Player Features and Ideas Discussion

to be honest, fozzie, it feels to me as if this causes more issues than it fixes. I would leave it and instead balance the ships that are directly causing issues instead of messing around with a huge group of ships at once.

OR, you could make logistics ships that increase active reps by a huge amount. (second line of logistics boats?) Wouldn't make active stuff epic on a large large alpha fleet scale but it would make it better on midscale or small scale where someone under reps wouldn't just get alpha'd regardless of the fleettype.

The Merlin and Punisher would like to have a word with Fozzie. Especially the Punisher.

It definitely requires a more in-depth look at. This may be the right choice for the Rokh and Abbaddon, but for some ships (Ferox, Punisher, Vengeance as examples), the rep bonus is all they got going for them, and this nerf is a significant nerf to their usability.

Why you are not changing resistance on all ships but only group of ships?

I ask simply cause if lets say Moa's main feature is nice tank,after this that feature will not be potent like it was before.That leads to other question ,will all this ships get some changes to compensate their loos in resistances?

I think you got your self here in problem.If you didn't like those bonuses you shouldn't put them on so many ships,and we are way from frigate changes.You could give those ships new features and roles.This way is like I give you something for few months and now I will take a bit.

That is not looking so great choice ,even I really respect all you did about ship changes.

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.

This would amplify the power of a 5% resist bonus.... Not hurt it!!! And it does nothing to alter the Armor based discrepancies either!

Everyone should check out this thread: [Ship balancing] Why active tank bonuses are plain worse than resist bonuses

I've wondered this as well. It's similar to the logic that drone ships have one less slot because of the fallacy that drones open slots for utility (when in fact they almost always are used for that drone boat's dps). I wonder why all resistance ships aren't just saddled with one less tanking slot (wherever it may be), since they are in effect receiving a free unstacking-penalized EANM, or for the case of a shield ship, a non-existent passive module that buffs all resistances.

So why not just keep the bonus at 5% but just remove a tanking slot for the ships that have the built-in buff?

Alternatively, with regard to the OP's post, I think I'm more in favor of having a range of resistance bonuses, from perhaps 3% to 5%. NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE THE SAME. This way, you can adjust for a lower resist--say, for a Rokh/Abaddon--when appropriate to the full 5% when it makes sense--like in the HICs, for example, that cannot receive remote reps when they are doing their function.

Some variety is great. We as players don't need ok, so resist bonus is always 20%.

I do not know about you but i recently upgraded few of my implants from 4% bonus to 6% bonus, so 2% more for hundreds of millions in costs. So yes, even few percents matter to me and likely to others too as in this pvp game even that 1% gives an edge to you.

Somehow this hits again mostly amarr and caldari.... oh wonder.
I bet they won´t get it done to make the raven a pvp ship.
And btw the punisher is a c..pship actually. It really doesn´t need a nerf. Merlin...okay. But punisher????
Gila, Worm and Rattlesnake really also don´t need a nerf in comparison to completely overpowered Dram, Cynabal and Machariel.
Oh oh....

Seems it is all going to direction of Galmawin...

I don't understand why this is a problem. Yes - they want you to use racial weapons on appropriate ships so they give enough incentive to make it the best option. I think this is good, it provides a distinct role and value for the different weapon types. Why would the same not be good for local repair modules? If you want to have a strong local repair, use a ship with a bonus. If you want a strong resistance buffer, use a ship with a resistance bonus. Two distinct roles.

Should ships with local repair bonuses have much stronger local repair than ships without? Why not.
Should ships with resistance bonuses have much higher buffers and EHP/s potentials than ships without? Why not.

I don't see how you provided a counter perspective to what I said, all you did was re-state the conditions that would be created. If it is underwhelming to use blasters on a laser bonused ship, why should it not be underwhelming to use local repairs on a non-bonused ship?

I want it to be clear that I am am aware it would make individual hulls even more distinct from one another. Why is this a negative thing?

*sob* My poor little Merlin... No longer will you be able to charge heedlessly into the face of danger without a seconds thought. Sure you were a grossly overpowered beastboat. But you were MY little beastboat.