These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#521 - 2016-02-16 18:21:54 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
This is a step. Fozzie mentioned that " these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either". I look forward to hear what those future changes are as well. Prolong bumping fix? Fixing the looting so the FY follows the loot, not just the initial throw away ship to drop the loot in the freighter. Making -9, -10 worse? Something else all together?

Either way, I agree with Fozzie, gankers will have to adapt to the new normal. Just like AG has to adapt to not being able to shoot a wreck (and its amazing how much that gets thrown around in local thanking CCP for this feature).

However, the fact that this started to be addressed by CCP is a validation of the problem . I look forward to seeing the progression of this!
What problem? Fozzie literally said that ganking isn't going away and that this was just a nerf to ganking to balance the buff of the wreck changes. He never said that ganking was a problem, just that he was using this opportunity to tweak balance a bit.

CCP may very well pull the trigger and patch out ganking sometime in the future, but there is no hint of that, or even changes to bumping, looting, or security status penalties in his words. Reading that in or claiming this change as validation of your distaste for ganking is pure wishful thinking.

Bumping may change. Looting may change, but gankers are still going to be exploding industrials even if these systems are tweaked or replaced. In fact, I still expect major changes to criminal gameplay in the near-ish future - the playstyle is due - likely the removal of the faction police in the next revamp of highsec along with a new bounty system, to stimulate more player-driven conflict in highsec.

But this is all off topic. The big ganking groups will not even notice this change in a few weeks once they have adjusted their formulas and equipment to the new numbers. The increased loot freighters will now carry will offset the increased cost and the game will go on with freighters getting dunked daily as Fozzie clearly said CCP intends to happen. If that ever stops, I would expect CCP to reverse these changes or make some others to make freighters more vulnerable.

This change hurts small ganking operations, clueless freighter pilots who are now going to lose even more when they get ganked that first time, and perhaps haulers the most whose rates are about to tank, but it isn't going to affect the big ganking groups nor does it herald any end to this intended game mechanic.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#522 - 2016-02-16 18:54:36 UTC
Vanilla Mooses wrote:
Ways I know this thread is going places:

  • Lucas is posting his opinions. Is there a single thread on the Internet that he has ever considered not posting in?
  • Awful pubbies posting varients of 'u mad bro'

You missed the 10 page purge. So many other fun discussions going on Twisted
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#523 - 2016-02-16 19:12:13 UTC  |  Edited by: HandelsPharmi
'Basic' Damage Control seems to be useless

and 'Radical' Damage Control gonna be useless as well - no wait, they keep beeing useless :D
Code First
Omega Armament
#524 - 2016-02-16 19:43:48 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
33% structure resist on all ships.
This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships.
Free lowslot.




Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh?

If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important.
15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible.

Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#525 - 2016-02-16 19:50:33 UTC
Code First wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
33% structure resist on all ships.
This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships.
Free lowslot.




Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh?

If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important.
15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible.

Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot.



Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive.
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#526 - 2016-02-16 20:21:58 UTC
Ms GoodyMaker wrote:
Its been a long time coming, CCP now has to take the last step, and implement a PVP flag system for empire space. No more suicide ganking in empire space. If a corp doesn't war dec you, you should be able to be fired upon by another player in empire space.


This is called lowsec...
John E Normus
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#527 - 2016-02-16 21:59:30 UTC
Ms GoodyMaker wrote:
Its been a long time coming, CCP now has to take the last step, and implement a PVP flag system for empire space. No more suicide ganking in empire space. If a corp doesn't war dec you, you should be able to be fired upon by another player in empire space.



CCP Fozzie worked super hard to improve the Skiff and curb the elk-genocide in the belts and this is what you have to say!?!

There is no pleasing some people...

LolLolLol

Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Kibitt Kallinikov
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#528 - 2016-02-16 22:17:52 UTC
I'm worried about the future of the Ares. Most other inty have the CPU to just fit a t2 scram, but the Ares is stuck in a spot where it would have to make sacrifices, and there's the minor annoyance of the fact that t2 disruptor capacitor cost is going up with Ares being the only tackle inty that isn't cap stable with everything running due to railguns requiring capacitor.

[Ares, Fast Ares.]
Damage Control II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation

5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Warp Disruptor II

125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S

Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II


That's the fit I currently use, and it has 4 CPU left over. With sig amp changes, I can get up to 6.25 extra CPU before I start messing with the functionality of the ship. Downgrading weapons to 75mm gatling or Ion Blasters, either of which have lackluster projection. You can't touch the DC or you lose any pretense of tank.

Ares isn't a dominant inty, yet it's being hurt the most by these changes. Surely there must be something that can be done about this! Yeah, Ares isn't my favorite inty, but I feel the God of War shouldn't also be the worst tackle inty in game. I am totally fine with lowering the strength of competitors, namely the fact that, under MWD thrust, Malediction and Ares have nearly identical agility.

Personally, I would say the easiest fix is to simply hand the Ares a stronger capacitor and smaller base sig. If it doesn't get to be more agile than its Amarrian counterpart, the Ares should at least be able to choose between compact MWD and other variants, which currently not competitive because it's inferior in the capacitor side of things so only a perfectly skilled pilot can afford the cap instability that such an option brings. However, with something as low as +1 GJ/s after skills (preferably via raw capacitor size than recharge time), Ares could choose to go for something similar to what it has now but with compact MWD for overall slightly higher sig, or try different weapons with an active tank, which is currently difficult for the Malediction due to capacitor size.

Anyways, I'm just trying to take a current problem that exists with the Ares (capacitor) and propose a solution that allows meaningful choices rather than nerfing all the competition or asking for extra fitting to keep things "the way they were".
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#529 - 2016-02-17 01:04:59 UTC

Quote:

For example, years ago (I mean like when I started playing and for years after) hi-sec ganking was just NEVER as big as it became the past few years.


And you're wrong. Before the insurance nerf, for example, suicide ganking was far, far more prevalent. Anyone who ganked at the time will tell you the same thing.

For crying out loud, you used to be able to gank in fully fit Battleships and turn a profit, something that is impossible today.

[quote]

lol Geddons ganking in niarja.


In the end talking profit lines is moot. Citas role out soon and markets will completely go out of balance for a bit as the usual things we use disappear. As the POS's and Outposts we use for bonuses vanish. With how the Citadel bonuses roll in hi/low/null for industry, for how T2 product will occur, How exactly are AOE links going to work on Orca/Rorq, the hell is actually happening to the rorq?! Worrying about Freighter sales and cap sales is narrow compared to how everything soon is changing for those of us who do Industry, as well as those of us who do PVP.

Now let's stop bickering over a price point that will change in 1-2 months as our POS bonuses end and unknown bonuses begin. If anything just remember Hi-sec NPC Tax is going up and NPC tax is being removed from Null to make Citadels more desirable outside of hi-sec. No one knows that percentage. All we know is, Citadels outside of Hi-sec will have a large enough advantage that it will want to make industrialists shift production lines elsewhere.

The DCU change will most likely also take a large roll with the base hull resists where it concerns those capitals found in Low and Null. Remember capital changes are coming and they are taking drastic changes to the stats with all new modules coming. Just as no one wants the Null block receiving all the buffs, no one wants low, or wormholes, or incursions, or indy's, or gankers. This change affects more than just spamming 20-30 cheap Catalysts or Battlecruisers at a freighter of any type. This is more than just shooting mining barges. This affects all game plays. As someone mentioned how the care bears are being the loudest to make sure this change stays, it's actually less bears and more ganker alts of honestly, Null sec pilots. Lets be honest, we do make up the large block of hi-sec gankers. When we don't Sov wand we all either Incursion or hop in a cata and pounce some unsuspecting player because its easy to harvest tears. Just as its easy enough to form up and pop freighters. We all know escorts don't stop serious parties from popping em.
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#530 - 2016-02-17 01:24:29 UTC
Kibitt Kallinikov wrote:
I'm worried about the future of the Ares. Most other inty have the CPU to just fit a t2 scram, but the Ares is stuck in a spot where it would have to make sacrifices, and there's the minor annoyance of the fact that t2 disruptor capacitor cost is going up with Ares being the only tackle inty that isn't cap stable with everything running due to railguns requiring capacitor.

[Ares, Fast Ares.]
Damage Control II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation

5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Warp Disruptor II

125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S

Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II


That's the fit I currently use, and it has 4 CPU left over. With sig amp changes, I can get up to 6.25 extra CPU before I start messing with the functionality of the ship. Downgrading weapons to 75mm gatling or Ion Blasters, either of which have lackluster projection. You can't touch the DC or you lose any pretense of tank.

Ares isn't a dominant inty, yet it's being hurt the most by these changes. Surely there must be something that can be done about this! Yeah, Ares isn't my favorite inty, but I feel the God of War shouldn't also be the worst tackle inty in game. I am totally fine with lowering the strength of competitors, namely the fact that, under MWD thrust, Malediction and Ares have nearly identical agility.

Personally, I would say the easiest fix is to simply hand the Ares a stronger capacitor and smaller base sig. If it doesn't get to be more agile than its Amarrian counterpart, the Ares should at least be able to choose between compact MWD and other variants, which currently not competitive because it's inferior in the capacitor side of things so only a perfectly skilled pilot can afford the cap instability that such an option brings. However, with something as low as +1 GJ/s after skills (preferably via raw capacitor size than recharge time), Ares could choose to go for something similar to what it has now but with compact MWD for overall slightly higher sig, or try different weapons with an active tank, which is currently difficult for the Malediction due to capacitor size.

Anyways, I'm just trying to take a current problem that exists with the Ares (capacitor) and propose a solution that allows meaningful choices rather than nerfing all the competition or asking for extra fitting to keep things "the way they were".


I figure a God of war wouldn't be fitting rails, he'd be blaster fit and breaking that ships nose. Not everything must Kite, some some can fly in hold tight under the guns and splode em with more force. You could also drop the 125's to a smaller Rail. Your ship is also getting a 33% buff to hull, while not much on a ceptor, the changes are made so we can do more without having to swear by the DCU.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#531 - 2016-02-17 01:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
33% structure resist on all ships.
This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships.
Free lowslot.




Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh?

If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important.
15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible.

Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot.



Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive.

Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist (before skills)
T2 DC: 15%

DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#532 - 2016-02-17 01:28:13 UTC
this should be an interesting change...super tanky hecate structure buff?
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#533 - 2016-02-17 01:56:13 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
33% structure resist on all ships.
This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships.
Free lowslot.




Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh?

If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important.
15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible.

Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot.



Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive.

Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist (before skills)
T2 DC: 15%

DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.


Most of the time I think that for frigates it's going to be a second damage mod that will be fit, instead of an EANM. With good skills and heat, you can look forward to tormenters and merlins that do 260 dps. This is going to spice the frigate meta up a lot. Big smile
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#534 - 2016-02-17 05:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
33% structure resist on all ships.
This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships.
Free lowslot.




Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh?

If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important.
15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible.

Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot.



Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive.

Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist (before skills)
T2 DC: 15%

DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.


DC adds 15% to shields too which add to the buffer of an armour tanker so in most cases the DCU will add more tank. Its also going the remain a must have mod for shield ships due to it being a lowslot mod and mids being a bit of a premium on a lot of hulls.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#535 - 2016-02-17 05:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Having read most of this thread I have to say this is a bad idea, especially the buff to ships that never could fit a DC to begin with. This change will, in effect, give the freighter and jump freighter a build in DC and up their EHP by 50%. Ayra, BTW, is quite right. Here is how the resists work. If you have a resist of x% then divide the HP that resist applies to by (1-x%). In this case you divide by 2/3 or multiply by 3/2 which is 1.5 meaning a 50% increase in EHP.

The argument for giving this to freighters is weak and completely specious. Avoiding a gank in game is extremely easy. So easy that only people who have made a serious mistake get ganked. Buffing the play style for the lazy, stupid and incompetent is in absolutely noway warranted. Fozzie is simply wrong on this, and his argument about wolves and elk was just...well stupid. Of course, if he has some impressive data on this the best course of action would be to share it...make the case vs. just making an idiotic decree backed by literally nothing other than a moronic analogy.

BTW: Anti-gankers should also oppose this system. In all likelihood it will mean freighters will be bumped for longer periods as gank fleets wait to get sufficient numbers for the gank. As there has already been 2 recent threads on this topic one would think they'd realize this...but then again some segments of the player base need help with understanding basic incentives.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#536 - 2016-02-17 07:51:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Having read most of this thread I have to say this is a bad idea, especially the buff to ships that never could fit a DC to begin with. This change will, in effect, give the freighter and jump freighter a build in DC and up their EHP by 50%. Ayra, BTW, is quite right. Here is how the resists work. If you have a resist of x% then divide the HP that resist applies to by (1-x%). In this case you divide by 2/3 or multiply by 3/2 which is 1.5 meaning a 50% increase in EHP.
It's still not a 50% buff to EHP though. It's a 50% buff to hull HP at most, which doesn't equal a 50% buff to EHP unless armor and shield are both zero.

Teckos Pech wrote:
The argument for giving this to freighters is weak and completely specious. Avoiding a gank in game is extremely easy. So easy that only people who have made a serious mistake get ganked.
So is ganking, and this is a minor increase in effort to that, and an increase only to the easiest part of the gank. It doesn't affect how hard it is to catch a freighter. Again this all comes down to gankers blowing the effect of the change out of proportion to push their agenda. Excluding freighters would be giving them a relative nerf, and they've had enough nerfs I'd say.

Teckos Pech wrote:
BTW: Anti-gankers should also oppose this system. In all likelihood it will mean freighters will be bumped for longer periods as gank fleets wait to get sufficient numbers for the gank. As there has already been 2 recent threads on this topic one would think they'd realize this...but then again some segments of the player base need help with understanding basic incentives.
I doubt it. Most of the time when they bump for huge periods of time they have no intention of ganking. Anyway, I expect that to be addressed separately.

Besides, Black Pedro has already explained how this is in fact a nerf to dumber freighter pilots and haulers, so that's fine.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Anthar Thebess
#537 - 2016-02-17 07:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Question to CCP Fozzie.
Can we have 'Tears' Modified Sansha Damage Control ?
Stats :
1 PG
30 CPU
50% structure resists
2.5% armor resist
2.5% shield resist

Special ability 99% CPU reduction to all Industrial Capital ships.

Price 50mil + 50k Sansha LP.

More elegant solution than flat buff to all structure resists across the board, and solve more than one problem at the same time. Pirate

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#538 - 2016-02-17 08:14:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Code First wrote:
33% structure resist on all ships.
This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships.
Free lowslot.




Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh?

If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important.
15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible.

Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot.



Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive.

Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist (before skills)
T2 DC: 15%

DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.



Links tips it though.

I just ran a maller with an Eos booster.

EFT stated armor EHP:

2 ENAM 12309
1 ENAM 1 DC 12415


Similar results are had with an omen (7278 vs 7341), in case people are wondering about the native hull resists on the maller.


Like I said, I'd not checked in a while, but I mean even if it gave 0% hull resists it's STILL effectively mandatory.

I checked a caracal yesterday too, the shield EHP increase in a standard fit exceeds the hull EHP increase as well although I didnt keep a note of the numbers but would be easy to retest.
Code First
Omega Armament
#539 - 2016-02-17 08:54:03 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


Links tips it though.

I just ran a maller with an Eos booster.

EFT stated armor EHP:

2 ENAM 12309
1 ENAM 1 DC 12415


Similar results are had with an omen (7278 vs 7341), in case people are wondering about the native hull resists on the maller.


Like I said, I'd not checked in a while, but I mean even if it gave 0% hull resists it's STILL effectively mandatory.

I checked a caracal yesterday too, the shield EHP increase in a standard fit exceeds the hull EHP increase as well although I didnt keep a note of the numbers but would be easy to retest.

Links are going away.
Damage control cost CPU and i CPU is constant problem on armor ships.
For fights shield ships use hull and armor for a emergency buffer, for armor ships this is structure only 33% base resist is good cheep buff to remove need of damage controls in many fits.
Using Adaptive Nano save you 30 CPU that can be used to upgrade other items in your fitting.
DCU will not completely go away, but it will no longer be mandatory module.

Thanks to this change, all small ships no longer need to fit DCU, as gain for them will be minimal.

This is a free buff CCP offered to all ships and i like it.
Extra defense for nothing.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#540 - 2016-02-17 08:59:33 UTC
Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases.

Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet.