These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#221 - 2016-02-13 16:20:12 UTC
This is going to be an interesting set of changes. Without looking closely at all, I hope the pg and cpu numbers are such that none of my fits get nerfed in the final evaluation. I can't wait to play with some fits and see how things work out, though. Kind of excited about this one. Lot of interesting new fitting possiblities here, maybe...

Thanks!

Do not run. We are your friends.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#222 - 2016-02-13 16:31:08 UTC
How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#223 - 2016-02-13 16:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ashlar Vellum
Fozzie would be nice to have more meta 1 options. One meta DCU is kinda scarce, consider adding one more, like:

DCU Name - 1PWG - 18CPU - 10%Armor - 8%Shield - 30%Hull - MetaLevel 1

(imo will just give more options for fitting and won't outshine IFFA,T2 or 'Basic' DCUs)
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#224 - 2016-02-13 17:40:01 UTC
Just ten more people?
JUST ten more people?
Just TEN MORE people?
DO YOU EVEN LISTEN TO YOURSELF?
Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#225 - 2016-02-13 17:41:42 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Just ten more people?
JUST ten more people?
Just TEN MORE people?
DO YOU EVEN LISTEN TO YOURSELF?

He's completely out of touch. You'd think a guy who can't even organize 4 or 5 guys into doing something useful could talk about 'just getting 10 extra dudes' lol
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2016-02-13 17:46:43 UTC
Can we look at the whole freighter thing from a different perspective?

Let's examine this angle. Freighters were specifically designed to never be able to use a DC unit. It was spelled out numerous times that they were designed to have lowslots but never enough CPU to use a DC unit. Never. Never. Never. It was reasoned they had so much HP already, that any bonus to hull would be over the top. So when DC units get nerfed, and a portion of their former power gets passively put into everybody's hull points, how does it make sense to give that bonus to a ship that was specifically designed to not carry it? They can't lose what they never had and never could have. That's like nerfing hictor script range, but giving every ship longer points to compensate. Only the ships designed to carry the nerfed module should be considered for rebuffing. Ships like shuttles and freighters cannot be the beneficiary of hull resists they were specifically designed to never have.

If any combat pilot simply asked for a buff to his EHP, you'd tell him he'd have to take a serious nerf elsewhere to get that. This is a straight buff for any ship that could not previously carry a DCU, so what nerf do freighters get to compensate? Less shields and armor? Cut their warp speed in half? Double their align time? Reduce their lowslots to one?

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#227 - 2016-02-13 17:55:12 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
It was spelled out numerous times that they were designed to have lowslots but never enough CPU to use a DC unit. Never. Never. Never.
They still won't be able to.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
It was reasoned they had so much HP already, that any bonus to hull would be over the top.
Any bonus? No, it was reasoned that with so much hull HP, a 60% across the board resist would be too much, not "any" bonus.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
So when DC units get nerfed, and a portion of their former power gets passively put into everybody's hull points, how does it make sense to give that bonus to a ship that was specifically designed to not carry it? They can't lose what they never had and never could have.
It makes sense because it keeps ships in line. Consider that a ship that can currently fit a DC will be getting two buffs rather than one, they get a base bonus to their resists plus the feeing up of a previously used low slot, which they can choose to use a new DC to achieve a higher resist than the old DC or to use a different module to boost them in another area. Ships that couldn't previously fit the DC will only get the base buff and no additional slot.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#228 - 2016-02-13 18:07:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Removed a few off topic post and those discussing forum moderation.

If you have issues with the way forums are being moderated please file a ticket and Internal Affairs will investigate.

Quote:

Why Delete post instead of moving them?


ISD does not have the ability to move individual post to a new thread. Deleted post are veiwable by CCP, they are just not visible to normal viewers.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#229 - 2016-02-13 18:19:40 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
They still won't be able to.

Except the part where they now get 1/3 of one for free. And again, they're getting a buff designed the counter the nerfing of a module they could not equip in the first place. Again, I cite my hictor example. Why should ships that can't use hictor bubbles benefit from a bubble nerf?

Now your answer to that, which I am not ignoring, was this...

Lucas Kell wrote:
It makes sense because it keeps ships in line


In line, with what? A freighter does not compete with any ship except other freighters in terms of carrying capacity. HP becomes a factor only when attacked. If the freighter is a wartarget or in lower sec areas, the issue is moot anyway. He's gonna buy the farm. But the already enormous HP wall freighters have getting upped even more only serves to hinder suicide ganking in highsec.

Freighter health is being buffed by a rather significant margin. If we're going to be honest about this, and you said yourself things need to be kept in line, are we going to get a gutting of Concord response times to compensate? Because things are no longer in line. The attacking ships are already paper thin and do not benefit from extra hull HP. So what are you going to give them to get everything back in line?


*ASIDE*

I think this nerf/rebuff thing is overly complicated for it's own sake. We could have just had a nerf to DCU's, and left it at that. Having native hull resists feels absolutely wrong, especially when you consider that hull will now have native explosive resist that armor does not. I know the crew members can be squishy, but they're NOT squishy enough to absorb explosive rounds hurled at them by battleships.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#230 - 2016-02-13 18:46:23 UTC
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.

13. Spamming is prohibited.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words “first”, “go back to insert other game name” and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post, or the practice of “thread necromancy” which involved bumping of old threads for no justifiable reason.

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.



Still removing post, thread put in active moderation status.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Amak Boma
Dragon Factory
xX SERENITY Xx
#231 - 2016-02-13 18:54:08 UTC
that is their sandbox , its their decision. howewer majority of posts were right feedback about the damage control tiercide thing is the module they have got to rework should stay active module , but should be allowed to fit n freighters and jump freighters with simply reduced hull resists to 30% . officer/deadspace damage control YES but i would see the new damage control rework in this way


tech 1 - 15% shield resistance 20% armor resistance and 25% hull resistance
tech1 meta 4 should be 17% on shield resistances 23% on armor and 27% on hull resistances
tech 2 should be 20% shield 25% armor 30% hull resistances
faction should be somewhat 22% shield 27% armor and 32% hull

deadspaces damage control depending on the type
A type would apply 28% shield 37% armor 40% hull
B type should keep around 26% shield 35% armor and 36% hull
C type 26% shield 33% armor and 36% hull
X type would apply 30% shield 40% armor and 50% hull

officer damage controls should be also done by subtypes
type 1 shield 24 armor 30 hull 34
type 2 shield 26 armor 33 hull 36
type 3 shield 28 armor 35 hull 40
type 4 shield 30 armor 40 hull 50
type 5 ~elite shield 35 armor 45 hull 55

the fitting cost should be
tech 1 1 powergrid 24 cpu capacitor use 1gj per cycle
tech1 meta4 powergrid 1 and 28 cpu capacitor use 1gj per cycle
tech2 1 powergrid 32 cpu capacitor use 1gj per cycle
faction 1 powergrid 30 cpu capacitor use 1gj per cycle
deadspace should be 1 powergrid but from 28 cpu up to 36 capacitor use 4gj per cycle
officer damage control should be 1 powergrid up to 40 cpu depending on type capacitor use 4gj per cycle
elite damage control should be 5 powergrid 50 cpu capacitor use 10gj per cycle

freighters and jump freighters should have 99% powergrid / cpu requirements reduction
hull resistances would be [ penalized to 30% for tech1 32% meta4 34% tech2 36% faction 38% deadspace and 45 for officer
freighter could have full damage control bonus of 60% hull resistances only for elite damage control and the top officer damage control
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#232 - 2016-02-13 19:01:20 UTC
Amak Boma wrote:

freighters and jump freighters should have 99% powergrid / cpu requirements reduction
hull resistances would be [ penalized to 30% for tech1 32% meta4 34% tech2 36% faction 38% deadspace and 45 for officer
freighter could have full damage control bonus of 60% hull resistances only for elite damage control and the top officer damage control


They were balanced already around not using a DCU, they got raw hp added to their structure. Seriously, demonstrate to me why an obelisk needs 157,000 more ehp. Its already been shown that the chances of being ganked in a freighter or jump freighter stands at less than 0.1% out of over 2 million jumps.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#233 - 2016-02-13 19:02:12 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Thread Locked for 1 hour to get people time to review our rules here and for them to file their support tickets on forum moderation.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#234 - 2016-02-13 19:38:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Light Combat Drone wrote:
Could it have something to do with making sure faction-quality items can't be easily monopolized by a single PC entity controling a NPC area of availability?


Nevyn Auscent wrote:

It's to allow different factions LP stores to have value, rather than forcing people to grind a particular faction rep for a faction DC.
Obviously not all factions get every single module, but a range of factions per module spreads things out.


The point is they can make ONE item with a unique but non-faction-specific name, then sell that single item in multiple faction LP stores. Now you have ONE item on the market to look at/compare against instead of 4 items with identical stats.

EDIT: To clarify, since I know this is hard. The Syndicate, Shadow, and Sentient Damage Controls are all identical. Why not just make a single item called "Super Awesome Damage Control" and sell it from the Syndicate and Shadow LP stores as well as have it drop from drones?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#235 - 2016-02-13 19:41:02 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Except the part where they now get 1/3 of one for free. And again, they're getting a buff designed the counter the nerfing of a module they could not equip in the first place. Again, I cite my hictor example. Why should ships that can't use hictor bubbles benefit from a bubble nerf?
But they aren't getting the benefit of the module for free, they are getting a benefit of ships in the game being balanced, the same as every other ship. If they were excluded, they would be the only ship class not to receive a natural boost to EHP, and they would be vastly behind ships who could equip a DC but were better without them. Even ganking ships will benefit as they will be able to retain their full DPS but take more damage before getting wiped out.

Hictors are different because you're talking about an extremely speciialised ship class, not a module that is used on nearly every ship in the game, but I would expect CCP to consider in the event of that change the effects on other ships and if other ships should be buffed too - as they have in this case.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
In line, with what? A freighter does not compete with any ship except other freighters in terms of carrying capacity. HP becomes a factor only when attacked. If the freighter is a wartarget or in lower sec areas, the issue is moot anyway. He's gonna buy the farm. But the already enormous HP wall freighters have getting upped even more only serves to hinder suicide ganking in highsec.
In line with other ships. All ships are getting the buff. Let's be real here, the only reason you want to neglect ships like freighters is because you don't want to see a ganking nerf, not because you think the benefit being put on a freighter is out of line in terms of other ships in the game. It's like if they decided to make all ships 10% faster, there would be no reason not to add that to a freighter too.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
Freighter health is being buffed by a rather significant margin. If we're going to be honest about this, and you said yourself things need to be kept in line, are we going to get a gutting of Concord response times to compensate? Because things are no longer in line. The attacking ships are already paper thin and do not benefit from extra hull HP. So what are you going to give them to get everything back in line?
Why? they've already stated in the OP that they know it's a nerf, and that's OK. Ganking is too easy anwyay, so I have absolutely no problem with it being nerfed. I'd like to see more active mechanics in the future, and would at that point expect to see nerfs to passive defense, but I see absolutely no problem with the change affecting freighters as is.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
I think this nerf/rebuff thing is overly complicated for it's own sake. We could have just had a nerf to DCU's, and left it at that.
The level of rage if that had happened would be insane, and I guarantee that if that were the case there would be an argument from the same people crying in here that freighters should be nerfed because they can't use a DC and thus nerfing the DC would be a buff to freighter relatively speaking.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#236 - 2016-02-13 19:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kel wrote:
But they aren't getting the benefit of the module for free, they are getting a benefit of ships in the game being balanced, the same as every other ship. If they were excluded, they would be the only ship class not to receive a natural boost to EHP, and they would be vastly behind ships who could equip a DC but were better without them. Even ganking ships will benefit as they will be able to retain their full DPS but take more damage before getting wiped out.

Hictors are different because you're talking about an extremely speciialised ship class, not a module that is used on nearly every ship in the game, but I would expect CCP to consider in the event of that change the effects on other ships and if other ships should be buffed too - as they have in this case.


Freighters cant fit a DCU, they lose nothing when the DCU is nerfed as they cant fit it and never have been able to fit it. It makes no sense to compensate them with 33% omni resists because CCP are nerfing a mod they cant even use.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2016-02-13 19:45:31 UTC
Roberta Gastoni wrote:
Quoting a very old post from when the DCU got implemented, the original dev (i don't remember who) said they wanted the DCU to be an active module with a "long cycle" and very little cap requirement to avoid to encourage AFK play styles and actually reward the player from being there, turning it on every jump / undock, compared to the player autopiloting afk.


Actually, the exact opposite. They wanted the DCU to be passive but didn't have the tech to make "only one per ship" passive modules at the time.
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#238 - 2016-02-13 19:59:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Its already been shown that the chances of being ganked in a freighter or jump freighter stands at less than 0.1% out of over 2 million jumps.

You keep repeating that. It has not been shown. You don't even have access to the data required to potentially show it. Red Frog Freight statistics do not become representative for all of New Eden simply by you repeating them over and over again.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#239 - 2016-02-13 20:03:03 UTC
Ylmar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Its already been shown that the chances of being ganked in a freighter or jump freighter stands at less than 0.1% out of over 2 million jumps.

You keep repeating that. It has not been shown. You don't even have access to the data required to potentially show it. Red Frog Freight statistics do not become representative for all of New Eden simply by you repeating them over and over again.


Feel free to show me another data set gathered over a year and that covers over 2 million gate jumps.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#240 - 2016-02-13 20:03:18 UTC
Ylmar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Its already been shown that the chances of being ganked in a freighter or jump freighter stands at less than 0.1% out of over 2 million jumps.

You keep repeating that. It has not been shown. You don't even have access to the data required to potentially show it. Red Frog Freight statistics do not become representative for all of New Eden simply by you repeating them over and over again.


On the contrary, they are a pretty good and representative sample.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs