Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.

The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense
Let me explain this clearly before people chime in:

A ship with a 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage will receive 50 damage

A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 60% resistance, and therefore take 40 damage.

That means you take a 20% reduction in damage. This goes back to bad development where devs think % resistance works in some magical fashion rather than realistically. Hence the nerf to 4% per level recently as a compromise to active boosters. Proof the Devs don't know **** about mechanics. In truth, this only accounts for that specific ship.... with no relation to the rest of the eve environment.

The only time a resist bonus actually matters the way the Devs run numbers is when you start at 0% resist across the board comparing 2 different ships. This hardly ever happens as a matter of base statistics on all ships.

Furthering the problem is Tech 2 resistances. A Tech 2 ship with a 20% resist bonus does not actually receive 20% less damage than a comparable tech 1 ship. Instead, it receives 20% less damage than a comparable ship with the same base resistances. 2 totally different mechanics at play.

How is this bad for Tech 2 balance. Well lets further examine the claymore / nighthawk conundrum I posted about earlier.

Claymore without any bonuses has 220 total resist for an average of 55
Nighthawk with bonuses has a 240 total resist for an average of 60% damage reduction

Lets use really lazy math since it provides easy to work with numbers

100 damage applied on the claymore nets 45 damage
100 damage applied on the nighthawk nets 40 damage.

2 ways of looking at this:

Offensively, I have 12.5% more projected damage versus the claymore.*

Defensively, the nighthawk is receiving 8.9% less damage than the claymore.*

*this is a ratio mechanic that causes 2 different values. It seems weird at first until you realize how the wording plays.
One is how much more damage is the claymore taking compared to the NH (ratio of C:NH). The other is how much less damage is the Nighthawk taking compared to the Claymore (ratio of NH:C)

Both ways show that in no way do you approach 20% reduced damage, and certainly not higher than 20% reduced damage. However the Developers will try to convince you that this is not true because in Imagination land, they are allowed to assume all resistances are 0 to start with and there's no such thing as diminished returns in EVE.

Fact is, the gaps that Caldari and Gallente have are far inferior to the more spread, resist gap fills of the Amarr and Matar. When you make 2 similar ships with other drastically severe balance problems like the NH and Claymore, this resist gap really shows how bad the balance is.

So glad our developers can post on here how smart they are about their mechanics and how closely they sit to each other in the office to assure us they know what they're doing. Maybe you should learn core mechanics and fundamentals of the game first.

This is just another in a long line of failures.

Yep. How I'd play it would depend entirely on how the Ravens/Phoons were set up.

Terrible changes shame on you Fozzie

yeah, the devs aren't doing any misinformation of their own :-/

PLEASE give one gallente ship a resistance bonus. armour rep amount is useless in a larger fleet.

please please please please please please!!!!!!!!

As much as like like keeping the 10% armor amount bonus, this will do less damage than a sacrelige (499 damn vs 516 sac)
For upping the abso's resistances and base armor amount, I just can't see the trade-off. Most of the other CS's look like heavy dps platforms that can also stay on field a little longer, but the Damnation still looks like the sole ship for boosting only. Could we get that 10% damage changed to a ROF bonus? I was really really hoping to have a HAM spewing monster in the new damnation.

Such as? Are they posting stats while claiming they're completely different? Can you link me to the post where a Dev says that a ship gets 100k EHP but only gets 50k EHP in a maximum tank setup with perfect boosts? Can you share with me the post where a Dev claims that a ship will get 15 effective turrets where it only gets 10?

It's one thing for them to think that things will be fine and post their belief in the matter. It's another to perform the calculations incorrectly and spread incorrect information.

Not a giant fan of these changes, sorry to say :(

Also, Nighthawk .vs Vulture...

Nighthawk:
Signature radius: 285
Cargo capacity: 700

Vulture:
Signature radius: 285
Cargo capacity: 400 (+55)

Claymore:
Signature radius: 240

Why does the Claymore have such a smaller sig rad?

Why does the Vulture have ~half the cargo of a Nighthawk?

NICE CHANGES. ILOVE IT

CCP FOZZIE.


is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200

NIGHTHAWK
Fittings: 825 PWG (+115)