Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Responded to that. TL;DR This issue and racial speed differences aren't directly related as there is no particular speed nerf associated with the bonus specifically.

As someone who flies 3 races and regularly uses a resist bonused ship I don't understand the "Have resists apply to reps" suggestion. Especially not from anyone arguing in favor of the bonuses versatility. Mainly because this attempts to kill that versatility just to keep a now more meaningless number. To be frank I'm sure incursion runners and WH dwellers and PvP'ers using resist bonused ships + RR would appreciate having a 20% RR bonus as compared to 0%.

If alpha blobs were the only reason for the nerf we could call it a blanket nerf from the blob, but it isn't. And if it doesn't nothing in diversification, meaning the Rokh still remains good for the job, what are you really fighting for? We also have to consider the age pf the data and time for shifts in trends as that was only shortly after the hybrid buff. That buff is a part of why the Rokh is as capable as it is now. I'm not sure that we could expect a large fleet doctrine shift between crucible and the following FF, or that data which monitors trends over time would begin to show strong indication of training or adoption.

This is all speculative, but between then and now we haven't had any large scale disruptions in the BS + world of large fleet combat, so it doesn't stand to reason that something more recent had a terribly strong effect in pushing the Rokh into prominence.

And then we have this:



Which is little more than whining that the races that have active tanking bonuses aren't good in blob fleets. So yeah, when I hear cute little entitlement language like "trample on" ( cut the histrionics please) and other passive aggressive language, I do deduce that it comes from a personal dislike for the tactic involved.

The gist of what you said is even sadder. So, basically, I can keep all the inherent disadvantages of my own race, but my advantages must be nerfed to justify making two other races feel better about theirs? Yeah, no thanks, I don't bow to QQ.

Furthermore, when you say "resist bonus ships" you are not talking about the vast majority of ships on that list. You are talking about the Rohk, the Abaddon, and the Archon. So no, resist bonuses don't lend themselves to every kind of engagement, where other poor less fortunate bonuses only get applied to a few. Resist rears its head at and above Battleship class, and that is about it. Nerfing 45 (they forgot to include the procurer in their list btw) ships just to get 3 that are being cried about out of the meta is not how game balance is done. That's dropping a nuke on an anthill.

Guess what? Players are like that, they find the thing that has even 1% of a mathematical advantage and cookie cutter the crap out of it, and then it becomes the current meta. It happens in every damn game on this godforsaken internet. Deal with it. Because it certainly doesn't mean that you have to dump on half the game's races just to appease Winmatar, because alpha arty fleets are the only people who get anything out of this.

While the claim you were responding isn't correct, resist bonuses are not, as you suggest, broken in and of themselves. As for the statement that it must be a problem at all fleet sizes of combat because the devs are nerfing all of those ships, that is entirely circular logic. They are doing that to be lazy, pure and simple, and at the time they had no idea of the implications.

The entire premise behind this proposed nerf is that resist bonuses are broken in conjunction with remote reps. Only one of these things is being blamed for this problem. Myself, and several others in this thread as well, take issue with this. We also take issue with a huge blanket nerf being handed out, and as you just clarified even you only mean the few ships that are in the "problem area", meaning that this nerf is being handled the wrong way. My thought is that it could just as easily be a local nerf to the hulls of those ships, rather than a blanket nerf.

You also fail to take into account, as I mentioned, is that most resist ships PAY for their bonus. They are pretty much the only ships that do so. What do Gallente pay for their active tanking boost? What do Minmatar? They lose nothing from the base stats of their hull for the bonus they get. If anything Minmatar get unreasonable advantages just from the nature of shield tanking, but that is a thread for another day. Most resist ships are even less maneuverable than the already typically slow ships from their respective races.

You seem to have an issue with the player attitude relegating active tanking ships, (and when I say that let's face it I mean Gallente because Winmatar have no shortage of representation in pvp) to the hangar when it comes to large scale fleet battle. Guess what? That will NEVER change. Even the smallest passive bonus is preferable to one that activates only from local reps, because the value of a passive increases with scale. Anything in an attempt to fix this will break the game further, much like they are trying to do now.

Stopping and thinking first is never the act of a lazy man. Further, and especially judging from the tone of the original post in the first place, the fact that almost every single one of those ships on that list has in fact just been rebalanced puts the lie to any forethought in this. As does their damning silence.

As to the rest, I am hardly ignoring the point of view that it creates an issue. But any issues from resists are in no way large enough to justify this, especially when 90% of the ships on that list, as has been thoroughly detailed, not in any way a problem. It creates far more problems than it solves.

It is only a problem on battleship class or larger ships, and only then in fleet battles. The OP even says this.

So yes, it is not as directly iterative as other bonuses are. But so is Rate of Fire. No one is suggesting that be nerfed to 4%. It is very literally better than any other dps bonus. The game is full of this kind of thing. Sig radius being a big one. That is probably the most important and powerful (although behind the scenes) tanking bonus there is. It's a large part of the reason T3 cruisers are the powerhouses they are, it sure isn't their versatility. (because half their subsystems suck)

And as for my own reasons for this, it's not entitlement. It's cynicism. I don't honestly think that if this knee jerk blanket nerf makes it live that they will do a thing about fixing what they broke with it for a long, long time. Especially not with the laundry list of things on their plate in Odyssey. (including PoS reworks, from-the-ground-up remake of scanning, and so forth) I don't think they at all intend to take with one hand and give with the other, aside from their "oops, we made your ships un-fittable, here is a bone!" Beam changes.

So, to sum it up for you.

I think they are going the wrong way with the nerf entirely.

I think they are doing it the wrong way besides.

I think that this, combined with a few of their other less well thought out changes and the current sorry state of Amarr guns, will render a great deal of our ships sub par at best.

I think that the shiney isn't even dull on my newly stamped "Tiericide Seal of Approval" on all those ships, and now they are eating a blanket nerf.

So yeah, I disagree with just about every aspect of this. That's why I am against it.

I just read the OP. It says, "Resistances have the huge advantage of applying equally well as a buffer bonus, a magnifier of local reps, and a magnifier of incoming remote reps." I don't know where you get the idea that it's only a problem in fleet battles, because fleet ships don't run local tank (except possibly LOL XLASB).

The nerf to 4%/level is not serious. Resist-bonused hulls will still be able to sport brick tanks, and they will still be among the preferred choices for any fleet with logi support. Local-tanking an Amarr hull will still be possible. It just won't be nearly as efficient as a ship that is specifically bonused at 7.5%/level for local tanking, with higher resists and significantly more EHP besides.

If anything, this nerf is designed to make active tanking viable at all, outside of solo PVE and a couple of outlier fits (triple-rep Myrm, etc.). Large fleets imply logistics, whose use implies high resists, so the primary intent is to spur the use of active tanks in solo and small-gang warfare. Resist-bonused hulls will continue to be useful everywhere. They just won't be the obvious choice (especially for armor tanking) in all cases any more, which is as it should be. There has to be a reason to consider putting an active tank on a ship with a bonus for active tank.

I still agree with one of the first.

RIP AMARR

Also, critically, I noticed an error when you quoted me.

My quote says "fleet battles". Your "" show "large fleet battles".

I really hate to seem like I am nitpicking, but I will explain myself.

In a 1v1, if you are active tanking as Amarr, you are a fool. If you are in fact getting reps, it's not from yourself. So the "extra bonuses" of resists do not come into play solo. Yes, you do double dip the bonus in pve. But not one of the Amarr T1 resistance ships is a mission boat. Anyone here ever mission in a Maller? *chirp, chirp*

Caldari, I know less about, but I know they definitely stand to benefit more from double dipping than Amarr do, mostly because active shield tanking as a concept is actually workable and viable. Armor tanking is not. So again we get back to the Gallente. The Have-nots of EVE.

And being a lazy man, I will confirm, if I do it, I do want to do it right rather have to later put in more effort for it being done wrong :P

And thusly CCP has balanced resists being too good with RR by making resist ships even more reliant on RR. Surely this will not result in greater usage of the tactic.

Bumping this becase:
Clearly CCP are showing no interest on reverting this change, which is complete stupidity.

Start looking CCP, change it back.