Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Anyone who can't survive a 5% TOTAL resistance nerf to w/e ship they fly that has that bonus is doing it wrong. You can deal with tanking in ships WITHOUT the bonus (or ANY tanking bonus), why can't you deal with it while only losing 5% total at LvL 5? It always amuses me how many people scream and holler that some change will break a game and then months after the change everyone has adapted and life is status quo.

Eve was the first MMO I ever played, but since I started all those years ago I have played 5 different (soon 6 with TESO) and every single one of them has the same issues. Some new thing comes out and everyone cries and moans, threatens to cancel subs, then as it turns out the changes weren't all that bad and people adapt.

This argument is pretty meaningless as one can turn it around completely: If you can't deal with the current total of 5% more at level 5 over the proposed bonus amount, you're doing it wrong... Which would absolutely refute doing such "small changes" in the first place. So thank you! ;)

We're talking about a bonus that has been there the entire time and has never been complained about. The blanket nerf affects ships which are or were even recently balanced well around it and none of which have ever been considered being overpowered in total. Hence comparing their tanking abilities to those of other ships that have different boni is absolutely nonsensical: it's not like those "tank-unbonused" hulls you mention don't have other charecteristics which compensate for this seeming (!) deficit in defensive capabilities. And in addition your undifferentiated reasoning does again not address the fact that a ship does never make use of all the benefits of its higher resistances at once... Tiring, really.

Cheers
Tilo R.

Hmm. "Forcing the rise of alpha only strategies". And reducing buffering via resists is going to do anything other than further promote these "strategies" (tactics surely?)?

Ultimately logi is useless once you hit true alpha-strategy as the conclusion of fleet battles, and ironically once that happens you might as well stop bringing logi and bring more DPS ships. And once THAT happens you might as well remove the buffer entirely and fit as much offensive garbage as you possibly can to everything, broadcast delays and locking times will become the biggest thing to slow down a fight.

Very fine line indeed, perhaps the problem is less so with just the resists but with the whole set of mechanics, and tampering with part of it alone will simply upset some of what balance there is...

Halve everyone's resists, quadruple everyone's buffer size. Effects? Logi get their reps on things in time, yet the delivery of reps is less effective as a result. While it might still be possible to make people invincible through the focussed reps, it'll be more intensive on logi and their cap and could shift logi's role from "saving everyones ass" to "delaying everyone's death as long as possible so hopefully we can kill them before they kill us", and isn't that a better place to be? Logi aren't OP if everyone still dies eventually.

Edit: Since everyone in this game loves hating on WOW because "zomg competition, hate it!" (cant exactly think of any other reason why players care so much about what other games people play, seems kinda stupid to me), it's interesting to note that WOW pretty much made this transition back in Cataclysm from huge heals + huge damage + huge damage spikes which made it very reaction intensive ( to the point pre-emptively casting a 2.5 second heal and aborting it after 1.5 seconds to start recasting if it was going to be a wasted heal was a necessary tactic), they essentially nerfed heals and nerfed damage, giving a much gentler pace to the healing game and essentially removing the "tank got 2 shotted by white-melee damage" (tank getting 2 shotted by 'you screwed up the tactics' special ability is working as intended still ofc).

1) Not so sure nerfing already balanced ships is such a good idea, I resist nerf plus side buff probaly necessary.

2) I Like that CCP is being a bit more granular, such as the 4% resist, it shows there are finally getting percentages mean significantly different power depening on where it is appliied.

3.) the Abaddon, specifically, it seems the only reason this ship is used is because it is a resist bonus ship in big fleets. It is sort of recieving a side buff through large energy weapon buff. But it will still have a hard time using them with massive cap draw, and since it is often artillery armed, is not losing directly compare d to its competion for this slot.?

People who came to understand that this seemingly innocent 5% resist bonus was in fact very powerful played EVE right and took advantage of this bonus. And it's how it should be.

Changing a 5% for a 4% bonus would be like changing the RoF bonus just because it's actually better than the damage bonus. the RoF bonus is better than the bonus to damage per volley for DPS; let people figure this out by themselves and use it to their advantage come on!

The beauty of the 5% to resist bonus is that its a 5% bonus like so many others and yet it's better - in certain conditions. what the hell will EVE look like when all its bonuses get rectified to not be more powerful than another...

Even though i do agree that the 5% resist bonus on ships that have a large amount of hp is pretty strong (i.e prophecy) , on some ships, t2 ones in particular, it's there for a reason; smaller "elite" hull should be able to be tanky despite their ridiculously low base hp for their price. For example, making quite a few t2 cruisers less powerful in the current era where t1 cruiser are immensely more powerful than they were is a pretty questionable choice.

If this change happen I would suggest that t2 hulls that had this 5% resist bonus also get a signature radius reduction. A proportionally smaller signature radius would not hurt their local tank as much but would nonetheless still reduce their ability to be remote repaired.

I really can't help but feel at a loss as to why anyone would think that the 5% bonus to resist per level is overpowered but has nothing to say about the huge resist buffer on t2 ships. Both types of resist increase were put there for a reason and the 5% blanket is nowhere near as powerful as the two color boost to t2 resist. This, because it's much easier to fill a hole in resist than it is to try to raise it across the board.

The thing I disagree with most on this nerf is that it is being based on large scale fleet pvp as where ship for ship, 5% resist is in no way OP compared to 7.5% to shield boost or armor reps.

Most of these 5% bonus are on ships because it goes with their natural design. Just as Gallente are made for close range and blasters while caldari are made for long range and rails, you have ships that are made to do more boosting and less buffing and vice versa. An Abaddon holds a strong tank but has a harder time devoting cap to rep itself. Comparing it to a Hyperion of a Maelstrom which can keep on tanking while the Abaddon just gets whittled down, that resist is not overpowered in the least.

Brings it back to where it started. Fleet battles. It's not that 5% per level is to much. It's that ships that get 5% per level are designed to be a strong buffer. It's only natural that these ships get along well with Logistics. Ships that get rep and booster bonuses typically work with far less buffer. When everything comes together as a fleet and the problem is that resist gets a bonus from local reps, buffer and remote reps, the more logical thing to do would be to let active ships get a bonus from remote reps.

While it was said that someone at CCP feels that logi are already borderline OP, Adding a new bonus to active tanks would be ideal. Such as 7.5% to repair amount and 3-5% from remote repairer per level. What ever balances better. This would allow many ships such as the Hype and the maelstrom to drop the reps to add buffer and join in on fleet fights. After all, isn't that the goal, to get more diversity and make unused ships usefull again. I've only seen one hyperion in the last 3 years. nerfing the resist on an abaddon isn't gonna do anything for that.

6.7% might not seem much, but in a Devoter....

There are factors to consider ship-by-ship. How good is it at controlling range. Can it break off the combat if it wishes. Or is it forced to sit and soak up the damage? And if the issue is fleet RR then FGS fix fleet RR. Resist may be strong but that makes it a define ships and create enjoyable play.

Making this a cross the board nerf is poor. It chills my excitement about Odyssey. Hope the patch is delayed.

This is still a thing? I seriously thought CCP was joking when they introduced this terrible Idea.

Do you know what, ignoring player interaction is just plain dumb. I don't care about CSM, at all, I don't want to tell just 1 person about it, because you don't listen to the CSM either. Ive posted like 6 times in this thread already, this idea was one of your OFF DAYS. Don't do it, keep 5%.

Looking at the affected ships - yeah, totally deserved. No need to investigate which one should be balanced and which one not - they are all op pwnmobiles that pose danger to balanced pvp and pve. Thankfully, once again ccp saved us from universe ruled by punishers, mallers and rokhs.

Actually, while the modus operandi of blanket nerfing is a huge mistake in itself, there is no reason whatsoever to lower the resistance bonus on any ship! Not even one of those hulls is overpowered because of it.

Cheers
Tilo R.