Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
97
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 09:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Today I found this in the patch notes:
"Odyssey 1.1" wrote:Ships and other space objects were getting destroyed if their structure hitpoints received 50% or more damage of the current health in a single shot. This feature has been removed entirely.
I think this is HUGE. ...and I have never read anything about this before.
Ok, it's a good idea to remove strange and undocumented features. But this one severely affects balance - especially the power of Arty fittings. Basically anything that tries to one-hit or two-hit enemies (Thrashers, Ruptures, Tornados etc. with Atries) will have A LOT more trouble now. Many kills will need an extra volley which - incombination with the typically long cycle times on these weapons - means a much lower efficiency in PvE. In PvP an opponent will very often get away in deep structure, because the whole deal with this type of fittings is that they surprise someone (one-hit upon undock or the like) or at least rely on an opponent completely misjudging his health bar (the final hit did way more damage than usual).
While one can discuss whether this is good or bad, ganks in Highsec should be easier/less easy and all that... My point is: this was never announced or discussed here and it is likely to render complete tactics/doctrines completely useless (or in a much worse shape).
Were Alpha-Fittings (especially Artilleries) considered too powerful? Will there be something to compensate? (not talking about medium Long Range Turret Rebalance that happened for different reasons).
Please discuss. And maybe we could get a short statement from our balancing experts at CCP? Am I exaggerating? |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
32
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 09:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
It's nothing anyone should discuss about. It's a bug that was a few years long accepted as a feature because CCP was too lazy to fix it.
It was always strange to see my ship explode by a volley never matching the exact Counter-EHP for the enemy weapon (think EHP for EM damage and EM munition). Especially structure with an active damage control tanks a lot and is a tool that should make the huge difference in survival. That was never the case against alpha-damage. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11479
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 10:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
To put it another way: assume that this "feature" never existed. What would your arguments for introducing it into the game be?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
97
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 10:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
I don't care whether this feature was good or bad. I don't care whether it's a bug or a feature or how it came into the game. I just say that this is a change that in my opinion significantly affects the balance and thus gameplay of many ships.
So I want to know: was this intended and a conscious choice, or is any arty-nerf resulting from this just some by-product that nobody really thought about?
I mean we see here that Ytterbium and Fozzie and Rise work for months on balancing and put great effort in fine-tuning these things. And they greatly take care that the process is transparent (if possible) and everyone understands what they are doing and why. So it just seems very odd that we get this without even a single word before... |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
107
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 11:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
No all make sense, i thought that was some kind of "Luck Strike"!
Glad they fixed that! |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
363
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 11:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
It was a bug. Amazingly bug fixes are intentional, and are not discussed normally because they were never intended behaviour in the first place. So be glad you aren't all being banned for exploiting the bug that made arty more powerful than it should have been. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
300
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 11:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:I don't care whether this feature was good or bad. I don't care whether it's a bug or a feature or how it came into the game. I just say that this is a change that in my opinion significantly affects the balance and thus gameplay of many ships.
So I want to know: was this intended and a conscious choice, or is any arty-nerf resulting from this just some by-product that nobody really thought about?
I mean we see here that Ytterbium and Fozzie and Rise work for months on balancing and put great effort in fine-tuning these things. And they greatly take care that the process is transparent (if possible) and everyone understands what they are doing and why. So it just seems very odd that we get this without even a single word before... I think you dont understand this change and what it fixes. Imagine your industrial has 12k ehp(tanky enough to survive 1 tornado?), 3 of which is in structure. Then you meet this fancy Tornado that deals 11k alpha. With old mechanics your ship would be 1-shot which is wrong (12k > 11k) while removal of that obsolete "feature" fixes this issue. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 11:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bug my arse!
Should have been removed when they grouped guns. Previously it was some kind of killer blow feature that happened when you were in low structure. They just forgot to modify it when they grouped guns and made the probability of a half structure single strike many many time more likelly. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
97
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 12:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: I think you dont understand this change and what it fixes. Imagine your industrial has 12k ehp(tanky enough to survive 1 tornado?), 3 of which is in structure. Then you meet this fancy Tornado that deals 11k alpha. With old mechanics your ship would be 1-shot which is wrong (12k > 11k) while removal of that obsolete "feature" fixes this issue.
Of course I do understand this change - that is why I am posting. :-D For years now these 12k ehp industrials fell victim to Tornados or other 11k alphastrike gankers. Now, all of a sudden, they don't anymore. Something is changed. It's getting less powerful. Thus, a nerf. It was not announced, so it's a "stealth" nerf. And the impact is much bigger than let's say the Nosferatu change - and we got 30+ pages of discussion on THAT. |
Ix Method
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
44
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 12:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
This is gloriously desperate. Travelling at the speed of love. |
|
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
97
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 12:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
Oh, you caught me. I just wanted to start a new career as a highsec ganker THIS WEEKEND and now I can't. Instead I have to go to Jita and shoot the monument. -.-
Anyone who DID get the point, please X up. |
suid0
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 12:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote: Something is changed. It's getting less powerful. Thus, a nerf.
A nerf implies the old behaviour was intentional and correct. Since it wasn't, it's a fix.
the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones -á--áCommander Ted |
GreenSeed
678
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 13:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
even when i don't agree this is as game changing as you claim it to be, outside of ganking. (alpha fleets couldn't care less, and no one should care about pve) the effect this has on tornado ganks is pretty lame. now i know a lot of people don't like ganking, but nado ganks are expensive, they require a lot of skills, and homework. nado gankers, have to rat to maintain an acceptable sec rating (or tag it), and they have to live with 10, 20 killrights on them all the time. and siting on a congested gate with killrights while waiting for that autopiloting industrial can be nerve wrecking and will end in some botched ganks.
they are playing the highsec pirate game nicely, and by the book. not with cheapo disposable alts. seeing them go in such a way, with no discussion, and no feedback from players is pretty lame.
of all the gankers, only the nado gankers had the right to say to their victims "today i thought you two things about EVE. there's always someone watching you, and never fly what you can't afford to lose." there aren't many play styles that can have this impact on other players. and no, ganking barges is lame and doesn't even come close to this. but to the people who are into it... beware.your catalyst might be next.
even when im the king of all carebears, i would certainly side with the ganking side on this one. maybe they should re add the mechanic to blap guns, like artys, beams, and rails.
otherwise, the only way around this seems to have someone sitting on a thrasher to do the last minute blapping. or downsizing the operation to Omens/Mallers with the new Beams. you will end up needing more pilots, but 4 omens can put out 5k volleys every 2 seconds, that's something to consider.
btw OP, you might want to read this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=275054&find=unread
there seems to be a bug with the way they fixed this "bug" ... so there's still some hope. |
Vrenth
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
37
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 16:35:00 -
[14] - Quote
I don't get what the big deal is, you will still one shot the ship if their EHP is lower than your alpha damage. People that you are alpha striking dont usually have time to turn on a damage control so you are complaining about a paper thin layer on unresisted HP, and only half of that... This may prevent you from alpha striking the occasional tanked cruiser... but should those really get one shot in the first place? |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2018
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 16:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
less "its technically impossible that i just exploded - wtf just happened" moments. +1 for the change eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew
76
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 18:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
Still have yet to figure what justifies easy kills for Tornado/HiSec ganks. If you want to do it, you have to work hard for it. There should be no easymode.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
RoAnnon
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
270
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 18:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
I would think they should leave this mechanic in tact if the target ship is Minmatar. By the time a Minnie ship gets into structure it's only being held together by the rust and duct tape (and a prayer) anyway, one good arty jolt SHOULD knock it all apart... So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2596
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:38:00 -
[18] - Quote
Op, how is it fair to a gallente pilot when half his structure doesn't count for tank because you alpha shot his shields and armor away? Hell, most of my tank is hull in my taranis!
This "undocumented" feature helps balance the field away from alpha, which isn't some terrible thing. Can you provide a convincing argument why a significant portion of your tank shouldn't "count" when being shot?
RoAnnon wrote:I would think they should leave this mechanic in tact if the target ship is Minmatar. By the time a Minnie ship gets into structure it's only being held together by the rust and duct tape (and a prayer) anyway, one good arty jolt SHOULD knock it all apart...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.... and salvagers should deal direct hull damage to minmatar ships while harvesting scrap metal from them.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11488
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 20:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: I think you dont understand this change and what it fixes. Imagine your industrial has 12k ehp(tanky enough to survive 1 tornado?), 3 of which is in structure. Then you meet this fancy Tornado that deals 11k alpha. With old mechanics your ship would be 1-shot which is wrong (12k > 11k) while removal of that obsolete "feature" fixes this issue.
Of course I do understand this change - that is why I am posting. :-D For years now these 12k ehp industrials fell victim to Tornados or other 11k alphastrike gankers. Now, all of a sudden, they don't anymore. Something is changed. It's getting less powerful. Thus, a nerf. It was not announced, so it's a "stealth" nerf. And the impact is much bigger than let's say the Nosferatu change - and we got 30+ pages of discussion on THAT.
It feels like you think we should be mad about a bug being fixed.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Rengerel en Distel
1849
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 21:47:00 -
[20] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Edward Olmops wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: I think you dont understand this change and what it fixes. Imagine your industrial has 12k ehp(tanky enough to survive 1 tornado?), 3 of which is in structure. Then you meet this fancy Tornado that deals 11k alpha. With old mechanics your ship would be 1-shot which is wrong (12k > 11k) while removal of that obsolete "feature" fixes this issue.
Of course I do understand this change - that is why I am posting. :-D For years now these 12k ehp industrials fell victim to Tornados or other 11k alphastrike gankers. Now, all of a sudden, they don't anymore. Something is changed. It's getting less powerful. Thus, a nerf. It was not announced, so it's a "stealth" nerf. And the impact is much bigger than let's say the Nosferatu change - and we got 30+ pages of discussion on THAT. It feels like you think we should be mad about a bug being fixed.
Can we at least be mad that the bug was fixed and added a new bug? If they had informed people of the change, perhaps it could have been tested to have prevented that bug? Of course, that would entail them actually taking test server feedback into account, which most of them appear to not do at all.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
135
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 21:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:To put it another way: assume that this "feature" never existed. What would your arguments for introducing it into the game be?
I think I'm going to save this post just so I can link back to it every time someone is arguing for something bat-ship overpowered.
Never stop posting Malcanis. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae
95
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 21:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Today I found this in the patch notes: "Odyssey 1.1" wrote:Ships and other space objects were getting destroyed if their structure hitpoints received 50% or more damage of the current health in a single shot. This feature has been removed entirely. I think this is HUGE. ...and I have never read anything about this before. Ok, it's a good idea to remove strange and undocumented features. But this one severely affects balance - especially the power of Arty fittings. Basically anything that tries to one-hit or two-hit enemies (Thrashers, Ruptures, Tornados etc. with Atries) will have A LOT more trouble now. Many kills will need an extra volley which - incombination with the typically long cycle times on these weapons - means a much lower efficiency in PvE. In PvP an opponent will very often get away in deep structure, because the whole deal with this type of fittings is that they surprise someone (one-hit upon undock or the like) or at least rely on an opponent completely misjudging his health bar (the final hit did way more damage than usual). While one can discuss whether this is good or bad, ganks in Highsec should be easier/less easy and all that... My point is: this was never announced or discussed here and it is likely to render complete tactics/doctrines completely useless (or in a much worse shape). Were Alpha-Fittings (especially Artilleries) considered too powerful? Will there be something to compensate? (not talking about medium Long Range Turret Rebalance that happened for different reasons). Please discuss. And maybe we could get a short statement from our balancing experts at CCP? Am I exaggerating?
Well that explains of few of my bullshit deaths to artillery.
WTF was this ever in the game for? I'm hoping it was a bug and not intended....... |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
97
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 21:55:00 -
[23] - Quote
I don't have a problem with a bug being fixed. As I have said, I even support the removal of such undocumented arcane features/bugs/whatever. Why should someone have less structure tank o n his Taranis than he "deserves"? Why not? This is not my point. This is also not about whining or what Nados or industrials should or should not kill or survive.
I just wanted to stress this: As of Tuesday, the vast majority of kills will need ONE HIT MORE. Be it PvP or PvE, Titan or frigate. Do your math. One hit will almost always take more than half of the remaining structure and that hit will not kill any more.
In many situations this is irrelevant. Fleets using focus fire: target is taking tons of hits anyway, one more does not matter. 1v1s: both ships sustain one hit more, so there is no real advantage on eiter side as long as they use similar weapons.
But it DOES become relevant if you are either killing lots of things (like in missions, incursions, sleeper sites, whatever). All those guys who measure completion of sites in seconds will see that there is a drop in income.
And it's also getting more important the longer your weapon cycle is (because that is what the one more hit takes).
The balance of things has changed and those who liked to kill rats with artillery are affected most. Followed by those Nado gankers...
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
901
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:00:00 -
[24] - Quote
Interesting question is whether or not a full rack of grouped guns counted as "one shot" or not.. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2598
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
I can understand your frustration that this change made it so ships you used to one-shot now take two shots, which adds extra time to complete a mission / anomaly, which potentially alters the equation for alpha gankers, etc. I think the change is for the better, and the fact it was not previously announced means you haven't had the chance to investigate how this alters your playstyle before the patch hit.
I still think the change made complete sense though, and thing it is for the better.
Note: It has had several unintended consequences:
Drones become disabled rather than destroyed more often (this happens when they hit 25% structure). There is a bug where some ships experience strange behaviors when they reach low structure. There are several reports of NPC's gaining crazy hull resists that require several extra shots to "finish off" despite having only 5% structure. A dev mentioned player ships might experience this too, but I haven't heard of it yet.
|
Aryex
Bastard Children of Poinen
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:12:00 -
[26] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:I don't care whether this feature was good or bad. I don't care whether it's a bug or a feature or how it came into the game. I just say that this is a change that in my opinion significantly affects the balance and thus gameplay of many ships.
I'm confused. You based your gameplay on the ability to ignore up to 49% of your target's structure EHP?
Next thing you'll ask for is to nerf afk cloaking... |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
97
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:52:00 -
[27] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I still think the change made complete sense though, and thing it is for the better.
THIS.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Note: It has had several unintended consequences:
AND THIS.
Again: I do not complain about things that have changed for me. Please check the killboards - I am not a butt-hurt Jita-ganker (and I promise I don't post here for one of my 500 Jita gank alts).
But it is clear that weapons with long cycle times (Artilleries, Light/Heavy/Cruise Missiles, Rails, Beam Lasers) lose power compared to weapons with shorter cycle times.
I think the change itself is GOOD (agree with all these posts above), because it makes the rules more transparent (if you ignore this odd drone capture thing). BUT I would have expected something like: ... and all Artys, Rails etc. get +5% damage to compensate for the disadvantage they have now because they now need an extra volley that takes much longer than for blasters or ACs.
EVE is awesome, because you have multiple options to fit your ships, different tactics etc. Remember Retribution and the tiericide initiative? This is all to make ALL ships and ALL weapon systems viable options. They are putting so much effort in this. And now we get this change, I read it and I thought: "oh, that will weaken all long range weapons significantly. I will definitely use them less (if at all) in this environment."
That is why I ask: Has the balancing team considered this effect? If they say "yes, don't worry. All weapons will still be in a fine place and we still expect long range variants to be popular", then I am perfectly fine with the change.
Was that now clear enough? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
146
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 10:07:00 -
[28] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:I just wanted to stress this: As of Tuesday, the vast majority of kills will need ONE HIT MORE. Be it PvP or PvE, Titan or frigate. Do your math. One hit will almost always take more than half of the remaining structure and that hit will not kill any more.
[Citation Needed]
Seriously, "vast majority of kills"? A single volley from 8 1400mm Artillery on a Tornado does in the ballpark of 10,000 damage. I can not think of a single sub-capital ship in the game that has this much hull except for a Freighter and that's unaffected because you can't take 50% of its HP in one volley anyway.
Cruiser? Rupture does ~2100+ with 720mm T2 arty and three gyro stabs. It has 1875 structure HP. Not enough to cut through half of a Battleship's structure but enough to blow through a Cruiser's in one shot (still).
Thrasher is ~1450 alpha, but fires fast enough it's unlikely to matter much unless you're suicide ganking something really squishy.
The entire theory here is that a "vast majority" of artillery kills somehow land a target between 49% structure and 1% structure and then need to be finished off...
I think I'll believe that when someone runs a very detailed analysis and proves it. Until then I'm going with "why is this thread still going?!?" |
Crysantos Callahan
EntroPrelatial Industria DARKNESS.
9
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 11:31:00 -
[29] - Quote
This is worse than carebear tears, a bug has been fixed - no need for discussion. |
ExcalibursTemplar
Citadel Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 12:21:00 -
[30] - Quote
Crysantos Callahan wrote:This is worse than carebear tears, a bug has been fixed - no need for discussion.
A bug has been fixed by crippling high Alpha low rate of fire weapon system. Also its added another much worse bug to the game were players, npc and structures that are in low hull are really hard to apply damage to. So instead of it taking an extra volley to kill a target it could take an extra couple of hits to them or its (structure/npc) to finally get the kill.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |