These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[February] Wreck Hitpoint Rebalance

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#141 - 2016-02-02 22:21:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.

Up until now, wrecks (other than those belonging to Ship Maintenance Array and X-Large Ship Maintenance Array starbase structures) have all had a uniform 500 hull hitpoints. This makes them very easy to destroy, with no difference between destroying a shuttle wreck and a titan wreck.

We've seen a few requests here and there to tweak this mechanic from players, and recently Endie from the CSM has brought the issue up with us and championed it. We've got a set of changes ready for the February release that should help bring wreck hitpoints into a better state.


The current planned numbers are:

Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp
Destroyer: 1000 hp
Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp
Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp
Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp
Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp
Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp
Titan: 30000 hp

The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think.
Thanks!

So now shooting wrecks will actually take some effort and involve some risk - Will they generate killmails?


My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#142 - 2016-02-02 23:06:15 UTC
now that gankers , whether intentionally or as a purely coincidental consequence Twisted of this rebalance have received a huge buff in effectively guaranteed freighter wreck looting in hisec, is it too much to ask that shooting a wreck in hisec becomes a suspect level offense rather than crimal /concordden? Pirate
seriously.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#143 - 2016-02-02 23:33:05 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
now that gankers , whether intentionally or as a purely coincidental consequence Twisted of this rebalance have received a huge buff in effectively guaranteed freighter wreck looting in hisec, is it too much to ask that shooting a wreck in hisec becomes a suspect level offense rather than crimal /concordden? Pirate
seriously.


Looong way to go before ganking is buffed enough to warrant a buff to anti ganking.
Pulttl
Off-By-One Errors
#144 - 2016-02-03 01:52:51 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
now that gankers , whether intentionally or as a purely coincidental consequence Twisted of this rebalance have received a huge buff in effectively guaranteed freighter wreck looting in hisec, is it too much to ask that shooting a wreck in hisec becomes a suspect level offense rather than crimal /concordden? Pirate
seriously.


It sounds like a logical change. Looting someone else's wreck/can and shooting it are equivalent in that both take away its content from the original owner or legitimate looters. Previously with low hitpoints for a wreck, a criminal flag was useful in discouraging shooting wrecks (to some degree), and now, it is an unnecessary device that turns possible PVP opportunities (suspect fights in hisec) into PVE (being CONCORDed) for no greater goal. Giving a suspect flag definitely affects jet can mining if regular jet cans would receive this change as well, but it can create additional content in hisec, like protecting miner friends' can in PVP-ready ships.

Mobile Scan Inhibitors and Mobile Micro Jump Units used to cause a killright to be granted (w/o a criminal flag though), but they simply give a suspect flag like other deployables since the December patch. The similar consideration can be possibly done in toning down the consequence of attacking wrecks/cans.

Identify hisec gankers at GankerLookout.com
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2016-02-03 03:06:12 UTC
Can flip the most value items, kill low-hp jetcan. The wreck HP is irrelevant.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#146 - 2016-02-03 06:32:00 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
now that gankers , whether intentionally or as a purely coincidental consequence Twisted of this rebalance have received a huge buff in effectively guaranteed freighter wreck looting in hisec, is it too much to ask that shooting a wreck in hisec becomes a suspect level offense rather than crimal /concordden? Pirate
seriously.
+1 Awesome idea, will not tell you why. I love how 1 dimensional AG thinks

Evil RatKid
Danmal
TYR.
Exodus.
#147 - 2016-02-03 07:36:51 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
+1 good change, about time this exploit got fixed.

This is completely unrelated: but I just want to thank our goonswarm overlords for making all this possible.


Dear CCP,

you know you are on the wrong path when CODE. calls a change long overdue.

tyvm
Sjugar02
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#148 - 2016-02-03 09:11:10 UTC
I don't think anyone can honestly disagree with this change. People should have a good chance to get loot after killing something. Killing big things is content and we should always strive to reward players that create content. People can still shoot wrecks but they'll have to put in some effort and there is less chance that anyone fatfingers the wreck.

Wrecks will also have a slightly better chance to survive and act as a warpin. I know a lot of kitting gangs like to shoot wrecks that are close to them. Now the wrecks should survive a couple seconds longer and give people some chance to get tackle.


+1 all around
Borat Guereen
Doomheim
#149 - 2016-02-03 18:01:12 UTC
"Sion Kumitomo said on Twitter
The original idea was Warr Akini's, and both then Goonswarm CSM reps pushed it. Other CSM's supported it as well."

Not surprising, again showing the influence of the goon/CODE bloc on the game to benefit their game play and income before everyone else.

Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them.

I would have strongly opposed this change. I am running for CMS XI and for all of you on this thread that see this change as they are, vote to get rid of the goons/CODE influence on the CSM XI. Put me on top of your ballot vote, and consider my endorsement post when making your choices for CSM XI, and go vote!

Candidate for CSM XII
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#150 - 2016-02-03 18:05:20 UTC
[quote=Borat Guereen
Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them.

[/quote]
Bumping isn't only being used by CODE. or GSF in HS..
you're one of these "one more nurf or i quits" kind of person eh?Pirate

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2016-02-03 19:52:07 UTC
Borat Guereen wrote:
Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them.


Man, you high-sec miners/haulers really are constantly whining, whining and whining. How about finding support for your ideas, formulating a proposal and let your CSM rep present it to CCP?
Ruby Gnollo
#152 - 2016-02-04 12:47:43 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Borat Guereen wrote:
Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them.


Man, you high-sec miners/haulers really are constantly whining, whining and whining. How about finding support for your ideas, formulating a proposal and let your CSM rep present it to CCP?



Maybe because it would be far easier, far cheaper and far more accessible to newcomers to just to dump the CSM and let CCP gamemasters handle the game instead of having to handle the interference of a toxic CSM ?
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2016-02-04 14:07:57 UTC
Ruby Gnollo wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Borat Guereen wrote:
Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them.


Man, you high-sec miners/haulers really are constantly whining, whining and whining. How about finding support for your ideas, formulating a proposal and let your CSM rep present it to CCP?



Maybe because it would be far easier, far cheaper and far more accessible to newcomers to just to dump the CSM and let CCP gamemasters handle the game instead of having to handle the interference of a toxic CSM ?


Good idea. CCP Gamemasters have (to the best of my knowledge) not banned or otherwise sanctioned anyone for bumping. Case closed I guess.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#154 - 2016-02-04 14:26:59 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:

Good idea. CCP Gamemasters have (to the best of my knowledge) not banned or otherwise sanctioned anyone for bumping. Case closed I guess.
More than that, they have specifically said bumping is not an exploit.

CCP wrote:
Common Misconceptions about Exploits

This passage contains common tactics and other player conduct that is often mistakenly reported as exploits but are in fact not.

Non-Exploit

Description

Ship Bumping - Ram the ship of another player with your own in order to prevent them from warping.

Case closed.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Ruby Gnollo
#155 - 2016-02-04 18:18:57 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Case closed.


Not really : CSM is still the problem it's always been.
Zxl
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#156 - 2016-02-05 07:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zxl
Since you asked:

1. Wrecks mass and hp should be % of the original hull that was destroyed.
2. Wrecks mass should affect any tractor beams speed. (Titan wreck should be moved by the MTU with 1m/s not 2000)
3. Wrecks should have the base armor resists of the destroyed hull and affect the overall damage prior complete termination.
4. Player who ends up with the loot from a wreck should be flagged as suspect. No matter who put it there.
5. Player who shoots at the wreck should still get flagged as attacker unless the wreck belongs to him.
6. Destroying a wreck that doesn't belong to the attacker ,1in high sec should produce kill right for the attacker's head.

7. IF you gonna tackle wrecks and mechanics , at least do it right the first time.
Marox Calendale
Xynodyne
The Initiative.
#157 - 2016-02-05 08:43:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.

Up until now, wrecks (other than those belonging to Ship Maintenance Array and X-Large Ship Maintenance Array starbase structures) have all had a uniform 500 hull hitpoints. This makes them very easy to destroy, with no difference between destroying a shuttle wreck and a titan wreck.

We've seen a few requests here and there to tweak this mechanic from players, and recently Endie from the CSM has brought the issue up with us and championed it. We've got a set of changes ready for the February release that should help bring wreck hitpoints into a better state.


The current planned numbers are:

Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp
Destroyer: 1000 hp
Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp
Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp
Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp
Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp
Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp
Titan: 30000 hp

The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think.
Thanks!

Will the wrecks also generate more Salvage?
Anthar Thebess
#158 - 2016-02-05 10:47:00 UTC
Values specified in the first post did not changed.
Is CCP considering buffing them, or those are final values, and this topic can be closed?

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#159 - 2016-02-05 16:07:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
So just to be totally clear, there was basically one thing that anti-gankers could do that was even remotely effective at combating ganks - which even then was only possible after the gank - and that's now going (or to be more accurate, being made significantly harder)? I honestly can't wait to see how ganker carebears try to spin this into not being another buff to ganking Big smile.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#160 - 2016-02-05 16:26:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
So just to be totally clear, there was basically one thing that anti-gankers could do that was even remotely effective at combating ganks - which even then was only possible after the gank - and that's now going (or to be more accurate, being made significantly harder)? I honestly can't wait to see how ganker carebears try to spin this into not being another buff to ganking Big smile.

Ganker carebears ?
Who are you aiming your gun at? Lol

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist