These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rage MorbidCloud
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#721 - 2013-04-24 21:22:48 UTC
Just saw the leak on eve24, and foz, you better not touch the links.
Its enough that you have killed solo/small gang.
If you want to do something for the solo/small gang community, concentrate on nerfing the damn falcon.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#722 - 2013-04-24 21:42:26 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
fleet ships don't run local tank (except possibly LOL XLASB).


Why is this, gentlemen? I really would like to hear you opine on the matter. Why are local reps unviable in fleets?


Since nobody else took this up:

Local reps mean, in the average case, two rig slots and two or three low slots that increase neither relevant buffer[1] nor resists. That means that they fall short on every significant measure that a logistics pilot is looking for:

1) No relevant buffer[2] means increased vulnerability to alpha and much less time for the logistics pilots to apply reps.
2) Low resists are a triple nerf: they mean higher incoming damage, less relevant buffer, and less effective reps.

Assuming it survives an alpha strike--and above a certain fleet size alpha is more a matter of pilot discipline than it is of weapon choice--the active-tanked ship can rep itself, and that will be roughly equivalent to getting reps from a single logistics ship. But it will be less effective than a high-resist ship getting reps from the same logistics ship, and the latter case scales up linearly with the number of logistics ships on field. Local tanks don't scale.

As a result, active tanked ships are never seen outside of kitchen-sink fleets if there are logi, at least above the frigate scale. In fleets, resists matter from cruisers on up (and I'm sure there are fleets of e.g., Punishers, that benefit from the same arrangement, though I've never flown in one), and so resist-bonused ships are naturally favored.


[1] shield buffer + resists for shield logistics, armor buffer + resists for armor logistics.
[2] Gallente are a bit of an edge case: for historical reasons, they can use hull as buffer if they fit a damage control, and it works pretty well.


I know I said earlier I was done with this thread, but I Rise (pun intended) to the challenge at such a post.

Local tanks don't scale. So, basically, local reps is a weak concept that has no inherent scalability in any kind of pvp but 1v1, right?

Thus, a pve mechanic?

Then I must pose the question, why nerf resists to promote and justify the existence of this mechanic? Because "making local reps viable" is plastered all over the OP for this thread.

And, as an aside, yeah pretty much no one here has seriously flown a Punisher. Because buffer is helpful only at certain ship classes (also because it flat out can't tackle). Yes, while the literal math favors the resists on the Punisher just as much as with a Battleship, the buffer a Battleship has built in is what allows for this mechanic to come to play.

So what I am trying to say here, and what a lot of my point has been all along is, it very naturally only comes into play in certain ship classes because of this. It's no accident that the Punisher and the Maller see very little play, while their Big Daddy, the Abaddon, sees a lot of play. It's because the mechanic has a sharp increase in effectiveness as ship sizes go up. Just like +% to HP does. Just like RoF does with the more turrets you have access to.

So why throw the baby out with the bath water, when all that really needs to happen is to nerf 4 or 5 ships? What are the possible reasons for this?

"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.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#723 - 2013-04-24 22:16:30 UTC
Rage MorbidCloud wrote:
Just saw the leak on eve24, and foz, you better not touch the links.
Its enough that you have killed solo/small gang.
If you want to do something for the solo/small gang community, concentrate on nerfing the damn falcon.


If you are having Falcon troubles, bring a ship or 2 that has the range to hit one. Its really not hard.
Brother Welcome
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#724 - 2013-04-24 22:22:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Brother Welcome
XDMR wrote:
Brother Welcome wrote:
My tuppence

2. Nerf BS' to 4% as planned but increase their armour/shield HPs so that their EHP stays the same while the dynamic of their ablation/repping changes as desired. That will have the side effect of improving them for lower skill level players. It will keep them effective in smaller gangs. Obliquely, it may produce a tiny nerf to alpha.



Why not the exact opposite? Leave the resi bonus but nerf base shield or armor hp. This would push them "more" towards active tanking.

The reason is the problem CCP Fozzie described. Doing the opposite would further hinder CCP in making active tanking a thing. Here's a simple illustration -

Two ships (for simplicity armour tanked).

A = 50% resists 100,000 AHP
B = 90% resists 10,000 AHP

Attacker C lands 1000DPS on them. A takes 500EDPS and lasts 200 seconds. B takes 100EDPS and lasts 100 seconds. Now add repping.

If A and B rep 10/s then A gains 2000AHP in the 200 seconds it takes to ablate its starting AHP. That means A will last 4 more seconds. B will gain only 1000APH, but B will last 10 more seconds.

Now add remote repping of 100/s. A gains 20,000AHP in the time it takes to ablate starting AHP. Then another 4000 in the additional 40 seconds it takes to ablate repped AHP. Then another 800 in the time it takes to ablate that 4000. Then dies shortly after. After RR of 100/s A lasted about 250 seconds so remote repping gave A effectively 25% longer to live.

B, on the other hand, can no longer be destroyed by attacker C, if B is receiving remote repping of 100/s. An infinite improvement to B's lifespan. This is an inherently difficult dynamic to correctly balance and design around.

That creates design issues such as the following two examples
1. CCP can't make active tanking a thing because it would interact with high resists causing the sort of issue described above locally. At present, active tanking is sufficiently limited (due to cap and slots etc) that it doesn't readily reach the margin where numbers sprawl out to infinity. Unfortunately, it makes it not really a great strategy - which ideally it would be (especially for solo or small gang PvP).
2. Remote repping easily hits the margin where numbers go stupid. That makes it imba and very tough to balance.

And on the other hand passive buffers are really easy to balance and design around. It's hard to make a buffer go stupid in the absence of resists. As you can see - 1000% more buffer did not equate to 500% better resists (A has a 50% hole in resists, B has a 10% hole; so A has 5x worse resists than B - that's part of CCP Fozzie's points: that 25% better resists represents a bigger benefit than it looks on the surface).

Hence I suggest a conversion of resist tanking to buffer tanking. Except for those ships that can't make the numbers stupid (e.g. HICs and Frigates). To really offset the resist bonus Fozzie IMO would go beyond the initial EHP of the relevant ships, because he should think in terms of role (fleet, small gang, solo, tackle) and expected lifespan under fire.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#725 - 2013-04-24 23:12:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
fleet ships don't run local tank (except possibly LOL XLASB).


Why is this, gentlemen? I really would like to hear you opine on the matter. Why are local reps unviable in fleets?


Since nobody else took this up:

Local reps mean, in the average case, two rig slots and two or three low slots that increase neither relevant buffer[1] nor resists. That means that they fall short on every significant measure that a logistics pilot is looking for:

1) No relevant buffer[2] means increased vulnerability to alpha and much less time for the logistics pilots to apply reps.
2) Low resists are a triple nerf: they mean higher incoming damage, less relevant buffer, and less effective reps.

Assuming it survives an alpha strike--and above a certain fleet size alpha is more a matter of pilot discipline than it is of weapon choice--the active-tanked ship can rep itself, and that will be roughly equivalent to getting reps from a single logistics ship. But it will be less effective than a high-resist ship getting reps from the same logistics ship, and the latter case scales up linearly with the number of logistics ships on field. Local tanks don't scale.

As a result, active tanked ships are never seen outside of kitchen-sink fleets if there are logi, at least above the frigate scale. In fleets, resists matter from cruisers on up (and I'm sure there are fleets of e.g., Punishers, that benefit from the same arrangement, though I've never flown in one), and so resist-bonused ships are naturally favored.


[1] shield buffer + resists for shield logistics, armor buffer + resists for armor logistics.
[2] Gallente are a bit of an edge case: for historical reasons, they can use hull as buffer if they fit a damage control, and it works pretty well.


I know I said earlier I was done with this thread, but I Rise (pun intended) to the challenge at such a post.

Local tanks don't scale. So, basically, local reps is a weak concept that has no inherent scalability in any kind of pvp but 1v1, right?

Thus, a pve mechanic?

Then I must pose the question, why nerf resists to promote and justify the existence of this mechanic? Because "making local reps viable" is plastered all over the OP for this thread.

And, as an aside, yeah pretty much no one here has seriously flown a Punisher. Because buffer is helpful only at certain ship classes (also because it flat out can't tackle). Yes, while the literal math favors the resists on the Punisher just as much as with a Battleship, the buffer a Battleship has built in is what allows for this mechanic to come to play.

So what I am trying to say here, and what a lot of my point has been all along is, it very naturally only comes into play in certain ship classes because of this. It's no accident that the Punisher and the Maller see very little play, while their Big Daddy, the Abaddon, sees a lot of play. It's because the mechanic has a sharp increase in effectiveness as ship sizes go up. Just like +% to HP does. Just like RoF does with the more turrets you have access to.

So why throw the baby out with the bath water, when all that really needs to happen is to nerf 4 or 5 ships? What are the possible reasons for this?

Just to be a smartass, you slap a 400 plate to your Punisher, I'll fit mine for pure resists, and we'll see who wins :P
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#726 - 2013-04-25 00:10:45 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
fleet ships don't run local tank (except possibly LOL XLASB).


Why is this, gentlemen? I really would like to hear you opine on the matter. Why are local reps unviable in fleets?


Since nobody else took this up:

Local reps mean, in the average case, two rig slots and two or three low slots that increase neither relevant buffer[1] nor resists. That means that they fall short on every significant measure that a logistics pilot is looking for:

1) No relevant buffer[2] means increased vulnerability to alpha and much less time for the logistics pilots to apply reps.
2) Low resists are a triple nerf: they mean higher incoming damage, less relevant buffer, and less effective reps.

Assuming it survives an alpha strike--and above a certain fleet size alpha is more a matter of pilot discipline than it is of weapon choice--the active-tanked ship can rep itself, and that will be roughly equivalent to getting reps from a single logistics ship. But it will be less effective than a high-resist ship getting reps from the same logistics ship, and the latter case scales up linearly with the number of logistics ships on field. Local tanks don't scale.

As a result, active tanked ships are never seen outside of kitchen-sink fleets if there are logi, at least above the frigate scale. In fleets, resists matter from cruisers on up (and I'm sure there are fleets of e.g., Punishers, that benefit from the same arrangement, though I've never flown in one), and so resist-bonused ships are naturally favored.


[1] shield buffer + resists for shield logistics, armor buffer + resists for armor logistics.
[2] Gallente are a bit of an edge case: for historical reasons, they can use hull as buffer if they fit a damage control, and it works pretty well.


I know I said earlier I was done with this thread, but I Rise (pun intended) to the challenge at such a post.

Local tanks don't scale. So, basically, local reps is a weak concept that has no inherent scalability in any kind of pvp but 1v1, right?

Thus, a pve mechanic?

Then I must pose the question, why nerf resists to promote and justify the existence of this mechanic? Because "making local reps viable" is plastered all over the OP for this thread.

And, as an aside, yeah pretty much no one here has seriously flown a Punisher. Because buffer is helpful only at certain ship classes (also because it flat out can't tackle). Yes, while the literal math favors the resists on the Punisher just as much as with a Battleship, the buffer a Battleship has built in is what allows for this mechanic to come to play.

So what I am trying to say here, and what a lot of my point has been all along is, it very naturally only comes into play in certain ship classes because of this. It's no accident that the Punisher and the Maller see very little play, while their Big Daddy, the Abaddon, sees a lot of play. It's because the mechanic has a sharp increase in effectiveness as ship sizes go up. Just like +% to HP does. Just like RoF does with the more turrets you have access to.

So why throw the baby out with the bath water, when all that really needs to happen is to nerf 4 or 5 ships? What are the possible reasons for this?

Just to be a smartass, you slap a 400 plate to your Punisher, I'll fit mine for pure resists, and we'll see who wins :P


Hell, I'm half tempted to accept with an autocannon punisher like in the old days, just to make a point about cap use.

"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.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#727 - 2013-04-25 00:45:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Local tanks don't scale. So, basically, local reps is a weak concept that has no inherent scalability in any kind of pvp but 1v1, right?

Thus, a pve mechanic?

Then I must pose the question, why nerf resists to promote and justify the existence of this mechanic? Because "making local reps viable" is plastered all over the OP for this thread.


Because you haven't yet absorbed the whole point, probably because you were focused on fleets: At 5%/level, resist bonused hulls are better at everything, including local tanking.

At max skills, a hull with a 5%/level resist bonus has:

1) 33% more efficient local reps than a non-bonused hull, almost as much as the 37.5% greater efficiency of a hull with a 7.5%/level bonus to local reps, and;

2) a high resist profile, reducing incoming damage more than the pure active tanker, and;

3) more EHP, giving the ship more survival time while local reps cycle and the high slot kill tank to reduce incoming DPS.

On top of all that, should someone decide to supplement your active tank with remote reps, those reps will be 33% more efficient than they would be applied to a hull with a bonus to local tank.

So the root problem is that at 5%/level, resist hulls are just plain better at everything, including PVE active tanking. They have 90% of the benefits of a local tank, and none of the drawbacks. And because the efficiency of armor reppers in particular degrades rapidly as the size of the repper increases, this becomes more and more true as you go from frigates (where bonused active tanks work quite well), to battleships (where they flat-out suck).

That's the issue: Resist hulls are better at filling fleet roles, which is OK, but they're also better at small-group, solo, and PVE, which leaves bonused active tanking relevant to a grand total of about four Gallente ships, and a handful of Minmatar ships, out of hundreds.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And, as an aside, yeah pretty much no one here has seriously flown a Punisher. Because buffer is helpful only at certain ship classes (also because it flat out can't tackle). Yes, while the literal math favors the resists on the Punisher just as much as with a Battleship, the buffer a Battleship has built in is what allows for this mechanic to come to play.


Maybe there are not many people who fly solo Punishers, but I've heard some lowsec dwellers say that, with logi and tackle support, a gang of Scorch-wielding Punishers is a golden ball of death. It makes perfect sense that the Amarr would have terrifying fleet ships.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So why throw the baby out with the bath water, when all that really needs to happen is to nerf 4 or 5 ships? What are the possible reasons for this?


That's not the problem. The problem is that the 5%/level resist tank completely overshadows bonused active tanking, except for about 4 or 5 ships. It's too good at everything. It's true that this nerf hits ships like the Eagle that are crying out for a buff, but then the problem with the Eagle was never its tank.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Mobius Reynolds
Facepunch Industries
#728 - 2013-04-25 01:08:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mobius Reynolds
Dersen Lowery wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So why throw the baby out with the bath water, when all that really needs to happen is to nerf 4 or 5 ships? What are the possible reasons for this?


That's not the problem. The problem is that the 5%/level resist tank completely overshadows bonused active tanking, except for about 4 or 5 ships. It's too good at everything. It's true that this nerf hits ships like the Eagle that are crying out for a buff, but then the problem with the Eagle was never its tank.


My personal issue is the blanket nature of the nerf in the name of standardization of the (resist) bonus, when the local bonus (which it's being compared to) is not standardized...the subsystems with the local rep bonus have 10% per level, and it's my understanding that they work fairly well, and in theory 33% vs 50% should provide the difference people want. I personally like the nerf, but I haven't seen any data to support it being overpowered across-the board. Either standardize the local rep bonus first and see if the resists still need nerf (either buff the ships up to 10%, or nerf the subs to 7.5%), leave the resist subs out of it (because subs are different than ship bonuses?...I DO NOT WANT THIS ONE), or only nerf the bonus on the ships that are being re-balanced.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#729 - 2013-04-25 01:39:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Local tanks don't scale. So, basically, local reps is a weak concept that has no inherent scalability in any kind of pvp but 1v1, right?

Thus, a pve mechanic?

Then I must pose the question, why nerf resists to promote and justify the existence of this mechanic? Because "making local reps viable" is plastered all over the OP for this thread.


Because you haven't yet absorbed the whole point, probably because you were focused on fleets: At 5%/level, resist bonused hulls are better at everything, including local tanking.

At max skills, a hull with a 5%/level resist bonus has:

1) 33% more efficient local reps than a non-bonused hull, almost as much as the 37.5% greater efficiency of a hull with a 7.5%/level bonus to local reps, and;

2) a high resist profile, reducing incoming damage more than the pure active tanker, and;

3) more EHP, giving the ship more survival time while local reps cycle and the high slot kill tank to reduce incoming DPS.

On top of all that, should someone decide to supplement your active tank with remote reps, those reps will be 33% more efficient than they would be applied to a hull with a bonus to local tank.

So the root problem is that at 5%/level, resist hulls are just plain better at everything, including PVE active tanking. They have 90% of the benefits of a local tank, and none of the drawbacks. And because the efficiency of armor reppers in particular degrades rapidly as the size of the repper increases, this becomes more and more true as you go from frigates (where bonused active tanks work quite well), to battleships (where they flat-out suck).

That's the issue: Resist hulls are better at filling fleet roles, which is OK, but they're also better at small-group, solo, and PVE, which leaves bonused active tanking relevant to a grand total of about four Gallente ships, and a handful of Minmatar ships, out of hundreds.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And, as an aside, yeah pretty much no one here has seriously flown a Punisher. Because buffer is helpful only at certain ship classes (also because it flat out can't tackle). Yes, while the literal math favors the resists on the Punisher just as much as with a Battleship, the buffer a Battleship has built in is what allows for this mechanic to come to play.


Maybe there are not many people who fly solo Punishers, but I've heard some lowsec dwellers say that, with logi and tackle support, a gang of Scorch-wielding Punishers is a golden ball of death. It makes perfect sense that the Amarr would have terrifying fleet ships.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So why throw the baby out with the bath water, when all that really needs to happen is to nerf 4 or 5 ships? What are the possible reasons for this?


That's not the problem. The problem is that the 5%/level resist tank completely overshadows bonused active tanking, except for about 4 or 5 ships. It's too good at everything. It's true that this nerf hits ships like the Eagle that are crying out for a buff, but then the problem with the Eagle was never its tank.


I have not, and have never denied that resists are strong, and that they have effects beyond simply the reduction of damage. If you think I'm here to argue that, well, I'm not, and never have been.

What I am arguing is, that yes, it's a strong bonus. But the fact that it overshadows such a weaksauce bonus as active reps is not a problem. Active reps, and when I say that I really mean active armor reps, because every last one of us knows that thanks in large part to ASB, active shield is genuinely viable, is a completely fail bonus and concept that they continue trying to push for some damn reason. Honestly, scrap the whole idea, and give Gallente a real bonus. Then they might quit their incessant whining.

My entire problem is that we seem to be getting this knee jerk nerf with no sign whatsoever of any re balancing of the ships affected, when the vast majority of the ships on that DO NOT NEED A NERF. And the response we get to the fact that "lower resists" and "amarr BS rebalance" are nothing more than across the board nerfs (the geddon does not count, it's a total re write, and not as strong as they make it out to be) is "Oops, we made your ship un-flyable, here is a bandaid, get back to you guys an expansion from now! *waves*". Meanwhile the Gallente guys pitch an enormous whine, and CCP caves within hours.

Perception is reality. Right now, the Amarr guys on this and several other threads feel like second class citizens, and for a damned good reason. Our ships require more fitting mods on them just to run our own guns than any other race (for little to no genuine benefit, that is irrefutable), our best fleet ship is eating a 20-30k EHP nerf, and we basically just told to quit our bitching by a dev. We all can make a good case that we have been getting a raw deal for years, with no end in sight.

So yeah, I'd say disgruntlement is in order.

Also, as for your Punisher statement. I haven't read my game manual in a while, but is there a part in there I missed where it says Amarr aren't allowed to have solo viable ships? We have a fleet niche, gotcha. But I'd love to be able to fly a ship that I don't have to tow along a remote cap ship to be able to fire my guns for more than 90 sec at a time should I choose to run a prop mod. And I'd love if, heaven forfend, there were enough balance left in this game to be able to do it in whatever race I so choose.

So all in all, I'd sum up my position with this:

Fix our thrice damned cap issues. Then you can spend the time "rebalancing" my resists, the one good thing about the ships I fly.

"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.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#730 - 2013-04-25 02:07:35 UTC
Rage MorbidCloud wrote:
Just saw the leak on eve24, and foz, you better not touch the links.
Its enough that you have killed solo/small gang.
If you want to do something for the solo/small gang community, concentrate on nerfing the damn falcon.


Your argument would hold water if your small gang was the only one using links, instead, everybody uses links for damn near everything.

Untouchable safed up links.


They're well pas their due.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#731 - 2013-04-25 02:45:32 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Rage MorbidCloud wrote:
Just saw the leak on eve24, and foz, you better not touch the links.
Its enough that you have killed solo/small gang.
If you want to do something for the solo/small gang community, concentrate on nerfing the damn falcon.


Your argument would hold water if your small gang was the only one using links, instead, everybody uses links for damn near everything.

Untouchable safed up links.


They're well pas their due.



personally i think links should have an optimal range and falloff and only work on grid...

that and make links only work for the squad.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#732 - 2013-04-25 02:57:18 UTC
THESE CHANGES WILL BREAK THOSE AMARR AND CALDARI SHIPS!

You are a ******* idiot...Way to go for making Winmatar and Gallente even more the spoiled children...

So far, there is essentially nothing you or Rise have proposed that I can even remotely like. You are ******* me over as a Caldari pilot yet again. You are making Amarr ships (which I can fly) even more retardedly cap-unstable. Lastly you are buffing Gallente and Minmatar...*cough* I mean WINmatar ships to new levels.

You should be fixing the cap issues inherent with lasers, revamping drone mechanics and revamp missile mechanics. If you don't like missiles for "server reasons" then do some creative writing on the tech for them. I was understanding and accepted the changes to HMs. But these proposals are reaching a new level of bullshit.

You claim you listen to player feedback! Let's see some proof of that...! All of us that commented hated your Caldari and Amarr BS proposals. Your faction BCs are problematic as well for all the reason that were listed.

Release the patch as is, you are asking for all the hate so far expressed in those threads to explode. And your wallet and lifestyle will be the one hurting...
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#733 - 2013-04-25 04:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
One thing that I see as problematic is order in which we are getting many changes...

"Math tells us that resistance bonuses owershadow rep bonuses..."
Sure, but nerfing the former won't fix the latter unless reps are going to see changes. We can't even remotely give a decent feedback without knowing what's planned for reps themselves (is there anything even?) because sure as heck resistance nerfs won't make rep-bonused ships any more viable given that their probem is deeper than being overshadowed by resistance-bonused ships.

"Here, have your pure droneboats..."
See, without knowing what will happen with drones' stats and mech in the future (something CCP hinted) we can only make useless speculations at best or cry foul about broken ships at worst.

I wish we could have these sweeping changes (like ths "ALL resistance bonuses must be nerfed") implemented individually for each ship, but only after everything else is fine about them? You know, like how you did with Incursus when it was deemed to be overperforming (agree or not, I'm talking more about how it was done, not what was done)?

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
XDMR
Cruzakh Rule Breaking Bastards
#734 - 2013-04-25 09:50:04 UTC
Brother Welcome wrote:
XDMR wrote:
Brother Welcome wrote:
My tuppence

2. Nerf BS' to 4% as planned but increase their armour/shield HPs so that their EHP stays the same while the dynamic of their ablation/repping changes as desired. That will have the side effect of improving them for lower skill level players. It will keep them effective in smaller gangs. Obliquely, it may produce a tiny nerf to alpha.



Why not the exact opposite? Leave the resi bonus but nerf base shield or armor hp. This would push them "more" towards active tanking.

The reason is the problem CCP Fozzie described. Doing the opposite would further hinder CCP in making active tanking a thing. Here's a simple illustration -

Two ships (for simplicity armour tanked).

A = 50% resists 100,000 AHP
B = 90% resists 10,000 AHP

Attacker C lands 1000DPS on them. A takes 500EDPS and lasts 200 seconds. B takes 100EDPS and lasts 100 seconds. Now add repping.

If A and B rep 10/s then A gains 2000AHP in the 200 seconds it takes to ablate its starting AHP. That means A will last 4 more seconds. B will gain only 1000APH, but B will last 10 more seconds.

Now add remote repping of 100/s. A gains 20,000AHP in the time it takes to ablate starting AHP. Then another 4000 in the additional 40 seconds it takes to ablate repped AHP. Then another 800 in the time it takes to ablate that 4000. Then dies shortly after. After RR of 100/s A lasted about 250 seconds so remote repping gave A effectively 25% longer to live.

B, on the other hand, can no longer be destroyed by attacker C, if B is receiving remote repping of 100/s. An infinite improvement to B's lifespan. This is an inherently difficult dynamic to correctly balance and design around.

While i agree with your point you make one crucial mistake:

You compare a ship with resist bonuses to an unbonused ship, therefore not hard to tell which one will be winning.
But if you take in calculation that the other ships inline (Brutix, Cyclone, Hype, Meal) receive a 7.5% active tanking bonus the outcome will be completely different.

To simplify this for how it is at the moment:

Resist bonused ships are better for RR
Resist bonused ships are worse for active tanking
Resist bonused ships are better for EHP


Now with my suggested nerf of base HP it would be

Resist bonused ships are better for RR
Resist bonused ships are worse for active tanking
Both categories are equal in EHP

Seems pretty decent for me both types have there little field where they exceed the other type but are equal for straight up EHP.

Some people say i fly Rokh...
Gaoman Nosconian
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#735 - 2013-04-26 09:21:32 UTC
Don't like this nerf very much, it's basically to reduce the effectiveness of resistances with regards to RR.

How about dampening the effect of RR's based on the (average) resistances?

This also has some interesting options for the future, such as modulating your RR for a certain damage type, so it get's dampened less. EM hole in your targets shields? Modulate the shield transfer to EM for more effective remote repairing.

Consider it, before making my sweet Nighthawk even worse of a ship.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#736 - 2013-04-26 15:53:48 UTC
Gaoman Nosconian wrote:

How about dampening the effect of RR's based on the (average) resistances?

That's not the issue they are trying to address.

Issue: Local active repping is almost as good as (or better in some cases when the Amarr/Caldari hull has more low/mid slots than the Gallente/Minmatar hull) on resist bonused ships compared to ships with active repping bonus.

You have three options:
1. Increase local repping bonus: CCP said they aren't going there.
2. Apply local repping bonus to remote reps: Doesn't solve the Issue stated above.
3. Decrease resistance bonus. BINGO!

This is a done deal. Pilots of resistance-bonused hulls should be negotiating for something in return like and in increase in buffer tank to compensate. Your "going in" position should be 130% (instead of 100%) since you will be losing some RR capability.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#737 - 2013-04-26 16:06:22 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Gaoman Nosconian wrote:

How about dampening the effect of RR's based on the (average) resistances?

That's not the issue they are trying to address.

Issue: Local active repping is almost as good as (or better in some cases when the Amarr/Caldari hull has more low/mid slots than the Gallente/Minmatar hull) on resist bonused ships compared to ships with active repping bonus.

You have three options:
1. Increase local repping bonus: CCP said they aren't going there.
2. Apply local repping bonus to remote reps: Doesn't solve the Issue stated above.
3. Decrease resistance bonus. BINGO!

This is a done deal. Pilots of resistance-bonused hulls should be negotiating for something in return like and in increase in buffer tank to compensate. Your "going in" position should be 130% (instead of 100%) since you will be losing some RR capability.


And that still does not make local active repping any more appealing, only makes alpha fleets more powerful. And alpha fleets are used extensively in the game, while local repping is not and will not be for a long time, probably never. And that makes this a stupid change.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#738 - 2013-04-26 16:26:27 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:

And that still does not make local active repping any more appealing, only makes alpha fleets more powerful. And alpha fleets are used extensively in the game, while local repping is not and will not be for a long time, probably never. And that makes this a stupid change.
It's not about making local repping better, it's about giving local repping bonuses space when compared to resistance bonuses.

Example: (Resistance-bonused) Prophecy is a better local repping ship than the (local repping bonused) Myrmidon.

Your complaint about alpha can be addressed with EHP buff.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#739 - 2013-04-26 16:39:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
X Gallentius wrote:
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:

And that still does not make local active repping any more appealing, only makes alpha fleets more powerful. And alpha fleets are used extensively in the game, while local repping is not and will not be for a long time, probably never. And that makes this a stupid change.
It's not about making local repping better, it's about giving local repping bonuses space when compared to resistance bonuses.

Example: (Resistance-bonused) Prophecy is a better local repping ship than the (local repping bonused) Myrmidon.

Your complaint about alpha can be addressed with EHP buff.


Not by the math, no. They are about par. And the complaint about alpha can't be addressed by an EHP buff that isn't coming. Because they haven't said anything substantive about buffing the ships getting shafted by this nerf. Not one damn thing. The way to fix alpha is to cut 30% off the base damage of large arty, and improve their firing time so they don't lose dps. But the Winmatar would cry loud enough to blot out the sun if they did, so they are nerfing us instead.

And you are not correct, the OP of this thread is filled with specious and circular reasoning about making local active tanking bonuses viable.

And I as stated active armor tanking bonuses are an inherently weak concept that does not scale beyond 1v1 in pvp, and barely belong in the game at all. It is, just because of what it is, entirely useless in almost every kind of fleet battle, and flat out will never be utilized compared to ANY other kind of bonus. For crying out loud, a turning radius bonus would be more useful than active armor reps.

Plain and simple, it is a pve bonus.

This is not aimed at balancing between the two bonuses. Local reps will never, ever be better in even small fleets than resists, no matter how hard you nerf resists.

All that is being accomplished is to salve the hurt feelings of the Gallente players (the most notorious whiners in EVE, besides miners) who have to deal with a useless bonus, by nerfing the Amarr, who actually have a good one. This, rather than actually admit that, yes, local reps is a flat out useless, idiotic concept with no scalability, and put the real work into designing them a real bonus, or, God forbid, balance armor tanking vs shield.

It's nothing more than taking from the rich, to make the poor feel better by comparison. Pathetic.

"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.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#740 - 2013-04-26 17:33:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Not by the math, no. They are about par.

Exactly. Local repping bonus does not have and meaningful benefit compared to resistance bonus. (And prophecy can rep more than the myrmidon)

As for the rest, you probably ought to be proposing an EHP buff.