These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
John 1135
#841 - 2013-05-09 13:08:52 UTC
Deerin wrote:
The resists are applied to the part that passes through
Lets take Moa EM damage example

54.1 is the EM resist

This ship penalties are not stacked. What you need to do is remove the current ship bonus from these and add the new ship bonus

So what passes through is:

45.9

Removing the ship bonuses

45.9 / (1-0.25) = 61.2

Re-appliying new bonus

61.2*(1-0.2)= 48.96

So 48.96 passes through instead of 45.9

Which is 1.066 times higher (which is exactly what XG is talking about)

You can check it in game or just EFT it. On EFT make a moa, select all V char and drop cal cruiser level to 4. You'll have the new Moa.

Okay, so shield resists of

54.1 / 63.2 / 72.4 / 77 become

51 / 60.8 / 70.6 / 75.5 post-nerf

And DPS let through

45.9 / 36.8 / 27.6 / 23 becomes

49 / 39.2 / 29.4 / 24.5 post-nerf

In that case I'm wrong and I agree with you guys :) 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.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#842 - 2013-05-09 14:01:36 UTC
Deerin wrote:
You can check it in game or just EFT it. On EFT make a moa, select all V char and drop cal cruiser level to 4. You'll have the new moa.
Damnit, my way of doing it was more time consuming and a pita, and therefore better! Big smile
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#843 - 2013-05-11 16:00:08 UTC
Hey guys, sorry for the gap in posting here. With fanfest and the crunch to get the resource work done I haven't had enough time for the forums recently. I'm all caught up on the thread now, and I want to let you guys know we're working to get the resistance changes out to sisi for your hands-on testing asap (at the moment it's just the battleships).

Don't worry, just because I don't post in a thread for a little while doesn't mean I've forgotten about it.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
spreaders
GO' R0V
Pandemic Horde
#844 - 2013-05-11 16:38:24 UTC
The reason CCP are making a big change to all ships is because people complain there to strong and hard to kill but they are just simply to lazy to figure out how to counter someones fit. The reason for T2 ships having good resist bonus's to there ships is because they take some time to train for witch makes the effort on training for them werth it . To just take that away makes it pointless to even train for them in the first place. I vote that CCP stop nerfing ships because of petty complaints stops because some people are out match by people that have been playing for longer. The hole idea of CCP making it better for new comers to have a update in the spaceship command skills is good it gives them a fighting chance. The new faction BC's coming in are just what normal BC's used to be so why don't they just make all the nerf's back to normal and make the new ships a little more effective because the cost of those ships are going to be allot anyway so spending more isk on a ship makes up for what it is able to do and how you can fit it to your liking.

If you feel the same way about this then comment and if you disagree then you must be one of the people that just complain about everything.
Vlad Texi
Cr1me Syndicate
#845 - 2013-05-11 17:03:16 UTC
It's impossible to stop the mighty CCP from nerfing the life out of this game . . . resistance is futile.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#846 - 2013-05-11 20:39:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, sorry for the gap in posting here. With fanfest and the crunch to get the resource work done I haven't had enough time for the forums recently. I'm all caught up on the thread now, and I want to let you guys know we're working to get the resistance changes out to sisi for your hands-on testing asap (at the moment it's just the battleships).

Don't worry, just because I don't post in a thread for a little while doesn't mean I've forgotten about it.

That's what you said the last time you posted in any of these threads.
Again ignoring feedback.
No you haven't forgotten, but you're obviously not taking it seriously enough either.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#847 - 2013-05-11 20:49:28 UTC
It needs to be done.

The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.

One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus.
The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.

Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.

Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#848 - 2013-05-11 21:24:39 UTC
Voith wrote:
It needs to be done.

The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.

One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus.
The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.

Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.

Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.



Or maybe they should consider that the active tank bonus is more of a restriction on the ways you're "supposed" to be using the ship and accordingly take it out of most ships that have it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#849 - 2013-05-11 21:34:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Voith
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Voith wrote:
It needs to be done.

The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.

One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus.
The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.

Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.

Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.



Or maybe they should consider that the active tank bonus is more of a restriction on the ways you're "supposed" to be using the ship and accordingly take it out of most ships that have it.

So, are you saying they should homogenize ships by removing a type of bonus or that Gallente and Minmatar ships shouldn't have a tanking bonus?

Having *any* bonus is saying "you are 'supposed' to play this way".

Do you favor removing all hull bonuses, or do you just like posting poorly thought out ideas?
Shanlara
Weatherlight Industry
#850 - 2013-05-11 22:44:17 UTC
Hmm I wonder if there's a reason behind the fact that only the rokh and abaddon is currently having this change on them on sisi.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#851 - 2013-05-11 22:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Voith wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Voith wrote:
It needs to be done.

The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.

One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus.
The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.

Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.

Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.



Or maybe they should consider that the active tank bonus is more of a restriction on the ways you're "supposed" to be using the ship and accordingly take it out of most ships that have it.

So, are you saying they should homogenize ships by removing a type of bonus or that Gallente and Minmatar ships shouldn't have a tanking bonus?

Having *any* bonus is saying "you are 'supposed' to play this way".

Do you favor removing all hull bonuses, or do you just like posting poorly thought out ideas?

Giving bonuses to certain racial weapons or ewar is fine, for example.
Giving a bonus to active tanking shoehorns that ship into active tanking only, which is useless for most forms of PVP.
The only reason the Maelstrom can ignore it is because the ship can dedicate all but one of its mid slots for tank, because it already has a sizable amount of HP, and because its racial long-ranged weapons have absurdly high volley damage.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#852 - 2013-05-12 03:31:41 UTC
Shanlara wrote:
Hmm I wonder if there's a reason behind the fact that only the rokh and abaddon is currently having this change on them on sisi.


The reason is the stats for the new bs was added, but fozzie hasnt had time to change the other ships
Tilo Rhywald
Wilde Jagd
#853 - 2013-05-12 08:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tilo Rhywald
Voith wrote:
It needs to be done.

The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.

One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus.
The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.

Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.

Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.




Roll

Again: It is a powerful bonus, but you never make use of all those benefits you mention at once. The bonus makes certain ships versatile in tanking. Tanking is their "thing" - just as damage projection, speed, ewar etc is for others. They are balanced well around it and have significant drawbacks in other areas (for example speed, signature, cap, damage or versatility in general).

Cheers
Tilo R.
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#854 - 2013-05-12 19:52:00 UTC
Tilo Rhywald wrote:
Voith wrote:
It needs to be done.

The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.

One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus.
The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.

Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.

Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.




Roll

Again: It is a powerful bonus, but you never make use of all those benefits you mention at once. The bonus makes certain ships versatile in tanking. Tanking is their "thing" - just as damage projection, speed, ewar etc is for others. They are balanced well around it and have significant drawbacks in other areas (for example speed, signature, cap, damage or versatility in general).

Cheers
Tilo R.

Rolling your eyes doesn't make your point coherent. I know it may surprise you, but being smarmy isn't a replacement for being intelligent.
Tilo Rhywald
Wilde Jagd
#855 - 2013-05-12 21:08:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tilo Rhywald
Voith wrote:
Tilo Rhywald wrote:
Voith wrote:
It needs to be done.

The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.

One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus.
The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.

Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.

Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.




Roll

Again: It is a powerful bonus, but you never make use of all those benefits you mention at once. The bonus makes certain ships versatile in tanking. Tanking is their "thing" - just as damage projection, speed, ewar etc is for others. They are balanced well around it and have significant drawbacks in other areas (for example speed, signature, cap, damage or versatility in general).

Cheers
Tilo R.

Rolling your eyes doesn't make your point coherent. I know it may surprise you, but being smarmy isn't a replacement for being intelligent.


You confuse smugness and annoyance. Annoyance over a simple argument being ignored despite its obvious plausibility. And merely trolling with a sad attempt at an insult as a reply does nothing to refute it. If you claim to have spotted an incoherence, please enlighten us with your clearly superior mind.
Mathias Orsen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#856 - 2013-05-12 23:45:35 UTC
The 5% per level is just the way it is suppose to be. It's still not gonna change the fact that local repper bonus has no place in a fleet battle and crapping on resistance of fleet based ships is not gonna change that.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#857 - 2013-05-13 00:45:46 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Mathias Orsen wrote:
It's still not gonna change the fact that local repper bonus has no place in a fleet battle and crapping on resistance of fleet based ships is not gonna change that.

The fact that it even needs to be said astounds me, but yes. It doesn't matter how much you nerf resistance bonuses, active tank bonuses aren't going to become any more viable for fleet combat than before.
The only time you will ever active tank in a fleet is if you have extended periods of time where you can't receive reps from someone else. This is only true for two classes of ships in the entire game. Interestingly, during this period of time the ships also get a 300% boost to active tanking ability.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Major Thrasher
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#858 - 2013-05-14 00:58:04 UTC
Can't help but notice everything is getting dps increase and little to negative tanking to compensate.

anyone else sensing a ISK sink to try stabilize the eve economy, and reduce inflation ?

.
fairimear
Event Hor1zon
#859 - 2013-05-14 23:50:04 UTC
After reading through this.
I agree with the logic but not the reasoning.
This effects alot of ships that are already suffering as a result of this set of changes for next patch.
Most of them suffering from a pve side of things.
Your balance is to address what seems to be a OP bonus for pvp.

And as you touched on multiple times one of the real big things is the huge amount of Remote tanking happening.
IT is the ONLY way to pvp and be respected and productive as a group.

From my point of view it would be better to leave the bonus that helps fringe play and instead adjust the main problem. the Remote repair system's clear dominance of Eve.

I see why you wont do that though. Because a change to the RR system would require re balancing incursions/officer/wh and any other gameplay where you need RR to survive in PVE as a group.

It's a Catch 22.

But i still feel that it's the wrong approach.
fairimear
Event Hor1zon
#860 - 2013-05-14 23:51:09 UTC
Major Thrasher wrote:
Can't help but notice everything is getting dps increase and little to negative tanking to compensate.

anyone else sensing a ISK sink to try stabilize the eve economy, and reduce inflation ?




THIS! a thousand times this.