These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#421 - 2016-02-15 13:35:12 UTC
Maybe burn jita should be brought forward.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#422 - 2016-02-15 14:47:50 UTC
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote:


Before you get to that part, there needs to be thoughtful and engaging gameplay between gankers and anti-gankers. At the moment, anti-gankers are a thorn in our side simply because we have the choice of ganking them or ganking freighters. This is in part due to their unlimited rules of engagement against ours, but our restriction of only shooting active aggressors. The added component of Factional Police means that, aside from ganking them, there cannot be any interesting interplay between ganking and anti-ganking because we always die, regardless of whether we kill the anti-gankers or not.

I am all for making ganking more interesting via adding incentives to people to engage in both sides of the gameplay, but as I discussed with several people in #TweetFleet, that can't happen until the Anti-Ganker->Ganker->Freighter asymmetrical gameplay becomes a little more symmetrical, which may or may result in good and engaging gameplay.

Also, I'm poised to say that smart anti-gankers make tons of money from stealing our freighter wrecks and stealing our gank ship wrecks. Otherwise, there wouldn't be career wreck thieves and career salvagers and career loot scoopers.


What if, and this is a large what if. CCP was to expand on Faction warfare to include pirates and police? by choosing to join a pirate faction you are granted some breaks in hi sec while also incurring drawbacks. This would also go for the people joining the police side.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#423 - 2016-02-15 14:57:53 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:

What if, and this is a large what if. CCP was to expand on Faction warfare to include pirates and police? by choosing to join a pirate faction you are granted some breaks in hi sec while also incurring drawbacks. This would also go for the people joining the police side.


That really depends how it works and what breaks criminals would benefit from.

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
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#424 - 2016-02-15 15:29:27 UTC
Quote:
2/ if i already have a dcu fitted before the change, no change ... for me ... but all my targets with no dcu will now earn a +33% hull hp ... so who got a nerf?


WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO BAD AT MATH. Evil

33% resists is 50% more ehp because you deal 66% damage that you did before.

I will make this really simple.

Ship A has 1000 hp 0% resist, attacker has 100 dps and applies 100 dps, take 10 seconds to kill.

Ship B has 1000 hp 33% resist, attacker has 100 dps and applies 67 dps, takes 15 seconds to kill.

It is 50% buff, this isn't rocket science.
It would be but we drive space submarines.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#425 - 2016-02-15 16:03:47 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Maybe burn jita should be brought forward.

Won't give 95% profit per gank, wont happen...

Now CCP just needs to kill off 3rd person looting. Then we're good!
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#426 - 2016-02-15 16:07:19 UTC
Icarius wrote:
1/ With such a hp boost, for solo pvper, forget about freighter. Any freighter will be able to reach the gate, even double webbed, even with 1200dps. On the other hand, people like CODE will have no problem to form up with 33% more members ... thx again

2/ if i already have a dcu fitted before the change, no change ... for me ... but all my targets with no dcu will now earn a +33% hull hp ... so who got a nerf?

In fact, you should do it once for all ... change the rules guys, come on !!! Any attacker should see his dmg reduce to 25% in your wonderfull game for kids

You got that bonus too...

...unless you like having the buff but your targets can't?

The delusional self entitled brat is strong with this one!
tasman devil
Puritans
#427 - 2016-02-15 16:44:37 UTC  |  Edited by: tasman devil
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's happening!

We're planning a huge set of module tiericide in our March release and this thread will serve as the feedback location for changes to Damage Controls.

The issue with Damage Controls is that they're essentially a must-fit module on a huge variety of ships. This limits fitting choice quite significantly. However because they're so powerful and so ubiquitous, simply nerfing them would be a large EHP nerf to almost every ship in EVE, knocking a lot of other dynamics out of balance.

So the plan is to nerf the hull resistance bonus of damage controls by a large margin, but also buff every ship in the game at the same time to compensate. We'll be reducing the hull resist benefit of Damage Controls by about 1/3 (going to 40% for T2 and 30% for T1) but also adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default.

This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack.

We're also planning on completing two long-time player requests:
1) Adding faction and officer versions of Damage Controls
2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules

We recognize that this is a pretty huge and far-reaching set of changes, so we'll be especially interested in all your feedback from SISI!

Here's the most recent iteration of the numbers:
[img]http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67557/1/Damage_Controls.jpg[/img]

We're very interested in your feedback on all these changes. We'll be releasing them to Singularity next week if all goes well, so that you can try these and all the other module changes planned for the March release. Please use this thread for passing along your feedback, and we'll be reading.

Thanks!

hmm this one I can approve

(also: gankers got ganked here and crying like victims ... [oh the irony!])
much salt
very tears
such lols

I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#428 - 2016-02-15 17:12:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.



You don't really seem to be normalizing for skill in doing this, though.

At present, a skilled freighter pilot is virtually immune to ganking in high sec.
After this, a skilled freighter pilot will still be virtually immune to ganking in high sec.

This is as it should be.

At present, a bumbling schmuck of a freighter pilot has a small chance of being ganked in high sec.
After this, a bumbling schmuck of a freighter pilot has an even smaller chance of being ganked in high sec.

This shifts the balance away from skillful play, and toward lazy/inattentive/unskilled play, which doesn't really seem to be beneficial for the game as a whole.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#429 - 2016-02-15 17:16:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain StringfellowHawk
Easily acceptable changes. Everyone all around gets buffed, and some of my fits have to be tweaked harder on my Alt to kill in Hi-sec. Let em cry Fozzie, this games always been adapt or die. Even with an increase of cost per freighter gank profit margins will still be high as long as you pick the right targets. As of current meta, Kill em all and laugh to the bank.

I do so love how the other gankers.. I mean "low risk Pirates", are all crying over this change.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#430 - 2016-02-15 17:18:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
I don't think that even the miners shed quite as many buckets of tears as the hs gankers in this thread. Come to low sec and below, you'll have a lot more fun than shooting at fish in a barrel in high sec.


They havent spent the last decade bitching about being shot at while refusing to even fit a tank on their ship. The valid worries pirates have over these changes comes on the back of an average of 2-3 big nerfs to their gameplay every year for the last 8 years all just to make the game safer for people who refuse to make any effort to protect themselves.

If your playstyle had seen as many nerfs made to it as high sec piracy has seen you would also be kicking up a stink over yet more nerfs.

Solo pvp, I'm lucky if I can even break even. My playstyle is already very poor in terms of ISK hour/effort.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#431 - 2016-02-15 17:38:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
You don't really seem to be normalizing for skill in doing this, though.

At present, a skilled freighter pilot is virtually immune to ganking in high sec.
After this, a skilled freighter pilot will still be virtually immune to ganking in high sec.

This is as it should be.

At present, a bumbling schmuck of a freighter pilot has a small chance of being ganked in high sec.
After this, a bumbling schmuck of a freighter pilot has an even smaller chance of being ganked in high sec.

This shifts the balance away from skillful play, and toward lazy/inattentive/unskilled play, which doesn't really seem to be beneficial for the game as a whole.
That would suggest however that you believe changes should never be made if they will benefit a "bumbling schmuck" as well as other players, which pretty much means no changes would ever be made.

At the end of the day, the biggest part of a gank is catching and holding the pilot, which doesn't require EHP. The EHP of the pilot only affects how many bumbling schmucks of gankers you need to hammer F1. Let's face it, most of the pilots involved in a gank aren't much better than the freighter pilot, they just have someone telling them when to press their buttons.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#432 - 2016-02-15 17:52:40 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Lucas Kell wrote:
That would suggest however that you believe changes should never be made if they will benefit a "bumbling schmuck" as well as other players, which pretty much means no changes would ever be made.


This benefits bumbling schmucks at the expense of skillful players, with whom they are in competition.

If, for example, as a courier-contracting freighter pilot, I can evade Uedama/Niarja gate camps, I can accept and run more contracts more quickly than a bumbling schmuck, who will be deterred by (or blown up in) those camps.

Raising the level of safety (by increasing the minimum DPS threshold, and therefore, the minimum viable return) means there are more camps the bumbling schmuck will bumble through safely.

This effectively reduces the benefit of skillful play.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#433 - 2016-02-15 17:55:07 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

This effectively reduces the benefit of skillful play.


Effectively nothing.

It's outright.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE
#434 - 2016-02-15 18:04:17 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.


There is nothing clever about bringing more people. Over 500k EHP for a simple bulkheaded obelisk is unacceptable.


There is nothing WRONG with that EHP. Like Fozzie said, the balance has to be maintained. This is just a ganker alt crying because he doesn't like that he may have to work harder for his food.

Overall too...don't forget. EVE is a game. Your part of the game is not the only part that matters. It is already "second life" to do the boring work in EVE so that we ALL (gankers and just PVPers) can enjoy gud fights and pew pew. I don't see these 33% base hull stats as ANY SORT OF PROBLEM!

POINT BLANK:

These changes are good for many reasons. It makes ALL fights last a little longer! (What do I mean by that?) It will make the most enjoyable (pulse pounding) part of the game last longer for ALL SHIPS. This won't hurt the meta. This won't change battle dynamics in time enough to matter. IT WILL however make the pulse pounding part of fights/the strategy implemented, the surprise awe of a gank and dread, all last just a tad longer and that is a good thing, I don't care how dumb you are if you can't see it.

Second, it was lore breaking and always struck me as weird to never have some sort of base resist on hulls. 33% across the board just makes sense to a piece of metal.

Further thoughts - What I would like to see come out of this is the consideration (which CCP Fozzie et al are probably already doing) of looking at Bastion modules/ships and maybe some further discussion in this thread would be VERY welcome by all about hull repping meta!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#435 - 2016-02-15 18:07:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Ms Michigan wrote:

There is nothing WRONG with that EHP. Like Fozzie said, the balance has to be maintained.


Except that isn't balance. It's just straight up making ganking 50% harder.

That isn't balance. Which is exactly why so many carebears are defending it, because they hate game balance. Game balance would actually be bad, sloppy, lazy play being appropriately punished with death. And since carebears are not real players and therefore all they are capable of is bad, sloppy, lazy play, they despise game balance.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#436 - 2016-02-15 18:14:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
Ms Michigan wrote:
Second, it was lore breaking and always struck me as weird to never have some sort of base resist on hulls. 33% across the board just makes sense to a piece of metal.


Let me fix that for you: all resists and dps numbers are measured relative to hull.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#437 - 2016-02-15 18:15:55 UTC
tasman devil wrote:

hmm this one I can approve

(also: gankers got ganked here and crying like victims ... [oh the irony!])
much salt
very tears
such lols


Not just gankers, but freighter pilots who aren't dumb and lazy are losing out with this change.

That seems to be going over the heads of most bears though.

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
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#438 - 2016-02-15 18:17:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And since carebears are not real players and therefore all they are capable of is bad, sloppy, lazy play, they despise game balance.

Big smileBig smileBig smile

Foaming at the mouth and thinking your opinion of other players matters... How precious. Go on, more, let's see if you can dig yourself even deeper into your little hole.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#439 - 2016-02-15 18:18:29 UTC
Ylmar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And since carebears are not real players and therefore all they are capable of is bad, sloppy, lazy play, they despise game balance.

Big smileBig smileBig smile

Foaming at the mouth and thinking your opinion of other players matters... How precious. Go on, more, let's see if you can dig yourself even deeper into your little hole.


An excellent example of my theory, by the way, is this guy.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE
#440 - 2016-02-15 18:21:09 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Maybe burn jita should be brought forward.


RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Ignorant comment RABBLE