These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Indirect "nerf" for Artys - was that intended???

First post
Author
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#1 - 2013-09-05 09:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Olmops
Today I found this in the patch notes:

"Odyssey 1.1" wrote:
Ships and other space objects were getting destroyed if their structure hitpoints received 50% or more damage of the current health in a single shot. This feature has been removed entirely.


I think this is HUGE.
...and I have never read anything about this before.

Ok, it's a good idea to remove strange and undocumented features. But this one severely affects balance - especially the power of Arty fittings.
Basically anything that tries to one-hit or two-hit enemies (Thrashers, Ruptures, Tornados etc. with Atries) will have A LOT more trouble now.
Many kills will need an extra volley which - incombination with the typically long cycle times on these weapons - means a much lower efficiency in PvE. In PvP an opponent will very often get away in deep structure, because the whole deal with this type of fittings is that they surprise someone (one-hit upon undock or the like) or at least rely on an opponent completely misjudging his health bar (the final hit did way more damage than usual).

While one can discuss whether this is good or bad, ganks in Highsec should be easier/less easy and all that...
My point is: this was never announced or discussed here and it is likely to render complete tactics/doctrines completely useless (or in a much worse shape).

Were Alpha-Fittings (especially Artilleries) considered too powerful?
Will there be something to compensate?
(not talking about medium Long Range Turret Rebalance that happened for different reasons).

Please discuss.
And maybe we could get a short statement from our balancing experts at CCP?
Am I exaggerating?
S1dy
Uplifting Infernal Paradise
#2 - 2013-09-05 09:59:52 UTC
It's nothing anyone should discuss about. It's a bug that was a few years long accepted as a feature because CCP was too lazy to fix it.

It was always strange to see my ship explode by a volley never matching the exact Counter-EHP for the enemy weapon (think EHP for EM damage and EM munition). Especially structure with an active damage control tanks a lot and is a tool that should make the huge difference in survival. That was never the case against alpha-damage.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#3 - 2013-09-05 10:01:34 UTC
To put it another way: assume that this "feature" never existed. What would your arguments for introducing it into the game be?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#4 - 2013-09-05 10:14:32 UTC
I don't care whether this feature was good or bad. I don't care whether it's a bug or a feature or how it came into the game.
I just say that this is a change that in my opinion significantly affects the balance and thus gameplay of many ships.

So I want to know: was this intended and a conscious choice, or is any arty-nerf resulting from this just some by-product that nobody really thought about?

I mean we see here that Ytterbium and Fozzie and Rise work for months on balancing and put great effort in fine-tuning these things. And they greatly take care that the process is transparent (if possible) and everyone understands what they are doing and why. So it just seems very odd that we get this without even a single word before...
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#5 - 2013-09-05 11:03:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
Now all make sense, i thought that was some kind of "Lucky Strike"!

Glad they fixed that!
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#6 - 2013-09-05 11:18:31 UTC
It was a bug. Amazingly bug fixes are intentional, and are not discussed normally because they were never intended behaviour in the first place. So be glad you aren't all being banned for exploiting the bug that made arty more powerful than it should have been.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#7 - 2013-09-05 11:19:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Edward Olmops wrote:
I don't care whether this feature was good or bad. I don't care whether it's a bug or a feature or how it came into the game.
I just say that this is a change that in my opinion significantly affects the balance and thus gameplay of many ships.

So I want to know: was this intended and a conscious choice, or is any arty-nerf resulting from this just some by-product that nobody really thought about?

I mean we see here that Ytterbium and Fozzie and Rise work for months on balancing and put great effort in fine-tuning these things. And they greatly take care that the process is transparent (if possible) and everyone understands what they are doing and why. So it just seems very odd that we get this without even a single word before...

I think you dont understand this change and what it fixes.
Imagine your industrial has 12k ehp(tanky enough to survive 1 tornado?), 3 of which is in structure. Then you meet this fancy Tornado that deals 11k alpha. With old mechanics your ship would be 1-shot which is wrong (12k > 11k) while removal of that obsolete "feature" fixes this issue.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#8 - 2013-09-05 11:41:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lore Varan
Bug my arse!

Should have been removed when they grouped guns.
Previously it was some kind of killer blow feature that happened when you were in low structure.
They just forgot to modify it when they grouped guns and made the probability of a half structure single strike many many time more likelly.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#9 - 2013-09-05 12:21:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Olmops
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:

I think you dont understand this change and what it fixes.
Imagine your industrial has 12k ehp(tanky enough to survive 1 tornado?), 3 of which is in structure. Then you meet this fancy Tornado that deals 11k alpha. With old mechanics your ship would be 1-shot which is wrong (12k > 11k) while removal of that obsolete "feature" fixes this issue.


Of course I do understand this change - that is why I am posting. :-D
For years now these 12k ehp industrials fell victim to Tornados or other 11k alphastrike gankers. Now, all of a sudden, they don't anymore.
Something is changed. It's getting less powerful. Thus, a nerf.
It was not announced, so it's a "stealth" nerf.
And the impact is much bigger than let's say the Nosferatu change - and we got 30+ pages of discussion on THAT.
Ix Method
Doomheim
#10 - 2013-09-05 12:37:37 UTC
This is gloriously desperate.

Travelling at the speed of love.

Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#11 - 2013-09-05 12:47:40 UTC
Oh, you caught me. I just wanted to start a new career as a highsec ganker THIS WEEKEND and now I can't.
Instead I have to go to Jita and shoot the monument. -.-

Anyone who DID get the point, please X up.
suid0
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2013-09-05 12:48:26 UTC
Edward Olmops wrote:

Something is changed. It's getting less powerful. Thus, a nerf.


A nerf implies the old behaviour was intentional and correct. Since it wasn't, it's a fix.

the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones  - Commander Ted

GreenSeed
#13 - 2013-09-05 13:10:52 UTC  |  Edited by: GreenSeed
even when i don't agree this is as game changing as you claim it to be, outside of ganking. (alpha fleets couldn't care less, and no one should care about pve) the effect this has on tornado ganks is pretty lame. now i know a lot of people don't like ganking, but nado ganks are expensive, they require a lot of skills, and homework. nado gankers, have to rat to maintain an acceptable sec rating (or tag it), and they have to live with 10, 20 killrights on them all the time. and siting on a congested gate with killrights while waiting for that autopiloting industrial can be nerve wrecking and will end in some botched ganks.

they are playing the highsec pirate game nicely, and by the book. not with cheapo disposable alts. seeing them go in such a way, with no discussion, and no feedback from players is pretty lame.

of all the gankers, only the nado gankers had the right to say to their victims "today i thought you two things about EVE. there's always someone watching you, and never fly what you can't afford to lose." there aren't many play styles that can have this impact on other players. and no, ganking barges is lame and doesn't even come close to this. but to the people who are into it... beware.your catalyst might be next. Shocked

even when im the king of all carebears, i would certainly side with the ganking side on this one. maybe they should re add the mechanic to blap guns, like artys, beams, and rails.

otherwise, the only way around this seems to have someone sitting on a thrasher to do the last minute blapping. or downsizing the operation to Omens/Mallers with the new Beams. you will end up needing more pilots, but 4 omens can put out 5k volleys every 2 seconds, that's something to consider.

btw OP, you might want to read this:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=275054&find=unread

there seems to be a bug with the way they fixed this "bug" Roll... so there's still some hope.
Vrenth
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2013-09-05 16:35:53 UTC
I don't get what the big deal is, you will still one shot the ship if their EHP is lower than your alpha damage. People that you are alpha striking dont usually have time to turn on a damage control so you are complaining about a paper thin layer on unresisted HP, and only half of that... This may prevent you from alpha striking the occasional tanked cruiser... but should those really get one shot in the first place?
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#15 - 2013-09-05 16:42:03 UTC
less "its technically impossible that i just exploded - wtf just happened" moments. +1 for the change

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2013-09-05 18:44:37 UTC
Still have yet to figure what justifies easy kills for Tornado/HiSec ganks. If you want to do it, you have to work hard for it. There should be no easymode.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

RoAnnon
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2013-09-05 18:51:00 UTC
I would think they should leave this mechanic in tact if the target ship is Minmatar. By the time a Minnie ship gets into structure it's only being held together by the rust and duct tape (and a prayer) anyway, one good arty jolt SHOULD knock it all apart...

So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.

Broadcast4Reps

Eve Vegas 2015 Pub Crawl Group 9

Houston EVE Meet

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#18 - 2013-09-05 19:38:31 UTC

Op, how is it fair to a gallente pilot when half his structure doesn't count for tank because you alpha shot his shields and armor away? Hell, most of my tank is hull in my taranis!

This "undocumented" feature helps balance the field away from alpha, which isn't some terrible thing. Can you provide a convincing argument why a significant portion of your tank shouldn't "count" when being shot?


RoAnnon wrote:
I would think they should leave this mechanic in tact if the target ship is Minmatar. By the time a Minnie ship gets into structure it's only being held together by the rust and duct tape (and a prayer) anyway, one good arty jolt SHOULD knock it all apart...


Yeah, yeah, yeah.... and salvagers should deal direct hull damage to minmatar ships while harvesting scrap metal from them.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#19 - 2013-09-05 20:25:11 UTC
Edward Olmops wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:

I think you dont understand this change and what it fixes.
Imagine your industrial has 12k ehp(tanky enough to survive 1 tornado?), 3 of which is in structure. Then you meet this fancy Tornado that deals 11k alpha. With old mechanics your ship would be 1-shot which is wrong (12k > 11k) while removal of that obsolete "feature" fixes this issue.


Of course I do understand this change - that is why I am posting. :-D
For years now these 12k ehp industrials fell victim to Tornados or other 11k alphastrike gankers. Now, all of a sudden, they don't anymore.
Something is changed. It's getting less powerful. Thus, a nerf.
It was not announced, so it's a "stealth" nerf.
And the impact is much bigger than let's say the Nosferatu change - and we got 30+ pages of discussion on THAT.



It feels like you think we should be mad about a bug being fixed.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Rengerel en Distel
#20 - 2013-09-05 21:47:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Edward Olmops wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:

I think you dont understand this change and what it fixes.
Imagine your industrial has 12k ehp(tanky enough to survive 1 tornado?), 3 of which is in structure. Then you meet this fancy Tornado that deals 11k alpha. With old mechanics your ship would be 1-shot which is wrong (12k > 11k) while removal of that obsolete "feature" fixes this issue.


Of course I do understand this change - that is why I am posting. :-D
For years now these 12k ehp industrials fell victim to Tornados or other 11k alphastrike gankers. Now, all of a sudden, they don't anymore.
Something is changed. It's getting less powerful. Thus, a nerf.
It was not announced, so it's a "stealth" nerf.
And the impact is much bigger than let's say the Nosferatu change - and we got 30+ pages of discussion on THAT.



It feels like you think we should be mad about a bug being fixed.


Can we at least be mad that the bug was fixed and added a new bug? If they had informed people of the change, perhaps it could have been tested to have prevented that bug? Of course, that would entail them actually taking test server feedback into account, which most of them appear to not do at all.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

123Next page