Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Friday, April 12, 2013

Fozzie thermal resistance

So, CCP Fozzie -- who as I've already noted seems to get tapped whenever announcing something is going to be controversial or contentious -- announced today that CCP is going to be reducing the resistance bonus of all ships that currently have one from 5% per level to 4% per level.  And he wrote up the dev-post with two amusing things going on in the background:
  • he writes the dev-post clearly in the mindset of a man wearing flame-retardant underwear who is expecting to be set on fire by angry EVE players; and,
  • he indicates at the top and the bottom that this isn't going to be implemented until Odyssey and that CSM8 will apparently have some say-so on whether this gets implemented at all.
Let's start by walking right past that second point.  I'm not sure I believe it, but even if it's possible that if CSM8 came on board and in one voice said "stop the madness!", the chances of CSM8 being united enough right out of the gate on this single topic -- or any single topic -- are slim.

So let's concentrate on that first bit.  Fozzie is nervous.  Why is Fozzie nervous?

Resistance bonuses are at the heart of some of the most iconic ships in EVE Online.  Most notably, the Drake, Abaddon, Damnation, and Archon all carry this bonus and are widely-renowned and beloved as bricks.  There are 44 ships in total that carry the bonus, split roughly equally between shield ships and armor ships, and Fozzie lists them all.  There are five things going on here that Fozzie is either worried about, or should be worried about.  I list them in order from least important to most important.

First, all four heavy interdictors are affected.  HICs are the very definition of the lonely wanderer.  When they're applying their trade of keeping someone pointed or bubbled, they cannot receive remote reps.  They can broadcast, and their saviors can lock them up, but no remote reps can fall until the HIC is no longer doing what it was designed to do.  If seriously pressed, a HIC must "coast out" of its bubble time hoping that a combination of buffer and resist will save the ship until the bubble goes down and the logistics ships on field can repair it (and often, resupply it with cap as well).

So this one is fairly serious, but not dangerously so.  HICs almost always operate with either shield or armor links and I personally think that their resiliency to damage is about right where it is now.  But the nerf can be balanced with slight tweaks to the armor or shields of each HIC to restore the balance lost by the resist nerf.  I believe this should be done, and I believe it will off-set the effect of this nerf for these four ships.

Second, a number of beloved combat ships are being hit right in their most central reason for being.  With the "Geddon" becoming... something, and the new Apocalypse's role being tweaked and made somewhat less effective, more players than ever are going to be turning to the "Baddon" for their Amarr battleship needs.  The Abaddon has always been the king of combat brick tanks for armor, and that's going to be reduced.  That said, I don't think it's going to affect the use of the ship.  Likewise, old favorites like the Drake and Damnation will be somewhat thinner, but it's certainly not going to result in people not flying Drakes and Damnations.

New favorites like the Maller and Prophecy will also be affected.  Right now, the only reason not to fly an Omen rather than a Maller is the increased tank.  This will probably result in fewer Mallers out there unless they receive some balancing buff.  The Proph will continue to be pretty damn awesome; it was one of the winners of the BC re-balance and it will continue to be so.

All of the T3 cruisers have resist subsystems that can be fitted to these ships, but most of the T3s also have buffer subsystems that can be fit instead.  In my experience, those buffer subsystems tend to be both more practical and more popular.  Certainly, there are a few fits that rely on the resist subsystems, but not enough to seriously impact the number of people that want to fly T3s.

So overall, this one isn't a major concern.  There are a few ships like the Maller, Eagle, and Merlin that will suffer, but these ships can receive small balancing buffs to make up for what's being lost.

Third -- and let's be honest here -- this is effectively a buff to the very alpha tactics that Fozzie brings up and slightly bemoans in his post.  Now Fozzie has been flying ships in EVE a long time -- longer than me.  He's got a huge amount of experience with this issue, and this is the issue that he spends most of the dev-post talking about.  In particular, he brings up the issue of remote reps in the faces of both high DPS, low alpha damage and low DPS, high alpha damage.  So, I'm inclined to believe that Fozzie spent most of his time thinking about this issue and is confident of the change in the face of it.  But I'm going to revisit in a second.

Fourth... and this is the first area where Fozzie is likely truly nervous... Archons and Aeons.  In many quarters, Archons are regarded as the only carrier worth taking into serious PvP.  Certainly, they're regarded across New Eden as the most effective and survivable triage carrier and that's with the Nidhoggur's huge bonuses in this area.  And those resists are the reason why.  Archons, particularly triage Archons, are tough.  They're tough when they're all alone, able to resist the damage of whole fleets, and ridiculously tough when paired with a triage partner.  Archons can be fit to hold off a dozen Moroses, or can be fit to tank a Doomsday.

And now they're about to get a pretty significant nerf.

Again, even though the Archon isn't mentioned explicitly, I find it difficult or impossible to believe that Fozzie hasn't considered the impact on this iconic ship.  And quite frankly, I suspect he's considered it and said, "yeah, so what?"  The Archon is considered the best carrier for so many applications -- for nearly all applications, really -- that he and the rest of the team probably regard this as a needed nerf to a somewhat over-powered platform.  And even though I'm a fan of the Archon myself, on due consideration, I am forced to agree that this is valid thinking about the balance of the game.

But what about the Aeon?

Yeah, yeah, I just heard several hundred of you say "fuck Aeons!" into your monitor and yeah, I can't disagree.  Still, several hundred EVE players spent tens of billions of ISK each on them with the expectation that they would be primaried absolutely last in any engagement.  ;-)  If my rough math is correct, the typical un-bonused Aeon fit is going to lose 2.6 million EHP from its substantial tank as a result of this change, dropping from a little under 43 million EHP to a hair above 40 million.

But it's still going to be a good 25% more tanky than its next closest competitor.  Fuck Aeons.  ;-)

Fifth and last... and here's the reason Fozzie is wearing his flame-retardant underwear: all three exhumers are affected by this change.  He really expected and expects to hear from miners on this one, particularly miners who have been the targets of suicide ganking attacks.  If this thread turns into a river of flame, that's the direction it's going to come from.

Hulks and Mackinaws can already effectively be measured in "Catalyst units"... in other words, your exhumer's tank is measured by New Order Logistics and other groups like them in terms of how many Catalysts it will take to destroy them.  This nerf is going to reduce the Catalyst unit rating of every exhumer in New Eden by a fairly substantial amount.  Again, my back of the envelope math says that the typical fairly tanky Hulk or Mack can expect to lose about 3500 EHP out of this change.  Because of the third factor above, less tanky ones actually lose about the same, meaning that their loss will be higher on a percentage basis.

Looking at typical Gankalysts with typical New Order pilots aboard, I calculate that equals one half Catalyst unit per exhumer.

So, when New Order sends out their squads, they can either replace one high SP ganker with one newbie ganker, or roughly one fewer newbie ganker is going to be needed to blap the typical Odyssey exhumer.  Is that significant?  I'll leave that up to the miners out there to decide.

All in all though, I'm in favor of this change.  In particular, I'm in favor of the fact that it's a 1% per level adjustment as opposed to a 2% or 2.5% per level adjustment.  Too often when CCP decides to nerf something, they take it way too far, way too fast.  This time, we're seeing a small incremental adjustment that will then be studied to see its impact.  That, I can definitely get behind.  I'd like to see more like this, please.

Anyway, having had most of a day to think about this post, that's what I came up with.  Anything I'm missing out there, EVE players?


  1. But it's still going to be a good 25% more tanky than its next closest competitor. Fuck Aeons. ;-)

    You forgot Wyverns, which are actually tankier than Aeons by a good margin already (albeit with active fit, and they're being nerfed as well, but will still have the most EHP).

    1. u also are forgetting the chimaera and that ship needs some loving if u ask me. all this is going 2 do is make it a glorified taxi... same with the hell

    2. oh, wait until N3 rolls out their shield-slowcats cus u can stuff their lows with DDA's for sentrys.

  2. While I'm in favor of this change, I don't think that it will lead to any Archon pilot suddenly switching into an Nid or Thanatos, as it's sweet, sweet balance of generous cap and resistances. Without major shakeups in the metagame I even expect that no carrier will ever rival the Archon, at least not until CCP takes a look at the Chimera.

  3. Do you think there is a way CCP can actually do anything about alpha doctrines? Other than putting some hard limit on how much Dps/hps a ship can receive, I can't think of any buff or nerf that would actually make a difference.

    1. They could nerf remote reps. That said, killing someone in one shot is always a good thing.

      They could also nerf the alpha on some of the weapons systems used for that regularly.

    2. km whores are spitting on your comment ;-)

    3. I do.
      I think they started to mess with it when looking at that dumb battleship mod that breaks locks depending on how many people are targeting you.

  4. I'm more upset to the buff of alpha doctrine than anything else. Sustained damage is in a pretty bad place vs one big large number right up front. And I understand the meta implications of why that is with RR... But it just feels like this is a nerf to more ships than just these, it's a nerf to ships the do reliable sustained DPS. Now that ships are thinner alpha is more important than ever. The already problematic missile 'hang time' just got worse as well.

    I'm probably running around shouting at the rain like chicken little, but for some reason, this just doesn't bode well for overall game health to me.

  5. That bonus is the only thing I could turn to in this universe of ever-increasing DPS on everything starting from noobships.
    This game steadily continues its way to the game of ganks. Not endorsing.
    Also CCP Fozzie could be less generalized on the issue, some of the ships listed needs to be nerfed less than others, casting the same change over so many ship classes/roles isn't that thoughtful.
    Should have been implemented as part of tiercide/aftertiercide balancing on per ship basis as I see it.

  6. Who needs buffer? Just give each ship 1 EHP so the fastest lock/F1 press gets "BOOM! HEADSHOT!"
    EVE also requires a new "teabagging" mechanic, as well.

  7. Now I'm even more happy to have skilled my alt into a cap stable Scythe as you'd suggested last month. And that my graphics card can handle two instances of Eve at once.

  8. On this issue, Fozzie knows exactly what he is doing. There has always been an issue with power creep in any game, and Fozzie is one of the few devs who actually recognizes the danger. Kudos to him.

    The "standard" (and clueless) dev solution to the problem with too much tank would be to increase DPS. Ofc, the same clueless dev would then proceed to address the problem with too much DPS by increasing tank. And onward, until the game mechanics breaks down.

    Anyone else remember the speed creep? Fozzie does.

    So, why does every other dev seem to opt for buffs instead of nerfs? Simple reason is because players get more upset about nerfs than they do about buffs. If the Drake is too powerful, then buff every other ship in the game and everyone will be happy. Nerf the Drake and a bunch of players get upset. Forget the fact that both states are designed to keep things in balance - it is all in the perception of the thing.

    Anyways, I'm all for the change. Thumbs high, Fozzie!

    1. Yes, but it fixes the tank creep by increasing the already overly prevalent alpha creep. RR doctrines started back in the days of The Great War as a way of handling the ever larger fleet fights and their increasingly large alpha waves. A really big buffer + RR. Alpha then started getting bigger to handle those huge buffers to break the tank faster than RR could heal them back up.

      If we nerf RR, we're running headlong into the problem RR was there to fix in the first place. Only now alpha is a larger than it was because in the meantime we've buffed it to handle the RR metagame.

      See the cylindrical problem with this issue? You can't nerf one without buffing the other unless you do a rethink to how damage should be applied and tanked in the first place.

    2. @Halycon - this is how "balancing" works. You don't just tweak things up, you need to tweak things down as well.

      Obviously, then, the next step will be to nerf alpha, as well.

      Cut Fozzie some slack. It isn't like he isn't aware of the problems and the history - he *was* there for the "days of The Great War", you know, and designed a number of fleet comps, based exactly on these factors.

      So, we'll get there - give it a bit of time. And, be happy that someone like Fozzie is doing the balancing - unlike certain other devs, who flopped the previous balancing attempts, he's actually played the game extensively. Ships across the board have been balanced better than ever before - doesn't this give you *some* confidence in the guy?

    3. Confidence and CCP NEVER go hand in hand.

  9. As you said, the biggest thing this does is attack miners. Where do most of these ships affected operate? High sec. Just another angle on nerfing the shit out of high sec.

    1. And how many HI SEC CSM candidates are going to survive the STV? Without Compulsary Sufferage CSM is going to especially after this election IMHO be viewed as a NULL SEC thing & the legitimacy of the CSM representing all EVE as a whole be suspect especially from the miners

    2. I am a player that spends half my time in lowsec PvP-ing in Faction Warfare, and half my time in a pair of retrievers mining ice in highsec while talking with players, writing posts, or transcribing minutes. I am a 100% Empire space representative and have lived in empire space my entire EVE career. And I too, endorse this change.

      The only "angle" here is the one you're trying to pin on this story, which falls apart rather quick when you have high sec players on the CSM endorsing this change.

      Has it occured to you that you can't just snatch every change that comes along out of thin air and call it "proof" of your crackpot conspiracy? It has to actually be true for people to take you seriously. In the meantime it's like you're literally trying to be these guys: http://bit.ly/ZKrlcW while Fozzie continues to own the show and look like a star.

    3. Well, how many hi-sec candidates survived the last not-STV election? STV actually improves the chance for your vote not to got to waste.

      If there isn't going to be a hi-sec representative in the CSM, it's not due to STV, but due to available candidates and the lack of voting hi-sec residents. Nothing more.

      But yeah, I am strongly in favor of compulsary suffrage *with the possibility to opt-out*. Could be something simple as a modal pop-up on login "CSM elections are open, please cast your vote", with answers like "Vote", "What's this CSM?", "Remind me laster", "I don't want to vote.".

    4. I agree with both Dinsdale and Darth. CCP is actively working to move the high sec industrial base to other games. Seems that's what CCP really wants.

    5. @ Hans "The High Sec Representative"...You expect anyone to believe that Kelduum and Issler endorsed this nerf on high sec mining boats? Do you truly think we are that dumb?

      Yes, a ton of PvP boats also got hit hard by this change. And I will retract the statement that this was attack on high sec, just as soon as all the mining boats and mission boats nerfed to shit by this change get a HP, shield recharge, or armor repair buff to offset this nerf.

      Pandemic Legion Fozzie is no star. He is a null sec zealot working for the null sec cartels to weaken any resistance against them (alpha blob doctrine gains with this nerf as well). This is all about strengthening the RMT cartels' positions in the game, with the added benefit of hurting high sec players, which is something these sociopaths always love to do.

      Oh, and one last little tidbit...ice mining in retrievers in high sec does not make you a high sec rep. I also would like to note that the retriever is not affected by this nerf, as it has no resist bonus. So until you start flying a boat in high sec that is affected by this, STFU.

    6. "But yeah, I am strongly in favor of compulsary suffrage *with the possibility to opt-out*. Could be something simple as a modal pop-up on login "CSM elections are open, please cast your vote", with answers like "Vote", "What's this CSM?", "Remind me laster", "I don't want to vote."."

      So, you're in favor of a pop-up telling people to vote. Great. That'll accomplish nothing. Players will either repeatedly click "remind me later" or will click "I don't want to vote", because when they're logging in they usually want to play eve, not play drag boxes around on the voting website.

      If you actually want to increase voter turnout they need to do what they did when incarna and the new portrait system was released, allow players to log in a certain number of times before forcing them to go through the character generator. Voting needs to be done the same way, and the voting needs to be doable ingame. Having out of game voting, particularly with an awful UI, turns people away from voting.

    7. Well, evidence suggests otherswise. Real-life elections with non-enforced compulsary suffrage (i.e. just knowing the duty) increases participation by 10% or more. And pushing players on login/logout of games/websites also has a substantial effect that is well-known and used througout the industry.

      Yes, there certainly is a part of gamers who cannot be bothered to vote no matter what. But do you really believe they would do anything but random clicking if you force them to? Isn't it better then to accept that and allow them this choice instead of deluting the election?

    8. "Non-enforced compulsary suffrage" is an oxymoron.

      It has also been proven that compulsory voting does not improve the election process - in fact, it makes things worse.

      Voters who are required to cast a vote, but are not also required to demonstrate any knowledge of the candidates or the election issues, do not necessarily research the candidates or issues before voting. In fact, most "forced" voters simply pick at random, which adds statistical noise to the ballot data, but does not improve the process.

  10. You didn't mention the Rokh. :p

    1. I sure like the 5% shield resist when flying my PVE mission ships. I play to relax. Now CCP has added more stress to my low-stress play style. How soon will the other space games be available?

  11. As a new bro to PvP in FW, I find the idea of reducing tank to be more harmful than beneficial. There are already a lot of mismatches where small fights are decided almost instantly. While this is fun for the victor, it makes it hard for players to learn what is going on. I'd like to see the time of fights drawn out a little more. Skills and fittings should play a part, but by reducing tank and leaving alpha and DPS high, you get into a situation where it becomes more difficult to analyze what happened. If it only takes a few volleys to decide a fight, you really push ship design towards optimizing damage over any other strategy, especially in the small gang/solo world. Look at the numer of tier 3 BCs being used out in LS right now.

    The small-gang and solo world may be something the devs care less about given the importance placed on the 0.0 meta and fleet doctrines, but most players are not fighting in 0.0. I can't believe I will say this, but go look at Poetic's post about kills by region. The fighting that actually happens is happening between small groups.

    Maybe fix active reps before flat reducing resistances, redesign sov income and conflict, then nerf the ships that need nerfing.

    1. This; a thousand times this.

      Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but as I read Fozzie's post, he seemed to be stating that the real problem was the strength of remote reps, and that the resistance nerf to individual ships is supposed to reduce the effectiveness of the remote reps.

      My question then is if remote reps are the problem, why not directly change remote repping instead of a blanket nerf to individual ship bonuses? I think the answer to this question is contained in this line: "Remote repair gameplay is some of the most fun gameplay we have (and is my personal favourite activity in 0.0)" It seems to me that Fozzie just doesn't want to impact his "favourite activity" any more than he needs to. This whole nerf just smacks of personal bias, and that more than anything makes me doubt its benefit to the game.

      Again, I'm fully willing to admit that I may not understand the whole situation, but from my perspective, as someone who spends most of my time in small gangs or solo, and has only rare interaction with the remote rep mechanic, changes like this feel like a slap in the face; they change one blanket mechanic to fix a single aspect, without taking into account the collateral damage to other areas of the game. Frankly that's just irresponsible.

  12. "Remote repair gameplay is...responsible for discouraging fights." - CCP Fozzie.

    Excuse me, but, [Citation Needed].

  13. I think what is missing here is discussion of the mathematical argument Fozzie presented. He argues that resists and rof are better than other ship bonuses. Is he wrong? (Hint: he isn't). If he's right why would we not fix an imbalance? Why should Drakes be better ships than Feroxes?

    Another thing to look at is the crossover point from self-reps to buffer. How large does a battlecruiser fleet have to be before it's better to go from triple rep myrms to prophecies with logis? And the answer is - not very large at all. About 3 maybe?

    1. Large enough that you can have 2-3 logis (maybe only one if you use the Galente or Minmatar logis, but my experience is that they're not as good as Amarr/Caldari logi running a cap chain) and still do enough DPS to break an enemy's tank. For an armour fleet, where active local tanks cost a lot of fitting this is, as you say, quite a low value. For a shield fleet it's probably a little higher (but not much).

  14. I agree with grimmash there, fights should be a bit longer. Reducing the resistance doesnt really help that on its own, fingers crossed they add more basic hp to small stuff with the resists nerf. Most fights are over in 2-3mins tops. Would be more fun if things were easy double that and you could fight a bit longer.

  15. Couldn't have said it better myself. That was (in general) the CSM's response as well. "It's reasonable, but holy hell you better be prepared to explain yourself".

    I personally endorse the decision, it diminishes the obvious choices available to pilots and that, to me, is the core principle of tiericide. Making more ships viable and competitive. And in the end, this adjustment has to work both directions. To refuse to ever dial a stat back is to openly engage in power creep, a pitfall of many, many, many online games. It's refreshing to see CCP buck the trend and bite the bullet and make some needed moves they know they'll be flogged for by some.

  16. It's a freaking joke. The minutes from the December CSM summit CLEARLY said that the CSM would be involved in the decision-making process - in January - for the next expansion, i.e. Odyssey. How much involvement did CSM7 have in that process? Was this particular change discussed? I mean it's not like it's a big thing or anything, right?

    Give me a break. The new CSM8 will have a say in what happens? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The price for my CSM8 vote just went up to 100 billion isk per toon.

    Yeah.... thought so. My recommendation is that NOBODY even bother to vote in this farcical charade. CCP and the "oh my free trips to Iceland" jokers will try to sell you a bill of goods, but the whole thing is a bad joke on anyone who participates in this fraud. So yeah.... scratch that 100 bil for my vote. No amount of isk could make me vote for ANY of these clowns.

  17. Blah blah blah.... at this point the only thing I want to hear Fozzi say is "supercarriers will be removed from the game". CCP can take all their other crap and let spazzmeister Dolan spin it however they want. Leave Titans in. The 4 racial supercarriers must go. Summer is always slow in EVE, watch for this summer to accelerate the trend. PCU will be under 30k daily by August.

  18. I have yet to see a clear statement of the problem this nerf is meant to address. Hull resistances on 44 ships are too good, allegedly, but how was this determined?

    The change at least seems pretty small (good job on doing this in baby steps), and apparently is going to affect only one ship any of my toons flies. No big deal to me, personally, CCP, but if you nerf my wife's Drake you *will* answer to her. :-)

    1. By mathematics. If you have 2 ship bonuses which increase eHP. One gives 25%, the other 33% extra eHP, the second one is obviously too good compared to the first (and it isn't helping it's improving repping, too).

    2. Uh-huh. So is the problem being addressed just a mismatch? A cosmetic patch on a number that looks out of line?

      Or is there an optimum number of kills CCP is aiming for? I'm asking because I'd like to know how CCP will know when they're done What will be the measure of success of this 1% nerf?

  19. "he indicates at the top and the bottom that this isn't going to be implemented until Odyssey and that CSM8 will apparently have some say-so on whether this gets implemented at all. [...] I'm not sure I believe it, but even if it's possible that if CSM8 came on board and in one voice said "stop the madness!", the chances of CSM8 being united enough right out of the gate on this single topic -- or any single topic -- are slim."

    I simply understood that as a call to vote in general. Kind of "If you feel strongly about such things, you are doing something wrong, if you don't vote".

  20. It's a reasonable idea for many of the ships involved - the ones with massive tanks that get flown far more often than competing designs in their classes for that reason. For others, (exhumers in particular, but also a few ships from other classes) it's a bizarre nerf that ignores present problems, recent balance passes and testing.

    Applying it across the board with a vague promise to look at some of the affected ships in the "near future" (which we all know can mean anything from "next month" to "two to five expansions from now, when some other team inherits the problems we just created") looks lazy. There are a number of popular ships where resist bonuses are a problem - change the bonus on those ships to 4%. Doing it to every ship in the game because they can't be bothered to differentiate just punts the ball down the field.

  21. The effect is going to hit veteran players harder than noobs and takes a small amount of motivation out of training battleships to V

    1. LOL - you are obviously not a vet player.

      Most of us with over 100M SP are already training level 5 skills in things like weapon specialization, which gain only 2% additional bonus. Dropping the resist bonus from 5% to 4% isn't going to stop us from training BS to level 5.

    2. You are obviously *not* a vet. I'm a 100M SP vet and this change doesn't bother me a bit.

      Vets are used to training weeks/months of level 5 skills for small, yet significant, gain, such as a mere 2% more weapon damage. We know it all adds up and gives us an edge. And, vets will still train up BS 5, when there isn't anything more critical in the skill queue.

  22. More ships going boom will be good for the economy!

  23. Prosser: But the plans were on display.
    Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
    Prosser: That's the display department.
    Arthur Dent: With a torch.
    Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
    Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
    Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
    Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?

    CCP takes a leaf from late Douglas Adams. (and its not even legal tender). 70% of the playing base do not read the forums. Only 17% even vote. yes, Fozzie you put a notice. It may as well be the cabinet for the all attention it will receive. Its only when the bulldozer arrives (ie lower resistance) that players will notice.

    1. Personally, I don't have a problem with this. Eve in particular of all the MMOs is a game of _information_. I expect players to be much more engaged than other MMOs.

      You analogy lacks teeth because it compares a example devoid of common sense(Adams's) with something that makes perfect sense--a company making an announcement on its official forums.

      If one can't be bothered to keep abreast of what's going on with their MMO (MMOs are not static like 1P games), then they don't have a leg to stand on when complaining. Everyone knows balance and expansion is continual on an MMO, and changes are not held in secrect until released.

  24. In practice, this is not a buff to "alpha doctrine"; it is a 6.25% nerf to active (remote) reps. It's also a nerf of 6.25% to the primary tank of all the listed ships, though that could be countered by increasing the relevant HP by the same percentage. Yes, all the given ships need 6.25% less damage to alpha, but they also need 6.25% less damage to reduce by every other means, and that 6.25% represents a lot more damage when considered vs an active tank.

    Time-to-kill is always buffer / (rate of damage - rate of repair), quantised to your damage (and repair) packets. Application of repair always trails application of damage by one quantum; alpha is a natural application of this to reduce repair to zero. If you don't do this, then the total damage required to kill a repair-supported ship gets bigger and bigger as the delta between damage and repair approaches zero. At it's core, this nerf is about trying to make that gap bigger, at least on ships for which the bonus applies to both buffer and repair rate. The buffer nerf might need to be un-done by adding raw HP, but the repair nerf makes sense.

    (Just to be clear, a resist bonus applies to three things: buffer + local repair + remote repair - assuming you're only benefitting from one type of repair, it's still effectively a double-sized bonus.)

  25. Jester, considered that this may be a faked nerf?

    That all the VOTE CSM8 stuff is the actual intention, and that Fozzie actually intends to back down when CSM8 are in place?

  26. I'd much rather see Fozzie take up that thermal res, just so that he can stand beside Kil2 when they get their fair share of flame.

    This and the BS rebalance just made me doubt their real finesse in the game - which is a shame because tiericide was successful up until this time (ok, I am still butthurt about the prophecy but what the hell sporting more drones than a gallente is now OK for the amarr, apparently I didn't get the memo of shuffling the back content).

  27. I think people entirely miss the point of the resistance change. Imagine you could add up all of the features, slots, and bonuses of a ship to come up with a number.

    Ideally each ship of a class would have the same resulting number, but with the distribution of the features giving each ship it's own flavor, style, and role. (This is obviously an idealistic view as some features are worth more to certain people then they are to others.)

    Reducing the resist bonuses actually *nets* you the ability to improve and balance a ship's other features. In other words, you now have more room to improve a ship until you reach that ideal "balance" number. Fozzie even took the time to outline *why* Resist Bonuses effect the whole "balance" equation more then most everything else.

    1) Some ships are quite honestly a bit too powerful right now in regards to resists. These ships will likely not really be effected too terribly by the change and will retain their popularity.

    2) A ship that was already balanced pre-change will likely have it's other stats adjusted to bring it back into balance. For example, the raw resistances and shield/armor values may be raised in response to the change. In other-words, the overall effect on said ship will be very low.

    3) There are ships that seriously need help, but are either carried by their resist bonuses or would become too powerful when given improvements while retaining their current level of resist bonus. Now there is room for the other aspects of a ship to be tuned and improved.

    4) Exhumers will obviously get rebalanced in response to the resistance bonus change. These ships have *already* undergone their balancing phase so there is no reason to believe their raw hp or resists won't be adjusted in response. Come release, your Mackinaw will most likely have the exact same EHP as it did before.

    5) Once CCP figures out the right balance of knobs to modify to bring each ship's balance back into scope after the resist bonus reduction, It's very possible that you will see an additional reduction to resist bonuses.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.