These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#201 - 2016-02-13 01:28:36 UTC
yeah i derped.

But if freighters dont get the resist buff, some point down the line it begs a million threads in the way of 'why dont freighters have the same resists as other ships.' So get around that by nerfing freighter HP at the same time.

Assuming CCP dont want to buff freighter tanks *fingers crossed*

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#202 - 2016-02-13 01:56:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Violet Crumble wrote:
Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid.
I didn't say other opinions weren't valid, I just think you're being very selective about what constitutes a benefit. It's the equivalent of saying "insurance doesn't benefit me because I haven't crashed yet".

Violet Crumble wrote:
There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe.
You don't all the time you aren't being ganked. You sure as hell will use the EHP of your ship once you get picked out as a target and they suicide tackle then bump you before your webber gets you into warp.

Violet Crumble wrote:
And yes, of course AFK haulers will still be the primary target of gankers. I didn't say anything different. The balance between active, group based hauling and AFK hauling is still changed though for a situation that doesn't ever currently benefit from a Damage Control.

Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now.
So what's the problem? Balancing damage controls will provide a passive boost to all ships. A ship that used to be able to fit a DC can now fit another module instead and still maintain over half the benefit of a DC. As long as the change doesn't put an AFK pilot ahead of an equivalent active pilot, I don't see the problem.

Dom Arkaral wrote:
Afk don't need a buff
It'll just attract more bots
Bots are active, genius.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#203 - 2016-02-13 02:10:21 UTC
So, let's see, 40% of 67% is... 26.8%, plus 33%, yields 59.8%, which is basically identical to t2 now. That's cool.
SilentAsTheGrave
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#204 - 2016-02-13 02:19:34 UTC
This change is a lot more than just freighters. Not having to turn on the DC after every jump - yes please. Not to mention it now frees up a low slot if I want to experiment without having to sacrifice all hull resistances.
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
#205 - 2016-02-13 02:24:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Helene Fidard
I'm surprised there's only going to be one meta Damage Control rather than a better cpu/better resists split. I don't mind, but it doesn't seem typical of tiericide.

e: On reflection, I'm not keen on the 33% base resist buff at all. Yeah Damage Controls are usually a "must-fit", but when you choose not to fit one it's because the fit is stronger for it. You know what kind of ship I'm talking about. They don't need a buff to hull resists, or anything else.

Hey! I don't know about you

but I'm joining CTRL-Q

Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#206 - 2016-02-13 02:45:12 UTC
Helene Fidard wrote:
I'm surprised there's only going to be one meta Damage Control rather than a better cpu/better resists split. I don't mind, but it doesn't seem typical of tiericide.


They called it tiericide so people wouldn't realize fozzie was swinging the nerf bat again >:( a lot of the proposed changes have increased CPU requirements across the board.
Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2016-02-13 02:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Lucas Kell wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:
Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now.
So what's the problem? Balancing damage controls will provide a passive boost to all ships.

It's all outlined in my original post on this topic.

That feedback is already there and if CCP pick up on it and agree, then great. If they don't then ok, that's also fine.

However, I have no desire to enter into pointless circular discussion, which is the hallmark of discussions you get involved in, so I'll just leave it at the feedback I've provided.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Frayn Bantam
The Chasers
#208 - 2016-02-13 05:26:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Frayn Bantam
Just a quick paste from our jabber room, if CCP is even reading this thread here it is

Warr Akini wrote:

As a reminder of the history of suicide ganking nerfs in recent history:

-No GCC insurance
-Kill right revamp
-Suspect flag on 'illegal' looting
-Cannot loot can while warp drive engaged
-Lowslots on freighters (see: 700k EHP Anshars, and now 1m EHP Anshars)
-No incentive for Bowheads to run anything less than full tank
-Awoxing nerf
-Security status tick nerf
-Shifting HP from hull to armor and shield, buffing anti-ganking logistics
-Mining barge/exhumer straight EHP buff
-Sec status for aggression now is the same as if you killed the target
-Hyperdunking nerf

matched with what buffs exactly?

BTW it doesn't actually matter if any of those contradict with earlier nerfs, the fact is that they are all unchecked, unmatched changes that were explicitly intended to nerf ganking.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2016-02-13 06:10:00 UTC
Why not give freighters more CPU now? IIRC the reason they were kep low was to prevent them from fitting damage controls. Now you could just knock their hull HP down a bit to mesh with the hull resist bonus they're getting, and allow them to fit damage control as an option because it's no longer going to make quite as huge a difference.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2016-02-13 06:49:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
...Now you could just knock their hull HP down a bit to mesh with the hull resist bonus they're getting, and allow them to fit damage control as an option because it's no longer going to make quite as huge a difference.

Obviously, only Fozzie can answer that, but looking at the numbers, what real benefit would that provide as opposed to the current fitting option of bulkheads?

That is, if you are going for tank, then you would have the choice of a bulkhead or a DC in one of the slots.

A bulkhead provides +25% hull HP.

If 33% resist is added to the hull HP via resists, that 25% becomes 33% additional hull EHP.

A DCII will provide +40% resist bonus.

If you then also drop hull HP to compensate, you end up just in the same spot as using the extra bulkhead.

(40% resist bonus - X hull HP) versus (33% additional hull EHP)

Why go with a really messy, multiple change option, that provides no different outcome to what is already possible?

I don't know if I explained that well, but effectively the numbers suggest there is no real benefit in fitting a DC compared to a Bulkhead. The end result is ballpark the same.

There is a potential downside to that approach however, in that reducing base HP will also reduce the effectiveness of bulkheads. You can fit 3 bulkheads, but only 1 DC. So every point of hull HP that you reduce a ship by, you potentially nerf it because bulkhead bonuses are reduced on all bulkheads you fit. Depending on fitting, you could end up in a situation where Freighters are actually nerfed compared to now by adopting this proposal.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#211 - 2016-02-13 10:40:52 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules

Why?
Please dont.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#212 - 2016-02-13 10:49:19 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
This change is a lot more than just freighters. Not having to turn on the DC after every jump - yes please. Not to mention it now frees up a low slot if I want to experiment without having to sacrifice all hull resistances.


The big issue with freighters in this is that they are getting buffed to compensate for the nerf to DCU (a mod they cant fit in the first place) and with the size of the structure hitpoints as huge as it is and with the main way of tanking being bulkheads it means this buff is massive on freighters. Add into this the fact the freighters have already been buffed to compensate for the lack of a DCU when they had their teircide the other year this means they are getting buffed twice for the lack of a DCU.

Freighters are the extreme and the most obvious example of why a direct buff to hull resists on all ships is not a very good idea. I honestly think no ships need even more built in tank and that this DCU idea needs to be scrapped and rethought.


I mean, off the top of my head if CCP want to make the DCU less powerful why not split it up into shield/armour/structure mods so you can select which area of tank you want. You could then add more faction and officer mods and spread them around to provide even more options in the LP markets too. This way you don't have to give an arbitrary buff to everything that will be overpowered on a number of ships out there.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#213 - 2016-02-13 10:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Why not give freighters more CPU now? IIRC the reason they were kep low was to prevent them from fitting damage controls. Now you could just knock their hull HP down a bit to mesh with the hull resist bonus they're getting, and allow them to fit damage control as an option because it's no longer going to make quite as huge a difference.
IIRC they didn't want freighters to have the ability to fit a DC. They also did a balance pass when fittings were added and ended up at the EHP they deemed correct.

There is no justification for an EHP increase, as they were never intended to be able to fit this module.

But let's not lose sight of other issues. Freighters are not the only problem here and that's why this idea needs a complete rethink.
It's lazy and quite frankly looks like it was done, for the sake of doing something to the DC. Rather than it needed to be done.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#214 - 2016-02-13 11:20:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
This change is a lot more than just freighters. Not having to turn on the DC after every jump - yes please. Not to mention it now frees up a low slot if I want to experiment without having to sacrifice all hull resistances.


The big issue with freighters in this is that they are getting buffed to compensate for the nerf to DCU (a mod they cant fit in the first place) and with the size of the structure hitpoints as huge as it is and with the main way of tanking being bulkheads it means this buff is massive on freighters. Add into this the fact the freighters have already been buffed to compensate for the lack of a DCU when they had their teircide the other year this means they are getting buffed twice for the lack of a DCU.

Freighters are the extreme and the most obvious example of why a direct buff to hull resists on all ships is not a very good idea. I honestly think no ships need even more built in tank and that this DCU idea needs to be scrapped and rethought.


I mean, off the top of my head if CCP want to make the DCU less powerful why not split it up into shield/armour/structure mods so you can select which area of tank you want. You could then add more faction and officer mods and spread them around to provide even more options in the LP markets too. This way you don't have to give an arbitrary buff to everything that will be overpowered on a number of ships out there.

No, structure resists are being buffed specifically to buff freighter EHP as a counter to the buff to wreck HP. As dumb as that is. The Damage Control is being nerfed so that resists with one fit will stay the same as before.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2016-02-13 12:58:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Fraxxton wrote:
Now look at that. Two thirds of this thread got deleted - not even moved elsewhere, but actually deleted - because it was not the type of feedback CCP wanted? I now feel silly that I have spent time trying to figure out how modified resist profiles and a passive DCU would affect gameplay. Somebody might later unilaterally decide that my conclusions from this work are unwanted too, so I am not going to bother posting them here (not that I believe to be able to offer super extra special insight, mind you).

"Do what you want, you're going to do it anyway."


The AG mob turned it into a shitfest as they always do without posting anything helpful, just "hur dur tearz". That the posts countering them had actual feedback dosn't halt the fact that CCP will delete them as they were quoting drivel. Best tactic we can do from now is continue to post facts and numbers to back up our case and if the AG mob try to derail again with shitposting just posts the stats again and tell them to stfu and get constructive.

We had the same type of people in the battleship tiercide thread and the best tactic we found was to post fits and results of the changes on said fits and every time one of them popped up spouting rubbish we shot them down with facts and continued debating the changes in a constructive manner that resulted in several changes being made.


I'm sorry, but from the perspective of an outsider, both parties are responsible for the disaster that this thread has been. It's only served as a distraction for people attempting to argue the merits of this change where, in terms of the number of players it applies to, matters most. The discourse between the ganking and anti-ganking communities has been reprehensible and you've been collectively punished for your behavior, and rightfully so.

Also, I'm curious as to what your reasoning behind saying that this is an unwarrented buff to non industrial ships is. The structure buff applies to all ships equally, and making the DC less mandatory for combat fits will eventually increase the diversity of fittings for most classes of ships. I've seen a few people argue that kiting builds like the slicer or tristan (which is still somewhat OP) will benefit more from this change, but brawling and scram kiting and brawling fits, such as the beam tormentor or merlin, will now have a greater viability when fitting a second damage mod instead of a DC. Releasing the tormentor from the requirement of fitting a DC gives players a fantastic new opportunity to fit their ship in a surprising way. That's not a bad thing at all.

Some people have pointed out that making the DC passive is a de-facto buff to afk t1 and t2 haulers, and it might be; to be completely honest I do share the concerns voiced over AFK gameplay. For other players though, it's simply an annoyance. It's just one more thing you have to do every time you're expecting combat and serves no function other than triviality. If the cap costs were significant, or it were an overheatable module, I would feel differently about this, but it's not. It's just too similar to passive hardeners to justify it not being passive itself.

Saying that these changes are lazy is selling the devs short. They've come up with a good solution the the ubiquity of the DC without obsoleting it and at the same time made new fits possible.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#216 - 2016-02-13 13:42:12 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Saying that these changes are lazy is selling the devs short. They've come up with a good solution the the ubiquity of the DC without obsoleting it and at the same time made new fits possible.
No, these changes are lazy, at least in regard to freighters.

Raising the bar across the board to attack them, for no demonstrable reason (they could just reduce the structure HP to compensate for the 33% resistance if they wanted) is a lazy way to balance freighter safety/vulnerability in highsec. It makes everyone safer, even AFK players, at zero cost or trade-off to these players. In other words, a straight-out nerf to criminal players in highsec.

If CCP deemed freighters were dying too frequently in highsec, there are a myriad of changes one can imagine to make active freighter hauling safer. Instead, they are apparently going with the lazy choice of just making it cost more for anyone to attack them. This devalues the work of active haulers, forcing them to compete more with the already-very-safe-but-now-even-safer AFK haulers, reduces the amount of destruction of industrial ships decreasing the value of the work of the industrialists who built these ships and the goods that are lost when they are destroyed, and makes it even harder for criminals to gather sufficient players to even try to attack them. In short, it removes reasons and the ability for many different types of players to play the game, for no reason, or at least no reason that was provided by CCP Fozzie in the OP (and no, it is not an unavoidable side-effect of these changes despite how he presented it).

I encourage CCP to reconsider. If they really think freighter hauling is getting too dangerous, they should consider some other change that does not just increase the number of AFK haulers, silently plying the trade routes safe behind massive EHP walls from attack from all but the largest groups in the game, further sucking the life and conflict out of highsec.

Fraxxton
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#217 - 2016-02-13 14:17:46 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
The discourse between the ganking and anti-ganking communities has been reprehensible and you've been collectively punished for your behavior, and rightfully so.

I respectfully disagree, in my opinion punishment is completely uncalled for. Also, while I admit I sometimes feel like banging stupid peoples' heads together, I try to keep the following maxim in mind:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, meant to paraphrase Voltaire's words in the Essay on Tolerance — "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.")
Astecus
Astral Providence
Astral Battles
#218 - 2016-02-13 16:00:15 UTC
As someone using EFT/Pyfa a lot, I love DCs becoming more optional on most ships. This makes fitting more fun! It becoming passive is also a very welcome change, and also makes them more interesting to fit on cloaked ships.

As the creator of the Anti-ganking channel and Anti-ganking.net, I must admit I'm surprised by this sudden significant buff to freighter EHP though. It makes me wonder if this is a workaround for having trouble finding a good fix for horribly overpowered bumping that often supertackle freighters for hours. Bumping seems difficult to fix, as I still haven't heard about a solution that I really believe in. But it really needs a fix, and when it gets one, I believe freighter ganking will change quite dramatically, more than this big buff to EHP will cause. But until then, this EHP buff might serve as a workaround, albeit not a good one, as it for instance doesn't affect the orca or bowhead that much, two ships that are also often supertackled by bumping (since they should always fit DC previously anyway).

Regarding the IFFA, I do believe raising it from 17 to 20 CPU will break several of my fits. That said, a CPU difference of over 43% between it and T2 is quite a lot, so it's understandable you want to close this gap somewhat. And since some hull resist will be kept, breaking some fits might be an acceptable loss. And I just realized that it might take some time before I get used to all the new options from new faction/officer DCs.

A comment to some gankers here - freighters should never be balanced around being profitable to gank, as this turns them into mainly a resource to be exploited, similar to rats. The thing about rats is that they don't have feelings and a playstyle that should be respected. Sometimes freighters decide to haul enough to give gankers a profit opportunity, but balancing should never be about giving gankers the ability to expect a steady stream of such opportunities. That would turn ganking into 'ratting'.

Reloaded Main: Astevon | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net

Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#219 - 2016-02-13 16:12:27 UTC
Astecus wrote:
As someone using EFT/Pyfa a lot, I love DCs becoming more optional on most ships. This makes fitting more fun! It becoming passive is also a very welcome change, and also makes them more interesting to fit on cloaked ships.

As the creator of the Anti-ganking channel and Anti-ganking.net, I must admit I'm surprised by this sudden significant buff to freighter EHP though. It makes me wonder if this is a workaround for having trouble finding a good fix for horribly overpowered bumping that often supertackle freighters for hours. Bumping seems difficult to fix, as I still haven't heard about a solution that I really believe in. But it really needs a fix, and when it gets one, I believe freighter ganking will change quite dramatically, more than this big buff to EHP will cause. But until then, this EHP buff might serve as a workaround, albeit not a good one, as it for instance doesn't affect the orca or bowhead that much, two ships that are also often supertackled by bumping (since they should always fit DC previously anyway).

Regarding the IFFA, I do believe raising it from 17 to 20 CPU will break several of my fits. That said, a CPU difference of over 43% between it and T2 is quite a lot, so it's understandable you want to close this gap somewhat. And since some hull resist will be kept, breaking some fits might be an acceptable loss. And I just realized that it might take some time before I get used to all the new options from new faction/officer DCs.

A comment to some gankers here - freighters should never be balanced around being profitable to gank, as this turns them into mainly a resource to be exploited, similar to rats. The thing about rats is that they don't have feelings and a playstyle that should be respected. Sometimes freighters decide to haul enough to give gankers a profit opportunity, but balancing should never be about giving gankers the ability to expect a steady stream of such opportunities. That would turn ganking into 'ratting'.


Eve isn't a place that worries about feelings too much, but to tell you the truth, what real life cops would stop the aggressor, then let his buddies haul off the goods? Maybe Concord should recover the loot from illegal kills and return it to its owner.

You could still gank to harrass your enemies' supply lines, get some vengeance, whatever. You just wouldn't profit from it. Unless the target was legally shootable, of course.

Do not run. We are your friends.

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#220 - 2016-02-13 16:18:57 UTC
Tyranis Marcus wrote:
Eve isn't a place that worries about feelings too much, but to tell you the truth, what real life cops would stop the aggressor, then let his buddies haul off the goods? Maybe Concord should recover the loot from illegal kills and return it to its owner.


EVE is a GAME. What exactly is FUN about real life cops?