Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I think this is a step in a good direction, but I don't think applying this change so indiscriminately is the right way to go about it. Many of those ships are underpowered, and some are in a very good place. Only a few need this sort of nerf...so why not just apply it to those few ships on these lists that the change is really needed for?

i have seen you make great changes fozzie

some were in the beginning creeping me out but in the end it all went good
im still ok with all the changes
BS changes and the laser changes are a nice thign to start aswell

but kicking alot of ships in the nuts that cost a alot to train buy flie etc,
those are the onces being kicked in the nuts unprovoked

but i will see what happens

The 5% resistance bonus is undoubtedly overpowred and have been since forever. A modest and reasonable nerf from 5% to 4% to this bonus is an EXTREMELY good change for overall balance. Fozzie has already done a fantastic job describing exactly why this change is good and to be quite honest, every point he made is 100% spot on.

A nerf from 25% to 20% resistance is hardly a "kick in the nuts" especially when these ships are already sporting arguably the most powerful bonus in the game.

Stop being Biased and look at the health of eve as a hole.

The trait of resist-bonus hulls usually is a glaring deficiency in categories of "dps" Agility/speed or Amarr cap deficiency.
Therefor I think the potential for catastrophe with an across the board change is devastating.
I myself skilled for a passive drake setup even after I found the boat to be boring because of its versatility giving a foothold in many venues in EvE.
Even though I wish I would've just gone for a Hurricane which was my intended direct cross train from the drake and my fun boat, a patch changed a lot of things nerfing both ships it doesn't bother me if it wasn't for the fact I am so low SP.

Many changes like this are made with zero consideration for low SP characters, who have their skill plan rewards turned upside down.

As former posters have stated if you are going to mess with a drake or a prophecy, you are not messing with boats favored for their aggressive hit and run PvP style.
These are the boats that are left alone in low sec, floating through an ocean of darkness like majestic sea turtles no one wants to bite into, often referred to as "bait" because they have lots of hp but terribad damage projection or tackling potential.
It might not make its way into a spreadsheet/database very well, but how do you quantify a boats "dps" vs survivability ratio when it is largely due to someone deciding to bash their head into a brick wall instead of taking a breath and walking away without risk.
Do you look at success numbers in the light of ships used as well?


As far as I can tell I have only seen a mayor argument concerning remote repair imbalance, let shield resistances reduce that by an equal amount as mentioned before.
Also nerfing speed tanking really created a strange and giant tidal wave to the trinity of active tanking, capless weapon systems and damage evasion that needs a second looking into.
Move some more stats around then ship bonuses alone id say give it a second look.
Blob dynamics is a beast on its own that does not warrant across the board tinkering, thank you very much.

You're missing a big point here:

Resists == Damage reduction... (ALWAYS a good thing... )
Buffer's == Raw increase in base HP.
Repair's == Raw gain in base HP...

Imagine comparing two similar ships... one with a 5% Resist bonus, the other with an extra slot dedicated to tanking. I'll use shield tanks with IF's.

To keep it simple, imagine the base resist of the ship is zero... (easy to compare EM resists using Drake vs Hurricane):

Drake with 1 IF vs a Cane with 2 IF.... 47.5 Drake, 48.3 Cane.
Drake with 2 IF vs a Cane with 3 IF.... 61.2 Drake, 57.1 Cane.

The "extra" IF on the cane receives a stacking penalty that reduces it's effectiveness allowing the Drake's not-stacking penalty to become worth more. Stacking Penalties mean the first mod is 100% effective, the second mod is 87% effective, 57% for the 3rd, and 28% for the fourth.

Using simple math, 25% > 30% * SP when SP < 83.3%. This is why the drake has better resists with 2x IF than a cane with 3x IF. If you reduce the T2 bonus from 30 to 25.... then the drake resists will ALWAYS be better than the hurricanes.

Your suggested change does reduce the general effectiveness of RR by resulting in a lower overall Resists for all ships, but makes a resist bonus even more potent in comparison to ships without such a bonus.

remember neuting the hardners is also killing resist recently to the bare hull resists
thsi might be a bit to much i advice to look at each ship itself and not nerf the full rack of ships out there that have bonus to resists

and then see what happens a bit more math and less trial and error perhaps
they get paid for it really good i expect a bit more care when its hitting a large group at once

rest im just going to sit this one out and see what happens

Gizznitt Malikite: telling baddies how EVE really is. <3

CCP really should open a design position for you, dude.

But here is the thing, ships with rep bonuses don't rely on active buffers/resists to sustain their tanks. Not to mention that a reduction in resists affects them a lot less right out, since resists increases are based on the remaining potential percentage of nonresistance. A ship that only has 40% resists will only lose out 2% on a 5% reduction of resists, while a ship that has 80% resists loses 4% resistance bonus or more, on top of the fact that resist ships don't tend to have as much base HP as rep ships.

To recap 40% - 2% = 38%, the increase in applied damage being about 1% - 2% more
and 80%- 4% - 76%, the increase in applied damage in this case being 16% - 20% more

Trouble is that they are specifically hitting non competitive races (Caldari) and ships that are direct competition for Alpha doctrine .. while at the same time blaming Alpha doctrine for the changes.

While Foz has a decent record of being on the level, there is serious discontent brewing that these changes are specifically PVP and take no account of PVE usage of the ships involved. Add to that the perceived bias towards Alpha doctrine ships and you can see why it is causing such discontent.

We have been promised for years that Caldari would be made PVP competitive, and just when we have series of ships that are used in large scale PVP ... bam Nerfhammer time. Tengu, Rokh, Drake .... nerfed. But hey its okay guys, we are not touching Alpha doctrine!!!! Go Minmatar!!!

You see the dichotomy in this entire process?

Honesty If I were fozzie and the current balance team I would have gone after this resistance bonus more harshly than they did. The bonus has an effect on all 3 types of tanking, passive, RR, and active! The fact that you get a 25% bonus to each (20% resistance = about 25% as shown in fozzie's math) is extremely, extremely powerful.

As for you point about "the full rack of ships" The vast and I say vast majority of bonuses in this game are more or less statically carried over from ship to ship with few exceptions. I think there are far better ways to balance the overall lineup of ships with resistance bonus other than giving some a 4% per level and others a 5% per level. While a counter to this argument may be the increasing trend for 10% dmg bonuses per level to show up on ships within the same class as ships with a 5% there is a big difference. The difference is that the effect of this bonus is regulated by the total number of turrets the ship is able to fit. There is no regulation on the total number of tanking modules a ship can have outside the number of slots that show up on the ship. As it turns out the ship with the resistance bonus often have more tanking slots than ships w/o the bonus anyway...

About hardeners loosing there "passive" resistance portion when turned off truly holds no bearing on the discussion as this applies to ships with the bonus and w/o the bonus equally. Also this has nothing to do with what the devs are getting payed, neither you or I know that and even if we did I don't see how their pay rate can be related to the discussion at hand.