EVE Search - [Odyssey] Ship Resistance Bonuses

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey] Ship Resistance Bonuses

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
John 1135 1	Posted - 2013.04.30 12:32:00 - [1] - Quote Taoist Dragon wrote: Simple change the 5% resist bonus to a HP buff. This then affects the 'passive' side and not the 'active' side of the tanks. It would also bring the passive tanking more in line with active tanking bonussed ships. The correct balance would be to give a percentually greater HP buff than the lost resist buff, because of the dynamic difference between mitigation and ablation. So if knocking say 0.5-2% off resists (varied by class and role) one might add say 2.5x the lost resist amount to AHP/SHP. A little less to shields due to the regen dynamic. So the Abaddon might lose say 10% resist at Lvl V, but gain 25% AHP. I would suggest adding this to the base HP so that the ship become relatively better at lower SP levels. This should allow local repping to be buffed slightly to make it a thing. The goal I think should be to produce high buffer tank ships to counter an alpha strategy, while making them less repairable so that brawling with them can win through. With a general view to producing longer PvP fights.
John 1135 1	Posted - 2013.04.30 12:42:00 - [2] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Quote: I like how you want the most versatile bonus to retain it's strength and trample over the tanking bonuses of the other 2 races If you are saying speed isn't the most versatile bonus, you are wrong before you even started. Every other kind of tank bonus helps you mitigate damage when you do get hit. Speed helps you not get hit in the first place. Speed means the ability to dictate the fight. This is the most powerful bonus in EVE and has been for a long time. ^^^^ Agreed, and the bigggest reason why every resist bonused ship in the game was F*** all for maneuvarability compared to anything else. And yet, not a single comment anywhere about providing any compensation for this nerf, simply "take it and like it". Agreed. I liked that resist bonused ships were slow and brick-like. I found that enjoyable. If I'm frank, I find these proposed changes insipid. Speed is the better bonus, because it grants opportunity to dictate the engagement (whether it happens, and at what range). And it can be used to tank. Resists are still a fun bonus because it feels good to be able to take a punch and slug back. But taking a punch doesn't directly land any damage on an opponent. Hence resists need to be robust to matter.
John 1135 1	Posted - 2013.04.30 12:43:00 - [3] - Quote Fail click.
John 1135 3	Posted - 2013.05.02 09:14:00 - [4] - Quote So putting an argument R = CCP's concern is really RR: so CCP should nerf RR rather than resists What is a solid counter-argument to R? Is the concern really RR? Can RR be fixed without nerfing resists? What about active repping?
John 1135 3	Posted - 2013.05.03 12:38:00 - [5] - Quote X Gallentius wrote: John 1135 wrote: What is a solid counter-argument to R? The solid counter argument to R: R(resistance bonuses) crowd too much into SR(self-repping bonuses)'s space. Proof: R is nearly as good as SR bonuses at self repping. If the R ship has even one more tanking slot than the SR ship, then it will be more effective at self repping. Why not just increase the SR bonuses a touch to compensate? If it's not working now, perhaps it needs to be stronger? Nerfing R won't suddenly propel SR to usefulness you know. Nerf RR (the problem child) Buff SR (another problem child) Leave R alone (the useful and widely liked child who does as she is told)
John 1135 20	Posted - 2013.05.08 06:55:00 - [6] - Quote Cygnet Lythanea wrote: The sad part is as I work it out, this reduces my resistance tank by less than 1% once mods and skills are factored in. So what is the point of this again, exactly? Current Abaddon for BS IV char hits something like EM 79% TH 73% KN 69% EX 83% That is 2xEANM IIs, 1xDC II, 1x EX Hardener II. There are other ways to tank, but this yields over 160k EHP. My understanding is that ship bonuses don't go into the stacking formula. So losing 4% for the example char means taking roughly 19% more damage from EM 15% more damage from TH 13% more damage from KN 24% more damage from EX So on average nearly 18% more damage taken per second. Due to dynamic factors in how resists interact with repping, were armour HP on Abaddon to be buffed to compensate CCP would need to increase it by something like a third to come close to being as resilient under fire.
John 1135 26	Posted - 2013.05.09 06:19:00 - [7] - Quote X Gallentius wrote: Example with current resists (check EFT): L0 Moa - 0/20/40/50, L5 Moa 25/40/55/62.5. Proposed Resists: L5 Moa 20/36/52/60 Lets assume raw dps is 1, then effective dps is: L0 Moa - 1/.8/.6/.5 L5 Moa - .75/.6/.45/.375 (original) L5 Moa - .8/.64/.48/.4 (proposed) Ratio Proposed/Original - 1.067 for ALL. Not 18% Come back with a boat that has modules fitted. ty
John 1135 26	Posted - 2013.05.09 06:48:00 - [8] - Quote For example Moa (EFT) 1x Invuln II 1x EM Ward II EM 75 TH 58 KN 68.5 EX 73.7 Moa has modest base resists. Onyx by comparison with same mods will have EM 75 TH 89.5 KN 84.3 EX 73.7 So DPS penetrating is Moa 0.25 0.42 0.315 0.263 Onyx 0.25 0.105 0.157 0.263 Changes to Moa 0.3 0.47 0.365 0.313 Onyx 0.3 0.155 0.207 0.313 Additional DPS penetrating (multilple) is Moa x1.2 x1.11 x1.1587 x1.19 avg x1.1647 Onyx x1.2 x1.476 x1.318 x1.19 avg x1.296 but the fact is that the Onyx would be more heavily tanked still, with likely 2x Invuln IIs So yeah, 20%. That's the conservative estimate. Taking into account the interaction with repping these ships are foreseeably a fifth to a third less resilient under fire. The Onyx in particular reveals how bad a blanket nerf is due to the higher base values and because remote repping can't apply when it's doing its job. CCP please FGS reconsider a blanket nerf. Or give these ships a fifth to a third extra HP (depending on base resists class) to compensate.
John 1135 26	Posted - 2013.05.09 09:36:00 - [9] - Quote X Gallentius wrote: Moa: Damage Control II, Invuln II, L5 - 54.1/63.2/72.4/77 Moa: Damage Control II Invuln II, L0 - 38.7/51/63.3/69.4 Incoming DPS L5:45.9/36.8/27.6/23 L0: 61.3/49/36.7/30.6 Current: L0(1-.25) = L5 for each case Proposed: L0(1-.2)= 0.4904/0.392/0.2936/0.2448 Proposed/Current = 1.067. Same in all cases. ----- Onyx: This was a pain since baseline numbers in EFT don't let you change Caldari Cruiser (always assumed to be Level 5), BUT you can get them from Cerberus Caldari Cruiser Bonus (25% increase in resistance at L5): 25/85/77.5/62.5 No Resistance Bonus (Cerberus): 0/80/70/50 Same math, same ratio: 1.067. ---- Moa, 1 EM Ward II L5: EM 66.3 L0: EM 55.3 Run Through Math: Same Ratio 1.067. Bottom line is that the 20% or 25% bonus is applied to remaining resists after everything is applied, and the final ratio is always 1.067. I see the issue. We're estimating subtley different things. The average multiple on DPS taken is 12% (1.12). For example Moa with 1x Invul II 1x EM Ward. Moa EM 75 TH 58 KN 68.5 EX 73.7 DPS penetrating pre-nerf is EM 0.25 TH 0.42 KN 0.315 EX 0.263 DPS penetrating post-nerf will be about EM 0.3 TH 0.46 KN 0.345 EX 0.288 Multiple on the DPS taken is then post-nerf over pre-nerf, which will be EM 1.2 TH 1.095 KN 1.095 EX 1.095 So your 6% represents the degree of change in resists in one sense, but fails to capture the multiple on the DPS that will come through. The reason the latter is more relevant is that it will represent diminished time (HP trades for time) under fire, hence lost resilience.
John 1135 26	Posted - 2013.05.09 11:24:00 - [10] - Quote X Gallentius wrote: L0 Resist: 66.7/44/58/65 L0 dps: .33/.56/.42/.35 L5 dps Current: .25/.42/.315/.2625 (=L0* (1-0.25)) - Matches EFT L5 dps Proposed: .2664/.448/.336/.28 (=L0(1-0.2)) Ratio: 1.067 How are you calculating L5 dps - current and proposed? To get the resists nerf I alter the formula 0.25(1-base.resist) to 0.2(1-base.resist). For example, on EM Moa has 0% base resist so we see 0.25 drop to 0.2. That produces the following range of resist changes -0.05 / -0.04 / -0.03 / -0.02.5 I add modules in EFT and then - since ship bonuses aren't penalised - I deduct the above values. Switching to 1x Invuln II + 1x DC II so were looking at the same values.* I see in EFT (for all LV) 0.541 / 0.632 / 0.724 / 0.77 which becomes 0.491 / 0.592 / 0.694 / 0.745 inverted to show 1 DPS let through 0.459 / 0.368 / 0.276 / 0.23 becomes 0. 509 / 0.408 / 0.306 / 0.255 putting the latter over the former produces 1.1089 / 1.1087 / 1.1087 / 1.1087 We could use a fair estimate of 10% less resilient for the MOA. The ship is taking 10% more DPS than it was previously. Each time it was previously hit for 100 it is now hit for 110. Let's say it had 3000 HP and no repping. Previously it tanked that 100 DPS for 30 seconds. Now 27 seconds. Ergo it is an honest statement to say it is 10% less resilient under fire because it survives in the fight for 10% less time. Once one then considers the interaction with repping, and looks across the line of ships, it feels to me like a fifth less resilient is a fair call. A point to stress is the uneveness of the nerf: it hurts lightly tanked T1 Cruisers much less than it hurts heavily tanked HICtors. Your 6% is fair in another sense, but I feel it doesn't give as good a picture of changed resilience under fire. Is this starting to make sense or have I introduced some subtle error somewhere.
John 1135 26	Posted - 2013.05.09 11:40:00 - [11] - Quote Deerin wrote: John 1135 wrote: To get the resists nerf I alter the formula 0.25(1-base.resist) to 0.2(1-base.resist). For example, on EM Moa has 0% base resist so we see 0.25 drop to 0.2. this is wrong 1-(0.75(1-base resist)) to 1- (0.8(1-base resist)) is the correct formula Edit : Clarified by adding brackets That's a nicer point to add the inversion. I invert later is all (where I say 'inverted to show'). The results are the same. The bottom line is the Moa survives under fire for 10% less time under the setup proposed. Thus it is fair to call it that amount less resilient. And that increases on heavier tanked ships. A lightly tanked T1 cruiser is less impacted than a heavily tanked HICtor,
John 1135 27	Posted - 2013.05.09 13:08:00 - [12] - 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.
John 1135 35	Posted - 2013.05.16 11:53:00 - [13] - 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.
John 1135 38	Posted - 2013.05.20 20:29:00 - [14] - Quote 6.7% might not seem much, but in a Devoter.... There are factors to consider ship-by-ship. How good is it at controlling range. Can it break off the combat if it wishes. Or is it forced to sit and soak up the damage? And if the issue is fleet RR then FGS fix fleet RR. Resist may be strong but that makes it a define ships and create enjoyable play. Making this a cross the board nerf is poor. It chills my excitement about Odyssey. Hope the patch is delayed.
John 1135 38	Posted - 2013.05.21 05:49:00 - [15] - Quote On a more constructive note. This change seeems positioned as a mechanical correction rather than a nerf. No one is saying the ships involved are imba. Rather it is the interaction with other mechanics - repping - that causes issues. Okay. So if the intention is not to nerf, give the ships affected +10% shield or armour HP in balance.
John 1135 42	Posted - 2013.05.21 20:52:00 - [16] - Quote To mare 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 ? you have no idea of what is a isk sink. plus tank got much much bigger buffs in the past than what gank its getting now The tin-foil hattery is weak in these ones. Navy is the new black. Ships bought with LP+ISK really are an ISK sink. Fin.
John 1135 43	Posted - 2013.05.22 16:01:00 - [17] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: If our feedback matters at all... Why don't you explain why this nerf to 44 different ships is needed? Ship by ship. Honestly, if you proposed this nerf to a handful of ships (e.g. The Abaddon, Archon, and Prophecy), you'd see about 80% less rage. It's the broad and apparently lazy manner of this nerf that causes the rage. Why do hictors need a nerf right now? I support your suggestion for selectively nerfing Amarr. Amarr ships are too strong.
John 1135 43	Posted - 2013.05.22 16:19:00 - [18] - Quote Cyrus wrote: Cearain wrote: Fozzie I like your approach to these boards and I am glad you are still reading them. But it seems you are saying that you will never give a ship 1 really good bonus (like resist bonus) and 1 not so good one (like reduced cap need for turrets). Instead you are trying to make all the bonuses completely equal. So they are pretty much interchangable. IMO Thats not good for diversity/complexity of ships in eve. Do the opposite. Give a ship a 6% resist if it is otherwise lacking. And if one is overpowered then reduce it to a 4%. IMO You should be trying to balance ships not bonuses. This is actually one of the better ideas I have heard in a long time. Design-wise I disagree with it. By balancing bonuses as a set the design team can apply them safely to ships knowing the range of results of doing so. Applying ship-by-ship values will be more unpredictable and reduce the designability of the game as a whole: making improvements and new ship and feature introductions more effortful. What is vexing me is simply 1) Why not set RR and LR where you want it before nerfing? Buff first, prove to players s* is OP, and nerf second. No one is claiming these ships are imba. 2) The stated problem is not directly addressed by the nerf. To my reading CCP Fozzie** is not saying this class of ships are OP. But rather this bonus causes an issue with other dynamics that interact with it, making those dynamics harder to stabilise. Okay, fine: but again why nerf back ships that no one is calling imba. At the least simply swap a putative 5% resist with some amount of buffer tank. I believe +10% would be justifed. 3) It isn't proven that the illths claimed will be fixed by this nerf. What happens then? You leave 44 ships languishing while you make further nerfs? So again, why not do what you intend to RR and LR and then nerf as needed? 4) Alpha. And again alpha. This nerf will help alpha-fleet do better. Many players dislike the kind of fight front-loaded damage yields. Yes alpha should be a thing, but why are you buffing it? 5) Shield vs Armour. There is an acknowledged issue between shield and armour at present. I believe differential resists would be a tool to addressing that. Even within my comments on designability above there is no reason not to fork shield and armour: indeed they should be forked because the resists interact, and should for diversity of play interact, differently with the relevant dynamics.
John 1135 45	Posted - 2013.05.26 16:14:00 - [19] - Quote Sisohiv wrote: The hardeners will now have more to start with when they are added. In the case of Shield, you can add 55% of 100 for the first one or 55% of 75 or 80. An EM hardener on a Drake for example will now render 44% rather than 41.25% assuming you have BC to 5. Current: 75x.55=41.25 & New: 80x.55=44.00. 2.75% of the lost 5% will be given back with a T2 Active hardener and from aan EVE PvP perspective I doubt you are seeing a full volley difference in when that ship goes pop. True, but remember to consider the percentual change in damage let through, rather than the raw change in % resist. Because damage let through will determine survival underfire and repping-rate required. The flat change at BSV to survival under fire is I now understand 6.7%. If before you lasted 300 seconds, now you last 20 seconds less. Probably a bit worse due to the interaction with repping.
John 1135 47	Posted - 2013.05.28 09:10:00 - [20] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Nerf Burger wrote: Vincent Gaines wrote: Why not just modify remote rep bonuses to resists? The higher the resist, the more difficult it is to rep it. This change please. Not the 4% nerf across the board. Doesn't affect local rep effectiveness increase and if you include that you may as well get rid of the bonus and replace with HP. That said I'm still not understanding why people want a less versatile bonus. Modelling it you can see that on the margin high resists cause an issue in the interaction with repping. So to really fix repping CCP need to look at resists. Which is one thing. But nerfing ships that aren't OP is another. Hence, a) why not make the changes they want to repping first and then go to resists, and b) why not keep the affected ships where they are for survival under fire by giving them percentually larger buffers. Say around +10%. Which will also make them forgiving for lower skilled players. So CCP are not saying that EHP are the issue. But nevertheless, they've chosen to blanket nerf a wide range of ships that don't need it. Some members of which rely on their super EHP to balance other disadvantages! Replacing the resist bonus completely with an HP bonus is not the same thing. Instead of pulling in the margin they'd have changed the play of the affected ships altogether. And much for the worse IMO given the versatility of the resist bonus. Hence I'm only suggesting a one-off offset for the nerf. But whatever. You might as well expect these ships to come down to 3% and sell them now. Sigh. I'm repeating myself. Out.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.