Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Again you are leaving out the critical assumption here; really the single biggest point of contention on this argument. It is a measure of overall safety that can be achieved by anyone provided the only high-sec contracts that ever need to be flown are those that fit under RFF policies. Is limiting all high-sec freight to the equivalent RFF policies to ensure that level of safety a fair and balanced set of mechanics? Now THAT is an interesting argument, but not one I personally care all that much about.

This also, of course, ignores completely the knock-on effects of adapting ganker playstyle if this limitation were to be somehow hard-enforced. We know gankers will hit high-sec haulers that are empty or not profitable; if ALL high-sec freight traffic followed RFF policies, would it remain as safe as the RFF subset within the current higher-risk traffic today? Or would the risk just normalize across the general population again and the low-risk players like RFF see an uptick in ganks?

Fascinating stuff there really, but mostly academic from my perspective.

I'm still fundamentally far more annoyed by the uselessness of T1/M0 items across the board of all tiericide

As I also said, it's also representative of the level of risk that anyone can achieve.

It's not just unique to RFF. Anyone can achieve the same outcome as them, so it is representative beyond RFF, to anyone that manages risk effectively and every single one of us is able to do that.

That can be ignored, but it is still true.

The additional data that comes out shortly (which anyone will be able to verify independently by watching all the video back again), will be representative of the whole population. It's analysis from different sides should be fun to follow.

I haven't left out anything at all. My statements have been consistent that the RFF data is representative of the level of risk that can be achieved by anyone.

No assumptions have been omitted, but the willingness of others to completely dismiss that conclusion, while claiming at the same time that it is so easy to just drop into Udeama and see the problem, offering no evidence themselves, prompted me to go collect data myself because this endless whining is pointless.

That data will be published shortly and is representative of the whole population passing through Uedama and Niarja (which conservatively makes the data as biased as possible towards the assumption that bumping and ganking are problems that require mechanics changes).

Got any evidence this is going to happen?

Of course they do, if all other ships were made faster except one, that ship would be losing out. Additionally, ganking ships will also be buffed, so they will have more time if being fired on by players, making freighter escorts less effective.

So what if they couldn't fit a DCU?

ALL ships are being buffed. The ships that did use a DCU will now gain 33% resists and can either choose to fit a new DCU, making them slightly stronger than with the old DCUs, or they can fit a completely different module, keeping the new resists and making them even better than before in another area. Ships that can't fit DCUs are getting less of a buff as they don't get the extra free lowslot.

Personally I think putting the change though and people just adapting to the increase with a bit of effort would be better. When did EVE turn from "HTFU" to "Oh no, that will mean my activity is marginally harder than it used to be so don't do it"? The FAX skills just got scrapped because people can't deal with having new skills for new ships too. At some point people need to just accept that change is inevitable and adapt.

Yes, but the statistics derived from trained professionals would be different from the statistics for the general population. You cherry picked your stats because they say what you want them to say, which is why they are irrelevant. If I start up a group and we all fly friehgters like idiots getting killed all the time you'd say "yeah but they weren't doing it right". Your stats are effectively the same but the other way.

Doesn't matter.

All that matters is that IN THE CURRENT ECOSYSTEM, CCP has a # for the risk of high-sec freighter ganking that we mere mortals have a pretty hard time approximating ourselves with the data on hand. Given that #, CCP is saying a 50% buff to freighters is reasonable. Whatever that number is, it's NOT the RFF #. Arguing that, if all high-sec hauling were replaced solely by RFF hauling, the number RFF sees now would become the new global #, is absurd on the face of it. No sufficiently complex and dynamic system behaves in such a simple manner.

Now, whether the # CCP has actually warrants a 50% buff or not is a totally different matter, one that is really hard to argue because we don't have the # CCP has. But arguing over the RFF number as though it could be scaled up is totally pointless as well, because it can't.

33% passive structure buff to battleships is to big, the same apply to all ships above.
Don't give passive resist to structure, ships need to die.
Maybe give freighters dedicated damage control that will give 33% structure resists, that will require no CPU.

We also need visible information that DCU is on specific ship without ship scanner.

What justify 33% structure resistance on dread, carrier or any other capital. Including freighters.
I will no longer mount a damage control on non hull tanked capital , but additional resist.

WHY WE DON"T HAVE SANSHA, ANGEL, GURISTAS LP store damage control?
Angel giving bigger resists to explosive
Sansha to EM
Guristas to Kinetic.

Oh I beg to differ.

The Avatar killed on 2015-09-23 22:51 had no DC fitted, this change would gift such titans with more EHP to burn through. Extra time for help to arrive or for reps to land. Its actually a lot more common for a titan to not have a DCU fitted than a lot of people think.

The point is to change things so that using a DCU is a choice, not a requirement. The same way that right now using armor plates or hardeners vs damage mods or whatever is an actual choice that enables a variety of fitting options, vs. the pretty-much no-brainer/every-fit reality of the DCU.

There are only a couple of ways to achieve this. A flat nerf to the DCU would work, either in the form of reduced effectiveness or much increased fitting, but would upset the meta pretty heavily. An individual nerf/buff to the baseline resists of every single hull in EVE based on the pre-dominance of DCU usage in their meta/common fits would work, but would be incredibly intensive and also very likely to upset the meta in hugely unpredictable ways. Lastly, a flat nerf to the DCU with a corresponding buff to the baseline HP across the board, which is what they are doing. This isn't without balance impact, but the number of ships/fits NOT commonly using DCU to see how unbalanced this makes them is a lot more manageable to look at, impact-wise, since it's a pretty small # in comparison.

CCP has pointed out some of the very specific edge-cases here where DCU's were not previously being used commonly, mentioned that they are aware of these, and mentioned that they are OK with the balance change implied by this.

So, to answer your question, the justification for titans getting a 33% baseline increase is so that DCU's are no longer a mandatory part of almost every single fit with as little impact to the meta as possible. If you can propose a better way to make fitting DCU an optional choice instead of a no-brainer requirement with less impact to the meta balance than what has been proposed, we're all ears...