Player Features and Ideas Discussion

My example is for a pilot with BS IV using a typical tank. That pilot sees 18% more DPS penetrate on average. By damage types it can be more (which matters to PVErs.) Taking into consideration the interaction between DPS let through and repping (especially remote-repping, in fleets): the full impact to EHP is greater than 18%. A fifth is a fair estimation.


Where do you get 3% from? Ship bonuses aren't stacking penalised. Although I used 5% in my rough example, I actually based my estimates on a more reasonable skill level IV. Anyone flying a hellcat Abaddon should have that.


No. Abaddon is middle of the road for resist-bonused ships. Several others have higher values.

It is relevant here because it is part of a package of changes that will foreseeably result in no Amarr Battleship being preferred in any role.

I suggest introducing Advanced Controlled Bursts skill (requiring CB 5)

Now we have two options:

a) Change Controlled Bursts skill to reduce cap 10% per level and set ACB to 5% (may be overpowered because of low SP req)

b) Keep CB at 5% and let ACB reduce cap by 10%. (might just do the trick)

Although this may seem a very powerful skill, it may be balanced by simply requiring a large amount of SP for the advanced version. You are always left with an option, either sacrifice fitting for cap or a month of train time for the extra 10% cap reduction.
Since I do not fly capital ships, I can not say how such change would affect them, neither have I gone through calculations for every gun in the game, but I believe such skill will not affect guns other than large lasers in a very significant way.

But it is not 6%. That just represents the ratio of .8 over .75. Which is relevant, but not directly to resilience under fire. As you say, 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 to a Moa

-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 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

So we should 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 around 90 seconds. Now around 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? So this is why Abaddon - being heavily tanked - will continue falling off doctrines and reimbursement, as it is now. And the laser changes are too little to salvage it.

From other thread - 'I've changed my mind and now agree with Deerin' :) Trust CCP to apply a '5% bonus to Shield resistances' in an obtuse way. I checked this again in EFT which presumably is calculating it correctly.

How do I feel about the nerf now? I'm glad that the net impact is less than I feared, but a blanket nerf still feels misplaced. HICs are going to suffer. I also fear that following this approach as a means to fixing RR and LR will mean a second resists nerf down to 3%: for a flat 13%. I dislike the concept of the game swinging toward alphafleet. A brawly battle where ships have more survivability feels more fun to me. Thus I would certainly look for buffs to HP and LR to follow right on the heels of this nerf. If CCP has plans in that direction they'd do a lot of good by announcing them.

As to how this interacts with turrets and Amarr generally: a loss in tankiness and an increase in ability to use lasers. I understand now CCP's thinking, i.e. the laser buff is a flat buff to a ship that never had a cap bonus. But then again as I understand it the laser buff is really a de-nerfing. So a nerfing, and a de-nerfing of something to possibly usable levels. Far from compelling reading. One's sense is that Apoc will fall from grace, and Abaddon isn't going to replace it.

Overall I hope Odyssey is as delayed as possible. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

You are correct, of course. Nothing I wrote was intended to detract from that point. It also irks considerably that an Amarr BS is always -1 mid... for the cap booster.

That would make cap use of turrets to trivial even for amarr ships. Just compare Logi 5 vs Logi 4, the first can run 5 T2 RR with halve the cap transfer required. That is how big the difference between the last 15% is.

Probably a more reasonable thing would be to improve the Energy Discharge Elutriation rigs from 20 to 30 for T1 and from 25 to 35 for T2 and bring her calibration down to 50 and 75 points so they can be used for active tanks that require more calibration for her other rigs.

I love Tachs as a long range weapon system. They do 90% of the damage of their short ranged brothers at the expense of power grid and cap use. I don't disagree with the reduction in cap and pg us however its going to shift the balance between the long range weapon systems. I think if you do these reductions your going to have to revisit rail cruise and arty weapon systems to keep them inline. To be honest though its about time they be looked at as they stand now long range weapon systems could use a buff.

Slightly on topic... shouldn't beam lasers be a constant beam of energy?

Their damage should be applied as a constant drain on HP, and graphically they should be firing continuously from module activation until module deactivation instead of the on/off burst at the beginning of the module cycle that they have now.

The proposed changes are not enough. You are attempting to apply a band aid where real surgery is needed. It is clear that laser weapons need to evolve with the times in order to reacquire their place as a viable platform for damage dealing in game. The capacitor, power grid demands, and fitting requirements, should not be “so significantly” higher than those required by other weapons systems.They can no longer be limited to one damage type (or one viable ammo crystal) when so many resistance bonuses, resistance skills, and modules have been introduced into the game over time. There can can be NO compromise.

As things stand, you have Abaddon flying around equipped with artillery and laser inspired combat doctrines are so easily countered that they have completely fallen by the wayside. Currently, artillery, missiles, and hybrid weapons all have a place in PVE and PVP. Laser weapons clearly do not. That MUST change. Laser weapons need a more thorough revision and they need it in the near term and not later. Little more need be written.