Force Auxiliary Balance Proposal - Round 2


(Grayclay) #41

I don’t know if the code is there for module cycle times to be based off of signature size, but it WOULD make sense that a larger ship needs a longer cycle to repair…

(shani Shardani) #42

i don’t get it why the asb has to be nerfed for everyone, fax and rorqual because as rorqual you need tank. essentially with inducore you’re a sitting duck for 5min and then you want to steal the tank of rorquals, for a ship for around 6-7+++ B isk (incl. drones)? Thats really stupid.

So in the end every little hurr durr ghetto gang can kill a rorqual in the future? thats really stupid.

If you want to nerf fax, make it hull based that only fax can only fit 1 asb but not for all!

(Tenaya Masai) #43

CCP so why does the Rorqual get a hit on a FAX rebalance…
think u need to go back to the drawing board

(Seas Dethahal) #44

I love the amount of Rorq pilots who are like “REEEEE NOT MY ISK PRINTER”

Dual/Triple CASB rorqs are ■■■■■■■ cancerous to deal with with groups less than 100 and take far too long to take down.

(shani Shardani) #45

depends on what you’re flying, sure shitty t1 ships without any dps won’t do anything. if its active fitted just neut it dead, if not just bring dps.

its the same as i would complain “i can’t kill a titan with just 12 battlesh!ts” > nerf titans . . .

(Brisc Rubal) #46

Rorq tank is already too strong - triple ASB fits are notoriously difficult to kill, unless you’ve got overwhelming DPS. Those tanks couple with a 7 minute panic give defenders a very long time to put together a response fleet to come and save guys. Even in areas without a huge supercap umbrella, that’s a long, long time for Rorqs to be tanking, and makes them extremely safe to fleets of anything smaller than like 70-100 subcaps.

(shani Shardani) #47

not everyone has a supercap umbrella, not everyone has instand 32948 subcabs available.

also tripple asb you burn through 3200er cap booster like hell and you won’t have much resis on shield.
so if you have 3 asb not much resis, if you have navy caps for more cargo you burn nearly 1m isk every activation, if you use non navy caps you won’t have so much per cycle in an asb.

also then do it like rorqual max 2 instead of 3 and fax 1 instead of 2 or so but not like full retard mode everyone can just have 1 asb.

don’t adjust too much too hard at one time do it slowly.

(Brisc Rubal) #48

That’s what this is - it’s removing triple CASBs, and that’s it. No other nerfs to Rorqs.

(shani Shardani) #49

going from 3 to 1 is a bit heavy to basically not only do a 50% tank reduction but its 75% tank reduction and thats a bit hard imho… why not 2 asb and let it run for a while?

(Tenaya Masai) #50

from 3 to 1?

(shani Shardani) #51

going from 3 asb on a rorqual to only 1 asb on a rorqual, instead of 3 to 2 and at fax from 2 to 1 and see how it plays out.

(Brisc Rubal) #52

It makes sense to do it this way, as they’re putting a limit in for FAXes and it’s easier to just limit the module rather than limit each hull type. Saves a lot of coding time and effort, and we’ve identified triple ASB Rorqs as a problem.

Given that you can only fit one ancil armor repper, this makes sense there as well.

Rorqs still have plenty of tank, and I expect you’ll see one CASB and a cap injector or dual cap injectors + shield booster fits that have similar tanking power, although they’re more affected by cap warfare, which is a good thing.

Rorqs still have significant tanks, plus their 7 minute invuln timers.

(Morgaine Mighthammer) #53

i still feel like this misses the mark by a wide margin.

how about you guys leave the rep amount on triage alone, change the cycle time on remote shield reps from 3s to 5s, remote armor from 2.25s to 3s, and make capital remote reps have the same sig radius mechanic that capital guns already use. tune it so that triage reps only do 25% of their current amount to battleships, and it drops by 5% repping power for each extra ship class you go to. average end result would be 25% reps to a battleship, 20% BC, 15% cruiser, 10% dessy, and 5% to frigs. this would cement frig and cruiser logi as the ideal repping platform for their respective subcap fleets, but wont hurt reps to capitals much and thus wont encourage as much n+1 as your current changes will.

as well, the changes to ehe feel short sided. i like the suggestion that others have posted about only allowing them to be fit to normal carriers and dreads. make that change, and leave the resist bonus alone and you solve most of the problems of the ehe.

the limiting of capital asb’s i’m fine with honestly, though it does feel a bit harsh as it is a massive nerf to the tank of a rorq. with that said, i would recommend that in lieu of the limit of 1 per ship, that you boost the charge capacity 50% to help compensate a little.

and lastly, why are you making it even easier to cap out an already easy to cap out platform? under any sort of neut pressure, triage takes actual pilot skill to stay alive, let alone put out much reps. pilot skill should be promoted, not punished. as well it takes away any racial differences and just makes faxes essentially identical. again why make things more uniform? i thought eve was supposed to about choices, how about you keep it that way.

(Old Pervert) #54

You fail to address the issue. Completely.

FAX issues are an N+1 issue, almost exclusively. I mean, ■■■■… our alliance mandates that every member has at least one fax alt per capital on grid; you literally can’t get in without it, and you won’t stay in without it. Many of them exceed that requirement and bring 2-3 FAX alts and I know a guy in our corp with 6 fax alts.

You can straight-up nerf faxes exactly like you are right now… and that will be circumvented by mandates for two fax alts. Now instead of bringing 400 faxes to a fight, we’re bringing 800 faxes, and you’re back where you started.

Faxes need more buffer, their current rep power, and a stacking impedence. The problem isnt’ when 5 faxes are repping a target… especially if you actually manage to fix the fact that a proper fax fit will be immune to neuts. The problem is when 50 are repping a target.

Impedance of 20% for each subsequent fax (1 will rep at 100%, 2 at 80% each, 3 at 60% each, all the way to >5 at a minimum of 20% each) and now all of a sudden N+1 isn’t effective anymore. It makes more sense to bring DPS to push through their reps faster than it does to bring 5x the faxes to get back to where you were.

Couple that with sig-based reps, and now all of a sudden they aren’t going to be iWIN buttons for sub fleets either.

How you’ve failed to see this is mind-blowing.

Then you go and nerf Fax tanks… they’re already auto-primaries, for obvious reasons. If you nerf their reps properly you could get away with buffing their tanks, because they’re not going to be nearly as important to remove from the grid.

(elitatwo) #55

Use links and a mindlink - has better cycle time.

(sabastyian) #56

So isn’t it time to bring back slowcat and wreckingball fleets? Capital neuts, bosons, lances and the volley of fighter bombers all seemed to be designed around offering ways to counter that play style. Give carriers back the old slowcat capabilities and change fax into active tank roles better suited for small scale engagements. Decrease their active tanks by half or to around 30-40k tank fit. Bring back combat refitting for triage and supercapitals and decrease carrier/supercarrier fighter bays by over half. The fact that a super can carry 2-3 full flight of fighters is what has pushed them into their overpowered state, they can do everything at once where as before they had to choose between spare bombers or 1 flight of each.

(Grayclay) #57

Your logic is entirely sound. The only issue with your argument is that it hinges on the N+1 issue, and CCP can look specifically at player #'s and FAX use and determine if slight nerfs to FAX capabilities would put the # of FAX alts required, on average, past what is feasible for some threshold of the player base.

CCP has ■■■■■■ up too many balance passes with unforseen collateral damage to want to make any sweeping changes these days, so if they can predict that a smaller set of chances will reduce FAX functionality to the point of everyone needing to double FAX alt accounts on standby, that will necessarily halve the number of people who can functionally participate at that level, meaning FAX usage has to drop/be smarter.

(Old Pervert) #58

I don’t have numbers, I have anecdotal first hand experience. I know our strategies, I know our mandates. We use faxes because they’re essential… you can’t lose if you have enough faxes. And in every case, Faxes are primaries at the start of every engagement, save for titan DD alpha strikes to literally mist the opposing titan off the grid before they can catch reps.

It’s because as long as you have enough faxes, you can rep through an utterly insane amount of damage… realistically that number is “more than any fleet can put out with conventional guns”. Unless you’re volleying ships off, or they’re something like a dread/fax which is denied remote assistance, things don’t die with a solid number of faxes on grid.

Any change to their rep amount, or their ability to sustain those reps, will simply result in players bringing more faxes. They can literally cut reps in half, and I 100% promise you that our answer will simply be to bring two faxes each instead of one. Because why not? They’re easy to get into, they’re easy to build, they insure well, there’s NO downside to them.

Diminishing returns is literally the ONLY way you can answer an N+1 argument.

(Grayclay) #59

Higher up in this thread, I wrote a post essentially agreeing with this point. Furthermore, you’re correct in that any static nerf to FAX’s will just mean N+2, but my counterpoint is that each FAX requires a paid subscription, so more FAXes directly means more cost to players in the form of monthly ISK drain for PLEX, or IRL cash. This is unsustainable/not worth it at a certain point, which is why I take issue with your generalization that people will mindlessly add infinite FAX alts - there is a cost to each one, and not a nominal cost.

I do like the idea that logistics in general has a proportional element to it, be it cycle time get slower with a larger mass target, effectiveness scales with sig resolution, more reps on a single target creates diminishing returns, etc. It’s elegant, fits within the game’s systems, and all make logical sense (there is only so much mass of a ship that can be repaired, so why can you infinitely get 100% output with 100 remote reps?).

(Old Pervert) #60

The problem with that counterpoint is that isk gets easier to generate as you increase the number of alts you have. Consider the most basic example, skill farming. Once you finish training, you simply skill farm with the pilot and the account pays for itself. Depending on where the margins are, you even stand to make a profit just farming the SP from your fax alts.

Add in a PI chain, now you’ve got solid income. Train them up to mine or VNI rat, now you’ve got semi-afk income on top of that.

My accounts all pay for themselves. The only time I buy a sub is when I want to increase my liquid isk by not spending it on plex.