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) |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance 24eme Legion Etrangere
72
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 15:21:00 -
[361] - Quote
Rep amount ships, 7.5% changed to 10% per level.
Put the overloading rig in like was intended for the armor tanking update.
Problem fixed, no need to nerf resist bonused ships. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
579
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 15:37:00 -
[362] - Quote
Templar Dane wrote:Rep amount ships, 7.5% changed to 10% per level.
Put the overloading rig in like was intended for the armor tanking update.
Problem fixed, no need to nerf resist bonused ships. That is the quick and dirty solution they wanted to try but abandoned as rep bonused ships would be demi-gods on the small scale while still being relegated to the shadows on the large scale. Look at the math in the armour tanking thread, the Incursus would active tank solo as if it had a logistics frig permanently attached to it .. almost same for the Brutix/Myrmidon and with blue pill shields the Minmatar rep bonus + ASB just went through the roof.
They did their due diligence, discarded the quick and easy way out and have now opted for the much more controversial and work intensive option. Hop on the sparsely populated 'Compensation NOW' wagon, lots of room left .. expect departure first thing next week |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
572
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 15:51:00 -
[363] - Quote
They need to do a rebalance pass on this ships. |
Cabooze Skadoosh
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 16:06:00 -
[364] - Quote
Templar Dane wrote:Rep amount ships, 7.5% changed to 10% per level.
Put the overloading rig in like was intended for the armor tanking update.
Problem fixed, no need to nerf resist bonused ships.
So the problem is rep amount bonused armor boats being worse at active tanking than resist bonused armor boats? Not that resist bonus is too good in blob warfare? I'm confused. Shouldn't we classify the reason for the proposed nerf before we do anything.
Some people said prophecy is better at active tanking than the gallente active tanking BCs but that's only because it gets one more lowslot than the two. But in the contrary it gets 100 less dps in such fit to balance it out. Even if utilizing the excess lowslot for damage modifier it gets slightly worse tank but still can't beat the two gallente ships in dps.
I think the problem is people wanting to homogenize the ships because they can't be arsed to train other ships more suitable for the roles they want to do.
Keep them intact I say! |
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 16:23:00 -
[365] - Quote
Cabooze Skadoosh wrote:
Some people said prophecy is better at active tanking than the gallente active tanking BCs but that's only because it gets one more lowslot than the two. But in the contrary it gets 100 less dps in such fit to balance it out. Even if utilizing the excess lowslot for damage modifier it gets slightly worse tank but still can't beat the two gallente ships in dps.
It actually has to do with the fact that the additional hp granted by the resistance bonus compared to the rep bonus takes many many many minutes to "break even" with for a rep bonus ship. The duration to break even is honestly longer than you have cap charges. Combine that with the additional low and bam, you have a proph that does comparable drone damage even with 1 less drone, active tanks arguably better, and has the option of being significantly more fleet viable than the myrmidon.
All in all Proph > myrm in all but a very few specific cases.
Buffing the rep amount bonus to 10% per level is not the right solution as it only fixes active tanking on ships with said rep bonus. The proper solution is the nerf the resistance bonus as is being done to increase the gap in active tank while also buffing armor reppers (medium and large) by a modest amount in both cap consumption and hp repped. The amount of "buff" should be no more than 7.5% to 10%, anything else would be a bit over the top. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
584
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 16:26:00 -
[366] - Quote
Cabooze Skadoosh wrote:So the problem is rep amount bonused armor boats being worse at active tanking than resist bonused armor boats? Not that resist bonus is too good in blob warfare? I'm confused. Shouldn't we classify the reason for the proposed nerf before we do anything.... No, you got it backwards (or sideways if such a thing exists ). Problem is: Ships with the rep bonus are geared towards the small scale while resist bonus is geared towards the large scale (buffer+logi) .. rep bonus gets no benefit on the large scale while resists can go toe-to-toe with it on the small scale, high resists essentially act as a double bonus.
The 1% decrease leaves the majority of the benefit on the large scale while at the same time affording rep bonus the intended clear advantage on the small scale .. without making them into god-mobiles. We only need to get the status quo reaffirmed by revisiting the ships hardest hit by the decrease and giving them a little somethin' somethin'
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
272
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 16:34:00 -
[367] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Cabooze Skadoosh wrote:So the problem is rep amount bonused armor boats being worse at active tanking than resist bonused armor boats? Not that resist bonus is too good in blob warfare? I'm confused. Shouldn't we classify the reason for the proposed nerf before we do anything.... No, you got it backwards (or sideways if such a thing exists ). Problem is: Ships with the rep bonus are geared towards the small scale while resist bonus is geared towards the large scale (buffer+logi) .. rep bonus gets no benefit on the large scale while resists can go toe-to-toe with it on the small scale, high resists essentially act as a double bonus. The 1% decrease leaves the majority of the benefit on the large scale while at the same time affording rep bonus the intended clear advantage on the small scale .. without making them into god-mobiles. We only need to get the status quo reaffirmed by revisiting the ships hardest hit by the decrease and giving them a little somethin' somethin' yeah resist bonus is good in small scale too ,but these resist bonused ships usually arent good at small scale compared to other bonused ship in the same size/role so why are they getting an allround nerf? this nerf push them back even more at small scale, if ccp goes throu with this they should start the rebalancing from the start with t1 frigs
|
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 16:35:00 -
[368] - Quote
For long time veterans the change will not change much, a FC has to put in one or two more logis in a 100 man fleet (with the idea of "skill all the things to 5" done). Newer players/ newbie friendly corps/alliances will suffer from it a lot since they have to put 10 more dudes in logis which decreases their DPS and their chance to win a fight vs another fleet comp, being way more vulnerable. Sometimes it is worth having still a pure lvl4 char in EFT and not to put a fully skilled set of T3s in FC/WC to check out those numbers, it is an eye opener.
If CCP Fozzie has more data available and he thinks that changing the resist bonus will help to change the meta of fleet composition please go ahead, but also do the other things that need to change. Shadoo > whoever was the first nyx on grid Shadoo > THANK GOD YOU ARE A SMART MAN and fitted the best tank in PL Shadoo > (ie. cyno) |
Sigras
Conglomo
398
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 16:45:00 -
[369] - Quote
Templar Dane wrote:Rep amount ships, 7.5% changed to 10% per level.
Put the overloading rig in like was intended for the armor tanking update.
Problem fixed, no need to nerf resist bonused ships. new problem introduced: making most PvE content even more trivial than it is now.
Think first, post second. |
Cabooze Skadoosh
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 16:52:00 -
[370] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Cabooze Skadoosh wrote:So the problem is rep amount bonused armor boats being worse at active tanking than resist bonused armor boats? Not that resist bonus is too good in blob warfare? I'm confused. Shouldn't we classify the reason for the proposed nerf before we do anything.... No, you got it backwards (or sideways if such a thing exists ). Problem is: Ships with the rep bonus are geared towards the small scale while resist bonus is geared towards the large scale (buffer+logi) .. rep bonus gets no benefit on the large scale while resists can go toe-to-toe with it on the small scale, high resists essentially act as a double bonus. The 1% decrease leaves the majority of the benefit on the large scale while at the same time affording rep bonus the intended clear advantage on the small scale .. without making them into god-mobiles. We only need to get the status quo reaffirmed by revisiting the ships hardest hit by the decrease and giving them a little somethin' somethin'
Don't hit the ships hardest hit and you don't even need to give them somethin' somethin'. Keep specialized ships specialized. Don't try to fit them into nullsecs endless sov grind. What are these few specific cases that myrmidon is better than prophecy? (Askulf's post). If it's 1v1 then isn't it better as an active tanking setup than the prophecy.
And what comes to shield active tanking with resist bonused ships, they suck without Ancillary booster before it's nerf. Only thing making it viable is Crystal implant set. |
|
Olerie Viliana
Devicron
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 17:15:00 -
[371] - Quote
from http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=88359¤tpage=1515
"I'm okay with toning down things that are too powerful.
I'm not okay with toning down things that are relatively awful (Sacrilege).
These big system-wide changes are apparently supposed to reflect some kind of CCP philosophy on resist bonuses. While it might be a noble philosophy, what's really happening is that some ships will be fine (they can deal with being toned down), some ships will just have to suck up a random nerf despite not being OP (Worm, Eagle, Drake, Ferox, Nighthawk, Rattlesnake, Malediction, Maller, Prophecy are big examples that jump out), and other ships will be completely boned because they're already pretty bad (Onyx, Sacrilege).
This does not even out the play field.
What they've done is identify a few citizens who are too tall (T3s, Chimera, Archon, Abaddon, arguably Broadsword) and decided to cut the legs off everyone in the same town up to the knees. "
The devs should consider reading the last 20 or so pages in that thread, they would quickly realize how deeply team liquid understands their game. If you really have time, just start reading that thread from newest back to oldest. You might actually learn how eve works in the process. It is probably the most insightful place on the internet when it comes to discussing these changes publicly and all of the others announced in the last month, and how to actually fit ships. Although, many of them are huge trolls and the thread is full of "inside jokes". You will have to be careful to sort out some of the more colorful explanations of things, and some of the stuff that is just them being silly.
Honestly there are a lot of things they point out that are undeniable and well explained. You are buffing some of the most overpowered ships in the game, nerfing some of the most underpowered, and making some ships completely useless for the few existing roles they still actually get used for. They are perhaps some of CCP's harshest critics, but the truth in much of what they say is undeniable. |
Cabooze Skadoosh
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 17:22:00 -
[372] - Quote
I agree with you. In the case of T3's this change won't affect proteus because hardly anyone uses the resist subsystem because it's directed as an RR subsystem and augmented plating gives more ehp. T3's in general are expensive and should give bang for the buck. T2 fitted they are just silly loss mails in the combat log expect some XLASB nano loki flown right. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 18:20:00 -
[373] - Quote
Here are my concerns:
1) Loki. It doesn't have an armor/shield amount subsystem, so the resistance is its only tank bonus worth using. Couple that with the slot layout and their average usage, and I'm worried that this will significantly hurt the Loki's tank/ehp. Maybe leave t3's out of this one? The armor/shield hp bonus overpowers the resistance bonus in more pvp situations than I'd care to admit.
2) I think the 5% bonus is best left as is on frigates and cruisers. I'd be sad but OK to see it go on BC and battleships.
3) the archon: Here's a doozey. It's the iconic brick tank carrier. Is it so popular and good because of the resistance, or because all the others have their pg/cpu issues?
4a) Fozzie, you said you aren't happy with the Alpha doctrine. Well, this actually makes the alpha problem slightly worse. Perhaps that problem is with artillery?
4b) You've also said you want to make self-reps more effective. This hurts it on unbonused ships (well duh), but perhaps the 7.5% bonus needs to be upped to 8%? 8.5%?
Amarr has been very fortunate until this month. We've received very few nerfs, direct or indirect. With the loss of the Geddon as the total gank machine, the loss of our 8th low slot on several ships to other races that don't typically have it, and a slight hit to our resists bonus (perhaps the second iconic bonus alongside the laser cap use reduction), this hurts. (I've commented on the geddon change; I'm still undecided on it)
And yet I still find myself OK with this change other than the above points, which are *fairly* small things imo.
Blanketing this to so many ships is perhaps not the right way to go. Some ships do need to be toned down (borrowing from Olerie Viliana), but this also hurts many ships that weren't in the best of shape as well. Maybe we can't see how they're being worked on until ya'll hit tech 2 with the balance bat. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
238
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 18:29:00 -
[374] - Quote
Leskit wrote:
3) the archon: Here's a doozey. It's the iconic brick tank carrier. Is it so popular and good because of the resistance, or because all the others have their pg/cpu issues?
Will have to check but theres a chance its going to put a significant nerf onto one of the popular triage fittings for the archon (or make it much more expensive to get the same results). I can also see another potential issue with this change and the archon but gonna wait to see how things pan out before elaborating. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 19:24:00 -
[375] - Quote
BULLSHIT Chris Roberts - I think the CCP guys did a very nice job, what they do on eve online, but it is not the style of game the first person visceral-áWing Commander, Privateer, Freelancer style (was).
Scource:-áhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU#t=16m35s |
Meduza13
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 19:43:00 -
[376] - Quote
High resistance on ships is the only thing keeping alive smaller fleets against blobs, they are able to win/fight if they have good logistics and tactics. Lowering resistance makes it harder = favours blobs and already overpowered alfastrike. I do not like it at all, never mind the mathematics, it has nothing to do with it. Ships die too quickly like for my taste, bettleship popping in couple seconds are not cool at all.
Second issue is killing amarr ships, nerfing them badly and boosting gallente and already overpowered hated minmatar.
Do not like it at all. |
Meduza13
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:01:00 -
[377] - Quote
And my vision is our dear developers are trying to make this game so noob friendly, that soon 10 noobs in caracals will be taking on capital ships. Triage archon is already pretty crap, can be killed in no time by couple dreadnoughts, making it even weaker is just wrong. |
Syzygium
Friends Of Harassment
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:02:00 -
[378] - Quote
I believe there is a difference between math and reality. You cannot just compare the numbers for some active tanking setup (which is btw. not the main form of tanking in this game).
To be honest, most ships with a resistance bonus are quite okay, but not overly powerful within their leage.
Zealot is by far more used than Sacrilege. Because Speed and Damageprojection is a greater advantage than resistance. Abaddon is strong with LOTS of support. Do 1on1 vs. a cheap Typhoon and you simply lose. Also in Fleets, more and more people use NavyGeddon and NavyApoc - both without resist bonus and still better.
Vengeance is a brick but can hardly catch anything. Retribution the same. How many of the very successfull frig-pilots use them? Not the most. Most people fly other frigs without resist boni, because other values are WAY more important in PvP.
Archon is the best carrier, but not because of its resist bonus, but because of the capacitor amount and the ability to feed armor and cap. Also very good to fit, unlike chimera. The resist bonus plays an absolute minor role in its domination.
Prophecy: had its resist bonus for years and was the by far worst battlecruiser. So much for the numbers.
Drake: was dominant because of the massive HM-imbalance. Shortrange every drake is simply eaten alive by a Brutix, Harbinger or Hurricane. The Resistbonus was nice but far from being the base of its strength.
You can look at almost every single ship with a resistance bonus and you will come to the same conclusion: - the resistance bonus is not the reason why they are good or - they even suck with resistance bonus
Fact is, most of the ships with a resistance bonus lack agility, speed or damageprojection or any combination of these. They NEED the "stronger" tanking bonus in order to survive long enough to even compete with the other ships. You mathematics on paper has nothing to do how these ships perform in reality. |
Love dan Murcatto
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:03:00 -
[379] - Quote
I see the reasoning behind lowering the resists, atleast in regular T1 hulls, but should this be done to faction, T2 and capital ships aswell? It seems only natural to me that the likes of rattlesnake, vulture or chimera should have better resists than a drake or rokh for example. If it turned out that the 5% resist bonus is still too big on these more expensive ships it always could be lowered down later. I don't see the need to change every +5% resists to +4%, you could leave some of them to +5%, now couldn't you?
Fozzie, I'd love to hear the reason why its not done like this (if you got the time to explain it to us), pretty please? |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:05:00 -
[380] - Quote
While i understand that CCP is afraid of the power creep there is a limit to that too when you hit the other opposite: overbalancing.
Here are some interesting thoughts of the overbalancing in two games: http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/overbalanced/
While we are far from the situations on the games mentioned on the blog we have been lately steadily progressing to that way. |
|
Meduza13
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:12:00 -
[381] - Quote
Syzygium wrote:I believe there is a difference between math and reality. You cannot just compare the numbers for some active tanking setup (which is btw. not the main form of tanking in this game).
To be honest, most ships with a resistance bonus are quite okay, but not overly powerful within their leage.
Zealot is by far more used than Sacrilege. Because Speed and Damageprojection is a greater advantage than resistance. Abaddon is strong with LOTS of support. Do 1on1 vs. a cheap Typhoon and you simply lose. Also in Fleets, more and more people use NavyGeddon and NavyApoc - both without resist bonus and still better.
Vengeance or Punisher is a brick but can hardly catch anything. Retribution the same. How many of the very successfull frig-pilots use them? Not the most. Most people fly other frigs without resist boni, because other values are WAY more important in PvP.
Archon is the best carrier, but not because of its resist bonus, but because of the capacitor amount and the ability to feed armor and cap. Also very good to fit, unlike chimera. The resist bonus plays an absolute minor role in its domination.
Prophecy: had its resist bonus for years and was the by far worst battlecruiser. So much for the numbers.
Drake: was dominant because of the massive HM-imbalance. Shortrange every drake is simply eaten alive by a Brutix, Harbinger or Hurricane. The Resistbonus was nice but far from being the base of its strength.
You can look at almost every single ship with a resistance bonus and you will come to the same conclusion: - the resistance bonus is not the reason why they are good or - they even suck with resistance bonus
Fact is, most of the ships with a resistance bonus lack agility, speed or damageprojection or any combination of these. They NEED the "stronger" tanking bonus in order to survive long enough to even compete with the other ships. You mathematics on paper has nothing to do how these ships perform in reality.
Good stuff. I disagree a bit about archon only, armor resistance bonus is important, otherwise it will pop like thanatos.
|
Celestial One
Militant Miners
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:13:00 -
[382] - Quote
Askulf Joringer wrote:Celestial One wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Shield: ... Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk,... Thrown in for the tears or was this really an issue with these hull? OMG, a 6.6%(something) nerf to damage taken totally break the hull!..... If people are trying to suicide gank you, they will. This really changes nothing. Stop grasping at straws.
This is not something that concerns me as I do not mine anymore. I was more or less pointing out that this may cause a Sh*t storm of tears when this hits the mining community. As someone who flies armor hulls I do not have enough experience with the other hulls in this balance pass to point out other examples that may need an additional balance pass after this resist nerf. Though I have no doubt that those who fly those hulls will point them out.
I am not the only one in this thread that is wondering why they are doing this as a blanket nerf rather than on a hull to hull basis. I am sure that there are some hulls that were balanced fine with the current resist bonuses. When it comes to suicide ganking I am sure that someone here can point out a situation where this will make it cheaper/easier to take out these hulls. When racing concord I am sure there are situations where there are advantages to only needing two volleys vs three for example. I am wondering out of curiosity if CCP has found the current mining hulls to be to strong?
I see a lot of balancing going on at the same time and currently none of it has made it to test server. Pointing out the mining hulls in particular was more about picking hulls that seem to most easily illustrate the potential issues with a blanket nerf to the bonus.
Why do a balance on hulls that are not deemed overpowered, seems like it may cause some headaches for CCP that could be avoided.
I do like the idea of balancing these resist bonuses though as there are very powerful on some ships. |
Kesi Raae
Anatidae Rising
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:27:00 -
[383] - Quote
FHC has your back on this one, keep up the good work, CCP. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
586
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:53:00 -
[384] - Quote
Love dan Murcatto wrote:I see the reasoning behind lowering the resists, atleast in regular T1 hulls, but should this be done to faction, T2 and capital ships aswell? It seems only natural to me that the likes of rattlesnake, vulture or chimera should have better resists than a drake or rokh for example. If it turned out that the 5% resist bonus is still too big on these more expensive ships it always could be lowered down later. I don't see the need to change every +5% resists to +4%, you could leave some of them to +5%, now couldn't you?... Would muddy the waters needlessly to have bonuses of different values all over the place.
If you sort the list Fozzie provided, you'll see that the vast majority of ships being affected are pirate/navy, T2 and collectors ships .. the first two have barely been been touched by tiericide (only just gotten to cruisers) and the latter are so brokenly OP and rarely see combat that they remain unperturbed. T2 will probably see a shake-up of similar magnitude to what T1 has seen as will the larger faction hulls, when the time comes keep an eye on them and if CCP neglects to account for the blanket nerf when presenting the revision, then you can scream bloody murder .. until then, focus on the existing ships (ie. tiericided T1) affected and let the rest lie until the shroud is lifted.
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
395
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 20:59:00 -
[385] - Quote
so you balance lots of ships, for the most part well. and then you randomly decide to hit 44 ships with a nerf some(if not most) really do not need or warrant.
its not even in the realm of balancing tbh, as its not taking ship class or role into account, its just a broad sweeping nerf bat swing, thought you were better than that fozzie OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
586
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 21:10:00 -
[386] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:so you balance lots of ships, for the most part well. and then you randomly decide to hit 44 ships with a nerf some(if not most) really do not need or warrant.... Go over the list again and count the ships affected - Shield: Merlin, Moa, Drake, Ferox. Armour: Punisher, Maller, Prophecy, Abaddon. That is a grand total of eight ships the rest are noobships, T2 ships, capitals and various faction hulls .. none of which have been addressed in the tiericide passes, ie. any compensation for the tank decrease can be worked into revisions with ease.
Onus for us should be to make CCP understand that some of the already tiericided ships affected will be hit quite hard and need a once over to smooth them out. |
Antaeus Fantasy
Grumpy Bastards Talocan United
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 21:22:00 -
[387] - Quote
All i can say is.. balance ALL ships first. After such a big change all the ships will need rebalance. and dont forget about ships with local armor reps. If it is a small change for 1 rep, it is 2x if a ship has 2 reps. or it instantlu turns into 3x if it is ancilary armor rep. so from -5% it turns into 10 %. Or in my case - 1 usual rep and 1 ancilary, it turns into -5% and -15%. A total of -20%. So i think that idea is too raw. |
Noisrevbus
423
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 22:00:00 -
[388] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Finally it's important to look at the value of these resistance bonuses combined with remote repair modules. Remote repair systems are extremely powerful in the current EVE meta, and I have stated in the past that we do not intend to increase the power of the highest end repair strategies (Tech Two Logistics and capital remote repairing) because they are on the edge of overpowered. Remote repair gameplay is some of the most fun gameplay we have (and is my personal favourite activity in 0.0) but is also responsible for discouraging fights and for forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies. Spidertanking strategies like Slowcat carriers are some of the post powerful tactics in the game, and it's no accident that those strategies rely entirely on resist bonused ships
I think you are making a serious mistake, and that is based on the underlined part. It is definately related, but i would argue that the issue lie in the opposite of what you presented:
The unchecked power of alpha and numerical scaling is what has cemented the popularity of buffers and dumbed the game down to alpha-only strategies.
It's disheartening to see that CCP do not learn from their mistakes.
We do not have alpha-only strategies because that is the only way to deal with powerful resistances, buffers and RR; we have alpha-only strategies because that has gradually become the most powerful way to deal with any resistance, buffer or RR. The tanking strategies splashing over into Carriers is simply a result of scale hitting the next level.
Lowering buffers lower the barrier of entry to alpha-only strategy, but it does not encourage other tactics, smaller ships, smaller gangs or fighting undermanned. The first few months of BC3 should have taught you this.
Most of the interesting smaller-scale action (think: RnK movies) in the game involve defensible gangs, utilization of other effects (EW, control) than sheer volley damage and sticking one's neck out in order to overcome the status quo. When that status quo exist you also see all those other inventive ways to deal with buffers and RR.
It's a terrible shame to see you getting it backwards, again, and heading towards implementing changes that feed the blob, discourage undermanned engagement and send more smaller entities from the holistic interactive sandbox and into peer-active themeparks... again.
Baddons, Rokhs, Loki, Tengu, Archons et. al. are favoured because too many ships or weapons Alpha other options even easier and tackling people have become far too easy so it's just a matter of sitting still and projecting both tackle and damage.
If you want to switch-up the paradigm you do it by affecting the offensive power of damage projection first; improve counters to bubbles, points, webs and painters - depreciate alpha, reach and ammunition flexibility. Then couple that with bottom-up economy, changes to infrastructure and all those prioritized issues that we expect you to fix this summer. |
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 22:14:00 -
[389] - Quote
So, apparently there is an imbalance with the 5% resist bonus.
CCP Fozzie wrote: This imbalance was becoming more and more of a problem as we started work on battleships and command ships.
What is the nature of this imbalance?
CCP Fozzie wrote: In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus.
Right. So the 25% resistance bonus (which, I might add, only kicks in at level 5 skills) is LESS POWERFUL than a local rep bonus. No seeing the imbalance yet...
CCP Fozzie wrote: Finally it's important to look at the value of these resistance bonuses combined with remote repair modules. Remote repair systems are extremely powerful in the current EVE meta...
Ah, ok. So the imbalance lies with remote reps.
I have a radical idea. BALANCE REMOTE REPS IF THEY ARE IMBALANCED, NOT THE RESIST BONUS. Crazy, I know.
Here's the kicked. If you implement this 4% bonus, I expect buffs to the 44 ships that are affected. Because, you know, they were designed with the bonus in mind. If you decide to implement this change, I expect the Merlin's shield buffed within 7 days.
On the other hand, you can rebalance remote reps... stacking penalty, rep amount, etc.
So either you change two modules (shield and armor reps), or buff 44 ships. |
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 22:20:00 -
[390] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Finally it's important to look at the value of these resistance bonuses combined with remote repair modules. Remote repair systems are extremely powerful in the current EVE meta, and I have stated in the past that we do not intend to increase the power of the highest end repair strategies (Tech Two Logistics and capital remote repairing) because they are on the edge of overpowered. Remote repair gameplay is some of the most fun gameplay we have (and is my personal favourite activity in 0.0) but is also responsible for discouraging fights and for forcing the rise of alpha-only strategies. Spidertanking strategies like Slowcat carriers are some of the post powerful tactics in the game, and it's no accident that those strategies rely entirely on resist bonused ships
I think you are making a serious mistake, and that is based on the underlined part. What you say is definately related, but i would argue that the issue lie in the opposite of what was underlined: The unchecked power of alpha and numerical scaling is what has cemented the popularity of buffer-RR and dumbed the game down to alpha-only strategies. It's disheartening to see that CCP do not learn from their mistakes. We do not have alpha-only strategies because that is the only way to deal with powerful resistances, buffers and RR; we have alpha-only strategies because that has gradually become the most powerful way to deal with any resistance, buffer or RR. The buffer-RR tanking strategies splashing over into Carriers is simply the result of buffer-projection scaling to the next level. This does not provide alternatives to subcapital blobs any more than the HP-nerf provided alternatives to supercapital blobs. The king is dead, long live the king. Lowering buffers lower the barrier of entry to alpha-only strategy, but it does not encourage other tactics, smaller ships, smaller gangs or fighting undermanned. The first few months of BC3 should have taught you this. What happened to all those (smaller-) gangs roaming the map in BC3? Most of the interesting smaller-scale action (think: RnK movies) in the game involve defensible gangs, utilization of other effects (EW, control) than sheer volley damage and sticking one's neck out in order to overcome the status quo. When that status quo exist you also see all those other inventive ways to deal with buffers and RR. Look at any undermanned action and you will see that they favour highly defensible gangs (100mn, cloaking, drops etc.). It's a terrible shame to see you getting it backwards, again, and heading towards implementing changes that feed the blob, discourage undermanned engagement (so we get more "nah, they had more dudes, let's not even try to fight them") and send more smaller entities from the holistic interactive sandbox and into peer-active themeparks... again. Baddons, Rokhs, Loki, Tengu, Archons et. al. are favoured because too many ships or weapons Alpha other options even easier and tackling people have become far too easy so it's just a matter of sitting still and projecting both tackle and damage. Who sticks their neck out, take that risk chasing after those targets to land that precious tackle anymore? Who grabs that extreme damage SR weapon and overheat his guns like a madman to break through anymore? Now, we'll have even less reason to do it. If you want to switch-up the paradigm you do it by affecting the offensive power of damage projection first; improve counters to bubbles, points, webs and painters - depreciate alpha, reach and ammunition flexibility. Then couple that with bottom-up economy, changes to infrastructure and all those prioritized issues that we expect you to fix by this summer.
And this is why we need a dislike button
A very modest nerf to an overpowered bonus has been needed for years...
-1 from me towards this personal bias evaluation. |
|
|
|
|
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 |