Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Who needed to say it directly? If a CCP rep puts out a post saying "We are going to nerf resists on a significant fraction of available hulls", don't you think that someone hearing that would say to themselves "Well, then highest end of resistance based combat has a power issue in general!". Especially when the OP describes the multitude of ways a resist bonus is better than other bonuses.

It's true, for many of the ships listed. As I said before, hull bonus changes are political in a way that other stats are not, because hull bonuses define a ship more than any other stat.

Also, I never said "Resists in general are the probem!". I said "If resists in general are the problem." You seem to be unable to discriminate between a conditional statement and an outright assertion. Given the large number of ships receiving this nerf, its easy to infer the idea.

Also, considering I'm a Rokh pilot, I know about the 3 invuln/midslot tradeoff, and I never run more than 2 because I don't run in big gangs. But in big gangs where you see lots of Rokhs, 3 invulns + LSE's is far more common because those BS's don't need to equip a Cap or shield booster. One of my problems with the proposed change is 5% off the top of these ships doesn't change much with that fit, but screws over every other viable fit quite a bit. That extra 5% allows for a great deal of fitting flexibility, and it will be sorely missed.

In short, CCP has said that massed Rokhs and Abaddons are too tough in those numbers, and has responded with this. It won't fix the problems in those fleets, and more aggressive nerfs will come in, further screwing small time players. So this isn't just about my personal drama over a single change. Indeed, the moment the Rokh and Abaddon changes came out, I said to myself "They are gonna do it to all resist bonuses eventually.". Lo and behold, not 3 days later this thread announces just that.

However, I recognize that the change I suggested will have adverse effects on the ships that I am not directly considering, but right now I cant propose different resist mods for different ship sizes, as Battleship class ships would be balanced out by a resist mod nerf, whereas smaller ships have a problem with it. In short: not enough granularity to solve the problem.

I am willing to accept that nerfing resist mods will be counterproductive in certain cases, but I also maintain that the proposed changes will not solve the problems CCP is trying to solve.

Note that nerfing the effect of the module may not make sense, splitting the mod into 3 sizes and changing the base cycle cost for each size certainly does. Invulns are way too cheap cap wise for what you get at this point on the large subcap end of ships.

As for math, check this out:

3x Invuln Rokh before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 * .739 * .829 = Base * .32163127 or ~.323
3x Invuln Rokh after CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 *.739 * .829 = Base * .34307336 0r ~.343

Thusly, you have a total change of about 2% for large fleet rokhs. This is easily absorbed by current loadouts for this role.

But lets look at my solo/small gang rokh, which has no LSE's, and only 1 invuln:
1x Invuln Rokh Before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 = Base * .525
1x Invuln Rokh After CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 = Base * .56

3.5%! Thats nearly a 80% marginal difference. I'm disregarding the effect of LSE's here becuase Cap and Shield boosters balance that out. This proposed change is almost twice as punishing on my preferred Rokh fit, which is not the targeted fit. Of course, the Rokh with 3 invulns has 15 to 20 more points of resist, but thats the benefit you get in exchange for those slots.

What did I just read? O_o

Wether the resits bonus on those ships are 20% or 25% doesn't mean a lot to me personally.
However it does seem like a weird thing to nerf the local tanks when the real issue is Remote Reps?

Why don't you just balance out remote repairs instead? Obviously most T1 ships enjoy the logistics a lot, especially if they do not have a tank bonus - however even a few 1 logistics seems to rep unbonused ships fine.

Why not make an effort to limit the power of logistics just a bit? You can start by switching the RR range around so the small modules reach further and the large modules have a shorter range. At the same time you should try to reduce the resist bonus that exist on top of T2 ships with a racial resist boosts and maybe just give them a bigger buffer?

in addition I'd like to hear your opinions about amarr and caldari having the same amount of resist bonus? Afterall armor ships get more buffer for their biggest module (plates vs extender), have a better native resistance.

Furthermore I always thought a 25% shield resist bonus on a caldari ship was like a free T1 invuln field (not using cap ofcourse) and felt that was a bonus making sense since caldari ships don't usually have an abundance of medslots anyway.
The Amarr ships however get the same bonus giving it way better resist than anything a T1 EANM can provide. and thats on top of more armor hitpoints than caldari got shield hitpoints and on top of a better base resistance.

Then ofcourse I know shield tankers have a lot of other differences. But I'd actually try to make a differentiated resist bonus - 3% or 4% for Amarr and 4% or 5% for Caldari. Or at least compensate the caldari ships a lot. Because without a proper resist bonus a ship like the Rokh is gonna be a boring and horrible underpowered ship with a marginal usefull optimal bonus and overpowered attack battlecruisers as an option...

Pinky

And they all got nerfed, but your statement was that you were nerfed more that the fit they were targeting. So I ask, what makes you think there was a particular fit they were targeting?

Because only one Rokh fit/role is problematic game play wise. All other fits are lackluster compared to their competitors, and this change will make the situation worse. You don't see Rokh's pushing out other battleships of the Solo/Small gang ecology in the same way that you see Rokh's and Abaddons pushing out other competitors in the tankfleet + logi meta.

The nerf for the Rokh and Abaddon in particular was announced several days before the general resist nerf. In that announcement, Rokh and Abaddon hulls were singled out first. They may not be the prime target overall, but the timing of the announcements doesn't lend this notion credibility.

Then why not increase the active tank bonus from 7.5% to 10%, like range bonuses? Oh, right, CCP hates tough tanks on ships.

It makes active tanking even more unviable on unbonused hulls, could further unbalance ASB's and does nothing to affect the buffer or power of incoming reps on resist bonused ships which they apparently think is too high given the versatility of the bonus.

After Odyssey hits live....

Less ehp on ships, fights happen slightly closer --> More ships gets blown up
More overpriced ships introduced that are somehow familiar
On average all T1 ship prices will go up
(reserved for more nerfs)
More plexes purchased
CCP happy

Aww, my Vengeance will no longer be able to tank 200 dps