These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#41 - 2013-04-12 16:16:52 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One thing I'll quickly mention is that 1 / 0.8 = 1.25. This means that the new bonus (20% resists at level 5) will actually equal a 25% increase in Effective Reps. Still very significant (in fact it's probably what a lot of people assumed the old bonus gave). However the difference between 25% and 37.5% is a lot more noticeable than the difference between 33% and 37.5%.

But that does not address that rep bonuses are only good against sustained DPS and not high alpha damage, where resistance bonuses are good for both.


You are right that it doesn't. I completely admit that resist bonuses remain better than active tank bonuses for the vast majority of situations. As always we will be balancing ships with the relative power of different bonuses in mind. Having the resist bonus a bit closer in power is simply something that makes finding that balance over the large number of affected ships much more achievable.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#42 - 2013-04-12 16:17:54 UTC
I think changing all of those ships at once will be far too much damage for anyone to handle if it goes wrong
as you can see yourself some already bad ships will become worse with this change and I bet some alright ships will become bad and will have to bee looked at quickly
there are quite a few ships that have been build around this bonus and not all of them are op the ferox is just barely competitive
the gila is living of the resist bonus too those and probably others would have to receive a buff in their base hp to make up for this change

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#43 - 2013-04-12 16:18:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessica Danikov
Ah, you're going about this all wrong. It isn't that resists are bad, and that remote reps are bad, at least, neither by themselves- the problem is that, the two combined ends up being overpowered.

The obvious solution to this is to have a penalty to remote reps based on target resistances- higher resist ships also 'resist' remote reps, naturally limiting the multiplicative effect of strong remote reps on high resist targets.

I do like the idea of local rep bonuses being rep bonuses, regardless of the source- will mean a bunch of Gallente ships could be used in fleets again.

Edit: Credit to Bienator II who suggested pretty much the same idea while I was posting. Great minds think alike? ;)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#44 - 2013-04-12 16:18:02 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Rynnik wrote:
This is rediculous and a blanket nerf to a ton of ships that need help if anything. The meta implications of nerfing HICs, triage, and everything else this will touch is completely opposite of anything I would have asked for.


Most of those ships have yet to be teircided and are terrible for other, bigger reasons.
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2013-04-12 16:22:36 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
5% resist bonus ships are great anti blob ships. It is one of the few things that gives u any chance against a blob.
The problem is that the blob can bring that 5% resist ship too, right?
Yes, but the real problem is the accessibility of those ships.
T1 hulls are easy accessible to everyone and having blobs fly with T1 5% resist ships is the real problem.

The conclusion is to leave 5% resist bonuses to T2, T3 hulls and capitals and remove them from T1 hulls.
Why T2, T3 and capitals? Well u diminish the blob by alot if u decide to go out with T2, T3 or capital ships.

Resist bonuses need to stay in the game. That bonus is great to show out some skill and compete with blobs.

Right, because you know the blob never uses those 5% resist ships either... Roll


Read again pls!

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
a newbie
Kenbishi Heavy Industries Inc.
#46 - 2013-04-12 16:23:43 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm going to throw this here since I have a feeling a lot of questions coming up will be along this line:

  • Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?
    • This is a question that comes up often in any thread where we are discussing decreasing the power of an item or ship. I can completely understand where it's coming from. Buffing things makes people happy in much larger numbers, it simply feels good to see the effectiveness of your equipment increase. Many other games rely on constantly improving gear to drive engagement in their content and that method of development can work very well for those games.

    I'm going to start by quoting my answer to this question from the Heavy Missile thread before Retribution, because what I said there still applies.
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be conscious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.

    I would be lying if I said that we never allow power creep in EVE. It's quite simply much much easier to balance upwards and considering how powerful of a tool it is for creating short term customer satisfaction, some power creep is very hard to avoid. However we do need to be very mindful of how much we let ourselves indulge. There are cases where for the long term health of the game ecosystem we simply have to reduce the power of certain items and ships. We believe this is one of those times. I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term.


    For the love of EVE, I hope BUFFing does not become the new flavor. The changes that have been proposed I am for as we need to test them out and see how things mess. I just don't want this game turning into all the others out there and having horrible scales of damage verse hitpoints.

    Basically, if I aim to kill a chicken, it should take 1 hit, unlike WoW where it takes what? 6? 7 hits against this supernatural miniature mega giant space chicken that equates to normal size?

    The most outspoken people tend to be those who cherish their ships, but sometimes its someone sensible. I trust Fozzie and friends to weed out the rabble rousers from those who have valid points.

    ...um.. fire?
    Schmell
    Russian Thunder Squad
    Against ALL Authorities
    #47 - 2013-04-12 16:24:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Schmell
    It does not change anything at all.

    In terms of EHP, even battleship loses 7k of ehp AT MOST. While gap between let's say rokh and maelstrom is still around 50k, and even more for armor battleships

    In terms of remrep and specifically carriers...it does not matter that hard. Try to break like 30 slowcats with subcaps, you wont kill even unbonused ones
    Ayeson
    Hard Knocks Inc.
    Hard Knocks Citizens
    #48 - 2013-04-12 16:24:53 UTC
    I'll second the "this probably should have been posted sooner" part of the OP, but the change seems sound IMO. I'd like to see what it does to some practical fits.

    I ♥ the orthrus
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #49 - 2013-04-12 16:26:29 UTC
    With the reduction in resist bonus could come an increase in the baseline tanking stats of these ships.
    Luc Chastot
    #50 - 2013-04-12 16:27:14 UTC
    BiggestT wrote:
    !

    1. Why do you think Maels are popular? It's not because of their amazing tank or overwhelming dps.
    2. "Passive EHP bonus", a.k.a. "buffer". Nobody is talking about passive regeneration (except you).
    3. No, it's not moot. Resistance modules ADD to an already extremely good bonus.
    4. Sure, nerf the modules so every other ship will be even worse compared to resist bonuses ships. Excellent idea! Also, you will have to read the forums more often.
    5. It is a good start, but active tanking bonuses are still useless in fleets.

    Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

    Jonas Sukarala
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #51 - 2013-04-12 16:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
    its progress at least now maybe a brutix can outrep a prophecy.... now for making armour repping competitive please.

    I also think that HP bonuses should replace resist bonus... leave the resist to T2 ships.... and please remove them from T3's
    T3's need to lose all resists bonuses and be reset to T1 resists.

    Good to see any nerf that will affect drakes ... those pesky OP things ...... ferox should be tankier than the drake why isn't it?

    'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

    Scatim Helicon
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #52 - 2013-04-12 16:33:32 UTC
    Zloco Crendraven wrote:
    Marlona Sky wrote:
    Zloco Crendraven wrote:
    5% resist bonus ships are great anti blob ships. It is one of the few things that gives u any chance against a blob.
    The problem is that the blob can bring that 5% resist ship too, right?
    Yes, but the real problem is the accessibility of those ships.
    T1 hulls are easy accessible to everyone and having blobs fly with T1 5% resist ships is the real problem.

    The conclusion is to leave 5% resist bonuses to T2, T3 hulls and capitals and remove them from T1 hulls.
    Why T2, T3 and capitals? Well u diminish the blob by alot if u decide to go out with T2, T3 or capital ships.

    Resist bonuses need to stay in the game. That bonus is great to show out some skill and compete with blobs.

    Right, because you know the blob never uses those 5% resist ships either... Roll


    Read again pls!

    Yes there are definitely no large fleets of T2 or T3 ships flying around on Tranquility.

    Did you post this through a timewarp from 2006?

    Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
    Jureth22
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #53 - 2013-04-12 16:34:34 UTC
    but who can we vote against to stop this change?
    Aryth
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #54 - 2013-04-12 16:34:39 UTC
    Scatim Helicon wrote:
    Zloco Crendraven wrote:
    Marlona Sky wrote:
    Zloco Crendraven wrote:
    5% resist bonus ships are great anti blob ships. It is one of the few things that gives u any chance against a blob.
    The problem is that the blob can bring that 5% resist ship too, right?
    Yes, but the real problem is the accessibility of those ships.
    T1 hulls are easy accessible to everyone and having blobs fly with T1 5% resist ships is the real problem.

    The conclusion is to leave 5% resist bonuses to T2, T3 hulls and capitals and remove them from T1 hulls.
    Why T2, T3 and capitals? Well u diminish the blob by alot if u decide to go out with T2, T3 or capital ships.

    Resist bonuses need to stay in the game. That bonus is great to show out some skill and compete with blobs.

    Right, because you know the blob never uses those 5% resist ships either... Roll


    Read again pls!

    Yes there are definitely no large fleets of T2 or T3 ships flying around on Tranquility.

    Did you post this through a timewarp from 2006?


    Clearly the "blobs" cannot afford to fly multiple fleets of T2 or T...ahahahah whatever

    Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

    Creator of Burn Jita

    Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
    Nolove Trader
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #55 - 2013-04-12 16:35:54 UTC
    I can clearly hear the joy of supercaps about faster dieing HICs.
    mkint
    #56 - 2013-04-12 16:36:54 UTC
    this isn't balance. balance is carefully adjusting each point of imbalance on It's own attributes. this does not take into account the strengths and weaknesses of any of the ships involved. lazy is the term. tanking is broken. only thing being done about it is whining that It's too hard to fix. once It becomes obvious that balancing around what's broken just makes everything else broken, you'll finally have to fix it breaking everything else, which will likely remain broken for another 10 years before another balancing pass is done.

    all the balancing has been great in theory, but nothing that is truely broken has been fixed.

    Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
    Jonas Sukarala
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #57 - 2013-04-12 16:37:27 UTC
    Nolove Trader wrote:
    I can clearly hear the joy of supercaps about faster dieing HICs.


    They could always make bc versions of hics :P

    'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

    HVAC Repairman
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #58 - 2013-04-12 16:39:04 UTC
    CCP Fozzie you are killing eve: online, a bad game

    Follow me on twitter
    BiggestT
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #59 - 2013-04-12 16:39:27 UTC  |  Edited by: BiggestT
    Luc Chastot wrote:
    BiggestT wrote:
    !

    1. Why do you think Maels are popular? It's not because of their amazing tank or overwhelming dps.
    2. "Passive EHP bonus", a.k.a. "buffer". Nobody is talking about passive regeneration (except you).
    3. No, it's not moot. Resistance modules ADD to an already extremely good bonus.
    4. Sure, nerf the modules so every other ship will be even worse compared to resist bonuses ships. Excellent idea! Also, you will have to read the forums more often.
    5. It is a good start, but active tanking bonuses are still useless in fleets.


    1. Um because they are. Hint: I'm not talking about fleet blobs (small scale = better tank and better dps, yet it's still okay as a fleet bs with higher alpha).
    2. And? That's the idea of the bonus, you rep less but get more of a buffer, how is this an issue for the rokh? And when I talk about shield: passive tank essentially equals buffer tank, and no, no one brings a passive tanked cal BS to pvp EXCEPT in blolbs.
    3.Damage/rof mods ADD to an already extremely good bonus. I can play that game too.
    4.Nerfing a couple of modules is far less of an impact thant nerfing 44 ships that didn't need nerfing. RR BS fleets are much rarer than say 44 DIFFERENT SHIPS.
    5.And they alsways will be. Fleets are buffer, small scale pvp is active, why can't we have both?? It's not like the rokh can do much else.
    Calmoto
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #60 - 2013-04-12 16:39:35 UTC
    dear fozzie

    why not make it 4.33e+23 % resistance

    its not like it could get any more ugly on my ship info

    please reconsider being a special snowflake all your life