Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ever stop think think since they are ignoring all the sweet talk that frustration then starts to show and people get angry because CCP has a very bad habit of making poor choices?

No of course not...not at all. Who on earth could possibly get mad and use harsh language? Have you seen the whole thread, many people are mad and use harsh language.

I have issues with this.

New players CAN do more than just mine and mission. If you strap them all into cheap, ganky frigates/destroyers you can overwhelm hostiles in vastly more expensive ships. A good example would be the newbies in Faction War. Atrons, Kestrels, and Thrashers are used to great effectiveness and don't rely on an special tactics beyond, "get in range as fast as you can, activate ALL the mods, make everything burn gloriously!"

As far as lessons are concerned... trial by fire. Get in a combat ship yourself, tell them to get in cheapo stuff, and tell them to come at you. Explain what they do wrong each time you kill them and how to avoid death next time. Reimburse each cheapo ship you kill.

Would you like to reconsider the math here? 25% increase IN REMAINING RESISTS.

Example with current resists (check EFT):
L0 Moa - 0/20/40/50,
L5 Moa 25/40/55/62.5.
Proposed Resists:
L5 Moa 20/36/52/60

Lets assume raw dps is 1, then effective dps is:

L0 Moa - 1/.8/.6/.5
L5 Moa - .75/.6/.45/.375 (original)
L5 Moa - .8/.64/.48/.4 (proposed)

Ratio Proposed/Original - 1.067 for ALL. Not 18%

Yes, we, as in ccp consider. You are talking about you, not your player base( as mentioned several times, where is the players consideration in this matter? Why do you prefer to listen to your own thoughts instead of thousands of players way more experienced with the function of eve then yours).

Fix what is broken, THEN you may brake new stuff aright.
Yes, eve is foremost Your toy, we are not.

Where our estimates differ is that I include modules. I feel it is reasonable to do so: who flies into battle without modules fitted after all.

I'll set out some values for Moa below. See if you concur. An interesting compare to do if you have time would be an Onyx with say 2x Invul IIs and 1x EM Ward.

You are leaving? About damn time, EvE Online is better without failtards like you, that don't understand simple concepts like game balance.

This new team of Devs is doing wonders to the game. Finally the game is being properly balanced.

I see the issue. We're estimating subtley different things. The average multiple on DPS taken is 12% (1.12). For example Moa with 1x Invul II 1x EM Ward.

Moa
EM 75
TH 58
KN 68.5
EX 73.7

DPS penetrating pre-nerf is

EM 0.25
TH 0.42
KN 0.315
EX 0.263

DPS penetrating post-nerf will be about

EM 0.3
TH 0.46
KN 0.345
EX 0.288

Multiple on the DPS taken is then post-nerf over pre-nerf, which will be

EM 1.2
TH 1.095
KN 1.095
EX 1.095

So your 6% represents the degree of change in resists in one sense, but fails to capture the multiple on the DPS that will come through. The reason the latter is more relevant is that it will equal the reduction in survival under fire (where HP trades for time.) Take into consideration the interaction with repping, and the impact will foreseeably be more pronounced. For a significant range of ships one fifth worse is a fair estimate.

Just to reiterate, your maths just captures the ratio of 0.8 over 0.75. It will always come out at ~6%. It's relevant, but not as relevant as looking at the multiples in DPS let through. Your calculation effectively ignores the consequences of adding modules!

To get the resists nerf I alter the formula 0.25(1-base.resist) to 0.2(1-base.resist). For example, on EM Moa has 0% base resist so we see 0.25 drop to 0.2. That produces the following range of resist changes

-0.05 / -0.04 / -0.03 / -0.02.5

I add modules in EFT and then - since ship bonuses aren't penalised - I deduct the above values. Switching to 1x Invuln II + 1x DC II so were looking at the same values. I see in EFT (for all LV)

0.541 / 0.632 / 0.724 / 0.77 which becomes
0.491 / 0.592 / 0.694 / 0.745

inverted to show 1 DPS let through
0.459 / 0.368 / 0.276 / 0.23 becomes
0. 509 / 0.408 / 0.306 / 0.255

putting the latter over the former produces
1.1089 / 1.1087 / 1.1087 / 1.1087

We could use a fair estimate of 10% less resilient for the MOA. The ship is taking 10% more DPS than it was previously. Each time it was previously hit for 33 it is now hit for 37. Let's say it had 3000 HP and no repping. Previously it tanked that 100 DPS for 90 seconds. Now 80 seconds. Ergo it is an honest statement to say it is 10% less resilient under fire because it survives in the fight for 10% less time.

Once one then considers the interaction with repping, and looks across the line of ships, it feels to me like a fifth less resilient is a fair call. A point to stress is the uneveness of the nerf: it hurts lightly tanked T1 Cruisers much less than it hurts heavily tanked HICtors.

Your 6% is fair in another sense, but I feel it doesn't give as good a picture of changed resilience under fire. Is this starting to make sense or have I introduced some subtle error somewhere.

I elided the 1-, sorry. The results are the same; e.g. Moa EM = 0% base so

1-0 = 1
.75*1 = .75
1-.75 = .25

which I get by

1-0 = 1
.25*1 = .25

The bottom line is the Moa survives under fire for 10% less time under the setup proposed. Thus it is fair to call it that amount less resilient. And that increases on heavier tanked ships. A lightly tanked T1 cruiser is less impacted than a heavily tanked HICtor,

6.6% more damage received is huge in some instances, most of the Punisher fights I have had (read: won) left me in flames with a quarter or less hull remaining ..

Still think we need to have a brush-up pass on all ships affected to tweak them slightly to compensate for the loss of tank .. tweak does not have to be tank related though but would make the most sense and could be something as simple as reducing sig, increasing speed or the blunt tool approach of adding raw EHP.

Thankfully, the resist ships were never that good to begin with (comparatively) so there is no bad habit to kick