Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Good stuff. I disagree a bit about archon only, armor resistance bonus is important, otherwise it will pop like thanatos.

FHC has your back on this one, keep up the good work, CCP.

so you balance lots of ships, for the most part well. and then you randomly decide to hit 44 ships with a nerf some(if not most) really do not need or warrant.

its not even in the realm of balancing tbh, as its not taking ship class or role into account, its just a broad sweeping nerf bat swing, thought you were better than that fozzie

All i can say is.. balance ALL ships first.
After such a big change all the ships will need rebalance.
and dont forget about ships with local armor reps.
If it is a small change for 1 rep, it is 2x if a ship has 2 reps. or it instantlu turns into 3x if it is ancilary armor rep.
so from -5% it turns into 10 %. Or in my case - 1 usual rep and 1 ancilary, it turns into -5% and -15%.
A total of -20%.
So i think that idea is too raw.

So, apparently there is an imbalance with the 5% resist bonus.



What is the nature of this imbalance?



Right. So the 25% resistance bonus (which, I might add, only kicks in at level 5 skills) is LESS POWERFUL than a local rep bonus. No seeing the imbalance yet...



Ah, ok. So the imbalance lies with remote reps.

I have a radical idea. BALANCE REMOTE REPS IF THEY ARE IMBALANCED, NOT THE RESIST BONUS. Crazy, I know.

Here's the kicked. If you implement this 4% bonus, I expect buffs to the 44 ships that are affected. Because, you know, they were designed with the bonus in mind. If you decide to implement this change, I expect the Merlin's shield buffed within 7 days.

On the other hand, you can rebalance remote reps... stacking penalty, rep amount, etc.

So either you change two modules (shield and armor reps), or buff 44 ships.

I honestly see this as a move in the wrong direction. You've already balanced the frigs, cruisers, and BC and now you're going and nerfing a lot of them because of a specific trait? Most of these ships are hardly competitive in the first place (lolpunisher, lolferox, loleagle). You would have to give every ship nerfed by this change a buff. I honestly believe this change is completely unnecessary to sub-BS, and sub-tech 3 hulls, especially shield ones.

Shield ships sacrifice a lot to even fit tank in the first place. If i were to stack resists on a shield ship to even get anywhere near the resists of an armor ship i'd have to sacrifice a lot of utility (webs, point, cap booster, eccm, sebos, tracking comps, prop mod, etc). Armor gets get to fit most of these modules AND tank AND damage mods. So when a shield ship stacks resists, it loses out on a lot of things that give it some glaring weaknesses since it can't fit for every contingency like an armor ship. One could argue "oh but you get all those lows to fit damage mods!". Yes, shield ships get to fit damage mods in their lowslots, but the issue is, CCP's "balance" forces most of these ships to fit a fitting modules of some sort in that lowslot (most of these ships have 4 or less lowslots) to even get enough PG to use all their weapons+a propulsion module+ and at least 1 shield extender. Damage control? Gotta have that too. Now we're down to a possibility of two lowslots or less. Two damage mods? Great, you just might have the dps to match one of these armor ships that does not have any damage mods since a few shield ships (particularly caldari) have no damage bonus to even begin with (ferox/rokh anyone?). Let's not forget that most of the armor ships because of the imbalance in EHP between armor and shield tanks do infact get to fit damage mods. Want to be faster than an armor ship? You won't get much of a noticeable difference with that unless you fit at least one nano. (unless you're minmatar, which don't have the pg fitting issues, lack of damage bonuses, and have good speed to begin with).

CCP has done a lot by buffing armor ships recently (armor honeycombing and improving a lot of base speed for armor ships, particularly gallente, so shield speed advantage pretty much gone there), (ancilliary armor repairer, and the recent buff to active armor tanking bonuses on some hulls). Where is the skill to reduce the signature radius penalty (since armor tanking enjoys such a benefit of also having low sig radius too....) on shield extenders? Where is the shield version of a slave set? Where is a bigger version of a LSE? (since armor tanking get 1600 plates too). A lot of these shield ships NEED that resist bonus.




The first resist module or rig you put on a resist bonused ship is stacking penalized. I should be able to get 55% em resist on my moa (25% resist bonus +30% from 1 anti-em rig) This comes out to 48%, not 55%. But wait, that's not all! Ships base resists without the cruiser skills bonus are stacking penalized. (A moa (like all T1 hulls) has a 20% base thermal resist for shield, with cruiser V and no modules fitted, I get 40% when it should be 45%... (since 20+25% should be 45%)). The bonus I get for shield resists to explosive is even smaller, a mere 13%, not 25%. So... the resist bonus is stacking penalized before you even fit a module to your ship. I can't believe you're even trying to make an argument here with that. Do you even play your own game? If you think resist tanking is a problem in this game make stacking penalty formulas harsher so it affects all ships instead of hitting several ones that are already are under-powered to begin with (even though they've been "rebalanced").

Just a correction for as you seem to confuse the way resists work with stacking. The 25% on hull leaves 75% for the rig to reduce, which it does 75*0.3=22.5 .. 22.5+25 = 47.5 .. it is done that way so that one can never become immune.

That is not stacking, would be if the rig had less than 30% effect on resists which a second resist mod that affects EM will have.

Carry on.

Omg, some nice "how many likes do you have" **** measuring going on here, get over yourself bud.

As for the reasons? They have been explained by fozzie and most certainly will be going live. Resistance bonus is overpowered and has been for a long time.

I'd rather not go into excessive detail to explain why you're point are full of **** as the points have already been made many times during this thread. In the end, only fools are denying the fact that 5% resistance per level is broken. As usual these fools will come around and understand the necessary reality of this change in due time.

I'll address this one question you make, as for the rest. Go read the thread.

What do I think will come out of this change? A modestly more well balanced eve which is pretty much guaranteed by this inevitable balance pass.

That's just a blanket statement. What balance or imbalance are you referring to?

I expect you to have enough understanding of- and insight into the game to be able to predict trends by arguing logical conclusions.

If, for example, you'd argue that the resistance% bonus is "overpowered" to the damage% bonus (esp. on slow-firing weapon systems like Artillery) it wouldn't take much effort to disprove you.

I am giving you the benefit of doubt here and don't write you off as that stupid, so take this opportunity to plead your case. I am assuming that there is a very specific balance you must be referring to because the content-driving "balance" in EVE right now is Alpha on free platforms (Goons) vs. Supers (PL). If you'd refer to some balance in general, that would be it.