|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
+1 on the applying resists to remote reps idea, I think that is the way to balance resists at this point instead of -1% resist bonus.
Here is a counter proposal to the resist nerf:
Apply resists to remote reps exactly like they are applied to damage. Note that local reps should not suffer from this.
Split the active omni resist boost modules by size, and give the medium version 125% cap cycle cost increase, and the large a 150% cap cycle cost increase. Keep the smalls like the old ones.
This is actually far more elegant than changing 40+ ships worth of stats, and fixes the absurd invuln stacking + remote rep gameplay in large blobs.
But please, leave our beloved resist bonus alone. It might fix large fleets, but small fleet/roam/raider meta will be smashed by the proposed changes. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 18:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Another idea might be to nerf the Invulns/ Omni resist mods themselves by 5% each (excluding dead and officer mods). This would accomplish the exact same effect, even moreso when stacking invulns, while keeping the iconic hull bonus intact and not screwing those who took the time to train to BS 5 over. It would also probably be a lot easier to implement than changing the stats of 40 ships, and testing it all.
In short, hull nerf no, mod nerf yes. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 18:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me its not the hull bonuses, but the fact that a tech 2 omni-resist mod gives 30% resist bonus. The TE had the same problem, but you don't see CCP nerfing ships that have a 10% bonus per level to range, they went after the offending module. If you want to nerf all resist tanks, do it on the mod level.
After all, the hull bonus by itself is only 1 invulns worth of resists, and is not all that great without some reinforcement vis-a-vis a couple of resist mods.
Change Invuln bonus to 20% and tech 2 invuln bonus to 25%. If we have to suffer a hit to our resists, then let the ships with the rep bonus feel a bit of the pain as well.
I would also like to point out changing the stats on a mod is far less a politically sensitive topic than adjusting hull bonuses. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 18:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
What? x * .75 * .70 * .70 < x * .75 * .75 * .75 for all values of x that are greater than 0. Also, the discrepancy grows with the value of x.
Honestly, its basic math. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Like I said before, if resists in general are the problem, then nerf the resists for all ships by nerfing the resist mods. Don't single out hulls that have an entirely resonable bonus. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
But here is the thing, ships with rep bonuses don't rely on active buffers/resists to sustain their tanks. Not to mention that a reduction in resists affects them a lot less right out, since resists increases are based on the remaining potential percentage of nonresistance. A ship that only has 40% resists will only lose out 2% on a 5% reduction of resists, while a ship that has 80% resists loses 4% resistance bonus or more, on top of the fact that resist ships don't tend to have as much base HP as rep ships.
To recap 40% - 2% = 38%, the increase in applied damage being about 1% more and 80%- 4% - 76%, the increase in applied damage in this case being 16% - 20% more Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
No argument that this particular area needs adjustment, we are just arguing over where the adjustment should be made, and how. As it stands, the current suggestion of the 1% nerf to hull bonuses is deeply unpopular with those people who actually fly those hulls. CCP should consider this significant. I am hoping that this nerf will be implemented in another fashion. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
I don't see why those ships that need more buffer in the face of the bonus couldn't receive more Shield or Armor HP. After all, if they need buffer, than more buffer can be applied that way, no need to alter resist ships to change that. These 2 issues are really orthogonal to each other. Nerfing resist mods and increasing the base HP of buffer ships is something that could be done at the same time.
Also, I didn't say that rep ships don't get a benefit from resists, only that they don't rely on them the same way resist ships do. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
So sayeth the Minmatar player, who stands to gain in every way from this, as opposed to a small time Rokh pilot, who will be drastically effected negatively by this change. I don't run in megablobs, or often have access to an OGB and/or booster. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 21:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rented wrote: And you've consistently been really really really bad at math throughout this thread.
I've made corrections as I have spotted my own errors. My math is fine. I run these numbers at least once a week, so I have plenty of experience in dealing with them. I also have checked them against the output of the EvE ship fitting window, so I know they are good. Note that I am aware I didn't include the stacking penalty for the second invuln in my previous example. Telling me my math is bad without citing my errors means nothing, and is an assertion without merit.
As for nerfing the resistance mods, either ALL resists at current levels are overpowered, or they are not. Case in point, they have expanded the resist nerf to every ship that has a hull resist. If the resists are OP, then nerfing the active buff mods by increasing their cap expense and decreasing their buff amount is really a better option than nerfing hull resists, because it also takes care of people stacking 3 invulns on a resist ship (Which will still be absurdly OP even after the proposed changes.) It also avoids screwing people over who have trained to BS 5 For the Rokh and Abaddon.
Remember, this whole discussion got started when CCP got it into their heads that resists where too good compared to other bonuses, particularly the shield boost bonus. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 21:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:Van Mathias wrote:Like I said before, if resists in general are the problem, then nerf the resists for all ships by nerfing the resist mods. Don't single out hulls that have an entirely resonable bonus. Who said "resists in general are the problem?" Besides you, I mean. All in all, I'm okay with the change - but if you're going to go any lower, you're going to have to get a lot more ship specific, and maybe remove the bonus entirely on some ships and just replace it with a better bonus.
You mean with a worse bonus. It wouldn't be a Rokh if they did that, the resist and range bonus are the heart and soul of that ship. And if resists in general arent the problem, then why are 40+ ships up on the chopping block? That sounds like a pretty generalized problem to me. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
Who needed to say it directly? If a CCP rep puts out a post saying "We are going to nerf resists on a significant fraction of available hulls", don't you think that someone hearing that would say to themselves "Well, then highest end of resistance based combat has a power issue in general!". Especially when the OP describes the multitude of ways a resist bonus is better than other bonuses.
It's true, for many of the ships listed. As I said before, hull bonus changes are political in a way that other stats are not, because hull bonuses define a ship more than any other stat.
Also, I never said "Resists in general are the probem!". I said "If resists in general are the problem." You seem to be unable to discriminate between a conditional statement and an outright assertion. Given the large number of ships receiving this nerf, its easy to infer the idea.
Also, considering I'm a Rokh pilot, I know about the 3 invuln/midslot tradeoff, and I never run more than 2 because I don't run in big gangs. But in big gangs where you see lots of Rokhs, 3 invulns + LSE's is far more common because those BS's don't need to equip a Cap or shield booster. One of my problems with the proposed change is 5% off the top of these ships doesn't change much with that fit, but screws over every other viable fit quite a bit. That extra 5% allows for a great deal of fitting flexibility, and it will be sorely missed.
In short, CCP has said that massed Rokhs and Abaddons are too tough in those numbers, and has responded with this. It won't fix the problems in those fleets, and more aggressive nerfs will come in, further screwing small time players. So this isn't just about my personal drama over a single change. Indeed, the moment the Rokh and Abaddon changes came out, I said to myself "They are gonna do it to all resist bonuses eventually.". Lo and behold, not 3 days later this thread announces just that.
However, I recognize that the change I suggested will have adverse effects on the ships that I am not directly considering, but right now I cant propose different resist mods for different ship sizes, as Battleship class ships would be balanced out by a resist mod nerf, whereas smaller ships have a problem with it. In short: not enough granularity to solve the problem.
I am willing to accept that nerfing resist mods will be counterproductive in certain cases, but I also maintain that the proposed changes will not solve the problems CCP is trying to solve.
Note that nerfing the effect of the module may not make sense, splitting the mod into 3 sizes and changing the base cycle cost for each size certainly does. Invulns are way too cheap cap wise for what you get at this point on the large subcap end of ships.
As for math, check this out:
3x Invuln Rokh before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 * .739 * .829 = Base * .32163127 or ~.323 3x Invuln Rokh after CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 *.739 * .829 = Base * .34307336 0r ~.343
Thusly, you have a total change of about 2% for large fleet rokhs. This is easily absorbed by current loadouts for this role.
But lets look at my solo/small gang rokh, which has no LSE's, and only 1 invuln: 1x Invuln Rokh Before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 = Base * .525 1x Invuln Rokh After CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 = Base * .56
3.5%! Thats nearly a 90% marginal difference. This proposed change is almost twice as punishing on my preferred Rokh fit, which is not the targeted fit. Of course, the Rokh with 3 invulns has 15 to 20 more points of resist, but thats the benefit you get in exchange for those slots. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
Wut? What makes you think there isn't a preferred fit, for a given role? If you are in a Rokhblob, you will fit 2 or 3 invulns, 2 or 3 LSE's and 1 or 2 Range mods for sniping in your mids. End of story. Are you so obtuse you can't see that this obviously punishes the ship in one role more than another? Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Because only one Rokh fit/role is problematic game play wise. All other fits are lackluster compared to their competitors, and this change will make the situation worse. You don't see Rokh's pushing out other battleships of the Solo/Small gang ecology in the same way that you see Rokh's and Abaddons pushing out other competitors in the tankfleet + logi meta. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
The nerf for the Rokh and Abaddon in particular was announced several days before the general resist nerf. In that announcement, Rokh and Abaddon hulls were singled out first. They may not be the prime target overall, but the timing of the announcements doesn't lend this notion credibility. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
Then why not increase the active tank bonus from 7.5% to 10%, like range bonuses? Oh, right, CCP hates tough tanks on ships. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
All credibility is subjective, that is the nature of the thing. Anyway, this looks like they are not going to change their minds until they implement this crap alongside Faction BC's and overturn the proverbial table on the current meta. Perhaps when much has been given up for little gain they will reconsider. Or maybe they will decide to nerf it some more and our resist bonus will be 2.5% a level! Exciting! Then Rokh's and Abaddon's won't be overused in large fleets because they won't be worth playing.
Wait, rep bonuses arent good enough to compete with resists, yet at the same time ancillary reps are overpowered? How do you reconcile those 2 positions?
Furthermore, why should using a hull for a strategy that the hull is not bonused for be made viable? Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:33:00 -
[18] - Quote
Askulf Joringer wrote:Admiral Rufus wrote:Oh yet further destroy solo and small gang PvP by taking our ships that give us time to survive and gtfo of outnumbered engagements. Perhaps I should run a t3 booster to compensate because that obviously puts more money in ccp's pocket for the 2nd account that's required.... How in the **** is nerfing a predominately fleet oriented bonus nerfing small scale pvp?
Because, as has been said before, resist bonuses are without a doubt the most versatile bonus in the game, having numerous benefits. Not even I am arguing that point. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 00:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
Rented, your math is disingenous because a 6.7% damage bonus at 50% resists is not the same as a 6.7% damage bonus at 80% resists. In the former case, 6.7% damage bonus against a weap that does 1000dps is about 33 DPS difference, whereas in the latter case, its about 13.5 DPS, which is an even more exaggerated marginal difference than what I stated before. Thats a pretty big difference in the effective tank nerf of the respective fits, even before calculating the added effect of LSE's Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 00:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
I can definintly understand why they want to slice some points off the top, but its a problem with no simple, straightforward answers. It will take multiple rebalances to get this right, so we are going to be talking about this for a while, becuase all I see is choice between some pretty ****** options on trying to reign in the fact that resists above 75% or so on subcaps scale up to become overpowered with relatively little fitting effort and expense. Even though the hull bonus does not suffer stacking penalty, it is still only one 25% bonus that has to be complimented with a specific module set to take advantage of this broken gameplay.
In short, they are not going to get away with balancing resists that easily. I really think that this will end up coming back to rebalancing shield tank modules, and rounding out the armor tank module set with the things it needs to compete. And that is not even considering the way remote reps works into all of this. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 00:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
Rented wrote:Van Mathias wrote:Rented, your math is disingenous because a 6.7% damage bonus at 50% resists is not the same as a 6.7% damage bonus at 80% resists. In the former case, 6.7% damage bonus against a weap that does 1000dps is about 33 DPS difference, whereas in the latter case, its about 13.5 DPS, which is an even more exaggerated marginal difference than what I stated before. Thats a pretty big difference in the effective tank nerf of the respective fits, even before calculating the added effect of LSE's Can you not read? You would take ~6.667% more damage (with max skills) after this change, period. There are no exceptions. It doesn't matter what fitting the ship has. It doesn't matter what resistance numbers you have. After the change you take ~6.667% more damage. Really not that complicated.
Do you not understand that each addtional point of resist has a more powerful effect than the last? And that 6.7% of x is not 6.7% of y if x does not equal y? I have a degree in math buddy, don't tell me something is equal when it is obviously not. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 00:50:00 -
[22] - Quote
How I fit my ship is very relevant, because how much actual raw dps is sliced off at the end of the calculation is dependent on where my resists are at the time. I have already done the math for you, explaining to you how this works.
Indeed, it is this phenomena that has directly lead to the discussion and planned implementation of the proposed nerf. If what I was saying was false, we wouldn't be having this conversation. After all, a 13 Dps bonus will eat thru your ship a lot more slowly than a 30 DPS bonus, even though both bonuses are given by the same proportional stat adjustment.
Also, the previous example uses the same DPS against two different resistances. No difference in original damage was made. So I'm now starting to wonder if you are even reading what I'm writing. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 00:58:00 -
[23] - Quote
And you fail to understand that 6.7% reduction of 100k ehp is different from a reduction of 6.7% of 150k ehp. You might take more off the 150k, but it will still end up with a higher absolute number than the result of the former calculation.
Your fit is a big deal on this. Let me explain it this way: given the same DPS, a 5% reduction in resists at a lower resist will result in a greater reduction in time till death than a 5% reduction in resists at a much higher resist would provide for. This is because the associative property of multiplied numbers. Changes in rates by themselves are meaningless, you have to look at the number you are modifying as well. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 01:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
Rented wrote:Van Mathias wrote:And you fail to understand that 6.7% reduction of 100k ehp is different from a reduction of 6.7% of 150k ehp. You might take more off the 150k, but it will still end up with a higher absolute number than the result of the former calculation.
Your fit is a big deal on this. Let me explain it this way: given the same DPS, a 5% reduction in resists at a lower resist will result in a greater reduction in time till death than a 5% reduction in resists at a much higher resist would provide for. This is because the associative property of multiplied numbers. Changes in rates by themselves are meaningless, you have to look at the number you are modifying as well. So basically..... you've completely reversed your addled thinking that this harms your poor personal Rokh more than it harms invuln-stacking fleet Rokhs, and you are now whining that it hurts the fleet Rokhs more than it hurts your personal Rokh. Congrats on the complete 180, and you wonder why we say you make no sense. You're apparently not terribly sure what you're saying either.
I'm saying that the last seconds of your tank is more valuable than the first seconds of survial it provides. It's called increasing marginal utility, and it is very relevant here. If it takes 100 secs to kill your opponent, and you die in 90secs, how much more is the last 11 seconds you need to win worth than the first 90 seconds you can lose with?
That last 5% of resists is worth more than the 20 points of resist that precede it. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 04:52:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ruze wrote:Bane Veradun wrote:You know...with all the changes being made to the game within the last year or so, I'm really beginning to question just how it survived to it's ten year anniversary in the first place. It's rather obvious that many of the latest changes were not game-breaking or otherwise adversely affecting the game for just one group. Elsa Nietchize wrote:The question stands as "is this a good change for the game". The change is palatable because it's small. The real question is "will it change the game?" The answer is simple: No If the change is so small, then why make it at all? Once again, Eve made it this far, are the changes really necessary? If it's such a minute balance, then it should be questioned as to whether or not it may be worth the adverse results or balancing issues it may create in an attempt to balance such a small thing. I don't know, maybe it's time to just keep on trucking. I severely doubt CCP really cares what a common player thinks about this game or these changes anymore. Sadly, I disagree with you. I came back after a two year break. The changes within this last 'season' were the best, most well rounded and necessary I've gotten to witness. Ships that were never flown are now at it again. Playstyles that weren't valid are there. Personally, the only issue I really have is the proposed Armageddon change (more out of nostalgia for the boat than anything else), and the continuous lack of serious stand-out armor ability that Amarr faction line deserves. It's all a matter of perspective. Change isn't bad. Even change we don't like for personal opinion reasons isn't bad ... just annoying and sad. But can we all say that we're angry about the changes because of personal reasons, or a ship we used one way can no longer be used that way? I doubt they'll break anything. For every time they have, it was back up again in a year or two.
No questions the recent changes of the last year have been universally excellent, but this one gives me pause. We will see how it bears out, but if it doesn't work out like CCP wants, I hope they remember that they always have an undo button. However, 4/5 hits isn't a bad average at all. Lets see what the finalized stats for the BS's look like before passing judgement.
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 06:00:00 -
[26] - Quote
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Suyer wrote:Glad that CCP Fozzie assumes evreybody has level 5 skills.
Too bad in the real game we don't all get ALL V ccp characters.
Looking forward to ****** T3s especially after the incoming nerf they don't deserve but I'm sure you will implement. The nerf will affect pilots with sub-V skills less than the Skill V types, in both relative and absolute terms.
As a skill V type, I agree wholeheartedly. As for all the other non-skill V types, they can eat me. I have more butthurt for this one point than the actual reduction in tank that's coming. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 06:11:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Qaidan Alenko wrote:So, if I'm understanding this correctly... high alpha artillery just got a buff... Against a subset of ships with a particular bonus sure, but so did low alpha weapons against those same ships.
You mean the exact subset of ships that was best at resisting high-alpha damage? Because alpha fleets pretty much blaap everything else given enough members to overpower any ship with an ordinary tank within 2 - 3 weapon cycles. Which is not that difficult. Hey CCP Rise, if you are going to troll us tankies with this change, why not give autocannons some travel time? Transonic ammo should not do damage at hitscan (zero) delay. Especially not on a target miles out. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 23:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
Askulf, you privately suggested to me that this nerf in combination with a 10% omni resist boost for all battleships might be a good combination. I would like to publicly offer support to this idea, because it's a good one. There is an imbalance between BS hulls, but BS hulls really need to me made tougher in comparison to smaller ship classes. There just isn't enough right now to differentiate them from Navy BC's at this point. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 06:51:00 -
[29] - Quote
Yes, but at 50% resists, you have doubled your EHP, and at 75%, you have quadrupled it. Each additional point of resist is more powerful than the last. This gets really broken on subcaps above 80%.
To be honest, subcap resists should be capped at 85% at most, capitals at 90% and super resists at 95% (Although this would necessitate rebalancing several tanks). Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 15:13:00 -
[30] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Tell you what, you can have remote reps have stacking penalties if I can have incoming DPS have stacking penalties so the more ships that shoot at me, the less effective each one becomes. That should instantly fix blob warfare right?
Of course, if you find that a silly idea (as you should) then why should remote reps suffer stacking. To get more remote reps, you need more ships. Just the same as to get more DPS. Actually, i sort of like this idea, of incoming fire suffering stacking penalties, just imagine how that would force all sorts of chaos with blob warfare tactics, suddenly, they'd actually have to also use strategy in them!
Reps would also have to have the same penalties then, and implementing resist to reps would also probably work into this as well.
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 16:01:00 -
[31] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Looks like a good change ..
review it on test. and if needed shave another 1% off
3% per level is still plenty imho
Um, what? This has to be a troll. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 19:14:00 -
[32] - Quote
Disturbed Drake wrote:all u need to change it`s not shield/armor resistance. All u need it`s make a slave set analog for shield . No need to brakw that work fine FOR YEARS!
It's called a Crystal set, and the problem is that a Crystal set is also so much better with resists. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 20:29:00 -
[33] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: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.
At 4% I believe these bonuses are still very powerful, and this may not actually go all the way we need it to. However I think it's an area we can make the small adjustment and then tweak further as necessary. The fact that this is a very moderate shave off the top of the bonus instead of a more significant change is intentional, as we plan to watch the effects of this tweak on the ecosystem and learn from our observations.
This affects 44 ships total.
One day, you'll understand that the one most overpowered thing in this game are the zero penalty blobs. No other game allows complete, unpenalized super-blobbing, fostering the lowest skill and quality kind of PvP: the "F1 spam" of an heavy FOTM doctrine mega fleet. I understand that massive fights are a signature mark of EvE's combat but unlike everything else in EvE, blobbing does not have downsides nor real counters. Start working around that, you'll hardly have to re-factor or nerf other things like you need to now. Obsessive RR, obsessive alpha, totally stacked doctrines: those are the aspect you have to nerf and nerf hard. Some call them "teamplay" but guess what, most PvP games are best played with teamplay and yet they are made so that teamplay only scales up power, does not multiply it. They also introduce diminishing returns for the direst cases, something EvE does not. As long as you keep blobs unpenalized, people have to play other PvP games to get their fill of skillful PvP, sorry to tell it frankly in the face, beyond 10v10 EvE PvP is some of the worst PvP in the industry, below 20v20 PvP, EvE is some of the most fun and best in the industry.
Right, here is a good direction to go into:
Give a stacking penalty to damage and reps, but instead of making the 4th rep/dps useless, adjust the penalty to allow up to 8 people to deal damage effectively on one target at one time.
That brings fleet combat to a squad vs squad level, with each squad having 8 dps and 2 support ships. That way, bringing extra squads over your opponent means you can reinforce the squad that is dealing damage effectively once they pull out, but you wont be able to just kill entire squads outright in the first 5 seconds of the exchange by massive alpha. It also makes piling into one grid location less attractive, which is good for the servers. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 19:40:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Resist bonus doesnt obsolote any bonuses at all. Then what do you call the situation when a resist bonused ship can rep nearly the same as an active tank bonused ship with the same tank fitting while at the same time supporting greater buffer so the reps have a greater chance to hit in time? Naomi Knight wrote:Only those think that one bonus could obsolet anything, who wants to compare bonus vs bonus only without ship stats and fitting. Yet we have instances of the bonus in ship classes where the role is not immobile damage sponge. Every bonus has its place. A more limited bonus can make the ship is focused onto a play style/role. Except that the resist bonus doesn't pigeonhole you into any role. The other attributes may, but we aren't talking about a bonus exclusively present on larger ships.
Naomi Knight wrote: Cause we dont use combat bc-s or battleships for roaming. We use mainly t2/pirate frigs,cruisers, attack bc, and dictors nothing else. As you can see it has nothing to do with resist bonus vs repping bonus.
By this logic anything So anything bigger than a cruiser with an active tank bonus wastes that bonus.
Edit: Just wanting to clarify, are you saying none of the combat BC's are suitable for roaming or generalizing the class?[/quote]
Sounds like the interaction between resists and reps are broken, not resists or reps in and of themselves. Several suggestions have been given to fix this, including applying resists to reps, rep stacking penalties, and making resists modules harder to use. I think any of them would be better than the current course of action, but I don't think CCP pays all that much attention to player suggestions. Unless said suggestion is made en masse on the Jita monument. But balance changes don't seem to be the sort of thing to trigger that sort of protest.
The short of it all is that there are a class of interactions in the game that become exponentially stronger as you add more people doing it, when there should only be a linear increase of effectiveness. Damage, reps, resists, and certain status effects become way too good when applied en masse with no sort of stacking penalty to offset them. Many people do not see this, because they think that linear increases in stats gives linear increases of effectiveness. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 20:19:00 -
[35] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Van Mathias wrote:...I don't think CCP pays all that much attention to player suggestions... I think CCP Fozzie has done a good job of not matching up to that stereotype with a lot of his forum threads and the tiercide initiative. It's frankly insulting to bring that up and I'm fairly sure he'll read that and be a bit saddened that you think that. There's a difference between paying attention and having to be level-handed and take everyone under consideration. Just because you don't get what you wanted, doesn't mean you weren't considered.
CCP Fozzie's behavior aside, he is one dev of many, and I am considering the track record of CCP as a whole. So it wasn't directed at Foz specifically, and even if he is substantially better about it, he still has to deal with CCP's history and resultant reputation. We are known by the company we keep. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 23:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Now that I've edited it to be less of a rant and more of a valid concern, this should most definately be addressed, especially the underlined portion. Lol, you cut one sentence? Difference of opinion I suppose, because the way I see it, we have a decided lack of information about what the real intent is behind this. From previous information and posts on other threads, seemingly this started with the Abbadon. I see little reason why it doesn't have to end there. "Abbadon: Resists lowered to 4% per level, to bring it's EHP more in line with the tier-less battleship design" ... is all that would have to be written. But, as you and I have both pointed out, surely the knowledge that they would imminently destroy the viability of literally more than two dozen ships (and thereby merit their largest-scale rebalancing to date) has not escaped them. Surely they understand that the task of rebalancing dozens of ships across damn near the entire spectrum of the ship classes because of this revamp is daunting, to say the least? My question is, what now? Because the community is far from short of being a source of helpful balancing advice, as this forum itself attests. [Edit: And another thought here. I am honestly wondering whether I expect an answer on this or not. In my mind it's definitely a possibility that they have realized they wrote themselves into a corner here, and there is no easy way out of it.
I wouldn't say that the community is unhelpful, only that there are many different people with different conflicting opinions on what changes should be made to eve. I may not agree with some of the ideas I hear, and god knows that I get a lot of flak for posting my ideas. However, that is the price of putting your creative work out there. You put it in a position of being attacked, and people will attack it.
That doesn't mean that our ideas are not being considered, insomuch as CCP considers any outside input. It's more like its always a big unknown, because CCP is not in the habit of keeping us up to date on its every internal creative process. It would cost far to much to keep us in the loop, anyway. But we still complain about it anyway, so that CCP keeps on it's toes and is relatively responsive. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 00:16:00 -
[37] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:I wouldn't say that the community is unhelpful, only that there are many different people with different conflicting opinions on what changes should be made to eve. Thus, the death of high language, although it really is what I deserve for use of a passive double negative. My intent was to say that the community at large is a helpful body, as our spirited debate and meaningful suggestions amongst dozens of players, new and veteran alike, show.
Well any way you slice it most of us are mature adults, however inebriated. I don't take attacks on my ideas personally, and I accept that the grand majority of player suggestions, including but not limited to my own, will not be incorporated into the game. But that won't keep me from trying. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 01:41:00 -
[38] - Quote
I'm still secretly hoping they adopt the suggestion to reduce the bonus by 5%, but increase all BS base resists by 10%. Balance inside of the BS class, while distinguishing them from smaller ships (looking at you, faction battlecruisers). Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 02:41:00 -
[39] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Defensively there is probably very little that can be done to force DPS to become prevalent. There are some mechanisms, but they are tricky to get correct. Firstly, we need to decide what issue exactly we're trying to improve. Alpha-fleet doctrine is a sensible response to environments where repair is prevalent - killing a target before it can be repaired can massively reduce the total damage required to kill it. In that sense, the resistance nerf pushes things slightly in favour of DPS: resistance is the only target-based statistic that affects RR effectiveness, and reducing resistances from 25% to 20% reduces inbound rr by 6.25%. Without repair, the contest is how quickly the attacker can burn through the defender's hit points. RR adds a second contest - whether the attacker can overcome the defender's repair, with the surplus from this going to the first contest. Alpha provides a way of winning the first contest before the second can get started. One way to force the battle into the second contest is to remove alpha entirely. All damage (and repair) is applied evenly over time. Weapons stream rather than pulse. But you have now removed any direct mechanism to avoid the straight DPS vs repair fight, which will lead to risk-averse FCs stacking their fleet with even more remote repair. Another option is to totally remove repair. Good alpha still has some advantages, but the value of your damage no longer degrades over time. Finally, you can limit inbound damage and/or repair. This is technically simple, but good luck figuring how to do it without pushing the meta towards fewer, very powerful ships (or, if you cap contribution-per-ship rather than number-of-ships, away from it) while decreasing the specific hull resist bonus that resist bonused ships have. Van Mathias wrote:I'm still secretly hoping they adopt the suggestion to reduce the bonus by 5%, but increase all BS base resists by 10%. Balance inside of the BS class, while distinguishing them from smaller ships That would have exactly the opposite affect that they are trying to achieve. You don't discourage alpha doctrine by strengthening the doctrine that it counters!
Um, I would expect discouragement of the usage of alphafleets to be the exact consequence of making battleship resists tougher. If it is slightly less effective, people will use it slightly less. Behavior that is punished decreases, and behavior that is rewarded increases.
Please also note that I'm talking about increasing resists on ALL battleships, including ones that have the repair bonus, and alphaships (the mael too). Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 02:51:00 -
[40] - Quote
And that has to do with the fact that resists make RR better is an emergent property of the game as it was originally designed, and is fundamentally broken in and of itself. The solution lies in applying resists to remote reps. There is also the fact that a lack of stacking penalties for a large number of reps works into this as well. Tweaking the resist numbers will help, but will not solve the fundamental issue. The game mechanics concerning tank were not designed to deal with the effects of large numbers of people trying to break it.
Resists exist to provide a mechanism for differentiating the effects of different damage types, it is not fundamentally there to make reps better. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 03:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
It doesn't have to, there are ways to mitigate it. For instance, shield reps could be solely modified by EM resist, since that's generally the weakest resist on shield ships. The same could be done with the weakest armor resist and armor reps. RR amounts could be revisited, since a point of RR would be approximately equal to a point of damage in every case on any given ship. You wouldn't have to worry about buffing resists when you buff RR. And the stacking penalty for remote effects doesn't have to be the same as the mod stacking penalty, it can be set to have the diminishing returns point at an arbitrary number of ships. I would keep it so that local reps could still be applied without resists, as that is not really as abusable, and it would help ships with the local rep hull bonus. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 04:32:00 -
[42] - Quote
A lack of disparity? You meant they become approximately equal in power? How is that a bad thing? I would exclude the local stuff, because you can only fit 1 - 3 local reps at a time, so this strategy is inherently limited. In fact, it makes local rep more competitive with remote reps. This as consequence would make hulls with the local rep bonus more desirable. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 04:59:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ah, in that case, applying resists to local reps and buffing the reps would accomplish that. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 15:56:00 -
[44] - Quote
You are ignoring that I have suggested applying resists to the remote reps, making them less effective as resistance climbs. I fail to see how making 1 point of RR = 1 point of damage in all cases hurts alpha. This helps alpha by making ships with higher resists harder to rep. So resists would come with at least 1 tradeoff instead of having 3+ independent benefits with no downside whatsoever. The fact that it is good in so many ways is what is making it broken. This isn't just a 1 point plan like the proposed resist bonus change, it's more comprehensive. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 18:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
There is exactly one situation where there is no stacking penalty: Hull Bonus + DC + Exactly 1 Invuln, which is not exactly a broken fit in an of itself even at current resist levels. We haven't even filled holes for an omni tank, which will involve a stacking penalty with the invuln. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 19:34:00 -
[46] - Quote
Hmm, I guess your right, I was using inverse division and forgot my equivalencies. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 19:58:00 -
[47] - Quote
Yea, it was only afterwards I realized it was reductible to only factored terms. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 20:53:00 -
[48] - Quote
Fozzie, any feedback on the last week or so of debate? I would like to hear something more than rumors. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 16:34:00 -
[49] - Quote
Matthias Vilmet wrote:There is a different problem I have here, Fozzie.
You're vote will not be an accurate reflection of whether this is balanced or not. Only 44 ships are affected.... pilots who specialize in EVERY other ship will distinctly want to nerf their enemies and vote this as a good change, whether it is one or not.
To be fair, as a Caldari pilot who specializes in using ships with the resist bonus, I am obviously going to be against it. That makes me no less biased than them, but that has little to do with who is actually in the right in this argument. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 16:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
Matthias Vilmet wrote:Van Mathias wrote:Matthias Vilmet wrote:There is a different problem I have here, Fozzie.
You're vote will not be an accurate reflection of whether this is balanced or not. Only 44 ships are affected.... pilots who specialize in EVERY other ship will distinctly want to nerf their enemies and vote this as a good change, whether it is one or not. To be fair, as a Caldari pilot who specializes in using ships with the resist bonus, I am obviously going to be against it. That makes me no less biased than them, but that has little to do with who is actually in the right in this argument. This is precisely my point. 44 people will say: NO NO NO 156 people will say: YES YES YES (Edit) (taken a sample size of 200... and assuming there are 200 or so ships) and that has nothing to do with the ACTUAL balance of the ships. It's just forum pvp, essentially.
To a certain extent. One can be both entirely biased and completely correct. Two sides to that coin. I would also point out if the ships in question are used by a underrepresented minority of players, then that could be construed as evidence that the ships are underpowered, and not very attractive to players who want to fly those sort of ships.
Also, if this is forum pvp, why are you surprised or indignant that the players who stand the lose the most from this would not come and fight? Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 05:15:00 -
[51] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Pelea Ming wrote: forgive my ignorance, but outside of specifically mentioning the Archon and the Abaddon in relation to slowcat fleets, when have Amarr been painted evil?
Oh, wow, look what I just said... 2 ships in only one specific meta are an issue, and, holy ****, we have to nerf 44 ships to fix this!
Yes, Rise, Fozzie, I'm being slightly facetious with this, and yet, going by your own statements, still stating the truth. if the Rokh or any other cap ship with a resist bonus was a real issue, or the abaddon or archon outside of slowcat fleets as well, to the point that it actually deserved a nerf to fix it, it would have been a glaring enough case to have stuck out in your own heads and deserved commentary as well. And by your very silence on every source I can find (including that interview of CCP Rise that that squeal guy posted to twitch), even you can't think of a reason any sub BS is creating issues without this nerf.
So, why not try telling me again why this nerf is actually needed? And for those of you who have access to the Devs by means other then these forums, why not tell them they need to man up and actually start responding about this? I think I mentioned this earlier, in this thread I believe, although the dogfight going on through all three I have been posting in so fierce, I may be mistaken. I believe they realize they backed themselves into a corner, given the firestorm this has ignited. They can either go through with it and not rebalance all those ships and basically confirm for every Caldari and Amarr player that they are in fact second class citizens ( and you can bet that would cost them some subs). Or they can go through with it, and devote a buttload of dev time to testing ships across the entire spectrum of ship classes of half the races in game, which takes needed time away from the expac. Or they can back down, and look weak, look as though they caved, which is not good considering they are both new staff members. They are literally screwed no matter which way they turn.
Well, at this point, the change is only a proposal. So going back on it wont make the same big splash that the initial announcement did. Honestly, I think CCP's best option is to nix the current proposal and give us more of the status quo while this is sorted out on the drawing board in a way that both players who love and hate the resist bonus can accept. Note that the definition of compromise I'm working with here means that no one will be truly happy with the results.
At this point, the changes haven't hit the live server yet, so its not on the radar of 85% of EvE players anyway. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 17:08:00 -
[52] - Quote
The whole kills = happy people thing only works if the people are flying ships that don't cost a very large amount of isk each. I pay good money for a BS tank, and I expect to receive something for my isk other than a paper target. BS's should be tougher than they are now across the board, there isn't really enough to differentiate them from Navy BC's, especially since the Navy BC's have a better price point.
Don't get me wrong, I've lost plenty of Rokh's in the course of my capsuleer career, but I don't need to be losing them at a faster rate, it's costly enough as it is. However, I would accept a significant increase in cost over a tank nerf, and I would pay even more for a tank buff. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 21:14:00 -
[53] - Quote
An alpha fleet has an advantage over a DPS fleet the same size as a resist bonus has an advantage over a boost/rep bonus of the same size. So reducing them by the same margin will not effect their desirability by an equal amount. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 06:03:00 -
[54] - Quote
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Bucca Zerodyme wrote: Also overheat isn't limited to a subset of ships, doesn't last indefinitely, can burn out mods and can be neuted out which hurts more now that they give no passive resist when inactive. If overheat deserves a nerf for it's limited benefits resists bonuses need removed. Especially since resist bonuses only further exploit the horrible imbalance of the dreaded overheat!
That was just an example for getting more resistance, even if its limited. I was trying to say, that any ship can get "resistance Bonus". Right, but that is the point, it's 1. Limited in effect and duration and 2. Universal in that it can apply to any ship. Resists bonuses give the same effect permanently without penalty and cannot be affected by outside influence. So while they both contribute to the same thing the difference in application, stacking and constant effect make a real differentiation.
Thats not quite true, neuts and vamps can shut down invulns. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 20:35:00 -
[55] - Quote
And thusly CCP has balanced resists being to good with RR by making resist ships even more reliant on RR. Surely this will not result in greater usage of the tactic. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
38
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 05:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
An EHP buff would work, but it should be an across the board EHP buff for all BS, plus 8% for those ships that lose the Resist bonus. Battleships suffer from the fact that anyone from any subcap ship class can apply damage to us equally well, but we cannot reciprocate. Our tank is supposed to offset this, but the effect has always been underwhelming. Also, PVE needs to be rebalanced anyway, the lower level missions are far too easy. Also, +25 m3 drone space for the Rokh. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
|
|