Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
138
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 12:23:00 -
[841] - Quote
I just corrected the math. On frig scale, punisher really doesn't need to be punished...merlin on the other hand actually deserves that nerf. |
John 1135
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 13:08:00 -
[842] - Quote
Deerin wrote:The resists are applied to the part that passes through Lets take Moa EM damage example
54.1 is the EM resist
This ship penalties are not stacked. What you need to do is remove the current ship bonus from these and add the new ship bonus
So what passes through is:
45.9
Removing the ship bonuses
45.9 / (1-0.25) = 61.2
Re-appliying new bonus
61.2*(1-0.2)= 48.96
So 48.96 passes through instead of 45.9
Which is 1.066 times higher (which is exactly what XG is talking about)
You can check it in game or just EFT it. On EFT make a moa, select all V char and drop cal cruiser level to 4. You'll have the new Moa. Okay, so shield resists of
54.1 / 63.2 / 72.4 / 77 become
51 / 60.8 / 70.6 / 75.5 post-nerf
And DPS let through
45.9 / 36.8 / 27.6 / 23 becomes
49 / 39.2 / 29.4 / 24.5 post-nerf
In that case I'm wrong and I agree with you guys :) Trust CCP to apply a '5% bonus to Shield resistances' in an obtuse way. I checked this again in EFT which presumably is calculating it correctly.
How do I feel about the nerf now? I'm glad that the net impact is less than I feared, but a blanket nerf still feels misplaced. HICs are going to suffer. I also fear that following this approach as a means to fixing RR and LR will mean a second resists nerf down to 3%: for a flat 13%. I dislike the concept of the game swinging toward alphafleet. A brawly battle where ships have more survivability feels more fun to me. Thus I would certainly look for buffs to HP and LR to follow right on the heels of this nerf. If CCP has plans in that direction they'd do a lot of good by announcing them.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1403
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 14:01:00 -
[843] - Quote
Deerin wrote:You can check it in game or just EFT it. On EFT make a moa, select all V char and drop cal cruiser level to 4. You'll have the new moa. Damnit, my way of doing it was more time consuming and a pita, and therefore better!
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5808
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 16:00:00 -
[844] - Quote
Hey guys, sorry for the gap in posting here. With fanfest and the crunch to get the resource work done I haven't had enough time for the forums recently. I'm all caught up on the thread now, and I want to let you guys know we're working to get the resistance changes out to sisi for your hands-on testing asap (at the moment it's just the battleships).
Don't worry, just because I don't post in a thread for a little while doesn't mean I've forgotten about it. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
spreaders
Cr1me Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 16:38:00 -
[845] - Quote
The reason CCP are making a big change to all ships is because people complain there to strong and hard to kill but they are just simply to lazy to figure out how to counter someones fit. The reason for T2 ships having good resist bonus's to there ships is because they take some time to train for witch makes the effort on training for them werth it . To just take that away makes it pointless to even train for them in the first place. I vote that CCP stop nerfing ships because of petty complaints stops because some people are out match by people that have been playing for longer. The hole idea of CCP making it better for new comers to have a update in the spaceship command skills is good it gives them a fighting chance. The new faction BC's coming in are just what normal BC's used to be so why don't they just make all the nerf's back to normal and make the new ships a little more effective because the cost of those ships are going to be allot anyway so spending more isk on a ship makes up for what it is able to do and how you can fit it to your liking.
If you feel the same way about this then comment and if you disagree then you must be one of the people that just complain about everything.
|
Vlad Texi
Cr1me Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 17:03:00 -
[846] - Quote
It's impossible to stop the mighty CCP from nerfing the life out of this game . . . resistance is futile. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4959
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 20:39:00 -
[847] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, sorry for the gap in posting here. With fanfest and the crunch to get the resource work done I haven't had enough time for the forums recently. I'm all caught up on the thread now, and I want to let you guys know we're working to get the resistance changes out to sisi for your hands-on testing asap (at the moment it's just the battleships).
Don't worry, just because I don't post in a thread for a little while doesn't mean I've forgotten about it. That's what you said the last time you posted in any of these threads. Again ignoring feedback. No you haven't forgotten, but you're obviously not taking it seriously enough either. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
86
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 20:49:00 -
[848] - Quote
It needs to be done.
The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.
One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus. The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.
Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.
Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4959
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 21:24:00 -
[849] - Quote
Voith wrote:It needs to be done.
The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.
One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus. The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.
Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.
Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.
Or maybe they should consider that the active tank bonus is more of a restriction on the ways you're "supposed" to be using the ship and accordingly take it out of most ships that have it. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
86
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 21:34:00 -
[850] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Voith wrote:It needs to be done.
The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.
One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus. The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.
Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.
Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.
Or maybe they should consider that the active tank bonus is more of a restriction on the ways you're "supposed" to be using the ship and accordingly take it out of most ships that have it. So, are you saying they should homogenize ships by removing a type of bonus or that Gallente and Minmatar ships shouldn't have a tanking bonus?
Having *any* bonus is saying "you are 'supposed' to play this way".
Do you favor removing all hull bonuses, or do you just like posting poorly thought out ideas? |
|
Shanlara
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
30
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 22:44:00 -
[851] - Quote
Hmm I wonder if there's a reason behind the fact that only the rokh and abaddon is currently having this change on them on sisi. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4959
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 22:46:00 -
[852] - Quote
Voith wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Voith wrote:It needs to be done.
The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.
One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus. The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.
Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.
Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.
Or maybe they should consider that the active tank bonus is more of a restriction on the ways you're "supposed" to be using the ship and accordingly take it out of most ships that have it. So, are you saying they should homogenize ships by removing a type of bonus or that Gallente and Minmatar ships shouldn't have a tanking bonus? Having *any* bonus is saying "you are 'supposed' to play this way". Do you favor removing all hull bonuses, or do you just like posting poorly thought out ideas? Giving bonuses to certain racial weapons or ewar is fine, for example. Giving a bonus to active tanking shoehorns that ship into active tanking only, which is useless for most forms of PVP. The only reason the Maelstrom can ignore it is because the ship can dedicate all but one of its mid slots for tank, because it already has a sizable amount of HP, and because its racial long-ranged weapons have absurdly high volley damage. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
588
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 03:31:00 -
[853] - Quote
Shanlara wrote:Hmm I wonder if there's a reason behind the fact that only the rokh and abaddon is currently having this change on them on sisi.
The reason is the stats for the new bs was added, but fozzie hasnt had time to change the other ships |
Tilo Rhywald
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
23
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 08:23:00 -
[854] - Quote
Voith wrote:It needs to be done.
The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.
One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus. The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.
Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.
Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.
Again: It is a powerful bonus, but you never make use of all those benefits you mention at once. The bonus makes certain ships versatile in tanking. Tanking is their "thing" - just as damage projection, speed, ewar etc is for others. They are balanced well around it and have significant drawbacks in other areas (speed, cap and damage most if the time).
Cheers Tilo R. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
86
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 19:52:00 -
[855] - Quote
Tilo Rhywald wrote:Voith wrote:It needs to be done.
The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.
One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus. The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.
Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.
Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.
Again: It is a powerful bonus, but you never make use of all those benefits you mention at once. The bonus makes certain ships versatile in tanking. Tanking is their "thing" - just as damage projection, speed, ewar etc is for others. They are balanced well around it and have significant drawbacks in other areas (for example speed, signature, cap, damage or versatility in general). Cheers Tilo R. Rolling your eyes doesn't make your point coherent. I know it may surprise you, but being smarmy isn't a replacement for being intelligent. |
Tilo Rhywald
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
23
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 21:08:00 -
[856] - Quote
Voith wrote:Tilo Rhywald wrote:Voith wrote:It needs to be done.
The math is pretty much proof in and of it self.
One bonus for 0 "cost" provides a massive EHP bonus and large active tanking bonus or passive tanking bonus or remote repairing bonus. The other bonus, at a cost, will provide a slightly larger active tanking bonus only.
Given the choice between completely changing tanking mechanics or bumping down a bonus by 1%, the choice is clear.
Ignore the whiners, proceed with the change.
Again: It is a powerful bonus, but you never make use of all those benefits you mention at once. The bonus makes certain ships versatile in tanking. Tanking is their "thing" - just as damage projection, speed, ewar etc is for others. They are balanced well around it and have significant drawbacks in other areas (for example speed, signature, cap, damage or versatility in general). Cheers Tilo R. Rolling your eyes doesn't make your point coherent. I know it may surprise you, but being smarmy isn't a replacement for being intelligent.
You confuse smugness with annoyance. Annoyance over a simple argument being ignored despite its obvious plausibility. And merely trolling with a sad attempt at an insult as a reply does nothing to refute it. If you claim to have spotted an incoherence, please enlighten us with your clearly superior mind. |
Mathias Orsen
Sacred Templars Unclaimed.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 23:45:00 -
[857] - Quote
The 5% per level is just the way it is suppose to be. It's still not gonna change the fact that local repper bonus has no place in a fleet battle and crapping on resistance of fleet based ships is not gonna change that. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4993
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 00:45:00 -
[858] - Quote
Mathias Orsen wrote:It's still not gonna change the fact that local repper bonus has no place in a fleet battle and crapping on resistance of fleet based ships is not gonna change that. The fact that it even needs to be said astounds me, but yes. It doesn't matter how much you nerf resistance bonuses, active tank bonuses aren't going to become any more viable for fleet combat than before. The only time you will ever active tank in a fleet is if you have extended periods of time where you can't receive reps from someone else. This is only true for two classes of ships in the entire game. Interestingly, during this period of time the ships also get a 300% boost to active tanking ability. |
Major Thrasher
T.R.I.A.D
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:58:00 -
[859] - Quote
Can't help but notice everything is getting dps increase and little to negative tanking to compensate.
anyone else sensing a ISK sink to try stabilize the eve economy, and reduce inflation ? . |
fairimear
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:50:00 -
[860] - Quote
After reading through this. I agree with the logic but not the reasoning. This effects alot of ships that are already suffering as a result of this set of changes for next patch. Most of them suffering from a pve side of things. Your balance is to address what seems to be a OP bonus for pvp.
And as you touched on multiple times one of the real big things is the huge amount of Remote tanking happening. IT is the ONLY way to pvp and be respected and productive as a group.
From my point of view it would be better to leave the bonus that helps fringe play and instead adjust the main problem. the Remote repair system's clear dominance of Eve.
I see why you wont do that though. Because a change to the RR system would require re balancing incursions/officer/wh and any other gameplay where you need RR to survive in PVE as a group.
It's a Catch 22.
But i still feel that it's the wrong approach.
|
|
fairimear
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:51:00 -
[861] - Quote
Major Thrasher wrote:Can't help but notice everything is getting dps increase and little to negative tanking to compensate.
anyone else sensing a ISK sink to try stabilize the eve economy, and reduce inflation ?
THIS! a thousand times this. |
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
161
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 00:11:00 -
[862] - Quote
Anyone who can't survive a 5% TOTAL resistance nerf to w/e ship they fly that has that bonus is doing it wrong. You can deal with tanking in ships WITHOUT the bonus (or ANY tanking bonus), why can't you deal with it while only losing 5% total at LvL 5? It always amuses me how many people scream and holler that some change will break a game and then months after the change everyone has adapted and life is status quo.
Eve was the first MMO I ever played, but since I started all those years ago I have played 5 different (soon 6 with TESO) and every single one of them has the same issues. Some new thing comes out and everyone cries and moans, threatens to cancel subs, then as it turns out the changes weren't all that bad and people adapt. The Operative:-á"There are a lot of innocent people being killed in the air right now".
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds:-á"You have no idea how true that is". |
Ranamar
Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 00:18:00 -
[863] - Quote
fairimear wrote:Major Thrasher wrote:Can't help but notice everything is getting dps increase and little to negative tanking to compensate.
anyone else sensing a ISK sink to try stabilize the eve economy, and reduce inflation ? THIS! a thousand times this.
Losing ships is not an ISK sink! All you destroyed was some minerals. You need to think beyond your own balance sheet... The money you paid for that ship goes to the marketeer who sold it, and from there some to the manufacturer and some from him to the miner.
In fact, I would expect that, if significantly more ships start getting destroyed, all prices go up because of increased money velocity. By the same token, producers' income would also go up.
One of our new CSM members explains it at least as well: http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com/post/48563327571/conservation-of-isk
|
Tilo Rhywald
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
26
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 02:08:00 -
[864] - Quote
DeLindsay wrote:Anyone who can't survive a 5% TOTAL resistance nerf to w/e ship they fly that has that bonus is doing it wrong. You can deal with tanking in ships WITHOUT the bonus (or ANY tanking bonus), why can't you deal with it while only losing 5% total at LvL 5? It always amuses me how many people scream and holler that some change will break a game and then months after the change everyone has adapted and life is status quo.
This argument is pretty meaningless as one can turn it around completely: If you can't deal with the current total of 5% more at level 5 over the proposed bonus amount, you're doing it wrong... Which would absolutely refute doing such "small changes" in the first place. So thank you! ;)
We're talking about a bonus that has been there the entire time and has never been complained about. The blanket nerf affects ships which are or were even recently balanced well around it and none of which have ever been considered being overpowered in total. Hence comparing their tanking abilities to those of other ships that have different boni is absolutely nonsensical: it's not like those "tank-unbonused" hulls you mention don't have other charecteristics which compensate for this seeming (!) deficit in defensive capabilities. And in addition your undifferentiated reasoning does again not address the fact that a ship does never make use of all the benefits of its higher resistances at once... Tiring, really.
Cheers Tilo R. |
Cearain
Black Dragon Fighting Society The Devil's Tattoo
940
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 14:48:00 -
[865] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: This affects 44 ships total.
Shield: Ibis, Taipan, Merlin, Worm, Harpy, Cambion, Moa, Gila, Eagle, Onyx, Broadsword, Drake, Ferox, Nighthawk, Vulture, Tengu, Loki, Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk, Rokh, Scorpion Navy Issue, Rattlesnake, Chimera, Wyvern.
Armor: Impairor, Punisher, Vengeance, Malice, Malediction, Maller, Sacrilege, Mimir, Vangel, Devoter, Phobos, Prophecy, Absolution, Damnation, Loki, Legion, Proteus, Abaddon, Archon, Aeon.
While the majority of ships on this list rank among the more powerful in their classes, some (like the Eagle, Nighthawk and Vulture for instance) are already suffering. Those ships have problems that we believe to be separate from their resistance bonuses, and we are working hard to resolve those problems in the near future. Having the resistance bonus in a more balanced place will make our path to improving those ships much clearer.
I don't think most of the ships on this list are overpowered therefore I do not think nerfing them across the board is a good idea. If the eagle nighthawk and vulture are underpowered then leave the resists at 5%.
The problem with buffing them in other ways is it reduces the variety. You will likely buff them by giving them the same bonuses you gave other ships like turrent bonuses reducing the variety. Leave the 5% resist bonus on ships that are not overpowered.
Also please end off grid boosting which breaks every sence of balance to ships in eve. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
iain
The.Fallen Unclaimed.
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 15:25:00 -
[866] - Quote
Hmm. "Forcing the rise of alpha only strategies". And reducing buffering via resists is going to do anything other than further promote these "strategies" (tactics surely?)?
Ultimately logi is useless once you hit true alpha-strategy as the conclusion of fleet battles, and ironically once that happens you might as well stop bringing logi and bring more DPS ships. And once THAT happens you might as well remove the buffer entirely and fit as much offensive garbage as you possibly can to everything, broadcast delays and locking times will become the biggest thing to slow down a fight.
Very fine line indeed, perhaps the problem is less so with just the resists but with the whole set of mechanics, and tampering with part of it alone will simply upset some of what balance there is...
Halve everyone's resists, quadruple everyone's buffer size. Effects? Logi get their reps on things in time, yet the delivery of reps is less effective as a result. While it might still be possible to make people invincible through the focussed reps, it'll be more intensive on logi and their cap and could shift logi's role from "saving everyones ass" to "delaying everyone's death as long as possible so hopefully we can kill them before they kill us", and isn't that a better place to be? Logi aren't OP if everyone still dies eventually.
Edit: Since everyone in this game loves hating on WOW because "zomg competition, hate it!" (cant exactly think of any other reason why players care so much about what other games people play, seems kinda stupid to me), it's interesting to note that WOW pretty much made this transition back in Cataclysm from huge heals + huge damage + huge damage spikes which made it very reaction intensive ( to the point pre-emptively casting a 2.5 second heal and aborting it after 1.5 seconds to start recasting if it was going to be a wasted heal was a necessary tactic), they essentially nerfed heals and nerfed damage, giving a much gentler pace to the healing game and essentially removing the "tank got 2 shotted by white-melee damage" (tank getting 2 shotted by 'you screwed up the tactics' special ability is working as intended still ofc). |
John 1135
35
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 11:53:00 -
[867] - Quote
iain wrote:Halve everyone's resists, quadruple everyone's buffer size. Effects? Logi get their reps on things in time, yet the delivery of reps is less effective as a result. While it might still be possible to make people invincible through the focussed reps, it'll be more intensive on logi and their cap and could shift logi's role from "saving everyones ass" to "delaying everyone's death as long as possible so hopefully we can kill them before they kill us", and isn't that a better place to be? Logi aren't OP if everyone still dies eventually. Speculatively the interaction with repping can be graphed to indicate the ratio needed (of resists subtracted to buffer added). Bigger buffers may reduce the efficacy of alpha into the bargain. Which could lead to a more brawly game with a bit more time for pilots to respond. Local repping would likely need buffing, while remote repping might be able to stay as is. The system should be less twitchy at the margins. |
Airto TLA
Puppeteers of Doom
35
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 18:53:00 -
[868] - Quote
1) Not so sure nerfing already balanced ships is such a good idea, I resist nerf plus side buff probaly necessary.
2) I Like that CCP is being a bit more granular, such as the 4% resist, it shows there are finally getting percentages mean significantly different power depening on where it is appliied.
3.) the Abaddon, specifically, it seems the only reason this ship is used is because it is a resist bonus ship in big fleets. It is sort of recieving a side buff through large energy weapon buff. But it will still have a hard time using them with massive cap draw, and since it is often artillery armed, is not losing directly compare d to its competion for this slot.? |
Verushka Atreides
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 15:55:00 -
[869] - Quote
Carriers shouldn't be hit with this, or if so, due to mass packs of pantheon groups, Triage should get a resist bonus.
As it is 2 dreads vs a carrier is pretty screwed already (thx dread dps upgrades!) for WH space this is already a sore point. Further reduction of archon/chimera tank will simply allow crap skill/fit dreads to work just as well. |
Lua Mioukl
CCS9
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 00:22:00 -
[870] - Quote
People who came to understand that this seemingly innocent 5% resist bonus was in fact very powerful played EVE right and took advantage of this bonus. And it's how it should be.
Changing a 5% for a 4% bonus would be like changing the RoF bonus just because it's actually better than the damage bonus. the RoF bonus is better than the bonus to damage per volley for DPS; let people figure this out by themselves and use it to their advantage come on!
The beauty of the 5% to resist bonus is that its a 5% bonus like so many others and yet it's better - in certain conditions. what the hell will EVE look like when all its bonuses get rectified to not be more powerful than another...
Even though i do agree that the 5% resist bonus on ships that have a large amount of hp is pretty strong (i.e prophecy) , on some ships, t2 ones in particular, it's there for a reason; smaller "elite" hull should be able to be tanky despite their ridiculously low base hp for their price. For example, making quite a few t2 cruisers less powerful in the current era where t1 cruiser are immensely more powerful than they were is a pretty questionable choice.
If this change happen I would suggest that t2 hulls that had this 5% resist bonus also get a signature radius reduction. A proportionally smaller signature radius would not hurt their local tank as much but would nonetheless still reduce their ability to be remote repaired. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |