Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Given that neither of us are designers for CCP, the only answer to that question is to look at the current design of bonuses, and the direction of the design, and ask which assumption better reflects the design methodology that CCP uses. Even in superficially asymmetrical cases like rate of fire vs. damage bonuses, the slightly greater damage of the ROF bonus is paid for in increased ammo and (when relevant) cap use. There is no payment for the resist bonus. It's as good or better at everything.

You can say, balance the ship and not the bonus, but it's easier to balance the ships if you have more-or-less consistent bonuses, with drawbacks proportional to their advantages. (This is why so many Amarr pilots hated the -10% bonus to cap use--its "advantage" was that you didn't neut your cap out with your own weapons; the drawback was that it took the place of one of two ship bonuses. Um, yay? Maybe if lasers were all that and a bag of chips again.)



Sure, the Myrm has other advantages. Speaking as someone who's been known to tool around in a space chicken, one of them is that the Myrm doesn't fly like a damn battleship. These more subtle advantages are much harder to EFT warrior; I remember people swearing up and down that the Talwar was the clear loser among the new destroyers, and that really didn't pan out, did it?

That notwithstanding, there are other possible factors, including lag in the meta: people know that trip-rep Myrms are awesome, but not many people are hip to the Prophecy yet. I love mine, even if it turns like a POS.

Its not just the lasers, some of those ships with the reduced cap need for turrets had other advantages like say a nice resist bonus to armor to help balance the ship out.

But yes Lasers had some nice things like scorch that could reach out pretty far. Then they made autocannons able to do the same thing with tes effecting fall off so autocannons had scorch equivalents for range and better tracking and no cap required. So hybrids were then complaining so they gave them more range and less cap required. Now Lasers are complaining so less cap for them and ships with a tracking bonus. All these changes to balance these turrets just happens to be making them all more the same. They are still distinct, but the difference always seem to decrease with every new balance pass. I would like to see some changes that reverse that trend.


IN other words what you say about their design direction - if true - does worry me. The differences between ships and modules will continue to decrease for the sake of balance.

I really think the balance should just be generally at the race level and some balance at the ship level. But making all ships and modules and even every bonus to every ship equivalent sounds, to me, like the making of a simplified eve. Thats not as much fun to play as the complex eve.

Not 5 but odd numbers in general because they create decimal values more often. That's really not core to anything I am saying though. What I have continued to say and will say again is, it isn't a game changer. Except in missions you never know what your fight will look like anyway. The resist bonus is still an Omni armor or shield resist bonus. The hardeners will now have more to start with when they are added. In the case of Shield, you can add 55% of 100 for the first one or 55% of 75 or 80. An EM hardener on a Drake for example will now render 44% rather than 41.25% assuming you have BC to 5.

Current: 75x.55=41.25 & New: 80x.55=44.00. 2.75% of the lost 5% will be given back with a T2 Active hardener and from aan EVE PvP perspective I doubt you are seeing a full volley difference in when that ship goes pop.

IIRC feedback had fozzie admitting that a single module would be rather op and that separating them was definitely on the table. It was retracted before being truly fleshed out, even specific numbers were lacking, but I doubt they'd strengthen TD's so much right after nerfing them.


I was responding to your accusation that the change had to do with the server or Dust code. Neither of these makes sense. Dust doesn't care about Eve EHP or resists and has it's own decimal values to handle. Eve tends to have worse decimal strings in weapon damage modifiers after skills and mods as well as tracking since their base values often have more decimal values to begin with. And even after that the measure would be defeated by stacking penalties on mods further creating decimal numbers.

In the end the result isn't simplified, just lowered.

As to the effect, every fight that has been won by a ship with this bonus that had < 6.7% of it's tank layer EHP left would have lost that same afterwards. RR will be more vulnerable by a similar degree. While this may not seem that much think how long people train for an extra 2% here and 3% there. I'm sure it will creep up in time to be a factor.

Repost for epic reversal.

Doesn't affect local rep effectiveness increase and if you include that you may as well get rid of the bonus and replace with HP. That said I'm still not understanding why people want a less versatile bonus.

Is repping the issue? That's not the impression I get here. If the interaction of repping and resist bonused ships is an issue it numerically falls on the 44 ships affected as being the issue since repping still works on the rest of the hulls in game, which is the majority of combat ships So why rewrite repping when it really isn't the culprit.

This is why I said we may as well convert to an HP bonus. As you seem to desire it preserves and perhaps would further increase EHP. In addition it leaves RR alone for all the other ships that do not have resist bonuses and aren't problematic. Remember that those ships raise their resists as well through mods to enhance the affect of RR yet aren't mentioned. This means RR enhanced by resists in and of itself is NOT broken and doesn't need fixed.

Unless you are suggesting ONLY the bonus given portion of resists be penalized in RR. But again, if we take away the versatility of the bonus and a raw HP bonus would give MORE EHP, why not convert to that? We rid ourselves of the ships breaking RR while increasing their buffer to compensate for the loss in versatility at the same time and avoid "fixing" RR which in isolation isn't broken, thus avoiding actually breaking the same mechanic on ships which RR is not broken now.

Local rep was intended to be nerfed by this measure. Leaving the bonus the same and nerfing RR only bypasses this. So in addition to the effort of reworking RR to break one of the mechanics associated with resists on all hulls the suggested would also leave the goal of nefing local rep with resist bonuses unaccomplished.

Dear CCP if you would stop making ships worthless people will find a ship they like and get to PvPing, as it is now they have to keep retraining, retraining, retraining, ahh screw it i quit.

Isn't anyone concerned that RR is overpowered,

I've recently been in a fight in which logis were repping my enemies from 75km out. Back in the day when the drake was still worth flying I could have hit them out to 88km but now it's 68km. I couldn't get anywhere near them and as a result we had heavy losses.

Now if the RR range on logi's were nerfed along with the rebalancing of medium weapon systems like missiles we wouldn't have the issue of unbreakable tanks supplied by ships that are so far away that they may as well be off grid. Combine that with actual offgrid boosting from the hidden command ships out there and wham you are easily blown out of the sky. The only saving grace is ewar which I've used to break target locks from logi's but ewar is in desperate need of a balance pass and not as strong as it should be.

Anyhow my point is nerf the RR not the resist bonuses on already balanced ships.