These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#641 - 2013-04-18 19:51:43 UTC
Roime wrote:
Templar Dane wrote:
Proposing for the third time...

Buff the rep amount ships bonus, the shield boost amount ships are fine.

Viola, balance. The gallente whiners get better ships for solo/small gang, as the bonus was intended for and the bread and butter ships of two other factions don't have to get worse.



That's only been suggested for years, and the only explanation from CCP for not doing it has been "they might be too strong for PVE".
Permarep amounts in PvP were also mentioned as a concern as well as the fact that active tank becomes difficult to balance between both bonused and unbonused hulls as active tank bonuses get stronger.

Roime wrote:
Nerfing resistance bonuses does absolutely nothing good for active armor tanking ships.
From an absolute repair output standpoint you are correct, from a relative benefit for each bonus point of view this is not true.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#642 - 2013-04-18 20:17:06 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Roime wrote:
Nerfing resistance bonuses does absolutely nothing good for active armor tanking ships.
From an absolute repair output standpoint you are correct, from a relative benefit for each bonus point of view this is not true.

how is it not true? For a ship that is actively tanked, a resistance loss means in increase in the incoming DPS ergo meaning that the reppers are that much less effective since they still only rep for the same amount. Maybe CCP needs to look at having reppers repair a % of the lost HP instead, and then they have a better analysis of how to balance this out instead of flat numbers which apparently has them confused.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#643 - 2013-04-18 20:41:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pelea Ming wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Roime wrote:
Nerfing resistance bonuses does absolutely nothing good for active armor tanking ships.
From an absolute repair output standpoint you are correct, from a relative benefit for each bonus point of view this is not true.

how is it not true? For a ship that is actively tanked, a resistance loss means in increase in the incoming DPS ergo meaning that the reppers are that much less effective since they still only rep for the same amount. Maybe CCP needs to look at having reppers repair a % of the lost HP instead, and then they have a better analysis of how to balance this out instead of flat numbers which apparently has them confused.

Keeping in mind that we are talking about a loss of resistance only on resist bonused ships it means a relative benefit for all active tank bonused ships increases while the resist bonused ships trend towards ships with neither bonus, but by a relatively small amount with the nerf as is.

As far as comparative loss repping, I can't really comment on that. It seems an interesting idea, though basically, unless stacking nerfed or capped in raw output, creates the potential for RR to render ships indestructible.

I'm not seeing how flat numbers have them confused though, please elaborate.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#644 - 2013-04-18 20:54:36 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Roime wrote:
Nerfing resistance bonuses does absolutely nothing good for active armor tanking ships.
From an absolute repair output standpoint you are correct, from a relative benefit for each bonus point of view this is not true.

how is it not true? For a ship that is actively tanked, a resistance loss means in increase in the incoming DPS ergo meaning that the reppers are that much less effective since they still only rep for the same amount. Maybe CCP needs to look at having reppers repair a % of the lost HP instead, and then they have a better analysis of how to balance this out instead of flat numbers which apparently has them confused.

Keeping in mind that we are talking about a loss of resistance only on resist bonused ships it means a relative benefit for all active tank bonused ships increases while the resist bonused ships trend towards ships with neither bonus, but by a relatively small amount with the nerf as is.

As far as comparative loss repping, I can't really comment on that. It seems an interesting idea, though basically, unless stacking nerfed or capped in raw output, creates the potential for RR to render ships indestructible.

I'm not seeing how flat numbers have them confused though, please elaborate.

Elaborate, ok :) I'm just going to use simple numbers though cause I don't feel like breaking out the calculator and fitting tools and all.

Assume 1000 HP, and a total 50% resist. As resists decrease incoming damage, this means that if the opposing ship deals a base of 100 DPS the targeted ship only actually takes 50 DPS (ie, in 20 seconds, dead). Now, if fitted with a repper that can rep 75 DPS, it's unkillable, as it effectively repairs half again as much. as much damage as it's taking. Now, if you nerf it's resists by 30%, it becomes killable again, though at a much slower rate then without the reps (ie, 200 seconds, dead).

Obviously, this is an extremely over-simplified example, but it can be extrapolated upon by anyone who cares to take the time to see that nerfing resistances means active tanked ships are simply weaker.

And despite what CCP Fozzie claims, I see no reason why making ships any weaker will give anyone incentive to stop using alpha strike fleets, as it just means they will still die, just even faster. You want to decrease alpha strike fleets, you don't make them even more viable, you instead make them less viable.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#645 - 2013-04-18 21:08:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pelea Ming wrote:

Elaborate, ok :) I'm just going to use simple numbers though cause I don't feel like breaking out the calculator and fitting tools and all.

Assume 1000 HP, and a total 50% resist. As resists decrease incoming damage, this means that if the opposing ship deals a base of 100 DPS the targeted ship only actually takes 50 DPS (ie, in 20 seconds, dead). Now, if fitted with a repper that can rep 75 DPS, it's unkillable, as it effectively repairs half again as much. as much damage as it's taking. Now, if you nerf it's resists by 30%, it becomes killable again, though at a much slower rate then without the reps (ie, 200 seconds, dead).

Obviously, this is an extremely over-simplified example, but it can be extrapolated upon by anyone who cares to take the time to see that nerfing resistances means active tanked ships are simply weaker.

And despite what CCP Fozzie claims, I see no reason why making ships any weaker will give anyone incentive to stop using alpha strike fleets, as it just means they will still die, just even faster. You want to decrease alpha strike fleets, you don't make them even more viable, you instead make them less viable.

Again, we're talking about nerfing resist bonuses, not resists across the board. This means only a subset of ships is affected directly. Additionally this subset does not include ships with bonuses specifically for active tanking.

What you demonstrated, while factually true, doesn't seem to indicate any confusion from CCP fozzie. Rather, looking again at the reasoning presented, what you demonstrated was the same as what he stated was part of the reason for the nerf. To bring greater differentiation in active tank effectiveness between active tanking bonused hulls and resist bonused hulls. You mathematically proved him right.

I stand by my earlier statement that this is a net neutral change for alpha. It weakens RR for the affected ships while reducing their EHP, this means DPS is more viable with reduced repair capabilities while at the same time making alpha kills easier by the same factor. Either way if you really want to address alpha by only looking at EHP you do it by nerfing resists and adding raw HP in enough quantity to still have higher EHP, not increasing resists. Adding HP doesn't add to the ability of RR to negate DPS in non alpha scenarios but does increase the output needed to destroy a ship with alpha.

Arguing for high resists because of alpha doesn't make sense.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#646 - 2013-04-18 21:14:30 UTC
An alpha fleet has an advantage over a DPS fleet the same size as a resist bonus has an advantage over a boost/rep bonus of the same size. So reducing them by the same margin will not effect their desirability by an equal amount.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#647 - 2013-04-18 21:15:02 UTC
Will the be any answers from those authors of this "great" idea?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#648 - 2013-04-18 21:22:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Van Mathias wrote:
An alpha fleet has an advantage over a DPS fleet the same size as a resist bonus has an advantage over a boost/rep bonus of the same size. So reducing them by the same margin will not effect their desirability by an equal amount.

Thus a neutral change, nerfing both by the relative same amount, and since alpha had the advantage prior it retains it. Not disagreeing there, but arguing that the resist bonus was somehow helpful to the situation when it hurts as much as it helps doesn't gain any progress overall .
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#649 - 2013-04-18 21:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:

Elaborate, ok :) I'm just going to use simple numbers though cause I don't feel like breaking out the calculator and fitting tools and all.

Assume 1000 HP, and a total 50% resist. As resists decrease incoming damage, this means that if the opposing ship deals a base of 100 DPS the targeted ship only actually takes 50 DPS (ie, in 20 seconds, dead). Now, if fitted with a repper that can rep 75 DPS, it's unkillable, as it effectively repairs half again as much. as much damage as it's taking. Now, if you nerf it's resists by 30%, it becomes killable again, though at a much slower rate then without the reps (ie, 200 seconds, dead).

Obviously, this is an extremely over-simplified example, but it can be extrapolated upon by anyone who cares to take the time to see that nerfing resistances means active tanked ships are simply weaker.

And despite what CCP Fozzie claims, I see no reason why making ships any weaker will give anyone incentive to stop using alpha strike fleets, as it just means they will still die, just even faster. You want to decrease alpha strike fleets, you don't make them even more viable, you instead make them less viable.

Again, we're talking about nerfing resist bonuses, not resists across the board. This means only a subset of ships is affected directly. Additionally this subset does not include ships with bonuses specifically for active tanking.

What you demonstrated, while factually true, doesn't seem to indicate any confusion from CCP fozzie. Rather, looking again at the reasoning presented, what you demonstrated was the same as what he stated was part of the reason for the nerf. To bring greater differentiation in active tank effectiveness between active tanking bonused hulls and resist bonused hulls. You mathematically proved him right.

I stand by my earlier statement that this is a net neutral change for alpha. It weakens RR for the affected ships while reducing their EHP, this means DPS is more viable with reduced repair capabilities while at the same time making alpha kills easier by the same factor. Either way if you really want to address alpha by only looking at EHP you do it by nerfing resists and adding raw HP in enough quantity to still have higher EHP, not increasing resists. Adding HP doesn't add to the ability of RR to negate DPS in non alpha scenarios but does increase the output needed to destroy a ship with alpha.

Arguing for high resists because of alpha doesn't make sense.

I'm not arguing for high resists to tank vs alpha, I'm simply trying to point out the fact that Fozzie's explanation that this resist is needed to nerf the viability of Alpha fleets won't do anything about that. The Slowcat fleet for years was overall little used until the recent viability of Alpha fleets as a counter to them. Fozzie claims that nerfing resists because of Slowcat fleets to nerf the viability of Alpha fleets is erronious, it will only make them even more viable. The only section of eve that is truly going to be nerfed by these proposed resist changes are those that specifically use these ships. And from all accounts here, the people most protesting this change are not the ones in the slowcat fleets, or any other blob fleet, because in the long run these nerfs won't affect them all that much, just means they will want an even bigger blob... it's going to hurt those using these ships in PvE or small to mid sized PvP.

And no one breaks out an Alpha fleet blob because it's "the only counter" to those.
Velarra
#650 - 2013-04-18 21:41:55 UTC
Hmm. In the interest of optimistic adaptation: Sweeping Shortcut + road of good intentions = Rifter buff? -.^
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#651 - 2013-04-18 21:43:13 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:

I'm not arguing for high resists to tank vs alpha, I'm simply trying to point out the fact that Fozzie's explanation that this resist is needed to nerf the viability of Alpha fleets won't do anything about that. The Slowcat fleet for years was overall little used until the recent viability of Alpha fleets as a counter to them. Fozzie claims that nerfing resists because of Slowcat fleets to nerf the viability of Alpha fleets is erronious, it will only make them even more viable. The only section of eve that is truly going to be nerfed by these proposed resist changes are those that specifically use these ships. And from all accounts here, the people most protesting this change are not the ones in the slowcat fleets, or any other blob fleet, because in the long run these nerfs won't affect them all that much, just means they will want an even bigger blob... it's going to hurt those using these ships in PvE or small to mid sized PvP.

And no one breaks out an Alpha fleet blob because it's "the only counter" to those.

Small combat and PvE are actually the only reason where the competing active reps bonuses can shine, so that would have to be the target point. Also what is the size we're considering when alpha starts being a concern?
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#652 - 2013-04-18 23:41:16 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:

I'm not arguing for high resists to tank vs alpha, I'm simply trying to point out the fact that Fozzie's explanation that this resist is needed to nerf the viability of Alpha fleets won't do anything about that. The Slowcat fleet for years was overall little used until the recent viability of Alpha fleets as a counter to them. Fozzie claims that nerfing resists because of Slowcat fleets to nerf the viability of Alpha fleets is erronious, it will only make them even more viable. The only section of eve that is truly going to be nerfed by these proposed resist changes are those that specifically use these ships. And from all accounts here, the people most protesting this change are not the ones in the slowcat fleets, or any other blob fleet, because in the long run these nerfs won't affect them all that much, just means they will want an even bigger blob... it's going to hurt those using these ships in PvE or small to mid sized PvP.

And no one breaks out an Alpha fleet blob because it's "the only counter" to those.

Small combat and PvE are actually the only reason where the competing active reps bonuses can shine, so that would have to be the target point. Also what is the size we're considering when alpha starts being a concern?

That's a good question, and not one I can answer, as I'm not the one trying to institute changes to the game to affect them. The Devs, I'm afraid, are the ones who will have to supply us with specific intel such as that, as they are the ones who have determined them to be such a problem that it warrants such drastic measures as this.

As for Active rep bonuses, I have no problem with them, Minmatar and Gallente enjoy them a lot. I'm simply arguing against nerfing the Caldari and Amarr resist bonuses.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#653 - 2013-04-18 23:54:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pelea Ming wrote:

As for Active rep bonuses, I have no problem with them, Minmatar and Gallente enjoy them a lot. I'm simply arguing against nerfing the Caldari and Amarr resist bonuses.

Well, considering the things pointed out include the similarity in performance of those bonuses (rep and resist) under active reps what is your suggested counter solution?

Edit: also just now thinking about it, where did Fozzie claim this was going to help with the alpha situation?
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#654 - 2013-04-19 00:05:51 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:

As for Active rep bonuses, I have no problem with them, Minmatar and Gallente enjoy them a lot. I'm simply arguing against nerfing the Caldari and Amarr resist bonuses.

Well, considering the things pointed out include the similarity in performance of those bonuses (rep and resist) under active reps what is your suggested counter solution?

but the resist bonus vs the active local rep bonus is rather a moot point, they've buffed the crap out of the active local rep bonus, and up to this point according to CCP each ship class was perfectly balanced, beyond a few initial tweaks in the first few weeks, they have stated at every turn they are happy with the balances, they are all working out great.

Yet, here all of a sudden, every single ship in the game, the majority of which have already been happily balanced, suddenly it's all broken? You tell me how that actually works out then.

maybe the as yet unbalanced ships need work to address these issues, yet to let the assumption that such is the case stand, fine, then as you get to these ships as the teiricide continues allow your previous work to guide you in what your doing, don't go and burn down the whole damned barn to get rid of the termites in one corner of it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#655 - 2013-04-19 00:23:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pelea Ming wrote:

but the resist bonus vs the active local rep bonus is rather a moot point, they've buffed the crap out of the active local rep bonus, and up to this point according to CCP each ship class was perfectly balanced, beyond a few initial tweaks in the first few weeks, they have stated at every turn they are happy with the balances, they are all working out great.

Yet, here all of a sudden, every single ship in the game, the majority of which have already been happily balanced, suddenly it's all broken? You tell me how that actually works out then.

maybe the as yet unbalanced ships need work to address these issues, yet to let the assumption that such is the case stand, fine, then as you get to these ships as the teiricide continues allow your previous work to guide you in what your doing, don't go and burn down the whole damned barn to get rid of the termites in one corner of it.

Yet buffing the bonus still left another bonus right on its heels while providing other benefits at the same time. This only means that prior to it's buff it was just plain obsolete. It's much like the laser changes. Sure it's better than before, but a full rack of tachs on a abbadon is still a crippling thing.

As far as perfectly balanced, who claimed this? Frigates got another recent a tweak. Cruisers got a tweak. Things were still acknowledged as "weak" within their respective branches. This doesn't strike me as perfect balance but rather organic process. And as expected that process may cause things to emerge as unworkable which you thought may have been adequate before.

But even all that aside I still can't help but feel that a difference of equal to or less than 5% resists will not be terribly crippling. Even if we have cases where it is we still won't likely need to see the kind of major revisions we see on the actual tiericide passes. That said it's still not really a justification as such for saying the nerf shouldn't happen. They feel a bonus is too strong for its versatility, and I don't think saying, "but it was fine in the past" is going to make a convincing argument.

Edit: Another possibility that comes to mind though is the feeling of having issues retaining both balance and role that came with the BC pass. It feels like at that point that some of the accepted norms began to unravel a bit more than in prior classes causing the bonuses to diverge a bit to fit other criteria (slot count/class role/etc). This may have lead to a deeper analysis on the strength of the bonuses themselves as the ships allowed for critique of them at this level that wasn't necessary before, but the lessons learned still seemed they could be applied below.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#656 - 2013-04-19 00:42:33 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
But even all that aside I still can't help but feel that a difference of equal to or less than 5% resists will not be terribly crippling. Even if we have cases where it is we still won't likely need to see the kind of major revisions we see on the actual tiericide passes. That said it's still not really a justification as such for saying the nerf shouldn't happen. They feel a bonus is too strong for its versatility, and I don't think saying, "but it was fine in the past" is going to make a convincing argument.

Edit: Another possibility that comes to mind though is the feeling of having issues retaining both balance and role that came with the BC pass. It feels like at that point that some of the accepted norms began to unravel a bit more than in prior classes causing the bonuses to diverge a bit to fit other criteria (slot count/class role/etc). This may have lead to a deeper analysis on the strength of the bonuses themselves as the ships allowed for critique of them at this level that wasn't necessary before, but the lessons learned still seemed they could be applied below.

for large and blob fleets, quite honestly, I don't see how a maximum total of 5% resist bonus should matter regardless in any shape or form. In medium fleets, I can see it having a noticeable impact either way, in small fleets once again, really not going to matter, and for solo... Well, at that point it completely falls apart as solo pvp is too much of a wild card to be worth trying to factor it into.

Honestly, the only place I actually see this truly being a matter of significant impact is the PvE community, and when it comes to that I have no choice but to fall back to personal experience, and that means the Abaddon... and I know for a fact that losing tank on the Abaddon will mean making it even more useless in PvE.

As for the BC tiericide... I agree. Yes, Tornado's make a very nice fast Alpha strike grouping, yes Naga/Talos make a nice fast get in your face and **** fleet, yes, the Omen is hell for damage application and a wonderful tool for pos bashes...
And I also agree with a lot of posts I've seen in other threads that the fact that Navy BC on up can easily toss up with BSs what with their better maneuvarability and damned nice EHP potential for overall tankability, and this nerf without also going through and otherwise balancing the affected BSs "tankiness" is definately only going to make that even worse.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#657 - 2013-04-19 00:50:31 UTC
RR is always better then local Tank, because you have many friends who can help you. If RR + High Ress become to powerfully then you need think about the cause and effect. Obviously RR has a bigger influence, so why is a resistance nerf needed, if RR is the cause?

Can someone from CCP explain me why you nerf resistance and not RR?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#658 - 2013-04-19 02:07:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
RR is always better then local Tank, because you have many friends who can help you. If RR + High Ress become to powerfully then you need think about the cause and effect. Obviously RR has a bigger influence, so why is a resistance nerf needed, if RR is the cause?

Can someone from CCP explain me why you nerf resistance and not RR?

As I understand RR isn't the cause. How did you come to the conclusion that it was?
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#659 - 2013-04-19 02:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

As I understand RR isn't the cause. How did you come to the conclusion that it was?


CCP Fozzie wrote:


...

blablbalbl ress are much cooler then rep-bonus blblabal we CCP think.... blbala rep bonus is useless in fleet fight blablbla repbonus sucks bblblabla

...

Finally it's important to look at the value of these resistance bonuses combined with remote repair modules. Remote repair systems are extremely powerful in the current EVE meta, and I have stated in the past that we do not intend to increase the power of the highest end repair strategies (Tech Two Logistics and capital remote repairing) because they are on the edge of overpowered. Remote repair gameplay is some of the most fun gameplay we have (and is my personal favourite activity in 0.0) but is also responsible for discouraging fights and for forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies. Spidertanking strategies like Slowcat carriers are some of the post powerful tactics in the game, and it's no accident that those strategies rely entirely on resist bonused ships.



yeah they rely on resistance ships, but you can always spend 500m more isk and buy deadspace hardener, even with non bonus ships for resistance you would get the same thing. So the cause is RR not ships with resistance bonus

Edit: added some explaination
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#660 - 2013-04-19 02:38:38 UTC
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

As I understand RR isn't the cause. How did you come to the conclusion that it was?


CCP Fozzie wrote:


...

blablbalbl ress are much cooler then rep-bonus blblabal we CCP think.... blbala rep bonus is useless in fleet fight blablbla repbonus sucks bblblabla

...

Finally it's important to look at the value of these resistance bonuses combined with remote repair modules. Remote repair systems are extremely powerful in the current EVE meta, and I have stated in the past that we do not intend to increase the power of the highest end repair strategies (Tech Two Logistics and capital remote repairing) because they are on the edge of overpowered. Remote repair gameplay is some of the most fun gameplay we have (and is my personal favourite activity in 0.0) but is also responsible for discouraging fights and for forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies. Spidertanking strategies like Slowcat carriers are some of the post powerful tactics in the game, and it's no accident that those strategies rely entirely on resist bonused ships.



yeah they rely on resistance ships, but you can always spend 500m more isk and buy deadspace hardener, even with non bonus ships for resistance you would get the same thing. So the cause is RR not ships with resistance bonus

Edit: added some explaination

If 500m hardners were only able to be fitted on ships without resist bonuses you would have a point. But their statement was pretty clear. RR is "balanced" until resist bonuses come into play. So you can shoot 44 ships in the foot or all of them.