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) |
BiggestT
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:For example a 25% increase in armor hitpoints applies quite intuitively: (Base HP) * 1.25 = a 25% increase in total EHP.
In contrast a resistance bonus actually benefits your ships by decreasing incoming damage. So a ship with 25% resistance bonus takes 25% less damage from hostiles. This ends up applying to their effective hitpoints as: (Base HP) / 0.75 = a 33% increase in total EHP.
So while a 37.5% rep bonus increases effective repping by 37.5%, and a 50% armor hp bonus increases effective hitpoints by 50%, a 25% resistance bonus actually increases both by 33% (not the 25% that might be assumed at first glance). 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.
This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.
So? That's still 3% LESS not MORE, so a rokh will rep less than a maelstrom, yet the rokh gets nerfed? Remember that a mael is much more popular and powerful than a rokh, even with the current staus quo, why do you ignore this?
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Resistance bonuses also have several other huge advantages over our other tanking bonuses. At the end of the day what tanking bonuses really do is keep you alive longer. Active bonuses are strongest when the damage you are taking is weaker, while passive EHP bonuses help more when incoming DPS is higher, but both serve to increase the amount of time you can remain on the battlefield under fire. Since it applies to both reps (local or remote) and to passive EHP, a resistance bonus dominates in most situations.
And? No one passive tanks a rokh! Irrelevant point.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ship resistance bonuses also have the huge advantage of not being stacking penalized in a bonus category that is very often a few layers deep into the stacking penalty once the ship is fully fitted.
No other ship skill bonus gets a stacking penalty either. Shield/armour mods have stacking penalties, damage mods have stacking penalties. This point is also moot.
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.
And so we come to the real reason you're nerfing the rokh and abbadon.
Hint: don't nerf the ships, nerf the mods, the ships are fine in every other aspect! I'll use an analogy I used earlier: you're blaming the bread for being burnt by the toaster.
EVEN CONSIDERING THIS.
The rokh was never overpowered, how is it a problem if no one ever complained. No rr changes are happening in this expansion so how why is this change needed now, why did you change something that no one asked for or wanted??
The rokh will still be useful as a fleet BS yes, but it has always been only marginal in other roles. This change makes that worse. The maelstrom is now much, much better.
These changes were supposed to bring versatility to the neglected caldari BS's but you NERFED a ship that did not need to be nerfed! Skrew your blanket changes, assess each ship individually, not just a lazy one size fits all change to 4% for everything!
CCP Fozzie wrote:So our plan for Odyssey is to remove 1% per level from all the standard ship and subsystem resistance bonuses, setting them at 4% per level.
Worst. Plan. Ever. 0/10.
CCP Fozzie wrote:This affects 44 ships total.
Great, so you are thinking of applying a blanket change?
If so: F*CKING LAZY.
Assess each ship individually! Not together! Most of those ships were already balanced/under powered, you must reconsider!
I really like that you and CCP Rise are making some big changes and have a passion for this game, but this is a mistake and no one wants it. O know you guys can do much better! |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1655
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
what you need is another variable in the equation.
an example: resistances have a small penalty to remote repping (e.g effective_remote_rep_amount = average_ resistance/50*remote_rep_amount)
otherwise you have a bonus which makes you better in everything and you can not have it as high as you might want a eve-style bounty system (done)-á dust boarding parties You fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1286
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:13:00 -
[33] - 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.
Drat! There goes my change to steal the election from Mynnna. As obviously you'd vote for me if you disagreeds and I also disagreed. But I don't.
It's a well reasoned change. Steve Ronuken for CSM 8 Handy tools and SDE conversions Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
859
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:13:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:One thing I'll quickly mention is that 1 / 0.8 = 1.25. This means that the new bonus (20% resists at level 5) will actually equal a 25% increase in Effective Reps. Still very significant (in fact it's probably what a lot of people assumed the old bonus gave). However the difference between 25% and 37.5% is a lot more noticeable than the difference between 33% and 37.5%. But that does not address that rep bonuses are only good against sustained DPS and not high alpha damage, where resistance bonuses are good for both. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
307
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
5% resist bonus ships are great anti blob ships. It is one of the few things that gives u any chance against a blob. The problem is that the blob can bring that 5% resist ship too, right? Yes, but the real problem is the accessibility of those ships. T1 hulls are easy accessible to everyone and having blobs fly with T1 5% resist ships is the real problem.
The conclusion is to leave 5% resist bonuses to T2, T3 hulls and capitals and remove them from T1 hulls. Why T2, T3 and capitals? Well u diminish the blob by alot if u decide to go out with T2, T3 or capital ships.
Resist bonuses need to stay in the game. That bonus is great to show out some skill and compete with blobs. LF CSM8 candidate. Are you what lowsec needs? --->-átinyurl.com/afaawrb
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
833
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
This is a buff to the already overpowered alpha doctrines
Not exactly cool.
For all other context:
Some ships may need some rebalancing, others may need more work than they need now, but not exactly a problem We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Malcanis - CSM 8 |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3383
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:15:00 -
[37] - Quote
4% is fine.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
319
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:16:00 -
[38] - Quote
Can I suggest not to apply the 4% to T2 ships in this expansion since most of them are in pretty bad shape since the tiercide hit their T1 "cousins" and we only apply this change when you "tiercide" them.
This way we avoid putting the T2 in a even worse state. Official CSM 8 Campaign HQ * Unforgiven Storm for CSM8 * My Blog
|
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
249
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:16:00 -
[39] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:This is rediculous and a blanket nerf to a ton of ships that need help if anything. The meta implications of nerfing HICs, triage, and everything else this will touch is completely opposite of anything I would have asked for. I was with you on hics until I looked at the numbers. Hics are the only ship (of the above) that both enters a remote-rep immune state and gains no local-rep bonus to compensate. Under this change, a broadsword will lose...about 5k ehp. Which isn't much! I'd be happy if CCP snuck in a little more shield capacity to compensate (as the buffer won't be as OP as the resists), but overall, it's pretty okay and the nerf elsewhere was needed. Ali Aras for CSM8 Warp to Sun (my blog) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3383
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:16:00 -
[40] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:5% resist bonus ships are great anti blob ships. It is one of the few things that gives u any chance against a blob. The problem is that the blob can bring that 5% resist ship too, right? Yes, but the real problem is the accessibility of those ships. T1 hulls are easy accessible to everyone and having blobs fly with T1 5% resist ships is the real problem.
The conclusion is to leave 5% resist bonuses to T2, T3 hulls and capitals and remove them from T1 hulls. Why T2, T3 and capitals? Well u diminish the blob by alot if u decide to go out with T2, T3 or capital ships.
Resist bonuses need to stay in the game. That bonus is great to show out some skill and compete with blobs. Right, because you know the blob never uses those 5% resist ships either...
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
5272
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:16:00 -
[41] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:One thing I'll quickly mention is that 1 / 0.8 = 1.25. This means that the new bonus (20% resists at level 5) will actually equal a 25% increase in Effective Reps. Still very significant (in fact it's probably what a lot of people assumed the old bonus gave). However the difference between 25% and 37.5% is a lot more noticeable than the difference between 33% and 37.5%. But that does not address that rep bonuses are only good against sustained DPS and not high alpha damage, where resistance bonuses are good for both.
You are right that it doesn't. I completely admit that resist bonuses remain better than active tank bonuses for the vast majority of situations. As always we will be balancing ships with the relative power of different bonuses in mind. Having the resist bonus a bit closer in power is simply something that makes finding that balance over the large number of affected ships much more achievable. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:17:00 -
[42] - Quote
I think changing all of those ships at once will be far too much damage for anyone to handle if it goes wrong as you can see yourself some already bad ships will become worse with this change and I bet some alright ships will become bad and will have to bee looked at quickly there are quite a few ships that have been build around this bonus and not all of them are op the ferox is just barely competitive the gila is living of the resist bonus too those and probably others would have to receive a buff in their base hp to make up for this change Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Jessica Danikov
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
66
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:18:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ah, you're going about this all wrong. It isn't that resists are bad, and that remote reps are bad, at least, neither by themselves- the problem is that, the two combined ends up being overpowered.
The obvious solution to this is to have a penalty to remote reps based on target resistances- higher resist ships also 'resist' remote reps, naturally limiting the multiplicative effect of strong remote reps on high resist targets.
I do like the idea of local rep bonuses being rep bonuses, regardless of the source- will mean a bunch of Gallente ships could be used in fleets again.
Edit: Credit to Bienator II who suggested pretty much the same idea while I was posting. Great minds think alike? ;) |
baltec1
Bat Country
5928
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:18:00 -
[44] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:This is rediculous and a blanket nerf to a ton of ships that need help if anything. The meta implications of nerfing HICs, triage, and everything else this will touch is completely opposite of anything I would have asked for.
Most of those ships have yet to be teircided and are terrible for other, bigger reasons. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
309
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:5% resist bonus ships are great anti blob ships. It is one of the few things that gives u any chance against a blob. The problem is that the blob can bring that 5% resist ship too, right? Yes, but the real problem is the accessibility of those ships. T1 hulls are easy accessible to everyone and having blobs fly with T1 5% resist ships is the real problem.
The conclusion is to leave 5% resist bonuses to T2, T3 hulls and capitals and remove them from T1 hulls. Why T2, T3 and capitals? Well u diminish the blob by alot if u decide to go out with T2, T3 or capital ships.
Resist bonuses need to stay in the game. That bonus is great to show out some skill and compete with blobs. Right, because you know the blob never uses those 5% resist ships either...
Read again pls! LF CSM8 candidate. Are you what lowsec needs? --->-átinyurl.com/afaawrb
|
a newbie
Kenbishi Heavy Industries Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:23:00 -
[46] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm going to throw this here since I have a feeling a lot of questions coming up will be along this line: Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?This is a question that comes up often in any thread where we are discussing decreasing the power of an item or ship. I can completely understand where it's coming from. Buffing things makes people happy in much larger numbers, it simply feels good to see the effectiveness of your equipment increase. Many other games rely on constantly improving gear to drive engagement in their content and that method of development can work very well for those games. I'm going to start by quoting my answer to this question from the Heavy Missile thread before Retribution, because what I said there still applies. CCP Fozzie wrote:When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be conscious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance. I would be lying if I said that we never allow power creep in EVE. It's quite simply much much easier to balance upwards and considering how powerful of a tool it is for creating short term customer satisfaction, some power creep is very hard to avoid. However we do need to be very mindful of how much we let ourselves indulge. There are cases where for the long term health of the game ecosystem we simply have to reduce the power of certain items and ships. We believe this is one of those times. I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term.
For the love of EVE, I hope BUFFing does not become the new flavor. The changes that have been proposed I am for as we need to test them out and see how things mess. I just don't want this game turning into all the others out there and having horrible scales of damage verse hitpoints.
Basically, if I aim to kill a chicken, it should take 1 hit, unlike WoW where it takes what? 6? 7 hits against this supernatural miniature mega giant space chicken that equates to normal size?
The most outspoken people tend to be those who cherish their ships, but sometimes its someone sensible. I trust Fozzie and friends to weed out the rabble rousers from those who have valid points. If an idea is logically sound, then be constructive about it. -áIf an idea is illogically sound, burn it down. -áRational thought and utility is everything... Oh and fire. |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:24:00 -
[47] - Quote
It does not change anything at all.
In terms of EHP, even battleship loses 7k of ehp AT MOST. While gap between let's say rokh and maelstrom is still around 50k, and even more for armor battleships
In terms of remrep and specifically carriers...it does not matter that hard. Try to break like 30 slowcats with subcaps, you wont kill even unbonused ones |
Ayeson
Hard Knocks Inc.
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:24:00 -
[48] - Quote
I'll second the "this probably should have been posted sooner" part of the OP, but the change seems sound IMO. I'd like to see what it does to some practical fits. Ask me about Rengas-dar, HRDKX's Most recent, groundbreaking, game-changing, wormhole-collapsing research endeavour..
Ayeson for CSM8 |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1261
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:26:00 -
[49] - Quote
With the reduction in resist bonus could come an increase in the baseline tanking stats of these ships.
|
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
291
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:27:00 -
[50] - Quote
1. Why do you think Maels are popular? It's not because of their amazing tank or overwhelming dps. 2. "Passive EHP bonus", a.k.a. "buffer". Nobody is talking about passive regeneration (except you). 3. No, it's not moot. Resistance modules ADD to an already extremely good bonus. 4. Sure, nerf the modules so every other ship will be even worse compared to resist bonuses ships. Excellent idea! Also, you will have to read the forums more often. 5. It is a good start, but active tanking bonuses are still useless in fleets. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:28:00 -
[51] - Quote
its progress at least now maybe a brutix can outrep a prophecy.... now for making armour repping competitive please.
I also think that HP bonuses should replace resist bonus... leave the resist to T2 ships.... and please remove them from T3's T3's need to lose all resists bonuses and be reset to T1 resists.
Good to see any nerf that will affect drakes ... those pesky OP things ...... ferox should be tankier than the drake why isn't it? 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1814
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:33:00 -
[52] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:5% resist bonus ships are great anti blob ships. It is one of the few things that gives u any chance against a blob. The problem is that the blob can bring that 5% resist ship too, right? Yes, but the real problem is the accessibility of those ships. T1 hulls are easy accessible to everyone and having blobs fly with T1 5% resist ships is the real problem.
The conclusion is to leave 5% resist bonuses to T2, T3 hulls and capitals and remove them from T1 hulls. Why T2, T3 and capitals? Well u diminish the blob by alot if u decide to go out with T2, T3 or capital ships.
Resist bonuses need to stay in the game. That bonus is great to show out some skill and compete with blobs. Right, because you know the blob never uses those 5% resist ships either... Read again pls! Yes there are definitely no large fleets of T2 or T3 ships flying around on Tranquility.
Did you post this through a timewarp from 2006? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Jureth22
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:34:00 -
[53] - Quote
but who can we vote against to stop this change? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
873
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:34:00 -
[54] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:5% resist bonus ships are great anti blob ships. It is one of the few things that gives u any chance against a blob. The problem is that the blob can bring that 5% resist ship too, right? Yes, but the real problem is the accessibility of those ships. T1 hulls are easy accessible to everyone and having blobs fly with T1 5% resist ships is the real problem.
The conclusion is to leave 5% resist bonuses to T2, T3 hulls and capitals and remove them from T1 hulls. Why T2, T3 and capitals? Well u diminish the blob by alot if u decide to go out with T2, T3 or capital ships.
Resist bonuses need to stay in the game. That bonus is great to show out some skill and compete with blobs. Right, because you know the blob never uses those 5% resist ships either... Read again pls! Yes there are definitely no large fleets of T2 or T3 ships flying around on Tranquility. Did you post this through a timewarp from 2006?
Clearly the "blobs" cannot afford to fly multiple fleets of T2 or T...ahahahah whatever Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Nolove Trader
Black Hole Cluster
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:35:00 -
[55] - Quote
I can clearly hear the joy of supercaps about faster dieing HICs. |
mkint
976
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:36:00 -
[56] - Quote
this isn't balance. balance is carefully adjusting each point of imbalance on It's own attributes. this does not take into account the strengths and weaknesses of any of the ships involved. lazy is the term. tanking is broken. only thing being done about it is whining that It's too hard to fix. once It becomes obvious that balancing around what's broken just makes everything else broken, you'll finally have to fix it breaking everything else, which will likely remain broken for another 10 years before another balancing pass is done.
all the balancing has been great in theory, but nothing that is truely broken has been fixed. Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:37:00 -
[57] - Quote
Nolove Trader wrote:I can clearly hear the joy of supercaps about faster dieing HICs.
They could always make bc versions of hics :P 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
525
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:39:00 -
[58] - Quote
CCP Fozzie you are killing eve: online, a bad game Follow me on twitter |
BiggestT
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:39:00 -
[59] - Quote
Luc Chastot wrote:1. Why do you think Maels are popular? It's not because of their amazing tank or overwhelming dps. 2. "Passive EHP bonus", a.k.a. "buffer". Nobody is talking about passive regeneration (except you). 3. No, it's not moot. Resistance modules ADD to an already extremely good bonus. 4. Sure, nerf the modules so every other ship will be even worse compared to resist bonuses ships. Excellent idea! Also, you will have to read the forums more often. 5. It is a good start, but active tanking bonuses are still useless in fleets.
1. Um because they are. Hint: I'm not talking about fleet blobs (small scale = better tank and better dps, yet it's still okay as a fleet bs with higher alpha). 2. And? That's the idea of the bonus, you rep less but get more of a buffer, how is this an issue for the rokh? And when I talk about shield: passive tank essentially equals buffer tank, and no, no one brings a passive tanked cal BS to pvp EXCEPT in blolbs. 3.Damage/rof mods ADD to an already extremely good bonus. I can play that game too. 4.Nerfing a couple of modules is far less of an impact thant nerfing 44 ships that didn't need nerfing. RR BS fleets are much rarer than say 44 DIFFERENT SHIPS. 5.And they alsways will be. Fleets are buffer, small scale pvp is active, why can't we have both?? It's not like the rokh can do much else. |
Calmoto
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:39:00 -
[60] - Quote
dear fozzie
why not make it 4.33e+23 % resistance
its not like it could get any more ugly on my ship info
please reconsider being a special snowflake all your life |
|
|
|
|
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 |