These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#741 - 2013-04-26 17:52:59 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Not by the math, no. They are about par.

Exactly. Local repping bonus does not have and meaningful benefit compared to resistance bonus. (And prophecy can rep more than the myrmidon)

As for the rest, you probably ought to be proposing an EHP buff.


No, the Prophecy cannot rep more than the myrm. It can rep about 5% less, all things considered.

Yeo, local reps have no meaningful benefit compared to resistance. This is not resistances fault, as I keep trying to tell you. It's because local reps, armor in particular, are a TOTAL FAIL BONUS. It has NO benefit outside of pve. It doesn't deserve to be in the game.

Saying it's not balanced because resists, which are, and are supposed to be good, outshine reps, which barely qualify as a bonus, is off base.

You should be arguing for a redesign of reps, not to have your competition nerfed. So because the Gallente racial bonus sucks, Amarr have to be dragged down to suck along with it, huh? Don't you see how intellectually dishonest that is?

And again, I call hypocrisy on anyone who says reps aren't fair because they have behind-the-scenes fringe benefits, but doesn't mention RoF, which has the exact. same. thing.

"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.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#742 - 2013-04-26 18:18:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Local tanks don't scale. So, basically, local reps is a weak concept that has no inherent scalability in any kind of pvp but 1v1, right?

Thus, a pve mechanic?

Then I must pose the question, why nerf resists to promote and justify the existence of this mechanic? Because "making local reps viable" is plastered all over the OP for this thread.


Because you haven't yet absorbed the whole point, probably because you were focused on fleets: At 5%/level, resist bonused hulls are better at everything, including local tanking.

At max skills, a hull with a 5%/level resist bonus has:

1) 33% more efficient local reps than a non-bonused hull, almost as much as the 37.5% greater efficiency of a hull with a 7.5%/level bonus to local reps, and;

2) a high resist profile, reducing incoming damage more than the pure active tanker, and;

3) more EHP, giving the ship more survival time while local reps cycle and the high slot kill tank to reduce incoming DPS.

On top of all that, should someone decide to supplement your active tank with remote reps, those reps will be 33% more efficient than they would be applied to a hull with a bonus to local tank.

So the root problem is that at 5%/level, resist hulls are just plain better at everything, including PVE active tanking. They have 90% of the benefits of a local tank, and none of the drawbacks. And because the efficiency of armor reppers in particular degrades rapidly as the size of the repper increases, this becomes more and more true as you go from frigates (where bonused active tanks work quite well), to battleships (where they flat-out suck).

That's the issue: Resist hulls are better at filling fleet roles, which is OK, but they're also better at small-group, solo, and PVE, which leaves bonused active tanking relevant to a grand total of about four Gallente ships, and a handful of Minmatar ships, out of hundreds.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And, as an aside, yeah pretty much no one here has seriously flown a Punisher. Because buffer is helpful only at certain ship classes (also because it flat out can't tackle). Yes, while the literal math favors the resists on the Punisher just as much as with a Battleship, the buffer a Battleship has built in is what allows for this mechanic to come to play.


Maybe there are not many people who fly solo Punishers, but I've heard some lowsec dwellers say that, with logi and tackle support, a gang of Scorch-wielding Punishers is a golden ball of death. It makes perfect sense that the Amarr would have terrifying fleet ships.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So why throw the baby out with the bath water, when all that really needs to happen is to nerf 4 or 5 ships? What are the possible reasons for this?


That's not the problem. The problem is that the 5%/level resist tank completely overshadows bonused active tanking, except for about 4 or 5 ships. It's too good at everything. It's true that this nerf hits ships like the Eagle that are crying out for a buff, but then the problem with the Eagle was never its tank.


I have not, and have never denied that resists are strong, and that they have effects beyond simply the reduction of damage. If you think I'm here to argue that, well, I'm not, and never have been.

What I am arguing is, that yes, it's a strong bonus. But the fact that it overshadows such a weaksauce bonus as active reps is not a problem. Active reps, and when I say that I really mean active armor reps, because every last one of us knows that thanks in large part to ASB, active shield is genuinely viable, is a completely fail bonus and concept that they continue trying to push for some damn reason. Honestly, scrap the whole idea, and give Gallente a real bonus. Then they might quit their incessant whining.

My entire problem is that we seem to be getting this knee jerk nerf with no sign whatsoever of any re balancing of the ships affected, when the vast majority of the ships on that DO NOT NEED A NERF. And the response we get to the fact that "lower resists" and "amarr BS rebalance" are nothing more than across the board nerfs (the geddon does not count, it's a total re write, and not as strong as they make it out to be) is "Oops, we made your ship un-flyable, here is a bandaid, get back to you guys an expansion from now! *waves*". Meanwhile the Gallente guys pitch an enormous whine, and CCP caves within hours.

Perception is reality. Right now, the Amarr guys on this and several other threads feel like second class citizens, and for a damned good reason. Our ships require more fitting mods on them just to run our own guns than any other race (for little to no genuine benefit, that is irrefutable), our best fleet ship is eating a 20-30k EHP nerf, and we basically just told to quit our bitching by a dev. We all can make a good case that we have been getting a raw deal for years, with no end in sight.

So yeah, I'd say disgruntlement is in order.

Also, as for your Punisher statement. I haven't read my game manual in a while, but is there a part in there I missed where it says Amarr aren't allowed to have solo viable ships? We have a fleet niche, gotcha. But I'd love to be able to fly a ship that I don't have to tow along a remote cap ship to be able to fire my guns for more than 90 sec at a time should I choose to run a prop mod. And I'd love if, heaven forfend, there were enough balance left in this game to be able to do it in whatever race I so choose.

So all in all, I'd sum up my position with this:

Fix our thrice damned cap issues. Then you can spend the time "rebalancing" my resists, the one good thing about the ships I fly.

+1
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#743 - 2013-04-26 18:20:54 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Rage MorbidCloud wrote:
Just saw the leak on eve24, and foz, you better not touch the links.
Its enough that you have killed solo/small gang.
If you want to do something for the solo/small gang community, concentrate on nerfing the damn falcon.


Your argument would hold water if your small gang was the only one using links, instead, everybody uses links for damn near everything.

Untouchable safed up links.


They're well pas their due.

That is a separate issue that should be dealt with. Therefore it has no bearing to the present un-reasonable nerfing across the board.

When that topic comes up and you push for remote links to be fixed, I will support that. But not gonna support a nerf to resistance bonus for ships that need/only good characteristic going for them.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#744 - 2013-04-26 18:25:36 UTC
the fix for internal rep bonus is to make the bonus also decrease the cap usuage and also improve the heat bonus...

the fix for RR is to make it sig radius based.


presto its now fixed...


cand i have my cookie now?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#745 - 2013-04-26 18:59:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, the Prophecy cannot rep more than the myrm. It can rep about 5% less, all things considered.
The extra low slot filled with eanm2 gives the prophecy a leg up on repping power.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#746 - 2013-04-26 19:08:21 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
the fix for internal rep bonus is to make the bonus also decrease the cap usuage and also improve the heat bonus...

the fix for RR is to make it sig radius based.


presto its now fixed...


cand i have my cookie now?


+1

I like this fit
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#747 - 2013-04-26 19:47:52 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
the fix for internal rep bonus is to make the bonus also decrease the cap usuage and also improve the heat bonus...
Unarguably that would make armor rep boats more useable, but I could see it killing any hope of active tank improvements outside of those hulls due to fear of making those specific ships over powered.

MeBiatch wrote:
the fix for RR is to make it sig radius based.
Could you elaborate here? Does higher sig = more rep? Less? Won't this have a disproportional effect of shield vs armor either way? How does this address the comparative strengthening of resist bonuses on RR?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#748 - 2013-04-26 20:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
the fix for internal rep bonus is to make the bonus also decrease the cap usuage and also improve the heat bonus...
Unarguably that would make armor rep boats more useable, but I could see it killing any hope of active tank improvements outside of those hulls due to fear of making those specific ships over powered.

MeBiatch wrote:
the fix for RR is to make it sig radius based.
Could you elaborate here? Does higher sig = more rep? Less? Won't this have a disproportional effect of shield vs armor either way? How does this address the comparative strengthening of resist bonuses on RR?


i am looking to fix the internal rep bonus... not the mod its self...

but if i were.... then....
to fix the mod i would just half the activation time reduce the rep amount to compensate and then a base reduction in cap activation to compensate.


I am thinking hard caps on sig resolution vrs sig radius. with small medium large and capital having simular resolutions to the average ship of its class... with armor being slightly smaller and shield being slightly larger

and also a skill that reduces the sig resolution of RR by 5% per level.

example:
lets say a large armor RR has 300 sig reso and tries to RR a frig that that 30m sig radius then you devid 30/300 = 0.10 wich means the RR is now only 10% effective or a reduction of 90% in RR amount.

this one fix would deal with the scale mess that is RR and would bring it into balance....

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#749 - 2013-04-26 20:35:06 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:

I am thinking hard caps on sig resolution vrs sig radius. with small medium large and capital having simular resolutions to the average ship of its class... with armor being slightly smaller and shield being slightly larger

and also a skill that reduces the sig resolution of RR by 5% per level.

example:
lets say a large armor RR has 300 sig reso and tries to RR a frig that that 30m sig resolution then you devid 30/300 = 0.10 wich means the RR is now only 10% effective or a reduction of 90% in RR amount.

this one fix would deal with the scale mess that is RR and would bring it into balance....

So, if I understand correctly this would work much like turrets comparing module sig res to target sig rad.

If the sig res is based in the module size the only cases really being hurt are T2 logistics repping cruiser/BC sized targets and capitals repping subcaps. If these specific scenarios are the focal point of the issue AND the issue is RR as a whole being too strong then we have a solution.

If RR outside of those scenarios is part of the issue your solution misses all cases. Note that you also hurt non resist bonused ships as well in that range.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#750 - 2013-04-26 21:29:43 UTC
WELL imo rr IS TOO STRONG OF A MECHANIC ANYWAYS AND THE ONLY REASON WHY THE RESIST BONUS IS SOO OP IS DO THE scale problems of RR and not the resist bonus in its self...

sorry about caps...

yes it would be very simular to how it works on turrets.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#751 - 2013-04-26 21:37:13 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I have not, and have never denied that resists are strong, and that they have effects beyond simply the reduction of damage. If you think I'm here to argue that, well, I'm not, and never have been.

What I am arguing is, that yes, it's a strong bonus. But the fact that it overshadows such a weaksauce bonus as active reps is not a problem. Active reps, and when I say that I really mean active armor reps, because every last one of us knows that thanks in large part to ASB, active shield is genuinely viable, is a completely fail bonus and concept that they continue trying to push for some damn reason. Honestly, scrap the whole idea, and give Gallente a real bonus. Then they might quit their incessant whining.


Flip it around: What if CCP considers the tradeoffs involved in fitting an active tank to be the standard it wants to design to? The fact that there are no tradeoffs to a resist-bonused tank suddenly becomes a design problem. If the goal of the fitting minigame is to pick your strengths and accept your tradeoffs, resist bonuses are literally (mini-)game breaking: there are no tradeoffs. Obviously, that makes them popular, but that doesn't mean that CCP should leave them alone.

(And we are also talking about active shield tanking, because even LOL ASB benefits from a resist-bonused hull, for exactly the reasons that active armor tanking does.)

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
My entire problem is that we seem to be getting this knee jerk nerf with no sign whatsoever of any re balancing of the ships affected, when the vast majority of the ships on that DO NOT NEED A NERF.


The vast majority of those ships need about the same rebalance that they needed before this change. Or, if their one great advantage was a ridiculous brick tank, this frees the design team to see if maybe there's a more interesting role for the ship than bait.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Perception is reality. Right now, the Amarr guys on this and several other threads feel like second class citizens, and for a damned good reason. Our ships require more fitting mods on them just to run our own guns than any other race (for little to no genuine benefit, that is irrefutable), our best fleet ship is eating a 20-30k EHP nerf, and we basically just told to quit our bitching by a dev. We all can make a good case that we have been getting a raw deal for years, with no end in sight.


I've kept up with all four threads. There are disgruntled people in all four. The happiest are probably the Gallente, after the second pass, just because they might no longer get laughed out of a fleet for bringing one of their ships (also, dat Hyperion). I would say that, if anything, the most disaffected are the Caldari, who are not even angry, just quiet and resigned. But then, at the battleship level, the problems the Caldari have are not related to the hulls, but to the offensive systems.

I agree that lasers are in a difficult place, stuck between lore and the way CCP has designed ships. But while Amarr guns may devour cap at outrageous rates, they get very good damage and very good damage projection. The popular blasters-to-lasers comparison ignores the fact that blaster boats spend a lot more time with their MWDs on just trying to get in range. Active tanked blaster boats with full tackle are the ship equivalent of a car with manual choke, clutch, and transmission. I'm not complaining: when I decided I really wanted to learn to fly, as opposed to lazily meandering around in a cap-stable mission boat, I fitted and flew an active-tanked blaster Brutix. I learned fast. If anything, I'd say that the Apoc took a hit to capacitor to wean people off the cap-stable PVE boat, because they're trying to move PVE fittings toward PVP fittings, and that means getting pilots used to cap management, cap boosters and RR.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Also, as for your Punisher statement. I haven't read my game manual in a while, but is there a part in there I missed where it says Amarr aren't allowed to have solo viable ships?


I missed the part where they don't. I don't know how you get from "the Punisher works better in fleets with tackle support" to "Amarr aren't allowed to have solo viable ships."

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#752 - 2013-04-26 22:21:35 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
How about 3% instead. 4% is still loads.


Why not differentaite the bonus by ship class? 3%/lvl might be appropriate for some ship classes, 4%/lvl for others, and 6%/lvl for others again. I'm thinking particularly that Deep Space Transports might benefit from an almost obscene bonus, such as 7.5%/lvl.

Making a blanket change from 5% to 4% is inferior to actually sitting down and thinking about it.

Overall, I don't feel strongly about it. Ships with 5%/lvl are sweet, but they'll remain sweet if reduced to 4%/lvl. I've got **** trained to 5 anyway...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#753 - 2013-04-27 03:27:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Quote:
Flip it around: What if CCP considers the tradeoffs involved in fitting an active tank to be the standard it wants to design to? The fact that there are no tradeoffs to a resist-bonused tank suddenly becomes a design problem.


Lol @ the concept. If that's the case, then just shoot the Tranquility server bank now and be done with it. If every ship started getting saddled with as much dead weight as active armor tank, they would lose tons of subs. People don't like feeling underpowered or over-costed. Which is really what a lot of this is about.

Also, the Gallente are happiest because Rise caved to their enormous whine at the start of their thread, and handed out some ludicrous buffs. QQ like I haven't seen since I quit WoW.

As you said, dat Hyperion. That thing is going to cause some headaches.

I will admit, as much as it hurts me to rhyme like this, that I feel sorry for the Caldari. They just can't avoid the nerf bat. Someone on the dev team truly hates them.

Edit: Also this.

Quote:
Obviously, that makes them popular, but that doesn't mean that CCP should leave them alone.


The exact same thing applies to Winmatar and their absurd alpha (and speed, and capless guns). But nothing is done about that. Because they would howl loud enough to collapse the Hoover Dam. So basically, they are immune because they are popular.

"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.
Dr Ted Kaper
Arondight
#754 - 2013-04-27 03:51:10 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
Overall a good change as some differintiation from local rep amount bonus was needed.

This change makes
<<< local rep weaker as required
<<< Remote rep weaker ( Not Required ) no easy solution
<<< Buffer HP weaker ( Not Required )

Buffer HP for resist bnoused ships should not be affected by this change as that is where resists bonuses are supposed to be better than Local Rep bonuses ( survive time in high damage as you stated )

The ships affected should get a 5% base shield or armor hp boost in compensation.



^ this is the answer to this problem^
I'm not sure if 5% is a good number as it will take a lot of math to find a properly balanced setup, but that's the right idea. As it retains the ehp quality, but lessens these ships incredible ability to use local and remote reps. Although I do fear that if this is not done perfectly it could spell the death of these ships being used in fleet combat, where ehp in the form of resists really hits its pinnacle.
Sante Ixnay
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#755 - 2013-04-27 04:03:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Sante Ixnay
CCP Fozzie wrote:


This affects 44 ships total.

Shield:
Ibis, Taipan, Merlin, Worm, Harpy, Cambion, Moa, Gila, Eagle, Onyx, Broadsword, Drake, Ferox, Nighthawk, Vulture, Tengu, Loki, Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk, Rokh, Scorpion Navy Issue, Rattlesnake, Chimera, Wyvern.

Armor:
Impairor, Punisher, Vengeance, Malice, Malediction, Maller, Sacrilege, Mimir, Vangel, Devoter, Phobos, Prophecy, Absolution, Damnation, Loki, Legion, Proteus, Abaddon, Archon, Aeon.

While the majority of ships on this list rank among the more powerful in their classes, some (like the Eagle, Nighthawk and Vulture for instance) are already suffering. Those ships have problems that we believe to be separate from their resistance bonuses, and we are working hard to resolve those problems in the near future. Having the resistance bonus in a more balanced place will make our path to improving those ships much clearer.


I don't think I understand that last sentence. Other than simplicity, I'm just not seeing the benefit of reducing the resistance bonus by the same amount for every ship, without taking into account their current state in the game.

Would it not make more sense to apply the nerf selectively? If you really feel you have to apply the change across the board, why not at least -defer- it on just those ships you deem to be underpowered already, bringing it online only when you're ready to show us the whole package of rebalances for each?
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#756 - 2013-04-27 04:33:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Vayn Baxtor
Quote:
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.


I like that this is being looked into but I must emphasize on the bold-text. I can only say: very true, very annoying. Game can get quite onesided and dull many times, and it usually starts mostly with "who's fielding more logistics ships". This is not always a win-win, but I've had a lot moments over the last two years where we could not take on intruders in 0.0 due to not having sufficient Logis. I know this has changed now that we have T1 Logis, but it is still an issue.


Anyhow, I like that there is math being done here.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#757 - 2013-04-27 13:37:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Vayn Baxtor wrote:
Quote:
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.


I like that this is being looked into but I must emphasize on the bold-text. I can only say: very true, very annoying. Game can get quite onesided and dull many times, and it usually starts mostly with "who's fielding more logistics ships". This is not always a win-win, but I've had a lot moments over the last two years where we could not take on intruders in 0.0 due to not having sufficient Logis. I know this has changed now that we have T1 Logis, but it is still an issue.


Anyhow, I like that there is math being done here.


I would have liked if there was logic being done here. I, and many others, wonder how making alpha even easier than it already is will discourage alpha.

Especially because lowering the ehp of ships that rose in popularity due to their being a counter to alpha fleet BS (and I don't mean battleships) will only encourage the tactic.

Furthermore, I take issue with remote reps being "some of the most fun gameplay". LOL-reps is just as mindless a tactic as LOL-alpha. You press F1. Ok, I admit it, with reps you probably also press F2 and F3... Roll

"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.
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#758 - 2013-04-27 14:47:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jezza McWaffle
Possibly a way to fix remote repping as I would say its a general consenus that the resistance bonus is not overpowered its remote reps when in large clusters. Thus leading to the Alpha strategy which is very dominant.

Seeing as sig radius can mean a fair amount in fights especially fleet ones. Possibly remote reps should have a stacking penalty, not a fixed one like after 10 RR's you lose... etc. But for each remote rep applied after 4 you lose 4% of the rep amount of that RR and the ship being repp'd gets a 4% bonus to its signature radius per RR after again 4. I think this might also help missiles being used more in large engagements since signature radius and speed effect missile damage alot.

Maybe an idea? Maybe not?

Numbers I just plucked from the air so dont rip into them. If you had a fleet with 6 guardians all repping 1 target thats about 24 large reps give or take. At 4% thats in increase of 96% sig res. I dont know if thats way to high, too low or whatever.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#759 - 2013-04-27 18:53:28 UTC
Jezza McWaffle wrote:
Possibly a way to fix remote repping as I would say its a general consenus that the resistance bonus is not overpowered its remote reps when in large clusters.
This does nothing to create space for ships with self repping bonuses vs. ships with resistance bonuses. The key feature here is that a ship with a self repping bonus should SELF rep a lot more than a ship with a resistance bonus.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#760 - 2013-04-27 19:07:04 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Jezza McWaffle wrote:
Possibly a way to fix remote repping as I would say its a general consenus that the resistance bonus is not overpowered its remote reps when in large clusters.
This does nothing to create space for ships with self repping bonuses vs. ships with resistance bonuses. The key feature here is that a ship with a self repping bonus should SELF rep a lot more than a ship with a resistance bonus.


Self rep ships don't need space cleared for them vs resist bonuses. They need to be cleared out of the way (read: deleted) so that game balance can actually be achieved.

That kind of crudworthy pve bonus doesn't belong in a discussion of pvp balance, pure and simple.

Furthermore, they do in fact rep more than resists in terms of raw numbers. It terms of imaginary numbers is where they fall behind, in terms of *effective* reps.

So what, do we just need to put a ship by ship resist maximum cap into the entire game, so this kind of crap isn't an issue?

Think about it. If every ship has a resist cap, it means that the rep ships put their spare slots into resistances, and the resist ships put their spare slots into reps, if they want to. Or the resist ships can put up big buffer and be bricks like they were before, but now it's a choice to be made.

It also would mean that T2 ships, with their inherently higher resist profiles, would have more slots available to dedicate to dps.

This of course would require a significant nerf to overall alpha in the game to insure that this effective ehp cap isn't taken into undue advantage.

"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.