist' RR as well.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#663 - 2013-04-19 03:01:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

If 500m hardners were only able to be fitted on ships without resist bonuses you would have a point. But their statement was pretty clear. RR is "balanced" until resist bonuses come into play. So you can shoot 44 ships in the foot or all of them.


how is RR balanced if they complain about it? How about we reverse your statement? Resistance are balanced until RR comes into play? How is the resistance bonus overpowered if you exclude RR?

Then i would suggest to remove the overheat-Button. If you get primary overheat tank, then w8 for RR, then w8 for the enemy to switch or kill you. Cancel overheat, repair modules with paste. It may not always work but its not something thats overpowered.

Resistance bonus would still remain overpowered compared to local rep bonuses in that it provides similar rep amounts while considerably augmenting buffer. Also they stated it was very strong and NEAR overpowered, but those aren't complaints.

Also overheat isn't limited to a subset of ships, doesn't last indefinitely, can burn out mods and can be neuted out which hurts more now that they give no passive resist when inactive. If overheat deserves a nerf for it's limited benefits resists bonuses need removed. Especially since resist bonuses only further exploit the horrible imbalance of the dreaded overheat!
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#664 - 2013-04-19 03:22:02 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Resistance bonus would still remain overpowered compared to local rep bonuses in that it provides similar rep amounts while considerably augmenting buffer. Also they stated it was very strong and NEAR overpowered, but those aren't complaints.


you got a good point here, resistance bonus have a "hidden Bonus", but you can alyways just remove some base HP to balance this issue. If a maelstrom and a rokh would fight, then they are equal:
- 8 Guns
- Same Bonus for repair-bonus
- Same EHP [after the adjustment]

after this change the maelstrom would win, because the Rokh rep less.

here is the definition of complain:
1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/complain

If you say, i cant do somehing because of RR, its already a complain. because you are dissatisfied with something.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Bucca Zerodyme]
Also overheat isn't limited to a subset of ships, doesn't last indefinitely, can burn out mods and can be neuted out which hurts more now that they give no passive resist when inactive. If overheat deserves a nerf for it's limited benefits resists bonuses need removed. Especially since resist bonuses only further exploit the horrible imbalance of the dreaded overheat!


That was just an example for getting more resistance, even if its limited. I was trying to say, that any ship can get "resistance Bonus".
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#665 - 2013-04-19 03:44:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

you got a good point here, resistance bonus have a "hidden Bonus", but you can alyways just remove some base HP to balance this issue. If a maelstrom and a rokh would fight, then they are equal:
- 8 Guns
- Same Bonus for repair-bonus
- Same EHP [after the adjustment]

after this change the maelstrom would win, because the Rokh rep less.
Edit for clarity: The resist nerf seems a good balance point actually. In a 1v1 with local tank the Mael probably should win all things being equal. As numbers increase and DPS starts being applied fast enough for reps to matter less the the scales tip in favor of the Rokh as it still has a benefit to ehp, especially once RR becomes the more effective means of repair, but it needs its ehp to remain higher to properly fulfill this role. This is balance because of each ship having a clear role on the side of engagement scale. There is however a notable issue here though with artillery alpha helping the Mael infringe on Rokh territory, but this is more of a weapon concern than the hull and can't be replicated with all such parings (IE: Abbadon v Hype).

Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

here is the definition of complain:
1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/complain

If you say, i cant do somehing because of RR, its already a complain. because you are dissatisfied with something.

To say that something is at it's upper limit isn't a complaint. Identifying bounds is not an expression of dissatisfaction. Stating a criteria for a subject to become disfunctional can't be a complaint because at that point talking about the bounds of any mechanic becomes a complaint.

Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Bucca Zerodyme]
Also overheat isn't limited to a subset of ships, doesn't last indefinitely, can burn out mods and can be neuted out which hurts more now that they give no passive resist when inactive. If overheat deserves a nerf for it's limited benefits resists bonuses need removed. Especially since resist bonuses only further exploit the horrible imbalance of the dreaded overheat!


That was just an example for getting more resistance, even if its limited. I was trying to say, that any ship can get "resistance Bonus".
Right, but that is the point, it's 1. Limited in effect and duration and 2. Universal in that it can apply to any ship. Resists bonuses give the same effect permanently without penalty and cannot be affected by outside influence. So while they both contribute to the same thing the difference in application, stacking and constant effect make a real differentiation.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#666 - 2013-04-19 06:03:42 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

Also overheat isn't limited to a subset of ships, doesn't last indefinitely, can burn out mods and can be neuted out which hurts more now that they give no passive resist when inactive. If overheat deserves a nerf for it's limited benefits resists bonuses need removed. Especially since resist bonuses only further exploit the horrible imbalance of the dreaded overheat!


That was just an example for getting more resistance, even if its limited. I was trying to say, that any ship can get "resistance Bonus".
Right, but that is the point, it's 1. Limited in effect and duration and 2. Universal in that it can apply to any ship. Resists bonuses give the same effect permanently without penalty and cannot be affected by outside influence. So while they both contribute to the same thing the difference in application, stacking and constant effect make a real differentiation.


Thats not quite true, neuts and vamps can shut down invulns.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#667 - 2013-04-19 07:18:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Van Mathias wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

Also overheat isn't limited to a subset of ships, doesn't last indefinitely, can burn out mods and can be neuted out which hurts more now that they give no passive resist when inactive. If overheat deserves a nerf for it's limited benefits resists bonuses need removed. Especially since resist bonuses only further exploit the horrible imbalance of the dreaded overheat!


That was just an example for getting more resistance, even if its limited. I was trying to say, that any ship can get "resistance Bonus".
Right, but that is the point, it's 1. Limited in effect and duration and 2. Universal in that it can apply to any ship. Resists bonuses give the same effect permanently without penalty and cannot be affected by outside influence. So while they both contribute to the same thing the difference in application, stacking and constant effect make a real differentiation.


Thats not quite true, neuts and vamps can shut down invulns.

Never said they couldn't. I said resist bonuses couldn't be affected by outside influence, hence making them superior compared to the resistance boost from overheating hardners alongside other factors.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#668 - 2013-04-19 14:27:56 UTC
Now, to address Fozzie's claim that Alpha fleet prevalence is a direct result of too powerful reps for resist bonused hulls... wrong.
Alpha fleet doctrines rose in prevalance due to engagement range and sheer fleet sizes. As a result of this they have a high survival rate and high returns for investment in them and therefore become preferable. It also ties into the strategic value for maintaining the ability to dictate the terms of engagement and not affording your opponent viable options to respond with.

As for Alpha fleets being more effective against such RR advantage over DPS... outside of having a large enough fleet to kill a target with one or 2 salvos, no, a DPS fleet is more effective, as alpha fleets have such a low DPS value that reps will otherwise easily overpower them anyway, whereas while a DPS fleet it's a slow grind to overpower them, by value of being a high damage per second, they directly counter RR which has always (and to my knowledge will always) be a matter of being valued at hp repaired per second.

So, no, nerfing resist hull bonuses does not in anyway decrease the viability of Alpha fleets. In point of fact, all it does is make [b]both[/i] Alpha and DPS fleet doctrines more viable, but not how Fozzie appears to be expecting it to. Yes, DPS boats will kill more ships faster over time, hence them being high damage per second fleets. But this also means that they have given up all range dictation, and if not a large fleet, their best chance of victory will involve getting to the logi's (if they can) to take them out swiftly, all the while being under fire from the opposing fleet. And since this is not likely to be a valid option, as they've given up range to focus on DPS, they also have to hope that the targets stay close enough together to stay in their range to be able to keep applying that DPS.

Meanwhile, Alpha fleet prevalance will remain just as high (if not higher for this nerf making them more effective) in that they don't have to worry about range, they can just blap you from anywhere.

In short, this Resist Nerf does nothing to actually affect Fozzie's stated claims for it being needed, as it overall simply makes these specific ships a slightly less viable option in any fleet that's not a blob by simply making them easier for everyone and any fleet comp to kill.

And for the non-PvP aspects, it also means that these ships are going to see less use now because they haven't gotten any stronger for dps or alpha strike output (thus meaning they can not decrease the incoming damage from rats any faster) to counter the loss of tank that makes them even less viable to run PvE engagements with them.

Now, Fozzie, please, tell me I'm wrong, I'd rather enjoy going toe to toe with you in a debate over this! :p *throws down the gauntlet*
Tilo Rhywald
Wilde Jagd
#669 - 2013-04-19 16:30:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tilo Rhywald
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Edit for clarity: The resist nerf seems a good balance point actually. In a 1v1 with local tank the Mael probably should win all things being equal. As numbers increase and DPS starts being applied fast enough for reps to matter less the the scales tip in favor of the Rokh as it still has a benefit to ehp, especially once RR becomes the more effective means of repair, but it needs its ehp to remain higher to properly fulfill this role. This is balance because of each ship having a clear role on the side of engagement scale.



As has been said before, the resistance bonus does nothing but make the hulls that have it more versatile. One fits for a specific style of combat at a time, not for all. Pushing ships with resist bonus more into the buffer role because for active tactics there are just significantly better options is simply short-sighted and will diminish the variety of ships flown throughout different PvP-scenarios. This is diametrically opposed to the main goal or even the whole point of the tiercide and the rebalancing process: Diversifying the options. It's also laughably against lore when for example an Amarr pilot in FW is forced to fly a Gallente ship just because he wants to do solo-PvP with an active armor tank. The resistance nerf won't do anything to diversify nullsec blobs, I'm certain. I can't believe that anyone would like the idea of reducing the number of feasible hulls in total across all PvP styles.

I'm also very disappointed that those few who actually support the nerf can't seem to be able to accept that resi-bonused ships have certain drawbacks (like speed) that were put in place because of the better tank. "Balanced around the resistance bonus"... which all ships were until two new Devs suddenly said otherwise. Show me where people complained about it during the last... hm.. 10 years of Eve?

Tilo R.
Pathogen Ascention
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#670 - 2013-04-19 16:34:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Pathogen Ascention
Pelea Ming wrote:
Now, to address Fozzie's claim that Alpha fleet prevalence is a direct result of too powerful reps for resist bonused hulls... wrong.
Alpha fleet doctrines rose in prevalance due to engagement range and sheer fleet sizes. As a result of this they have a high survival rate and high returns for investment in them and therefore become preferable. It also ties into the strategic value for maintaining the ability to dictate the terms of engagement and not affording your opponent viable options to respond with.

As for Alpha fleets being more effective against such RR advantage over DPS... outside of having a large enough fleet to kill a target with one or 2 salvos, no, a DPS fleet is more effective, as alpha fleets have such a low DPS value that reps will otherwise easily overpower them anyway, whereas while a DPS fleet it's a slow grind to overpower them, by value of being a high damage per second, they directly counter RR which has always (and to my knowledge will always) be a matter of being valued at hp repaired per second.

So, no, nerfing resist hull bonuses does not in anyway decrease the viability of Alpha fleets. In point of fact, all it does is make [b]both[/i] Alpha and DPS fleet doctrines more viable, but not how Fozzie appears to be expecting it to. Yes, DPS boats will kill more ships faster over time, hence them being high damage per second fleets. But this also means that they have given up all range dictation, and if not a large fleet, their best chance of victory will involve getting to the logi's (if they can) to take them out swiftly, all the while being under fire from the opposing fleet. And since this is not likely to be a valid option, as they've given up range to focus on DPS, they also have to hope that the targets stay close enough together to stay in their range to be able to keep applying that DPS.

Meanwhile, Alpha fleet prevalance will remain just as high (if not higher for this nerf making them more effective) in that they don't have to worry about range, they can just blap you from anywhere.

In short, this Resist Nerf does nothing to actually affect Fozzie's stated claims for it being needed, as it overall simply makes these specific ships a slightly less viable option in any fleet that's not a blob by simply making them easier for everyone and any fleet comp to kill.

And for the non-PvP aspects, it also means that these ships are going to see less use now because they haven't gotten any stronger for dps or alpha strike output (thus meaning they can not decrease the incoming damage from rats any faster) to counter the loss of tank that makes them even less viable to run PvE engagements with them.

Now, Fozzie, please, tell me I'm wrong, I'd rather enjoy going toe to toe with you in a debate over this! :p *throws down the gauntlet*



I agree completely with this, the resist nerf to all classes is not helpful in any way. It would be quite a bit of work, but all classes need to be looked at when balancing is the goal. Some ships are meant to have a great deal of tank, and looking into the issues with repping seems to be more appropriate here. Gimping the res bonus, especially one that's been fine for quite a while isn't even a "band-aid" on this perceived problem.


*Edited because Tilo's statement above hits the issue right on the nose. Resist was fine, we never asked for this.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#671 - 2013-04-19 16:53:40 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
As for Alpha fleets being more effective against such RR advantage over DPS... outside of having a large enough fleet to kill a target with one or 2 salvos, no, a DPS fleet is more effective, as alpha fleets have such a low DPS value that reps will otherwise easily overpower them anyway, whereas while a DPS fleet it's a slow grind to overpower them, by value of being a high damage per second, they directly counter RR which has always (and to my knowledge will always) be a matter of being valued at hp repaired per second.
Why would you use an alpha fleet outside of it's ability to 1-2 shot targets? And if you are using such a fleet with that capability and effectively bypassing RR how is DPS drawing any advantage from resistance amplified RR working against them while their opponents simply get to ignore it?

Pelea Ming wrote:
So, no, nerfing resist hull bonuses does not in anyway decrease the viability of Alpha fleets. In point of fact, all it does is make [b]both[/i] Alpha and DPS fleet doctrines more viable, but not how Fozzie appears to be expecting it to. Yes, DPS boats will kill more ships faster over time, hence them being high damage per second fleets. But this also means that they have given up all range dictation, and if not a large fleet, their best chance of victory will involve getting to the logi's (if they can) to take them out swiftly, all the while being under fire from the opposing fleet. And since this is not likely to be a valid option, as they've given up range to focus on DPS, they also have to hope that the targets stay close enough together to stay in their range to be able to keep applying that DPS.

Meanwhile, Alpha fleet prevalance will remain just as high (if not higher for this nerf making them more effective) in that they don't have to worry about range, they can just blap you from anywhere.
I don't get this part of the argument. Both of the other LR turret systems actually have more range and DPS than arties do. The short on optimal and long on falloff nature of projectiles particularly helps the Rokh compete at longer ranges (and is apparently doing a good job at > 3x the kills of maels per eve kill) as it's DPS remains constant well into the range that arties start to decline. Considering the top killer is a ship that doesn't want to be in close as that negates it's advantage how can you day that DPS would be best, much less needs to be right on top of you?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#672 - 2013-04-19 17:18:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Tilo Rhywald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Edit for clarity: The resist nerf seems a good balance point actually. In a 1v1 with local tank the Mael probably should win all things being equal. As numbers increase and DPS starts being applied fast enough for reps to matter less the the scales tip in favor of the Rokh as it still has a benefit to ehp, especially once RR becomes the more effective means of repair, but it needs its ehp to remain higher to properly fulfill this role. This is balance because of each ship having a clear role on the side of engagement scale.



As has been said before, the resistance bonus does nothing but make the hulls that have it more versatile. One fits for a specific style of combat at a time, not for all. Pushing ships with resist bonus more into the buffer role because for active tactics there are just significantly better options is simply short-sighted and will diminish the variety of ships flown throughout different PvP-scenarios. This is diametrically opposed to the main goal or even the whole point of the tiercide and the rebalancing process: Diversifying the options. It's also laughably against lore when for example an Amarr pilot in FW is forced to fly a Gallente ship just because he wants to do solo-PvP with an active armor tank. The resistance nerf won't do anything to diversify nullsec blobs, I'm certain. I can't believe that anyone would like the idea of reducing the number of feasible hulls in total across all PvP styles.

I'm also very disappointed that those few who actually support the nerf can't seem to be able to accept that resi-bonused ships have certain drawbacks (like speed) that were put in place because of the better tank. "Balanced around the resistance bonus"... which all ships were until two new Devs suddenly said otherwise. Show me where people complained about it during the last... hm.. 10 years of Eve?

Tilo R.

Speed differences are a racial attribute not limited to resist bonused ships. Minmatar are fast, period. Gallente often come in second for a particular class and role. Another racial attribute, having more base HP in their primary tank layers, tends to fall to the amarr and caldari.

I like how you want the most versatile bonus to retain it's strength and trample over the tanking bonuses of the other 2 races. I guess so long as variety consists of resist bonus ships everywhere but local tank bonuses only flown at the lower number engagement range you consider it balanced. So long as tanking bonuses are not homogenized, all bonus BUT the resist bonus will lend themselves to certain types of engagements.

As for nullsec blobs, actually if this nerf is bad enough to cause people to switch from Rokhs then it probably will result in greater diversity. You won't have a single, alpha-resistant go to ship. That said after a bit of theory crafting we will likely be right back in the same boat with a single effective minmax config. No one is going to stay with variety for varieties sake.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#673 - 2013-04-19 17:40:44 UTC
Tyberius, your apparently missing my point. I'm saying the same thing in regards to Alpha fleets, that this resist nerf will not in any way reduce their prevalence, Fozzie in his OP is the one claiming that that is the reason for this nerf. Please do not pick apart at individual points when in doing so you completely ignore the point of the entire argument.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#674 - 2013-04-19 17:47:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Quote:
I like how you want the most versatile bonus to retain it's strength and trample over the tanking bonuses of the other 2 races


If you are saying speed isn't the most versatile bonus, you are wrong before you even started. Every other kind of tank bonus helps you mitigate damage when you do get hit. Speed helps you not get hit in the first place. Speed means the ability to dictate the fight. This is the most powerful bonus in EVE and has been for a long time.

"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.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#675 - 2013-04-19 18:06:49 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
I like how you want the most versatile bonus to retain it's strength and trample over the tanking bonuses of the other 2 races


If you are saying speed isn't the most versatile bonus, you are wrong before you even started. Every other kind of tank bonus helps you mitigate damage when you do get hit. Speed helps you not get hit in the first place. Speed means the ability to dictate the fight. This is the most powerful bonus in EVE and has been for a long time.

^^^^ Agreed, and the bigggest reason why every resist bonused ship in the game was F*** all for maneuvarability compared to anything else. And yet, not a single comment anywhere about providing any compensation for this nerf, simply "take it and like it".
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#676 - 2013-04-19 18:18:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
I like how you want the most versatile bonus to retain it's strength and trample over the tanking bonuses of the other 2 races


If you are saying speed isn't the most versatile bonus, you are wrong before you even started. Every other kind of tank bonus helps you mitigate damage when you do get hit. Speed helps you not get hit in the first place. Speed means the ability to dictate the fight. This is the most powerful bonus in EVE and has been for a long time.

Then your opponent here is racial trends. The attack cruiser line contains no resists bonused ships however the Gallente and Minmatar options are faster than their counterparts. The disruption line follows the same trend. It's not just resist bonused ships. Furthermore the resist bonused ships don't suffer any particular "nerf" to speed for resist bonused ships either. In the cruiser class the resist bonused options are actually closer in speed to their Gallente and Minmatar counterparts.

If speed is your concern than the issue is racial trends, not the resist bonus. It effectively has nothing to do with this nerf.
Tilo Rhywald
Wilde Jagd
#677 - 2013-04-19 18:22:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tilo Rhywald
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Speed differences are a racial attribute not limited to resist bonused ships. Minmatar are fast, period. Gallente often come in second for a particular class and role. Another racial attribute, having more base HP in their primary tank layers, tends to fall to the amarr and caldari.


Edit: That doesn't negate my argument.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I like how you want the most versatile bonus to retain it's strength and trample over the tanking bonuses of the other 2 races. I guess so long as variety consists of resist bonus ships everywhere but local tank bonuses only flown at the lower number engagement range you consider it balanced. So long as tanking bonuses are not homogenized, all bonus BUT the resist bonus will lend themselves to certain types of engagements.


Don't assume to much; nowhere did I say that I'd be opposed to making ships with a repping bonus more versatile or to addressing the specific "problem" (that I haven't heard being mentioned at any time before a week ago) of resistance boni plus RR - maybe by tweaks already suggested many times in this very thread ("having resists "resist" RR" etc.).

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
As for nullsec blobs, actually if this nerf is bad enough to cause people to switch from Rokhs then it probably will result in greater diversity. You won't have a single, alpha-resistant go to ship. That said after a bit of theory crafting we will likely be right back in the same boat with a single effective minmax config. No one is going to stay with variety for varieties sake.


Alpha-blobs have been around much longer than Rokh fleets as the original reasons for the alpha-doctrine lie elsewhere. I think it was at last year's fanfest when CCP Yitterbum showed a graph of ship usage (giving indications on how to balance the hulls) - the Rokh was coloured yellow as it had not been the go-to-tool of nullsec blobs up to that point in time. As the lack of resistance boni on the other alpha-ships seems to not have played a role till just a year ago, I'm more than certain that a 1%-nerf will achieve close to nothing in diversifying large fleet engagements. So how does this justify the blatant blanket nerf to all other forms of PvP in the effected hulls? Hint: It doesn't.

Tilo R.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#678 - 2013-04-19 18:22:24 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Tyberius, your apparently missing my point. I'm saying the same thing in regards to Alpha fleets, that this resist nerf will not in any way reduce their prevalence, Fozzie in his OP is the one claiming that that is the reason for this nerf. Please do not pick apart at individual points when in doing so you completely ignore the point of the entire argument.

I see you point, but in the end what you are pointing out is again the goal here in part (the weakening of the ships across the spectrum). I too think Fozzie is off on his claims that this will help with alpha vs DPS. But as far as that port there were things stated that I feel weren't entirely a good representation of fact (or perhaps weren't coming accross as intended?).
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#679 - 2013-04-19 18:26:12 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Tyberius, your apparently missing my point. I'm saying the same thing in regards to Alpha fleets, that this resist nerf will not in any way reduce their prevalence, Fozzie in his OP is the one claiming that that is the reason for this nerf. Please do not pick apart at individual points when in doing so you completely ignore the point of the entire argument.

I see you point, but in the end what you are pointing out is again the goal here in part (the weakening of the ships across the spectrum). I too think Fozzie is off on his claims that this will help with alpha vs DPS. But as far as that port there were things stated that I feel weren't entirely a good representation of fact (or perhaps weren't coming accross as intended?).

It's possible that the intended message may have gotten lost, I do tend to ramble the longer my thread post is and lose my own train of thought along the way :P
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#680 - 2013-04-19 18:35:04 UTC
I'm currently logged into Duality test server, they have the 'tiericided" battleships seeded. (no, they haven't seeded the new Lasers or Cruise missiles yet.) Going to Penirgman in Duality for any interested.