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) |
Ereilian
Over The Horizon
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:41:00 -
[61] - Quote
So let me tl;dr this for you.
We (CCP) put in place a bonus system that at the time was great!!! Then the players found out it was better than great and started to use it as intended .... So now we are nerfing it ... and in some cases NERFING SHIPS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED YET. Cause Caldari are so OP we must nerf every single useful ship they have. Fck Caldari, everyone fly Maelstrom.
You also lament the rise of alpha, do you not realise you are just REINFORCING that doctrine with your changes. There is not one SINGLE change to the mainstay of alpha, but you are slapping the hell out of every other doctrinal ship. And lets not forget the nerfs on tengus, and the massive buff to Arti that made alpha so much more effective. Yeah foz this is all the players fault, nothing to do with incompetence by the devs who over the past few years have forced alpha to the front.
As for your CSM pets, yeah right as if there is any chance of them affecting real decision making. You went ahead with Aurum despite massive CSM disapproval, they are just a sock puppet as proved in the past year. So no I will not vote in your kangaroo election. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
309
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:42:00 -
[62] - Quote
To the funny Goonies.
Ofc u can bring multiple t2 fleets but u are not doing it. And it is only because of 1 reason. They dont have so much better performance over t1 for the isk cost. And the other is the skill needs. Because if t2 or t3 are chosen the fleet cannot be that uniform as t1.
Smaller groups will bring in the more expansive ships because they give that little edge so they can fight double, triple size bigger fleets.
And i am mostly speaking about small and medium scale fight.s On large scale those resist doesn metter because it will get alphaed trough anyway. LF CSM8 candidate. Are you what lowsec needs? --->-átinyurl.com/afaawrb
|
Jessica Danikov
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
66
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:43:00 -
[63] - Quote
The math is a lot more complicated than Fozzie makes out. Firstly, the 5% drop assumes max skills- a bunch of people will not have level V in every ship class they fly. This change will make the gains per level smaller, leading the a smoother progression (much like the covert ops CPU change). This is independent to tweaking the overall resist bonus, which I strongly feel should be done through the base resists of the ship (while accounting for the level V bonuses).
After that, it's not a flat 5% resist reduction on all these ships. Practically speaking, there will be other modules on fitted and their benefits will grow to fill the gap (because of the way resistances work), resulting in a less than 5% drop overall (this will only happen on ships with no resists added). |
Destructor1792
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:43:00 -
[64] - Quote
Before clarifying what to change, how about looking at the raw basics?
How long do you expect a single Ship to last in a normal PvP Engagement ?
1 v 1 3 v 1 10 v 1 20 v 1
etc, etc.
How does the role of the ship relate to Engagement & length of time it's expected to last against other ships?
What do you class as a decent time frame for a ship to last "v's" what the player base deem a reasonable time?
Answer those questions & then look at ship resistance bonuses & what to tweak.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1262
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:47:00 -
[65] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:its progress at least now maybe a brutix can outrep a prophecy.... now for making armour repping competitive please.
Active repping has its space, but with these changes the "space" of ships with active repping bonuses (like the Myrm) won't be invaded by actively repped, resistance bonused ships (like the Prophecy). So +1.
If everybody is worried about the loss of EHP, then just buff the baseline tanking stats of the affected ships.
Edit: Another benefit is that the "space" of T2 ships with resistance bonuses has increased a bit. It will be more beneficial for them to receive remote reps compared to these ships with resistance bonuses. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
910
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:49:00 -
[66] - Quote
if you want to balance the bonus then you must nerf RR
my idea is to make RR sig raius based...
see this thread as it explains how the nerf would work
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2869885#post2869885
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Edelhonk
The Alpha Connection
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:49:00 -
[67] - Quote
Calmoto wrote: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
how about they would put it down to 2.5%...would this look better in your ship info? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:49:00 -
[68] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:its progress at least now maybe a brutix can outrep a prophecy.... now for making armour repping competitive please.
Active repping has its space, but with these changes the "space" of ships with active repping bonuses (like the Myrm) won't be invaded by actively repped, resistance bonused ships (like the Prophecy). So +1. If everybody is worried about the loss of EHP, then just buff the baseline tanking stats of the affected ships.
People are probably worried about the loss of EHP, but that doesn't mean anything should be done about it. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY
399
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:49:00 -
[69] - Quote
Hey Fozzie!!!, don't trow the responsibility over CSM!!!! You guys are doing great! I really appreciated this change! (Despite the fact that i just trained Ammar BS lvl5) I just think that you had an awesome idea here and you are not using it as you could:
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.
The point is that not only Armour resistance ships are overpowered, but the ships that get the rep bonus are under-powered in fleet fights. So you should also make the ships that get bonus on repair amount have a reduction in this bonus and also apply it to remote repairs .
I think that this change would not only fix the "Overpower Status" of remote reps by reducing it's efficiency, but will also spread it effects out of the conventional 44 ships. Puting the resistance and the bonus repair amount ships tank in the same level.
Wasn't you guys trying to solve the Gallente fleet tank Issue? Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
Jeb Hataska
EVE University Ivy League
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:50:00 -
[70] - Quote
Fozzie, I appreciate your perspective on power creep. That perspective is part of what I like about EVE Online relative to other games. |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1262
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:51:00 -
[71] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:People are probably worried about the loss of EHP, but that doesn't mean anything should be done about it. As a pilot of ships without this bonus, I agree with you.
|
Vincent Gaines
Cold Moon Destruction Transmission Lost
348
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:51:00 -
[72] - Quote
Why not just modify remote rep bonuses to resists?
The higher the resist, the more difficult it is to rep it. Not a diplo.-á
The above post was edited for spelling. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
104
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:51:00 -
[73] - Quote
So ships like the Ferox which are only good because of the 5% get nerfed, ships like the Archon, whilst being the best triage carrier is still lol against dreads and even more so now (seriously, you can't tank two moros).
Some ships, like the drake need the nerf. I wouldn't be so quick to just blanketely apply these nerfs, especially when there's much more pertinant balancing issues like the way overpowered attack bc's, the lack of signature tanking ability against dreads and the ****** arse new player experience.
Stop trying to balance a million things at once, whilst introducing a line of navy bcs (lol) and changing bonuses and ships left right and centre. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Prime FLux
The Rising Stars Initiative Mercenaries
50
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
Bloody H*LL! quick, time to find a statue to shoot in jita!!! |
Tertiacero
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:54:00 -
[75] - Quote
Has anyone done the math on offsetting the resist loss on these ships with a base hp boost? You know, instead of a straight nerf just moving a portion of their ehp from resists to raw hp.
Overall this is a pretty fair change though, nice! |
Sturmwolke
393
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:01:00 -
[76] - 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.
Stop playing politics (and the social engineerting game) and stick to the objectives at hand. The above can be taken in a number of ways, depending on the person. Keep it clean.
That alone relegates this thread to troll status, from my personal perspective.
|
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
333
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:09:00 -
[77] - Quote
Akturous wrote:So ships like the Ferox which are only good because of the 5% get nerfed, ships like the Archon, whilst being the best triage carrier is still lol against dreads and even more so now (seriously, you can't tank two moros).
Some ships, like the drake need the nerf. I wouldn't be so quick to just blanketely apply these nerfs, especially when there's much more pertinant balancing issues like the way overpowered attack bc's, the lack of signature tanking ability against dreads and the ****** arse new player experience.
Stop trying to balance a million things at once, whilst introducing a line of navy bcs (lol) and changing bonuses and ships left right and centre.
Seeing as they've not touched anything at all related to capital ships, I imagine they will address those in their own time, independent of subcaps. I think it would be asinine to say CCP is completely happy with the state of Cap ships and aren't going to touch them.
The fact is though that sub caps effect a much greater portion of the community than cap ships. |
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
291
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:15:00 -
[78] - Quote
1. Solo and small gang? Active tank is only marginally better than resists; while there're also the facts ASBs exist and ACs are a great weapons platform. 2. Nobody is arguing the idea behind the bonus should change, what's being argued is that it is too effective, while also benefiting active tanks. 3. And? How is this an argument? Please show me 1 ship with both a RoF and a Damage bonus, while also sporting a third bonus. Resist bonuses greatly affect ALL types of tanks, while Damage bonuses mostly benefits alpha and RoF dps. 4. Sure, I can agree, but the resist bonus still increases incoming reps by a good margin, and RR BS fleets are not the only kind of RR fleets. 5. Because all factions should have ships in every category equally effective for fleets or solo/small gang, while Gallente does not (t1 battlecruisers?). Now, please don't tell me "well, Caldari and Amarr don't have ships for solo and small gang then, because the resist bonus is only for fleets". Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Serith Ellecon
Internet Spaceships Initiates Tribal Band
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:15:00 -
[79] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Akturous wrote:So ships like the Ferox which are only good because of the 5% get nerfed, ships like the Archon, whilst being the best triage carrier is still lol against dreads and even more so now (seriously, you can't tank two moros).
Some ships, like the drake need the nerf. I wouldn't be so quick to just blanketely apply these nerfs, especially when there's much more pertinant balancing issues like the way overpowered attack bc's, the lack of signature tanking ability against dreads and the ****** arse new player experience.
Stop trying to balance a million things at once, whilst introducing a line of navy bcs (lol) and changing bonuses and ships left right and centre. Seeing as they've not touched anything at all related to capital ships, Actually, the list of affected ships includes both Amarr and Caldari carriers.
Well something has to rescue the Nidhoggur from repping duties...
Inappropriate signature added.-á CCP Notarealdev. |
Jessica Danikov
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
67
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:16:00 -
[80] - Quote
Sturmwolke 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. Stop playing politics (and the social engineerting game) and stick to the objectives at hand. The above can be taken in a number of ways, depending on the person. Keep it clean. That alone relegates this thread to troll status, from my personal perspective.
I was a little annoyed by this, if it were trying to palm off criticism by going 'don't criticise this, talk to the CSM instead'. I don't think that was the intent though, just trying to suggest if people feel strongly about things, they should consider who their representation is. |
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
619
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:18:00 -
[81] - Quote
Finally, the long-awaited Eagle nerf is here!
Seriously though, you should hold fire on the change to HACs HICs and CS until you rebalance them properly. And have a look at large artillery alpha too. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
726
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:18:00 -
[82] - Quote
Ok since you're nerfing it could you give the poor already terrible punisher some love..
its way to beautiful to be so bad..
Not that the tank thing really matters, it could have twice the EHP and still die against most frigs. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:19:00 -
[83] - Quote
@Fozzie I have some questions concerning the reduction of resists bonuses in connection to the rebalancing work already done on frigates, cruisers, and battle cruisers. I assume that the ships with the resists bonuses which have already been rebalanced were rebalanced with the 5%/level resist bonus in mind. Will this this not unbalance those ships that are affected with this change? To me it seems that this change will be a general nerf to primarily amarr and caldari ships. Furthermore, provided that the previous rebalance work was done properly in the first place with resists on 5%/level, this change will negatively unbalance those ships. If you think this change will properly balance the already rebalanced ships I guess this means that rebalance work on those ships were not properly done in the first place...! Anyway... will the ships already rebalanced be compensated with additional hp to compensate for the loss of hp from the lowered resists? A reply is appreciated. |
Antal Marius
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:23:00 -
[84] - Quote
Why lower the tank on already squishy mining ships?! Leave their resists alone.
|
Torrelus Toh'Kon
Cadre Assault Force This is why we cant have nice things
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:24:00 -
[85] - Quote
4% is an improvement, but I think 3-3.5% is going to be the real balance point.
The really big problem I have with resistance bonuses is their application to ships which are already heavy on buffer, both in HP and slot layout. When comparing to Minmatar it gets truely stupid. A triaged Archon with its resist and low-slot advantage, has about 3x the repping abilty (reps+resist+time) of the Nidhoggur. Fitted for heavy armor BS fleeting, an Abaddon has 2x the EHP of a Typhoon (the tankiest Minmatar BS) and enjoys better effect from dedicated RR. This trend continues all the way down the lines. The Caldari arn't so bad, apart from that damned Drake.
Considering ships in 1v1 the races arn't terribly unbalanced, they just have different character. However, as a fleet size increases, the resistance bonused ships will always force direct alternatives to the sidelines.
All that being said though, I'm really in the group that thinks resistance bonuses should not be on T1 ships. |
Kellaen
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:25:00 -
[86] - Quote
Antal Marius wrote:Why lower the tank on already squishy mining ships?! Leave their resists alone.
If you want a tanked mining vessel, the procurer & skiff fit that role. Oh god you might have to sacrafice some yield! |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:25:00 -
[87] - Quote
This change will affect more shield ships than armor ships, how are you attempting to balance them?
ROF needs nerfing to 4% too with your logic then, make it happen. Let's just nerf everything so everything is so bland and boring but BALANCED. |
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
56
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:26:00 -
[88] - Quote
I can live with shaving 5-10k EHP off of a few of my ships. Agreeing with the sentiment that HICs should be monitored and re-evaluated once these changes go live, if not before.
CCP Fozzie wrote:We also plan to continue using straight HP bonuses in the future as a defensive bonus with its own flavour distinct from the other defensive bonus options.
Now you've gotten my hopes up re: the Damnation not losing its buffer bonus for a missile bonus in the upcoming command ship revamp. I was just barely starting to accept this possible future. You are a cruel man.
This change extending to the exhumers is hilarious. I can see why -- the difference in EHP is so insignificant that there's no reason to leave them and only them at 5% -- but the poor Hulk is already so maligned for failing to be the god-king of all mining these days. Soon, the threadnaughts claiming that the loss of 500 EHP has ruined the Hulk for all time will begin. |
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
291
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:30:00 -
[89] - Quote
Fozzie, why not leave the 5% bonus and take out a relevant slot? Just like, you know, drone boats have to lose 1 slot just because. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Mongo Edwards
Hounds Of War WHY so Seri0Us
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:34:00 -
[90] - Quote
Perhaps the Gurista's ships should be left out of this nerf until pirate ships on the whole have had a chance to be looked at. |
|
|
|
|
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 |