These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
The Great Leader
#161 - 2013-04-12 20:06:46 UTC
Care to give the Loki a second thought on this? It doesn't have a great tank to begin with and is getting hit the worst out of all t3s since the rest can choose from a buffer or resist bonus but poor Loki only has resist bonus available. Granted, it can fit for either shield or armor but the slot choices are less than ideal on both subsystems.

The voice of truth.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#162 - 2013-04-12 20:07:05 UTC
As some have suggested, why not have the resist bonus "resist" incoming remote reps but not affect local reps' strength, where the hull bonus (37.5%) and resist bonus (~33%) are on parity. Then, you'd end up with ships that are better at receiving remote reps (the ships with local repair bonuses) and those ships that are better at buffer (the resist bonus hulls). Both ships would have a use in fleets, where ships are likely to have remote reps but could still stand to use a buffer, as well as in small gangs where local tanks may be used but buffer is still as important.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#163 - 2013-04-12 20:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
I can't argue with the general idea. However I feel like suggesting to approach ships on case-by-case basis. Some of the ships on the list (mostly armor bonused frigs and maybe some cruisers) are strongly in "meh" territory due to general issues of armor tanking small ships, among other things like their underwhelming offensive performance. In other cases we can see that ships with bonused "layer" just have too little HP in that layer (compare stats of amarr AFs and HACs for example, not only armor bonused ships have significantly less structure, but also thin armor and slot layout that tend towards middle ground). Of cource those ships aren't rebalanced yet, so maybe there are other options to keep those ships great even with 4% bonus.

Most ships on the list probably deserve it, however.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#164 - 2013-04-12 20:11:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Extending armor and shield repair bonuses to apply to remote reps would bring them much closer to balance with resist bonuses, but would also further empower the current remote rep tactics that are as strong as we feel we can allow them to be.

    • You have your solution here, just nerf the remote reppers ability slightly as they are already pretty much OP. Why couldn't you do this?

    If you are going with the 5% resist nerf it will result into this:

    1. Yet another slap to our face
    2. Doesn't fix really the core problem, just swept under the carpet
    3. Creates more balancing issues...
    Tom Gerard
    Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
    #165 - 2013-04-12 20:12:41 UTC
    Interdictors cannot be repped....

    Now with 100% less Troll.
    Askulf Joringer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #166 - 2013-04-12 20:14:49 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you feel strongly about this change, either liking or disliking it, you should vote for CSM 8 and tell your representatives how you feel. CSM 8 will be taking office before the launch of Odyssey.
    Vote from now until April 18th here.


    This is something I strongly disagree with from a game development standpoint. Much of the CSM election has to do with internal and meta influences well beyond that of the goal of "overall game health". Many of the CSMs have personal and corporate/powerblock goals in mind. Leave it to discussions in which the entire community can partake in (forums) or up to the internal discretion of the balance team.
    Naomi Knight
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #167 - 2013-04-12 20:19:22 UTC
    Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change.
    Liang Nuren
    No Salvation
    Divine Damnation
    #168 - 2013-04-12 20:27:01 UTC
    Naomi Knight wrote:
    Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change.


    So... a heal debuff? Lol

    -Liang

    I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
    Askulf Joringer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #169 - 2013-04-12 20:27:12 UTC
    Naomi Knight wrote:
    Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change.


    ?

    I fail to see how this change is bad in any form. The modest decrease in ehp/self rep/ remote rep that will be experienced by ships with this resistance bonus is hardly game breaking at any level. The undeniable reality is that this nerf is needed and HAS been needed for years. It's something that has been talked about by veteran pvpers since like forever.

    I again ask that the community try and separate themselves from their personal bias and do their best to look at the health of the game as a whole.



    Now to comment on your actual suggestion rather than the "even that would be better" remark. Some form of Ewar that would have a modest effect on the amount of RR received could very well be a great solution. Currently there comes a point when fielding many logi that the fights are just far too uneventful. Long fights are fun and all but when it comes down to a fleet of 100 having the proper fleet comp not even loosing a single ship to a fleet of 70 that may not have as many logi in a brawl, something is inherently broken in the overall mechanics of RR Fleet warfare.
    Van Mathias
    Dead Space Continuum
    #170 - 2013-04-12 20:30:19 UTC
    No argument that this particular area needs adjustment, we are just arguing over where the adjustment should be made, and how. As it stands, the current suggestion of the 1% nerf to hull bonuses is deeply unpopular with those people who actually fly those hulls. CCP should consider this significant. I am hoping that this nerf will be implemented in another fashion.

    Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
    Maximus Andendare
    Stimulus
    Rote Kapelle
    #171 - 2013-04-12 20:32:10 UTC
    Askulf Joringer wrote:
    Naomi Knight wrote:
    Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change.


    ?

    I fail to see how this change is bad in any form. The modest decrease in ehp/self rep/ remote rep that will be experienced by ships with this resistance bonus is hardly game breaking at any level. The undeniable reality is that this nerf is needed and HAS been needed for years. It's something that has been talked about by veteran pvpers since like forever.

    I again ask that the community try and separate themselves from their personal bias and do their best to look at the health of the game as a whole.



    Now to comment on your actual suggestion rather than the "even that would be better" remark. Some form of Ewar that would have a modest effect on the amount of RR received could very well be a great solution. Currently there comes a point when fielding many logi that the fights are just far too uneventful. Long fights are fun and all but when it comes down to a fleet of 100 having the proper fleet comp not even loosing a single ship to a fleet of 70 that may not have as many logi in a brawl, something is inherently broken in the overall mechanics of RR Fleet warfare.
    This change is bad in this form because it hurts all ships equally, when not all ships needed the nerf. There are very valid examples--such as HICs--that would do fine with the higher resists, because their playstyle makes them huge targets and they benefit the most from the buffer. Other ships--*cough Drake*--could stand a nerf. But a sweeping policy that affects all ships, even those who are nonoffenders, is a bad way to handle it.

    Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

    >> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #172 - 2013-04-12 20:32:26 UTC
    Van Mathias wrote:
    But here is the thing, ships with rep bonuses don't rely on active buffers/resists to sustain their tanks. Not to mention that a reduction in resists affects them a lot less right out, since resists increases are based on the remaining potential percentage of nonresistance. A ship that only has 40% resists will only lose out 2% on a 5% reduction of resists, while a ship that has 80% resists loses 4% resistance bonus or more, on top of the fact that resist ships don't tend to have as much base HP as rep ships.

    To recap 40% - 2% = 38%, the increase in applied damage being about 1% - 2% more
    and 80%- 4% - 76%, the increase in applied damage in this case being 16% - 20% more


    Ships with rep bonuses absolutely utilize resists to enhance their own reps... and they need enough buffer to last between reps.

    FYI: a 5% resist bonus == a 7.5% rep bonus (not exact, but very close).
    Rep bonus == 37.5% increase in reps...
    Resist bonus == 25% reduction in damage, which means reps effectively heal 1/.75 = 33.3% more than non-bonused reps.
    New Resist bonus == 20% reduction in damage, which means reps effectively heal 1/.8 = 25% more than non-bonused reps.

    This change essentially means rep bonus ships heal 12.5% more effectively, helping them re-claim the active-rep niche. Furthermore, resist bonused ships will still be optimal for buffer tanks and receiving remote reps, but the changes bring them down a "small notch" so other non-resist-bonused hulls can potentially compete (especially those with double weapon bonuses).
    MukkBarovian
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #173 - 2013-04-12 20:34:29 UTC
    The changes are fine. The complaints about the bad ships that get nerfed not deserving it underline the need to balance them more than the problem with the nerf. So much of the balancing lately has been buffs. Especially in the cruiser department. Those cruisers that haven't yet seen 'balancing' will desperately need it after Odyssey.

    Van Mathias
    Dead Space Continuum
    #174 - 2013-04-12 20:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
    I don't see why those ships that need more buffer in the face of the bonus couldn't receive more Shield or Armor HP. After all, if they need buffer, than more buffer can be applied that way, no need to alter resist ships to change that. These 2 issues are really orthogonal to each other. Nerfing resist mods and increasing the base HP of buffer ships is something that could be done at the same time.

    Also, I didn't say that rep ships don't get a benefit from resists, only that they don't rely on them the same way resist ships do.

    Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
    Gridreign741
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #175 - 2013-04-12 20:38:58 UTC
    new player nerf, weird
    Askulf Joringer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #176 - 2013-04-12 20:38:58 UTC
    Van Mathias wrote:
    No argument that this particular area needs adjustment, we are just arguing over where the adjustment should be made, and how. As it stands, the current suggestion of the 1% nerf to hull bonuses is deeply unpopular with those people who actually fly those hulls. CCP should consider this significant. I am hoping that this nerf will be implemented in another fashion.


    Health of the game is > than popularity, especially when the proposal being "unpopular" is almost entirely based on personal bias.

    The comments about certain ships needed a 5% more than a 4% may very well be valid however there are better ways to improve the survivability of these ships other than mixing up the consistency of bonuses that is almost always found (yes 7.5% and 10% to rep bonus is an example of an inconsistency)

    I still very strongly support fozzie and his teams choice of nerfing the bonus, it's been a long time coming and once people get beyond foolish bias, they will come around just as many of them have come around to previously unpopular healthy changes.
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #177 - 2013-04-12 20:39:58 UTC
    Johnson Oramara wrote:

    You have your solution here, just nerf the remote reppers ability slightly as they are already pretty much OP. Why couldn't you do this?
    Doesn't create enough space between self-repping bonused ships and self-repping resistance bonused ships.
    Van Mathias
    Dead Space Continuum
    #178 - 2013-04-12 20:42:41 UTC
    So sayeth the Minmatar player, who stands to gain in every way from this, as opposed to a small time Rokh pilot, who will be drastically effected negatively by this change. I don't run in megablobs, or often have access to an OGB and/or booster.

    Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
    Johnson Oramara
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #179 - 2013-04-12 20:46:40 UTC
    X Gallentius wrote:
    Johnson Oramara wrote:

    You have your solution here, just nerf the remote reppers ability slightly as they are already pretty much OP. Why couldn't you do this?
    Doesn't create enough space between self-repping bonused ships and self-repping resistance bonused ships.

    So what is the problem to raise the bonus for them then if it is an issue?
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #180 - 2013-04-12 20:47:52 UTC
    Van Mathias wrote:
    So sayeth the Minmatar player, who stands to gain in every way from this, as opposed to a small time Rokh pilot, who will be drastically effected negatively by this change. I don't run in megablobs, or often have access to an OGB and/or booster.

    So just for you and your specific use of the Rokh balance should be ignore for tanking bonuses?