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) |
Bakuhz
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:50:00 -
[151] - Quote
Askulf Joringer wrote:Bakuhz wrote:
i have seen you make great changes fozzie
some were in the beginning creeping me out but in the end it all went good im still ok with all the changes BS changes and the laser changes are a nice thign to start aswell
but kicking alot of ships in the nuts that cost a alot to train buy flie etc, those are the onces being kicked in the nuts unprovoked
but i will see what happens
The 5% resistance bonus is undoubtedly overpowred and have been since forever. A modest and reasonable nerf from 5% to 4% to this bonus is an EXTREMELY good change for overall balance. Fozzie has already done a fantastic job describing exactly why this change is good and to be quite honest, every point he made is 100% spot on. A nerf from 25% to 20% resistance is hardly a "kick in the nuts" especially when these ships are already sporting arguably the most powerful bonus in the game. Stop being Biased and look at the health of eve as a hole.
remember neuting the hardners is also killing resist recently to the bare hull resists thsi might be a bit to much i advice to look at each ship itself and not nerf the full rack of ships out there that have bonus to resists
and then see what happens a bit more math and less trial and error perhaps they get paid for it really good i expect a bit more care when its hitting a large group at once
rest im just going to sit this one out and see what happens http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Bakuhz#kills |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2013
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:50:00 -
[152] - Quote
BigCynoBoom wrote:So at the same time that we lose 25% warfare link t3s to a maximum of for 15% from a command ship, that we also lose the 5% resist bonuses for 4%. Are ships going to be able to be saved in fleet combat by logistics with the combined nerfs to their abilities ?
I hope not.... I find it pretty sad when a 200 man fleet engages a 100 man fleet, whipes them out, and takes no losses!!!!
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
547
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:52:00 -
[153] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite: telling baddies how EVE really is. <3
CCP really should open a design position for you, dude. |
Apoctasy
the united Negative Ten.
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:55:00 -
[154] - Quote
While on paper these changes seem to be sensible, they hurt active tanking ships far more than buffer tanked ships, ESPECIALLY ACTIVE ARMOR TANKS
Active armor tanks are already weaker compared to shield tanks, even with the introduction of ancillary armor repairers. This will further nerf a tanking style that is already tough to pull off, requiring much in the way of resist bonuses and slots devoted to cap management to do something even close to what a dual ancillary shield tank can do. |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:57:00 -
[155] - Quote
But here is the thing, ships with rep bonuses don't rely on active buffers/resists to sustain their tanks. Not to mention that a reduction in resists affects them a lot less right out, since resists increases are based on the remaining potential percentage of nonresistance. A ship that only has 40% resists will only lose out 2% on a 5% reduction of resists, while a ship that has 80% resists loses 4% resistance bonus or more, on top of the fact that resist ships don't tend to have as much base HP as rep ships.
To recap 40% - 2% = 38%, the increase in applied damage being about 1% more and 80%- 4% - 76%, the increase in applied damage in this case being 16% - 20% more Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Robot Robot
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:00:00 -
[156] - Quote
I have to agree with other voices here that this seems like an ill-considered way to go about this. In order to reduce the strength of a few overpowered ships, you are reducing the strength of a whole host of balanced (or even underpowered) ships as well.
I absolutely understand the desire to maintain consistency across bonuses of a single type, so I get why you wouldn't want to, say, drop the bonus to 4% on the OP ships while leaving it at 5% on the others. I also understand why you want to address this problem with a power reduction rather than a power increase.
What I don't understand is why you wouldn't just reduce the effectiveness of the offending ships in other NON-BONUS related ways, like say a reduction in base hit points or targeting range, or whatever seems appropriate on a case by case basis.
IT'S OKAY FOR SOME BONUSES TO BE STRONGER THAN OTHERS.
In fact, I'd say it's even desirable. When you have a ship like the Maller with very strong bonuses and a ship like the Augoror with weak ones, naturally you would need to make the base stats of the Augoror better to compensate. This has the beneficial effect of making it so that the player with Amarr Cruiser II might prefer the Augoror even in a solo context whereas, for the player with Amarr Cruiser V, the choice would become harder (this is, of course, imagining a perfect world where the Augoror wasn't a joke even at all Vs).
|
Ereilian
Over The Horizon
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:01:00 -
[157] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: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.
[b]Armor: Impairor, Punisher, Vengeance, Malice, Malediction, Maller, Sacrilege, Mimir, Vangel, Devoter, Phobos, Prophecy, Absolution, Damnation, Loki, Legion, Proteus, Abaddon, Archon, Aeon.
I think this is a step in a good direction, but I don't think applying this change so indiscriminately is the right way to go about it. Many of those ships are underpowered, and some are in a very good place. Only a few need this sort of nerf...so why not just apply it to those few ships on these lists that the change is really needed for? Yes, some of those ships are already under-powered, specifically s/m railgun platforms and some of the overweight armor ships that struggle to be in range. But, those problems have little to do with their tanks. A year ago, I would have been worried, but Fozzie has come through enough times now to trust that ships will be fixed.
Trouble is that they are specifically hitting non competitive races (Caldari) and ships that are direct competition for Alpha doctrine .. while at the same time blaming Alpha doctrine for the changes.
While Foz has a decent record of being on the level, there is serious discontent brewing that these changes are specifically PVP and take no account of PVE usage of the ships involved. Add to that the perceived bias towards Alpha doctrine ships and you can see why it is causing such discontent.
We have been promised for years that Caldari would be made PVP competitive, and just when we have series of ships that are used in large scale PVP ... bam Nerfhammer time. Tengu, Rokh, Drake .... nerfed. But hey its okay guys, we are not touching Alpha doctrine!!!! Go Minmatar!!!
You see the dichotomy in this entire process? |
Anaphylacti
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:05:00 -
[158] - Quote
This change is imbalanced.
You should reconsider a blanket 1% reduction in resist as I believe it is a bigger nerf to shield compared to armor
100k ehp maller and 200k ehp prophs 1,000,000 ehp prots and their corresponding resist are definitely something that need to be looked at.
However, shield tank ships can't get anywhere near those numbers.
Moa's can get 60~70ehp max. Drakes, which have already been pretty much nerfed to the ground maybe get 120~130ehp. Tengus 200~300ehp.
All of this on top of the fact that shield have an enormous sig radius compared to their armor counter parts making applied damage greater. Also, the fact that there isn't any pure passive resist available for shield and that armor have two extremely effective non-stacking penalized mods.
Interestingly, things are reversed when it comes to frigates. However, the sig discrepancy remains.
I personally think the nerf should be applied to only tech 1 hulls at the moment. It would give people more of a reason to fly the already abandoned t2 hulls.
If anything we need some sort of compensation be it increased mobility, raw hp, etc...
|
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:05:00 -
[159] - Quote
Bakuhz wrote:
remember neuting the hardners is also killing resist recently to the bare hull resists thsi might be a bit to much i advice to look at each ship itself and not nerf the full rack of ships out there that have bonus to resists
and then see what happens a bit more math and less trial and error perhaps they get paid for it really good i expect a bit more care when its hitting a large group at once
rest im just going to sit this one out and see what happens
Honesty If I were fozzie and the current balance I would have gone after this resistance bonus more harshly than he did. The bonus has an effect on all 3 types of tanking, passive, RR, and active! The fact that you get a 25% bonus to each (20% resistance = about 25% as shown in fozzie's math) is extremely, extremely powerful.
As for you point about "the full rack of ships" The vast and I say vast majority of bonuses in this game are more or less statically carried over from ship to ship with few exceptions. I think there are far better ways to balance the overall lineup of ships with resistance bonus other than giving some a 4% per level and others a 5% per level. While a counter to this argument may be the increasing trend for 10% dmg bonuses per level to show up on ships within the same class as ships with a 5% there is a big difference. The difference is that the effect of this bonus is regulated by the total number of turrets the ship is able to fit. There is no regulation on the total number of tanking modules a ship can have outside the number of slots that show up on the ship. As it turns out the ship with the resistance bonus often have more tanking slots than ships w/o the bonus anyway...
About hardeners loosing there "passive" resistance portion when turned off truly holds no bearing on the discussion as this applies to ships with the bonus and w/o the bonus equally. Also this has nothing to do with what the devs are getting payed, neither you or I know that and even if we did I don't see how their pay rate can be related to the discussion at hand.
|
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:06:00 -
[160] - Quote
mynnna wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you feel strongly about this change, either liking or disliking it, you should vote for CSM 8 and tell your representatives how you feel. CSM 8 will be taking office before the launch of Odyssey. Vote from now until April 18th here. I'll tell you that it's a good change and you should kiss off, but if you dislike the change, maybe you'll get lucky and Travis Musgrat will get elected. You'll probably find a sympathetic ear from him... he just loves overpowered things.
MY CSM candidate! |
|
The Great Leader
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:06:00 -
[161] - Quote
Care to give the Loki a second thought on this? It doesn't have a great tank to begin with and is getting hit the worst out of all t3s since the rest can choose from a buffer or resist bonus but poor Loki only has resist bonus available. Granted, it can fit for either shield or armor but the slot choices are less than ideal on both subsystems. The voice of truth. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
123
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:07:00 -
[162] - Quote
As some have suggested, why not have the resist bonus "resist" incoming remote reps but not affect local reps' strength, where the hull bonus (37.5%) and resist bonus (~33%) are on parity. Then, you'd end up with ships that are better at receiving remote reps (the ships with local repair bonuses) and those ships that are better at buffer (the resist bonus hulls). Both ships would have a use in fleets, where ships are likely to have remote reps but could still stand to use a buffer, as well as in small gangs where local tanks may be used but buffer is still as important. |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
428
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:07:00 -
[163] - Quote
I can't argue with the general idea. However I feel like suggesting to approach ships on case-by-case basis. Some of the ships on the list (mostly armor bonused frigs and maybe some cruisers) are strongly in "meh" territory due to general issues of armor tanking small ships, among other things like their underwhelming offensive performance. In other cases we can see that ships with bonused "layer" just have too little HP in that layer (compare stats of amarr AFs and HACs for example, not only armor bonused ships have significantly less structure, but also thin armor and slot layout that tend towards middle ground). Of cource those ships aren't rebalanced yet, so maybe there are other options to keep those ships great even with 4% bonus.
Most ships on the list probably deserve it, however. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:11:00 -
[164] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Extending armor and shield repair bonuses to apply to remote reps would bring them much closer to balance with resist bonuses, but would also further empower the current remote rep tactics that are as strong as we feel we can allow them to be. You have your solution here, just nerf the remote reppers ability slightly as they are already pretty much OP. Why couldn't you do this?
If you are going with the 5% resist nerf it will result into this:
1. Yet another slap to our face 2. Doesn't fix really the core problem, just swept under the carpet 3. Creates more balancing issues... |
Tom Gerard
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1007
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:12:00 -
[165] - Quote
Interdictors cannot be repped.... One of the oldest mission players in EVE designed a chart that explains stat priority in regards to mission running, compared Alpha, DPS, Ship Speed and Sig Radius and scores them. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24dbrfuWn1r86ax8o1_1280.jpg |
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:14:00 -
[166] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you feel strongly about this change, either liking or disliking it, you should vote for CSM 8 and tell your representatives how you feel. CSM 8 will be taking office before the launch of Odyssey. Vote from now until April 18th here.
This is something I strongly disagree with from a game development standpoint. Much of the CSM election has to do with internal and meta influences well beyond that of the goal of "overall game health". Many of the CSMs have personal and corporate/powerblock goals in mind. Leave it to discussions in which the entire community can partake in (forums) or up to the internal discretion of the balance team. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
261
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:19:00 -
[167] - Quote
Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3310
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:27:00 -
[168] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change.
So... a heal debuff?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:27:00 -
[169] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change.
?
I fail to see how this change is bad in any form. The modest decrease in ehp/self rep/ remote rep that will be experienced by ships with this resistance bonus is hardly game breaking at any level. The undeniable reality is that this nerf is needed and HAS been needed for years. It's something that has been talked about by veteran pvpers since like forever.
I again ask that the community try and separate themselves from their personal bias and do their best to look at the health of the game as a whole.
Now to comment on your actual suggestion rather than the "even that would be better" remark. Some form of Ewar that would have a modest effect on the amount of RR received could very well be a great solution. Currently there comes a point when fielding many logi that the fights are just far too uneventful. Long fights are fun and all but when it comes down to a fleet of 100 having the proper fleet comp not even loosing a single ship to a fleet of 70 that may not have as many logi in a brawl, something is inherently broken in the overall mechanics of RR Fleet warfare.
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:30:00 -
[170] - Quote
No argument that this particular area needs adjustment, we are just arguing over where the adjustment should be made, and how. As it stands, the current suggestion of the 1% nerf to hull bonuses is deeply unpopular with those people who actually fly those hulls. CCP should consider this significant. I am hoping that this nerf will be implemented in another fashion. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
123
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:32:00 -
[171] - Quote
Askulf Joringer wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change. ? I fail to see how this change is bad in any form. The modest decrease in ehp/self rep/ remote rep that will be experienced by ships with this resistance bonus is hardly game breaking at any level. The undeniable reality is that this nerf is needed and HAS been needed for years. It's something that has been talked about by veteran pvpers since like forever. I again ask that the community try and separate themselves from their personal bias and do their best to look at the health of the game as a whole. Now to comment on your actual suggestion rather than the "even that would be better" remark. Some form of Ewar that would have a modest effect on the amount of RR received could very well be a great solution. Currently there comes a point when fielding many logi that the fights are just far too uneventful. Long fights are fun and all but when it comes down to a fleet of 100 having the proper fleet comp not even loosing a single ship to a fleet of 70 that may not have as many logi in a brawl, something is inherently broken in the overall mechanics of RR Fleet warfare. This change is bad in this form because it hurts all ships equally, when not all ships needed the nerf. There are very valid examples--such as HICs--that would do fine with the higher resists, because their playstyle makes them huge targets and they benefit the most from the buffer. Other ships--*cough Drake*--could stand a nerf. But a sweeping policy that affects all ships, even those who are nonoffenders, is a bad way to handle it.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2016
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:32:00 -
[172] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:But here is the thing, ships with rep bonuses don't rely on active buffers/resists to sustain their tanks. Not to mention that a reduction in resists affects them a lot less right out, since resists increases are based on the remaining potential percentage of nonresistance. A ship that only has 40% resists will only lose out 2% on a 5% reduction of resists, while a ship that has 80% resists loses 4% resistance bonus or more, on top of the fact that resist ships don't tend to have as much base HP as rep ships.
To recap 40% - 2% = 38%, the increase in applied damage being about 1% - 2% more and 80%- 4% - 76%, the increase in applied damage in this case being 16% - 20% more
Ships with rep bonuses absolutely utilize resists to enhance their own reps... and they need enough buffer to last between reps.
FYI: a 5% resist bonus == a 7.5% rep bonus (not exact, but very close). Rep bonus == 37.5% increase in reps... Resist bonus == 25% reduction in damage, which means reps effectively heal 1/.75 = 33.3% more than non-bonused reps. New Resist bonus == 20% reduction in damage, which means reps effectively heal 1/.8 = 25% more than non-bonused reps.
This change essentially means rep bonus ships heal 12.5% more effectively, helping them re-claim the active-rep niche. Furthermore, resist bonused ships will still be optimal for buffer tanks and receiving remote reps, but the changes bring them down a "small notch" so other non-resist-bonused hulls can potentially compete (especially those with double weapon bonuses). |
MukkBarovian
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:34:00 -
[173] - Quote
The changes are fine. The complaints about the bad ships that get nerfed not deserving it underline the need to balance them more than the problem with the nerf. So much of the balancing lately has been buffs. Especially in the cruiser department. Those cruisers that haven't yet seen 'balancing' will desperately need it after Odyssey.
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:36:00 -
[174] - Quote
I don't see why those ships that need more buffer in the face of the bonus couldn't receive more Shield or Armor HP. After all, if they need buffer, than more buffer can be applied that way, no need to alter resist ships to change that. These 2 issues are really orthogonal to each other. Nerfing resist mods and increasing the base HP of buffer ships is something that could be done at the same time.
Also, I didn't say that rep ships don't get a benefit from resists, only that they don't rely on them the same way resist ships do. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Gridreign741
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:38:00 -
[175] - Quote
new player nerf, weird |
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:38:00 -
[176] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:No argument that this particular area needs adjustment, we are just arguing over where the adjustment should be made, and how. As it stands, the current suggestion of the 1% nerf to hull bonuses is deeply unpopular with those people who actually fly those hulls. CCP should consider this significant. I am hoping that this nerf will be implemented in another fashion.
Health of the game is > than popularity, especially when the proposal being "unpopular" is almost entirely based on personal bias.
The comments about certain ships needed a 5% more than a 4% may very well be valid however there are better ways to improve the survivability of these ships other than mixing up the consistency of bonuses that is almost always found (yes 7.5% and 10% to rep bonus is an example of an inconsistency)
I still very strongly support fozzie and his teams choice of nerfing the bonus, it's been a long time coming and once people get beyond foolish bias, they will come around just as many of them have come around to previously unpopular healthy changes.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1263
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:39:00 -
[177] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote: You have your solution here, just nerf the remote reppers ability slightly as they are already pretty much OP. Why couldn't you do this?
Doesn't create enough space between self-repping bonused ships and self-repping resistance bonused ships.
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:42:00 -
[178] - Quote
So sayeth the Minmatar player, who stands to gain in every way from this, as opposed to a small time Rokh pilot, who will be drastically effected negatively by this change. I don't run in megablobs, or often have access to an OGB and/or booster. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:46:00 -
[179] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote: You have your solution here, just nerf the remote reppers ability slightly as they are already pretty much OP. Why couldn't you do this?
Doesn't create enough space between self-repping bonused ships and self-repping resistance bonused ships. So what is the problem to raise the bonus for them then if it is an issue? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:47:00 -
[180] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:So sayeth the Minmatar player, who stands to gain in every way from this, as opposed to a small time Rokh pilot, who will be drastically effected negatively by this change. I don't run in megablobs, or often have access to an OGB and/or booster. So just for you and your specific use of the Rokh balance should be ignore for tanking bonuses? |
|
|
|
|
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 |