These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#281 - 2016-02-13 21:15:04 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
There may be differences in what is considered an important quality and clearly the RFF (Blue FF to include collateral >1 Billion) is not a measure of risk achieved by the whole hauling population. It's representative of RFF (and Blue and Black if you include those figures) and a good measure of the overall safety that can be achieved by anyone.


Again you are leaving out the critical assumption here; really the single biggest point of contention on this argument. It is a measure of overall safety that can be achieved by anyone provided the only high-sec contracts that ever need to be flown are those that fit under RFF policies. Is limiting all high-sec freight to the equivalent RFF policies to ensure that level of safety a fair and balanced set of mechanics? Now THAT is an interesting argument, but not one I personally care all that much about.

This also, of course, ignores completely the knock-on effects of adapting ganker playstyle if this limitation were to be somehow hard-enforced. We know gankers will hit high-sec haulers that are empty or not profitable; if ALL high-sec freight traffic followed RFF policies, would it remain as safe as the RFF subset within the current higher-risk traffic today? Or would the risk just normalize across the general population again and the low-risk players like RFF see an uptick in ganks?

Fascinating stuff there really, but mostly academic from my perspective.

I'm still fundamentally far more annoyed by the uselessness of T1/M0 items across the board of all tiericide Evil
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#282 - 2016-02-13 21:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Lucas Kell wrote:


Daichi Yamato wrote:
On the contrary, they are a pretty good and representative sample.
Yep, about the same as using statistics of formula 1 drivers to determine how good members of the general population are at racing. Beyond that it's actually likely that by RFF going to extra measures to makes themselves less likely to be chosen as a target, other freighters have a higher chance of being ganked. If RFF were the only people flying freighters you would likely see an increase there too, because nothing they do makes them immune to ganks.

At the end of the day it's impossible to be ungankable both before and after the change.


Except red frog pilots are outsourced. They are freighter pilots like you and me. Not trained professionals lol.

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

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#283 - 2016-02-13 21:16:32 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
...

Again, and as you've admited yourself, RFF data is representative of RFF.

As I also said, it's also representative of the level of risk that anyone can achieve.

It's not just unique to RFF. Anyone can achieve the same outcome as them, so it is representative beyond RFF, to anyone that manages risk effectively and every single one of us is able to do that.

That can be ignored, but it is still true.

The additional data that comes out shortly (which anyone will be able to verify independently by watching all the video back again), will be representative of the whole population. It's analysis from different sides should be fun to follow.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#284 - 2016-02-13 21:18:13 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Except red frog pilots are outsourced. They are freighter pilots like you and me. Not trained professionals lol.


Even if they were trained professionals, they are using the exact same skills, tools and mechanics we all have access to.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#285 - 2016-02-13 21:24:14 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Again you are leaving out the critical assumption here; really the single biggest point of contention on this argument. It is a measure of overall safety that can be achieved by anyone provided the only high-sec contracts that ever need to be flown are those that fit under RFF policies.

I haven't left out anything at all. My statements have been consistent that the RFF data is representative of the level of risk that can be achieved by anyone.

No assumptions have been omitted, but the willingness of others to completely dismiss that conclusion, while claiming at the same time that it is so easy to just drop into Udeama and see the problem, offering no evidence themselves, prompted me to go collect data myself because this endless whining is pointless.

That data will be published shortly and is representative of the whole population passing through Uedama and Niarja (which conservatively makes the data as biased as possible towards the assumption that bumping and ganking are problems that require mechanics changes).
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#286 - 2016-02-13 21:24:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
...

Again, and as you've admited yourself, RFF data is representative of RFF.

As I also said, it's also representative of the level of risk that anyone can achieve.


It's representative of the level of risk that anyone can achieve provided the general statistical ecosystem of freighter pilots providing all other hauling doesn't change significantly. That's great and all, except that if the entire high-sec hauling industry were to actually fly under RFF policy to reduce their risk, the actual result on ganking #'s would be unpredictable.

RFF stats are NOT in any way representative of the potential across-the-board safety for all high-sec haulers as a whole, because the minute every hauler started flying like that the landscape will have changed significantly, changing up the balance completely.

The actual risk to high-sec freight today includes all haulers, not just RFF. Only CCP has that #, for the most part. If everyone started flying like RFF, neither the current global # NOR the RFF # would remain stable or accurate to the new ecosystem. Arguing that if everyone flew like RFF then everyone would enjoy the CURRENT RFF risk % is a non-starter.

EDIT: You are basically zooming in on one portion of a large system, then saying "if we scaled this up and replaced the entire system with just this, it would continue to be accurate". That's an obviously absurd assumption, I'm not even sure why I'd need to point it out.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#287 - 2016-02-13 21:27:18 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
...

Again, and as you've admited yourself, RFF data is representative of RFF.

As I also said, it's also representative of the level of risk that anyone can achieve.


It's representative of the level of risk that anyone can achieve provided the general statistical ecosystem of freighter pilots providing all other hauling doesn't change significantly. That's great and all, except that if the entire high-sec hauling industry were to actually fly under RFF policy to reduce their risk, the actual result on ganking #'s would be unpredictable.

RFF stats are NOT in any way representative of the potential across-the-board safety for all high-sec haulers as a whole, because the minute every hauler started flying like that the landscape will have changed significantly, changing up the balance completely.

The actual risk to high-sec freight today includes all haulers, not just RFF. Only CCP has that #, for the most part. If everyone started flying like RFF, neither the current global # NOR the RFF # would remain stable or accurate to the new ecosystem. Arguing that if everyone flew like RFF then everyone would enjoy the CURRENT RFF risk % is a non-starter.



Got any evidence this is going to happen?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#288 - 2016-02-13 21:28:19 UTC
As a side note, Could anyone give me a valid reason to buff the Avatar with 33% more structure resists?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#289 - 2016-02-13 21:30:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
CCP are not increasing firepower so no, they don't lose out at all.
Of course they do, if all other ships were made faster except one, that ship would be losing out. Additionally, ganking ships will also be buffed, so they will have more time if being fired on by players, making freighter escorts less effective.

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Not to mention freighters could never fit dcu
So what if they couldn't fit a DCU?

ALL ships are being buffed. The ships that did use a DCU will now gain 33% resists and can either choose to fit a new DCU, making them slightly stronger than with the old DCUs, or they can fit a completely different module, keeping the new resists and making them even better than before in another area. Ships that can't fit DCUs are getting less of a buff as they don't get the extra free lowslot.

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
so reducing base hull hp would be better
Personally I think putting the change though and people just adapting to the increase with a bit of effort would be better. When did EVE turn from "HTFU" to "Oh no, that will mean my activity is marginally harder than it used to be so don't do it"? The FAX skills just got scrapped because people can't deal with having new skills for new ships too. At some point people need to just accept that change is inevitable and adapt.

baltec1 wrote:
Even if they were trained professionals, they are using the exact same skills, tools and mechanics we all have access to.
Yes, but the statistics derived from trained professionals would be different from the statistics for the general population. You cherry picked your stats because they say what you want them to say, which is why they are irrelevant. If I start up a group and we all fly friehgters like idiots getting killed all the time you'd say "yeah but they weren't doing it right". Your stats are effectively the same but the other way.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#290 - 2016-02-13 21:31:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Lena Lazair wrote:
Arguing that if everyone flew like RFF then everyone would enjoy the CURRENT RFF risk % is a non-starter.


Its actually the difference between:

- Ganking is not a problem. If people weren't dumb and/or lazy, they'd have a 99.9% success rate.

- Ganking is a problem. Even when making effort to reduce their risk, they still lose a freighter in 1/1000 times.

edit-Thats why i at least am focussing on it. Its not like the rules red frog use are hard for the greater population to follow.

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

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#291 - 2016-02-13 21:31:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Got any evidence this is going to happen?


Doesn't matter.

All that matters is that IN THE CURRENT ECOSYSTEM, CCP has a # for the risk of high-sec freighter ganking that we mere mortals have a pretty hard time approximating ourselves with the data on hand. Given that #, CCP is saying a 50% buff to freighters is reasonable. Whatever that number is, it's NOT the RFF #. Arguing that, if all high-sec hauling were replaced solely by RFF hauling, the number RFF sees now would become the new global #, is absurd on the face of it. No sufficiently complex and dynamic system behaves in such a simple manner.

Now, whether the # CCP has actually warrants a 50% buff or not is a totally different matter, one that is really hard to argue because we don't have the # CCP has. But arguing over the RFF number as though it could be scaled up is totally pointless as well, because it can't.
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#292 - 2016-02-13 21:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Fractal
This is a warning to the people currently participating in the discussion. Since the thread has been unlocked, the past 3 to 4 pages have been solely a discussion on the merit or lack thereof of a sample of data from Red Frog. This is not the appropriate place to discuss sample sizes and representative samples of the population. Please leave the dead horse alone and move on to giving constructive feedback on damage control tiericide, or I will have to remove the last few pages worth of discussion.

Edit: this discussion ends here, I'm removing any posts from here on out that try to continue that line of conversation.

ISD Fractal

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Anthar Thebess
#293 - 2016-02-13 21:41:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
33% passive structure buff to battleships is to big, the same apply to all ships above.
Don't give passive resist to structure, ships need to die.
Maybe give freighters dedicated damage control that will give 33% structure resists, that will require no CPU.

We also need visible information that DCU is on specific ship without ship scanner.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#294 - 2016-02-13 21:41:28 UTC
Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists.
Anthar Thebess
#295 - 2016-02-13 21:45:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists.

What justify 33% structure resistance on dread, carrier or any other capital. Including freighters.
I will no longer mount a damage control on non hull tanked capital , but additional resist.

WHY WE DON"T HAVE SANSHA, ANGEL, GURISTAS LP store damage control?
Angel giving bigger resists to explosive
Sansha to EM
Guristas to Kinetic.
Crackforbreakfast
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#296 - 2016-02-13 21:47:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists.


Tanking an Avatar, for example, with full tank mods given the way stacking penalties work there is no reason not to use a DC module, a DC gives more armor EHP vs an extra EANM, for this reason Titans will now be using a DC module and will also be using one after the tiericide, according to previous calculations that comes out at 59.8%ish hull resistance with a DC. So nothing will change in that respect.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#297 - 2016-02-13 21:52:24 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists.


Tanking an Avatar, for example, with full tank mods given the way stacking penalties work there is no reason not to use a DC module, a DC gives more armor EHP vs an extra EANM, for this reason Titans will now be using a DC module and will also be using one after the tiericide, according to previous calculations that comes out at 59.8%ish hull resistance with a DC. So nothing will change in that respect.


Oh I beg to differ.

The Avatar killed on 2015-09-23 22:51 had no DC fitted, this change would gift such titans with more EHP to burn through. Extra time for help to arrive or for reps to land. Its actually a lot more common for a titan to not have a DCU fitted than a lot of people think.
Crackforbreakfast
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#298 - 2016-02-13 21:59:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Crackforbreakfast
baltec1 wrote:
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists.


Tanking an Avatar, for example, with full tank mods given the way stacking penalties work there is no reason not to use a DC module, a DC gives more armor EHP vs an extra EANM, for this reason Titans will now be using a DC module and will also be using one after the tiericide, according to previous calculations that comes out at 59.8%ish hull resistance with a DC. So nothing will change in that respect.


Oh I beg to differ.

The Avatar killed on 2015-09-23 22:51 had no DC fitted, this change would gift such titans with more EHP to burn through. Extra time for help to arrive or for reps to land. Its actually a lot more common for a titan to not have a DCU fitted than a lot of people think.



Judging by other Avatar kills it seems to be an exception for the most part, it also needs to be taken into account that Titans possibly die during refitting in the middle of the fight, in a tanking fit there is (as far as I know and correct me if I'm wrong) no reason not to have a DC fitted. Using the logic that they SHOULD have one fitted in a tank fit it won't make a difference.

In a case a travel fit is caught the lack of a DC being fitted results in an extra 250k EHP as far as I see (On an Avatar), which will in very few occasions make a difference considering the amount of damage being thrown around when a Titan is being fried. If I messed up on the EHP calculation my bad and it's open to correction. Cool

EDIT: The extra EHP is for hull only after the tiericide without a DC fitted.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#299 - 2016-02-13 22:00:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists.


The point is to change things so that using a DCU is a choice, not a requirement. The same way that right now using armor plates or hardeners vs damage mods or whatever is an actual choice that enables a variety of fitting options, vs. the pretty-much no-brainer/every-fit reality of the DCU.

There are only a couple of ways to achieve this. A flat nerf to the DCU would work, either in the form of reduced effectiveness or much increased fitting, but would upset the meta pretty heavily. An individual nerf/buff to the baseline resists of every single hull in EVE based on the pre-dominance of DCU usage in their meta/common fits would work, but would be incredibly intensive and also very likely to upset the meta in hugely unpredictable ways. Lastly, a flat nerf to the DCU with a corresponding buff to the baseline HP across the board, which is what they are doing. This isn't without balance impact, but the number of ships/fits NOT commonly using DCU to see how unbalanced this makes them is a lot more manageable to look at, impact-wise, since it's a pretty small # in comparison.

CCP has pointed out some of the very specific edge-cases here where DCU's were not previously being used commonly, mentioned that they are aware of these, and mentioned that they are OK with the balance change implied by this.

So, to answer your question, the justification for titans getting a 33% baseline increase is so that DCU's are no longer a mandatory part of almost every single fit with as little impact to the meta as possible. If you can propose a better way to make fitting DCU an optional choice instead of a no-brainer requirement with less impact to the meta balance than what has been proposed, we're all ears...
Anthar Thebess
#300 - 2016-02-13 22:01:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
People refit to damage control , but don't have fitted one by default.
Refitting is going away, and 33% structure resist buff invalidates need of damage control , as it can be replaced by something more useful.

DCU is requirement when you assume that structure will save your life.

How often you see a DCU on a ratting capital or super?