These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#601 - 2013-04-16 19:51:15 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Hmm, I guess your right, I was using inverse division and forgot my equivalencies. Shocked


It's ok. I thought it was like that too, then when I was doing the practical math, I suddenly realised it wasn't- it's a common misconception.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#602 - 2013-04-16 19:58:06 UTC
Yea, it was only afterwards I realized it was reductible to only factored terms.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#603 - 2013-04-16 20:29:21 UTC
Quote:
Sorry, didn't realize at the time that I was rather insulting with that, I try to avoid that :(. Beautifully and well thought out post here, btw.

As for your Edit comment, I have no doubt that at some time they will comment on this thread, they are just taking some time to discuss this among themselves first to see what they will do (if anything) first.


Nothing to be sorry for, I am well aware my writing style can be acerbic at times.

Also, from your other comment, it further shows the bizarre lengths to which even a high SP player has to go to in order to perform at the same level as a ship that doesn't have such a slot tax. And my own argument originally didn't even take rigs into account, and that just exacerbates the situation further, if you treat rigs like the extra slot they are.

It's a slot tax. Plain and simple. And honestly the need for it is nonexistent. Our racial weapon, Lasers, is nowhere near powerful enough to warrant this kind of handicap. While I'd love to believe that Amarr pilots are superior enough players to warrant having to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, it's simply not true.

"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.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#604 - 2013-04-16 20:53:08 UTC
Fozzie, any feedback on the last week or so of debate? I would like to hear something more than rumors.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
CaptainFalcon07
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#605 - 2013-04-16 23:31:17 UTC
I have to greatly criticize this change as a lazy blanket nerf.

You are nerfing all the ships with these bonuses without taking a look at how they will affect them.

If you're trying to get people to fly ships with active bonus, then make active tank not suck.


There is a only a handful of ships with active tank bonus, while there are several ships with resist bonuses.

You should buff those handful of active tank ships rather than nerfing tons of resist ships.
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#606 - 2013-04-16 23:52:16 UTC
Well I guess I can stop training for all resistance based ship then.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#607 - 2013-04-17 00:07:27 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Well I guess I can stop training for all resistance based ship then.

Your loss. Still flying them with no plans to change here after looking at the numbers.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#608 - 2013-04-17 00:36:32 UTC
While I can't disagree in general, this is going to cause problems with some specific ships. Punisher and Vengeance, for example, are completely built around this bonus. They're going to need a substantial buff in some other area to compensate.

Overhaul Dscan!
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#609 - 2013-04-17 03:29:13 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
While I can't disagree in general, this is going to cause problems with some specific ships. Punisher and Vengeance, for example, are completely built around this bonus. They're going to need a substantial buff in some other area to compensate.


Those are Amarr ships, so I am going to assume you were being facetious.

Look at who gets the resistance based ships: Amarr (armor) and Caldari (shield). Y'know, the two groups CCP likes to paint as the bad guys with a brush the size of Texas? Our job in EvE is to die for the amusement of Gallente & Minmatar players. This change is a "Job Enhancement."

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#610 - 2013-04-17 03:36:16 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Right, but nerfing the resist bonuses also strengthen's Alpha fleets, thus simply making them all that more viable as well. Sure, I understand that this nerf makes other fleet doctrines a bit more viable, I am simply pointing out that that in no way does anything to discourage the alpha fleet doctrine that CCP is so set against.
To actually discourage alpha, the following need to be true:

(1) alpha damage is significantly less efficient than long-term DPS damage

(2) a DPS ship contributes more to net DPS than a RR ship

As long as RR is efficient, alpha is very attractive. Given that alpha is attractive, it is worth reducing the barrier-to-entry so that it's not a tactic available only to large fleets.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
KC-01000011
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#611 - 2013-04-17 09:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: KC-01000011
Every single time here were read from past devs that they should learn from past balancing mistakes. However every time the exact same thing happens afterwards, just like now, and here's why:


While I understand the intend behind the changes, the change itself very shortsighted. Basicly what you are saying is; the resistance bonuses are overpowered and you want to bring them into line with the other bonuses. Great, however here is where you are going wrong: you've been rebalancing these ships for years, more importantly you've rebalanced frigates and cruisers very recently with the old resistances in mind. So naturally the ships that have these bonuses should have been give disadvanages in the past to compensate. (atleast if past balances we're correct) Therefore is absoultely ridiculous to change 30 or so ships in one go... The only outcome that can come of it is that you'll have to rebalance everything again in a couple of years.


So my question to you CCP Fozzie is:

What about the recently rebalanced cruisers and frigs? If you agree that they have been balanced to all be equal to eachother only a couple of months ago (including the resistance ships) Don't you agree that diminishing a bonus, for which they have been balanced 6 months ago,completely destroys the equilibrum again, for which you've worked so hard only 6 months ago? How do you plan to tackle those?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#612 - 2013-04-17 11:25:53 UTC
KC-01000011 wrote:
Every single time here were read from past devs that they should learn from past balancing mistakes. However every time the exact same thing happens afterwards, just like now, and here's why:


While I understand the intend behind the changes, the change itself very shortsighted. Basicly what you are saying is; the resistance bonuses are overpowered and you want to bring them into line with the other bonuses. Great, however here is where you are going wrong: you've been rebalancing these ships for years, more importantly you've rebalanced frigates and cruisers very recently with the old resistances in mind. So naturally the ships that have these bonuses should have been give disadvanages in the past to compensate. (atleast if past balances we're correct) Therefore is absoultely ridiculous to change 30 or so ships in one go... The only outcome that can come of it is that you'll have to rebalance everything again in a couple of years.


So my question to you CCP Fozzie is:

What about the recently rebalanced cruisers and frigs? If you agree that they have been balanced to all be equal to eachother only a couple of months ago (including the resistance ships) Don't you agree that diminishing a bonus, for which they have been balanced 6 months ago,completely destroys the equilibrum again, for which you've worked so hard only 6 months ago? How do you plan to tackle those?


A sub-5% EHP change is hardly going to "completely destroy" the balance.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#613 - 2013-04-17 12:42:05 UTC
If you are going to get rid of the 5% bonus... atleast try starting with just the Rokh and Abaddon rather than rebalancing half of the game in one go - which is bound to have a knock on effect of other ships that have been balanced already. :/

Personally I'd rather see Active Armor tanking made more effective, and perhaps lower the base hp on ship with the armour bonus to make it more of a compromise.

Such a big change is going to cause more harm that good I think...
Matthias Vilmet
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#614 - 2013-04-17 14:32:17 UTC
There is a different problem I have here, Fozzie.

You're vote will not be an accurate reflection of whether this is balanced or not. Only 44 ships are affected.... pilots who specialize in EVERY other ship will distinctly want to nerf their enemies and vote this as a good change, whether it is one or not.
Wet Owl
Make MILFs Pretty Again
#615 - 2013-04-17 16:27:53 UTC
BiggestT wrote:


So? That's still 3% LESS not MORE, so a rokh will rep less than a maelstrom, yet the rokh gets nerfed?
Remember that a mael is much more popular in general and more powerful dps wise (with higer aplha to boot) than a rokh, even with the current staus quo, why do you ignore this?


And? No one passive/buffer tanks a rokh! Irrelevant point. Edit: Excluding huge blob fest fleets of course, and we all know that is the only type of pvp amirite? [/sarcasm]


No other ship skill bonus gets a stacking penalty either.
Shield/armour mods have stacking penalties, damage mods have stacking penalties. It's uniform across the board.
This point is also moot.


And so we come to the real reason you're nerfing the rokh and abbadon: RR.

Hint: don't nerf the ships, nerf the mods, the ships are fine in every other aspect!
I'll use an analogy I used earlier: you're blaming the bread for being burnt by the toaster.

EVEN CONSIDERING THIS.

The rokh was never overpowered, it's actually a poor RR platform (no spare high slot).
How is it a problem if no one ever complained? No RR changes are happening in this expansion so how why is this change needed now, why did you change something that no one asked for or wanted??

The rokh will still be useful as a fleet BS yes, but it has always been only marginal in other roles. This change makes that worse. The maelstrom is now much, much better.

These changes were supposed to bring versatility to the neglected caldari BS's but you NERFED a ship that did not need to be nerfed! Skrew the blanket changes, assess each ship individually, not just a lazy one size fits all change to 4% for everything!

CCP Fozzie wrote:
So our plan for Odyssey is to remove 1% per level from all the standard ship and subsystem resistance bonuses, setting them at 4% per level.


Worst. Plan. Ever. 0/10.


CCP Fozzie wrote:
This affects 44 ships total.


Great, so you are thinking of applying a blanket change?

If so: F*CKING LAZY.

Assess each ship individually! Not together! Most of those ships were already balanced/under powered, you must reconsider!

I really like that you and CCP Rise are making some big changes and have a passion for this game, but this is a mistake and no one wants it. I know you guys can do much better!

Edit:

Alse, regarding your "If you don't like it too bad, just talk to the CSM lol!"

Well that is the biggest f*cking cop out I've ever seen. Zero Accountability to this huge nerf that hits 44 balanced/under powered ships.
It's like the speed nerf of years ago all over again (except no one wants this nerf).

Bad. Bad. F*cking bad.

2 teas to this gentleman!!1

+1
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#616 - 2013-04-17 16:34:58 UTC
Matthias Vilmet wrote:
There is a different problem I have here, Fozzie.

You're vote will not be an accurate reflection of whether this is balanced or not. Only 44 ships are affected.... pilots who specialize in EVERY other ship will distinctly want to nerf their enemies and vote this as a good change, whether it is one or not.



To be fair, as a Caldari pilot who specializes in using ships with the resist bonus, I am obviously going to be against it. That makes me no less biased than them, but that has little to do with who is actually in the right in this argument.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Matthias Vilmet
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#617 - 2013-04-17 16:41:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Matthias Vilmet
Van Mathias wrote:
Matthias Vilmet wrote:
There is a different problem I have here, Fozzie.

You're vote will not be an accurate reflection of whether this is balanced or not. Only 44 ships are affected.... pilots who specialize in EVERY other ship will distinctly want to nerf their enemies and vote this as a good change, whether it is one or not.



To be fair, as a Caldari pilot who specializes in using ships with the resist bonus, I am obviously going to be against it. That makes me no less biased than them, but that has little to do with who is actually in the right in this argument.


This is precisely my point.

44 people will say: NO NO NO
156 people will say: YES YES YES
(Edit) (taken a sample size of 200... and assuming there are 200 or so ships)


and that has nothing to do with the ACTUAL balance of the ships. It's just forum pvp, essentially.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#618 - 2013-04-17 16:50:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
Matthias Vilmet wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
Matthias Vilmet wrote:
There is a different problem I have here, Fozzie.

You're vote will not be an accurate reflection of whether this is balanced or not. Only 44 ships are affected.... pilots who specialize in EVERY other ship will distinctly want to nerf their enemies and vote this as a good change, whether it is one or not.



To be fair, as a Caldari pilot who specializes in using ships with the resist bonus, I am obviously going to be against it. That makes me no less biased than them, but that has little to do with who is actually in the right in this argument.


This is precisely my point.

44 people will say: NO NO NO
156 people will say: YES YES YES
(Edit) (taken a sample size of 200... and assuming there are 200 or so ships)


and that has nothing to do with the ACTUAL balance of the ships. It's just forum pvp, essentially.


To a certain extent. One can be both entirely biased and completely correct. Two sides to that coin. I would also point out if the ships in question are used by a underrepresented minority of players, then that could be construed as evidence that the ships are underpowered, and not very attractive to players who want to fly those sort of ships.

Also, if this is forum pvp, why are you surprised or indignant that the players who stand the lose the most from this would not come and fight?

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Kale Eledar
Venerated Industries
#619 - 2013-04-17 19:51:44 UTC
I like Ripard Teg's take - oh no, an Aeon will only have 40 million EHP now instead of 44.

First come smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#620 - 2013-04-17 20:04:36 UTC
KC-01000011 wrote:

While I understand the intend behind the changes, the change itself very shortsighted. Basicly what you are saying is; the resistance bonuses are overpowered and you want to bring them into line with the other bonuses. Great, however here is where you are going wrong: you've been rebalancing these ships for years, more importantly you've rebalanced frigates and cruisers very recently with the old resistances in mind.


Hit the issue dead on.

A blanket change to this mechanic is unnacceptable without a corresponding look at every ship affected.

Overhaul Dscan!