|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Mathias Orsen
Sacred Templars
Unclaimed.
0
   |
Posted - 2013.05.12 23:45:00 -
[1] - 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. |
Mathias Orsen
Sacred Templars
Unclaimed.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 12:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
I really can't help but feel at a loss as to why anyone would think that the 5% bonus to resist per level is overpowered but has nothing to say about the huge resist buffer on t2 ships. Both types of resist increase were put there for a reason and the 5% blanket is nowhere near as powerful as the two color boost to t2 resist. This, because it's much easier to fill a hole in resist than it is to try to raise it across the board.
The thing I disagree with most on this nerf is that it is being based on large scale fleet pvp as where ship for ship, 5% resist is in no way OP compared to 7.5% to shield boost or armor reps.
Most of these 5% bonus are on ships because it goes with their natural design. Just as Gallente are made for close range and blasters while caldari are made for long range and rails, you have ships that are made to do more boosting and less buffing and vice versa. An Abaddon holds a strong tank but has a harder time devoting cap to rep itself. Comparing it to a Hyperion of a Maelstrom which can keep on tanking while the Abaddon just gets whittled down, that resist is not overpowered in the least.
Brings it back to where it started. Fleet battles. It's not that 5% per level is to much. It's that ships that get 5% per level are designed to be a strong buffer. It's only natural that these ships get along well with Logistics. Ships that get rep and booster bonuses typically work with far less buffer. When everything comes together as a fleet and the problem is that resist gets a bonus from local reps, buffer and remote reps, the more logical thing to do would be to let active ships get a bonus from remote reps.
While it was said that someone at CCP feels that logi are already borderline OP, Adding a new bonus to active tanks would be ideal. Such as 7.5% to repair amount and 3-5% from remote repairer per level. What ever balances better. This would allow many ships such as the Hype and the maelstrom to drop the reps to add buffer and join in on fleet fights. After all, isn't that the goal, to get more diversity and make unused ships usefull again. I've only seen one hyperion in the last 3 years. nerfing the resist on an abaddon isn't gonna do anything for that. |
Mathias Orsen
Sacred Templars
Unclaimed.
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 22:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
This one really burns me. Appearently, in CCP's eyes, if they ignore the negative feedback then there might as well not be any. Like it or not, right or wrong, if the change is made, people will learn to live with it.
My proposition is this, if a resistance bonus is considered overpowered it should be removed completely and replaced with a bonus that is not overpowered.
Give the gila and rattlesnake a missile damage bonus.
Give the Abaddon an optimal range or tracking bonus.
Give the Rohk a Damage bonus.
Give the maller and prophecy a weapon damage bonus.
|
Mathias Orsen
Sacred Templars
Unclaimed.
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 10:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I've never stopped reading this thread, I have it open every day to keep an eye on new posts. I am very interested in what people have to say, but that's not the same thing as designing by straw poll.
I'm also primarily looking at arguments made, not frequency of posting. So volume doesn't get you some kind of advantage Buhhdust. The honest truth is that if we had seen a convincing argument for why this change is a bad idea we would have been open to adjustments as always, but at the end of the day we need to make the best decisions we can for EVE's balance and sometimes that means disagreeing with a subset of passionate players.
Also this idea originated with me, so if you want to give someone death threats I'm your huckleberry.
It's your idea. You are already biased toward the idea. I would be like giving someone a convincing argument to why they shouldn't burn kittens. Good idea or bad, it's not gonna break the game. People aren't gonna quit EVE over it. People aren't gonna stop flying Moas. It's something to deal with. |
Mathias Orsen
Sacred Templars
Unclaimed.
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 22:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:I've thought after all the replies here the change was not to pass.... and now I comm to SiSi and see this stupid change there!!!! Didn't people write enough reasons why this should not be?
This is just one of those cases when a large rock decides to fall from the sky it's coming down regardless of the impact it has. It's not that this is a bonus that needs to be nerfed. It's not something that has become a "goto" bonus. While some ships do really play on the bonus to gain the maximum EHP creating "goto" ships like the maller and the abaddon, this really don't even have anything to do with the fact they have a resist bonus. The biggest key is that they have the most tanking slots in their class.
It's certainly not a "have to have" bonus.
While at the root, changing the bonus from 5% to 4% isn't gonna kill the bonus and it will make someone on the dev team feel that it is more balanced when it wasn't ever unbalanced till this thread was made. It's gonna have a negative first look. When you see all other ships getting 5% bonuses, 7.5% bonuses, 10% bonuses and 20% bonuses, that 4% resist bonus is sure to drive people away from a ship because it will look and feel like a cheated bonus.
The only pilots that will really be wanting to fly these ships are the ones that are specifically gearing for the max EHP with a plated up maller or abaddon.
After we get this change put into game, we can start talking about double damage bonuses on ships or make caldari missile boat bonus only effect kinetic again because the omni bonus is just to versatile. Working equally in every sit
|
|
|
| |
|