EVE General Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

3 Pages123Next page
 

"Resist bonuses are over powered" -CCP Fozzie

Author
#1 Posted: 2013.02.22 09:47  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
"The 5% resist is over all a better bonus than the 7.5% rep bonuses, it's also overall better than the 10% rep bonus."

http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/Insertshownamehere.mp3

27 minutes in.

He continues to argue that it's an advantage that the AAR runs a lot longer. How is slow cycle time a good thing?

*Edit: Removed confusing and possibly offensive comparison*

So there it is. Resist bonuses are overpowered and quote "better than 10% rep in almost all cases".

I know we are only at "Armor tanking 1.5", but where will this go to make active armor tanking balanced? Will we keep the local rep bonus?
Unsettled.
#2 Posted: 2013.02.22 10:02
I'd be very happy with 10% local rep bonus on Myrm.

7.5 rep bonus is just an insult, and we certainly don't need two Gallente BCs with pure solo PVP bonus.

And yes I agree that the hilarious idea that 8 slower and weaker reps last longer than 9 faster and stronger reps should be buried asap. Less EHP gained over a longer period does not equal a longer lasting tank, it means you die faster.
.
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
#3 Posted: 2013.02.22 10:07
that and the fact that the ASB not only uses no cap with boosters, but also makes amuch better rep burst tank, then you got the AAR that not only needs the charges but still uses cap, still has a WAY longer Cycle time for what is still a very modest rep amount boost.
Gallente Federation
#4 Posted: 2013.02.22 10:13
@Fozzie: There is a world outside one versus one.

Without resistences med sized fights with triage carriers are not doable. Logistics is always more effective with more resistences.
#5 Posted: 2013.02.22 12:15
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
that and the fact that the ASB not only uses no cap with boosters, but also makes amuch better rep burst tank, then you got the AAR that not only needs the charges but still uses cap, still has a WAY longer Cycle time for what is still a very modest rep amount boost.


Shield bc's might use an X-large ASB, while armor bc's might be using a Medium AAR.
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
#6 Posted: 2013.02.22 12:26
Hannott Thanos wrote:
"The 5% resist is over all a better bonus than the 7.5% rep bonuses, it's also overall better than the 10% rep bonus."

http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/Insertshownamehere.mp3

27 minutes in.

He continues to argue that it's an advantage that the AAR runs a lot longer. How is slow cycle time a good thing?

"So yeah, due to recent population control, over consuming have gone down for the better of mankind"
"Oh, and it was ****** that did the population control" Edit: Is Adolfs last name prohibited?

So there it is. Resist bonuses are overpowered and quote "better than 10% rep in almost all cases".

I know we are only at "Armor tanking 1.5", but where will this go to make active armor tanking balanced? Will we keep the local rep bonus?


WHo made that disgusting "******" quote?

"Also, your boobs Shocked "  
CCP Eterne, 2012
#7 Posted: 2013.02.22 12:31  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
Eugene Kerner wrote:

WHo made that disgusting "******" quote?

I did. Maybe not very tasteful, but that's how stupid I think the reasoning is for the whole "AAR is good because it lasts longer than ASB because of longer cycle time"

You can't take something horrible and argue that it's a good thing because of one tiny extremely specific element in the argument.

Fact: Fewer people on the planet would be better.
Also fact: Killing off the population is not a good way to do that.

Edit:
so the "positive" statement is that "The AAR lasts longer".
Okay, that's cool, that sounds good and sounds like it means it will tank better for longer.

"Well no actually, it tanks worse because it cycles slower, but hey! it lasts longer"....
Situation: Normal
#8 Posted: 2013.02.22 12:38
Next time attribute quotes in your OP to the proper people better. Would create less confusion.
#9 Posted: 2013.02.22 12:56
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Next time attribute quotes in your OP to the proper people better. Would create less confusion.

Yeah, I removed it.

Anyway, any thought on the topic?
He did confirm that 5% resists are better in basically every way compared even to the 10% rep bonus which he even removed from the Incursus. What could possibly be released in Armor Tanking 2.0 to fix the imbalance?
#10 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:00
Roime wrote:
I'd be very happy with 10% local rep bonus on Myrm.

7.5 rep bonus is just an insult, and we certainly don't need two Gallente BCs with pure solo PVP bonus.

And yes I agree that the hilarious idea that 8 slower and weaker reps last longer than 9 faster and stronger reps should be buried asap. Less EHP gained over a longer period does not equal a longer lasting tank, it means you die faster.

I too would like to have a 10% rep bonus on the Myrmidon. I really love that ship, but I end up going shield tank on it anyway because dps is the better tank imo.

To make an efficient armor tanker out of it you have to manage 5 modules (3 reps, 2 boosters) while also managing drones, guns, range and all things pvp. Or you know, strap on an ASB and tank even better with more dps and less managing. Kinda unfair.
#11 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:08
To correct some people in this thread.

ASB is only 7 more powerful reps, not 9.

AAR reps for zero when your neuted.

Long live the ASB, armor tankers rot in hell =)
One of the oldest mission players in EVE designed a chart that explains stat priority in regards to mission running, compared Alpha, DPS, Ship Speed and Sig Radius and scores them.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24dbrfuWn1r86ax8o1_1280.jpg
#12 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:28
Tom Gerard wrote:
To correct some people in this thread.

ASB is only 7 more powerful reps, not 9.

AAR reps for zero when your neuted.

Long live the ASB, armor tankers rot in hell =)


ASB has 9 with navy boosters, I'm sure you just "forgot" that little tidbit of info.

Current AAR is a silly solution with last minute mechanics based on no logic or balancing at all, it's below par when compared to ASB.
Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.

Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish
#13 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:39
Vilnius Zar wrote:
ASB has 9 with navy boosters, I'm sure you just "forgot" that little tidbit of info.

Current AAR is a silly solution with last minute mechanics based on no logic or balancing at all, it's below par when compared to ASB.

I think the AAR should be able to load either 8 metal scraps or 12 nanite pastes, and you should be able to fit more than one.
With 2 ASB's you can cycle them for almost a permatank, with 15 seconds between them. If CCP really wanted the AAR to "last longer" they would not limit it to one module and make it use less charges than the ASB. It's really annoying.
#14 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:44
... nice to see that hornet's nest kicked with the first cup of the day ... patch isn't even 3 days old.... ooooo-rah.

... and I was just saying the other day, "Damn, I miss Soundwave"....

#15 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:48
Felicity Love wrote:
... nice to see that hornet's nest kicked with the first cup of the day ... patch isn't even 3 days old.... ooooo-rah.

Just to note, I'm all for the AAR, it's a step in the right direction to make armor tanking more viable. I'm just sad to see that because the ASB was pre uber buffed and OP, and still is OP, they now do it the other way around with armor, and release a module that has a great "meh" written on it in comparison. The AAR is not bad, but it's nothing like what the ASB was or is.
Gallente Federation
#16 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:53
Nomad I wrote:
@Fozzie: There is a world outside one versus one.

Without resistences med sized fights with triage carriers are not doable. Logistics is always more effective with more resistences.


What if rep bonuses were changed to "armor repair effects applied to this ship are 7.5% more effective per level"?
#17 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:57
Takseen wrote:
What if rep bonuses were changed to "armor repair effects applied to this ship are 7.5% more effective per level"?

Alas, he also said in the interview that he would not let remote reps become any stronger.

This is funny, because I love flying the Brutix but I can't remember if they changed the wording on the rep bonus or not. It used to, and might still say 7.5% bonus to armor repairer effectiveness, not specifically amount.

Now THAT, is something that would be nice. Effectiveness, as in,
7.5% reduced cap usage
7.5% reduced cycle time
7.5% repair amount

Maybe dial it down to 5% then, but still.
#18 Posted: 2013.02.22 13:58
The facts as I see them are:

The only acceptable solution is the solution where Armor rep remains vastly inferior to shield tanking.
One of the oldest mission players in EVE designed a chart that explains stat priority in regards to mission running, compared Alpha, DPS, Ship Speed and Sig Radius and scores them.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24dbrfuWn1r86ax8o1_1280.jpg
Caldari State
#19 Posted: 2013.02.22 14:15  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
"Because frankly, resist bonuses are a little bit overpowered..."

Guess who?

Lol

AAR vs ASB/ Armor vs Shield: in short, things are being monitored but yes, armor tanking is subpar they know it but don't want to make more changes before they have decent data, sit back and figure what is in need of changes.
Edit: even if we have already told them about a gazillion times in last 3/4 years what's going wrong with armor tanking.


Keep fitting ASB's on your 4mid slot armor gang ships Lol
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne
Goonswarm Federation
#20 Posted: 2013.02.22 15:08
The solution here is simple increase the repair bonus to bring it inline with the resistance bonus.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Proof Highsec reward needs to be nerfed:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing
3 Pages123Next page
Forum Jump