These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#101 - 2016-02-12 01:19:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
I am excited about these changes, but I am really worried about adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. I think it is too high. Putting the issue of freighter/ganking aside, there are a lot of extremely strong PVP fits currently which do not utilize a damage control, and adding a base hull resist gives them a much more powerful tank.

Here are some very common pvp fits which do not use a damage control: Kiting slicers, kiting tristans, Jackdaw fits with 2 BCs, Flycatcher fits using 1 BC, pure armor tanking ships that do not often fit a DC such as are common on the Enyo, Retribution, Punisher, Maller, and so on. All of these fits and some others are powerful right now, and getting an added base hull resist makes them quite a bit more tanky.

EDIT: Oh god I almost forgot to add the RLML caracal (in addition to a few other RLML kiting setups) which already does not use a damage control and is insanely powerful. It would be a huge stealth buff to many already OP ships.

My suggestion would be to only add a 10-20% base hull resist, or to have tech 1 ships have a base hull resist of 10% and tech 2 ships have a base resist of 20%. 33% across the board is probably just too high.
Skyrider Deathknight
EliteExSuperCapitalFCJoeBarbarian
#102 - 2016-02-12 02:00:06 UTC
Will the compensation skills now affect the passive resist on these new damage controls?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#103 - 2016-02-12 02:07:27 UTC
So why should the obelisk be getting 157,000 more ehp? What evidence is there that freighters need this kind of buff?
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#104 - 2016-02-12 03:04:31 UTC
My biggest question after reading this, and digging through forum posts, is this:

What do you hope to achieve with this update? What does it really do for us? Aside from being a make-work project, with the potential for breaking some very well-established and not-at-all-problematic game mechanics, why change this (and is the reason good enough to justify going through with it).
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#105 - 2016-02-12 03:13:32 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
My biggest question after reading this, and digging through forum posts, is this:

What do you hope to achieve with this update? What does it really do for us? Aside from being a make-work project, with the potential for breaking some very well-established and not-at-all-problematic game mechanics, why change this (and is the reason good enough to justify going through with it).




The primary beneficiary of the change are your general combat ships. The first bit of fitting advice most people get is "fit a DCU". DCU's are ridiculously good, and a must have for so many pvp fits. By halving the amount of resists they give as a module, and just building it into the ships hull, it makes choosing to fit or not to fit a DCU in favor of another damage mod, or a more specialized tank mod (for example, an ENAM) much more viable.

Any fit that didn't fit a DCU before gets a buff, any ship that fit it before loses... I think its like .2% of their ehp. So that's really only a nerf to solo. (I'm so sorry solo DCU users) Pair this up with the scram re-balance and the frigate meta is going to get a small shakeup. Although I don't think its going to dethrone any of the current meta picks for solo frig work at all, only change up a few fits that might have needed a DCU before the nerf.


The second change, is making it passive. People have been asking for that since they made DCU's a thing. Slight nerf to neuts, but since DCU's are only going to be half as effective as before, its not really THAT big a deal. (cycling them on right after neut cycles was pretty simple anyway since it was a 1gj draw)



Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#106 - 2016-02-12 03:18:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aiwha wrote:
The primary beneficiary of the change are your general combat ships.

No.

The primary beneficiary from this are ships that couldn't or often wouldn't fit DCUs and that have huge amounts of hull HP. For everyone else, it's pretty much just business as usual.

The secondary beneficiary is a group of pilots who often fly AFK and who therefore get a lot extra out of a module that doesn't need to be activated. Coincidentally, there is a fair amount of cross-over between this group and the previous one.
A Research Alt
Perkone
Caldari State
#107 - 2016-02-12 03:18:48 UTC
why is it that no other ship is getting their ehp buffed with this change
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#108 - 2016-02-12 03:25:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
The primary beneficiary of the change are your general combat ships.

No.

The primary beneficiary from this are ships that couldn't or often wouldn't fit DCUs and that have huge amounts of hull HP. For everyone else, it's pretty much just business as usual.

The secondary beneficiary is a group of pilots who often fly AFK and who therefore get a lot extra out of a module that doesn't need to be activated. Coincidentally, there is a fair amount of cross-over between this group and the previous one.





You've got a point there on the actived DCU thing. But I'm going to err on the side of "I'm really, REALLY sick of having to click it every single goddamn time I jump/bridge" Then it just sits there taking up space that I could use for something that I actually have to manage heat or capacitor draw on. Hell, the whole reason CCP made it active in the first place was because of their spaghetti code.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Flappy Beefcurtains
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#109 - 2016-02-12 04:02:57 UTC
Much needed buff to freighters after the wreck hp change, thank you!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#110 - 2016-02-12 04:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Flappy Beefcurtains wrote:
Much needed buff to freighters after the wreck hp change, thank you!

How is it even remotely needed?
The wreck HP change slightly readjusts the additional risks that were created by CrimeWatch 2.0.

What massive nerfs to freighters have happened that warrant such a huge buff as this to counter-balance them?

GetSirrus wrote:
Seriously, if you feel so strongly against AFK play, why is it no one ever asks for the removal of Auto-Pilot?

Big if… do you have anything to suggest that any such opposition actually exists, or is it just you making foolish asumptions?
Also, what does the former have to do with the latter?
Cyrek Ohaya
Blazing Sun Group
#111 - 2016-02-12 04:10:53 UTC
So, increased Hull hit points. Will the hull repair modules and drones be looked at soon too?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#112 - 2016-02-12 04:14:51 UTC
Flappy Beefcurtains wrote:
Much needed buff to freighters after the wreck hp change, thank you!


Wreck got 15000 HP

Obelisk is getting 157,000 EHP. Jump freighters even more.

Freighters are already 99.9% safe, how is this warranted?
Subotai Khan
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2016-02-12 05:24:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Subotai Khan
CCP Fozzie wrote:
adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default.



Why add base hull resistance, and not raw hull HP instead?

Edit:
Would love to see this being added to drones as well, gallente drones are hull tanked with with 0 resists to hull, making them paper thin compared to other factions' drones.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#114 - 2016-02-12 05:25:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiwha
Subotai Khan wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default.



Why add base hull resistance, and not raw hull HP instead?




Damage controls give resists, so CCP is just moving it from the module to the hull itself. If you just gave a raw 33% hp buff to hull, then adding a DCU on top of that would multiply it again.



EDIT: Tippia, I'm not seeing any argument from you other than assuring us that despite your lack of activity in EVE, you're totally "with it" and know that freighter gankers are desperately in need of help. Whereas kills would seem to indicate that there is no shortage of multibillion isk freighter kills.


I think we're just seeing the **** poor gankers complaining here, while the competent ones are already calculating exactly how many catalysts they need to hit buffed freighters. (while also hitting freighters AS WE SHITPOST) CODE slapped one earlier tonght, 70m isk in catalysts for a 3b isk freighter.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Kyra Lee
Doomheim
#115 - 2016-02-12 05:43:55 UTC
Lots of people complaining and counter complaining in this topic...

The problem that I see here is again there is only a single M1 option. Why can we not have a compact version and a version that provides better resists but has a higher fitting cost. Give us an actual choice, more fitting room or better resists. Having a single M1 option being wholly better than the M0 and the single M5 option being wholly better than the M1 doesn't really provide the player with any options to think about.

Do we want our players to think or do we want them to slap on the highest item level thing they have access to?
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2016-02-12 07:07:31 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

CCP introduce options for freighter pilots, so they can choose more cargo space, faster acceleration, or more EHP, or in niche cases other choices. Generally a good change - one that gave real choices with real consequences for freighter pilots.



This was a flat freighter nerf at the time. It is not possible to get the same EHP, cargo, accel, and warp times that freighters had before the change (including the warp-speed mechanics change at about the same time). I'm not saying this was a bad change by any means, and choice is great, but don't try to obfuscate the inherent nerf the new system brought to freighter stats.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#117 - 2016-02-12 07:07:39 UTC
why do the three new faction DCs have identical stats? Why not just adding one DC from one faction.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2016-02-12 07:37:08 UTC
Kyra Lee wrote:
Lots of people complaining and counter complaining in this topic...

The problem that I see here is again there is only a single M1 option. Why can we not have a compact version and a version that provides better resists but has a higher fitting cost. Give us an actual choice, more fitting room or better resists. Having a single M1 option being wholly better than the M0 and the single M5 option being wholly better than the M1 doesn't really provide the player with any options to think about.

Do we want our players to think or do we want them to slap on the highest item level thing they have access to?


This has been the common theme across all tiericide. The pointlessness of the m0 version has persisted for every module category. I agree it seems stupid but CCP has applied this quite consistently and I can't imagine they'll backtrack on this now.

The m6 being flat better than m5 has also happened many times but like all of the higher tier stuff, the choice here typically comes down to cost anyway, which works out reasonably well.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2016-02-12 07:39:54 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
why do the three new faction DCs have identical stats? Why not just adding one DC from one faction.

They've been doing this for faction stuff all over tiericide. It's pointless complexity and it makes no sense to me. It's exactly the kind of "flavor for no reason but flavor" that I thought tiericide was supposed to help get rid of. Just one more way new players get burned because they don't know there is an exactly identical faction alternative to the one they saw, for half the cost.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#120 - 2016-02-12 07:46:17 UTC
Excellent change, supported 110%. Big smile

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.