+15% T2 short range ammo damage = they need that much more rep to maintain tank. That, or they die in 13.04% less time. Then, of course, are resistance nerfs on top of that, so really they need that much more tank or they die even more quickly.
“Mauraders aren’t fleet ships/don’t need fleet support”
“Mauraders don’t need buffs/X change to address Y”
“Mauraders aren’t too expensive, their price is fine above faction BSes/carriers and on par with dreads”
Makes me wonder what Maurader proponents are going to end up saying when their blinged out ships can’t pull their weight like they used to. It’s true their opponents defenses got thinned out as well, but that’s what fleet support is for, right? Ultimately the relative strength of their opponents’ weapons have been maintained or increased vs the Maurader’s defenses being thinned out, and that matters even more. They will die faster than they can kill - all but guaranteed with enemy logi on scene.
I foresee a sharp drop in Hero Maurader vs World videos being uploaded on YouTube… and I see the ones already posted being… I don’t want to say “less relevant”, but “less realistic” after changes. Pre-patch Hero Maurader could supposedly take on the Mafia, Triads, and Yakuza simultaneously, but Post-Maurader might barely hold ground against three drunkards in a bar fight.
what’s important is that, assuming the “bonus HP” is for shield, armor and hull (and not only hull, which is what HP actually means in eve), then the EHP of BS is actually increased. With the bonus to short range ammo, they are actually really buffed, especially the BS with a correct bonus to short range guns :
machariel
torpedo barghest
vindicator !! a ■■■■■■■ lot !
It also incidentally means that polarized BS have become a lot better.
All in all I don’t like that change, because all my fits become suboptimal and I need to pay like 50B just to re optimal them (just bought ±10B of ships for fun and jiggles and friends last week, I’m sad).
I’ve actually been looking at this a lot. Many of my shield frig fits use 2x EM and 1x Thermal rig for the resists. They will be nearly unchanged. Completely so if this doesnt affect DCUs.
I’ve been away from this game for five years and have come back and loved what they’ve done. Certain things about this patch I don’t like (leave Legions alone they did nothing to you), certain things I like (beam/arty meta is lame and trig ships are lame and this should push people away from it a bit), but most of all I have no idea exactly what will pan out from this. What I will say, and what I think people really need to focus on, is that CCP knows what they are doing. I liked EVE a lot before I left it 5 years ago. But the game that they have today is much, much superior to what I left. I remember back then how people complained about every change CCP made, but coming back after a long hiatus really points out what a good job they’ve done with long term/big picture development. So while I may not necessarily like or understand every last thing they’re doing, I think that based off of the progress I’ve noticed since coming back that it’s probably overwhelmingly for the good of the game.
But seriously leave Legions alone the did nothing to you.
They’ve listed ideas they have for long term development in their ecosystem update. Namely, they want to bleed nullsec alliances’ wealth dry and they think income is a little to high. If you don’t see how a stealth buff to t2 ships and a nerf to survivability falls into that income reset, you’re not paying attention.
No, it means what I said, that EvE’s core design elements that differ should be fostered.
The elements EvE includes that it got from 1984 Elite, Elite II and FFE are their design elements. Theres nothing wrong with them, but EvE obviously has others apart from just being online (which ED now does, to a degree) that must be considered core because without them, it would just be Elite.
The problem with carriers, even though the support fighter exclusivety is a nice touch to make them relevant again, is that they die too quickly in real fights. Dreads melt them super quick, and you cant reliably counterdrop with supers anymore because of the cyno changes, especially outside of major operations. This makes umbrellas harder to use and thus you will see less capitals engaged in casual nullsec activities.
I think CCP would be amenable to giving them a base HP buff. I can stand behind it. I think it would be the best solution considering they are substantially cheaper than dreads and not intended to fight them.
Surgical Strike w/ t2 invuln @ 24% resist boost (80% of currently deployed 30% resist boost) and pithum A @ 37.5% resistance boost (80% of currently deployed 46.875)
This appears to, because of how resistance math and stacking penalty are applied, end up with a nerf to t2 and other “cheap” modules significantly worse than it applies to more expensive modules, especially for locally tanked ships (solo/nologi small gang) brawlers.
You do realise pve makes pvp possible.
No salt tests here but i think they made the rich abit richer.
Oke abit salt tears i AM not rich.
And i like tot pve
You want to have more bloody fights while making the consequences of these fights - losses - more expensive with the current mineral changes?
What genius came up with this?
capital mjd’s could be a solution, it lets carriers dodge dreadbombs unless they bring t2 long range guns or subcap tackle. It might be a bit too crazy, but they do need more staying power to be viable since no one wants to feed faxes to a dreadbomb in an umbrella.
If you do solo PvE with no buffer for mistakes, you are doing it wrong. You know plates/extenders/rigs/DMC/reppers are not nerfed. Also the resists bonus will be reduce by 20%, not your overall resists after final calculation. The nerf is much smaller than you think.
Seems…alright, overall. I am in full support of the backstep from capital-madness that overtook the game. My only regret in this area is that you took -so- long to do it that most people have become utterly dependent on it, to the point that they imagine you’ve just ruined the game.
To use that ever-present goon slogan: You didn’t ruin the game, you ruined THEIR game.
Anything that downgrades capital dependence is good. Anything that promotes sub-cap is good.
I’m not sure why you included Legion nerfs with the Loki nerfs, and the Loki nerf might have been a little too heavy. However, given just how dominant that ship is or can be in every stage of pvp (solo, small gang, fleet, large fleet), I guess it’s needed. Legion…I barely see, so not sure if this is just a problem that’s prevalent in an area of the game I can’t participate in.
I actually do empathize with the high-sec ganking plight. Some sort of adjustment can be made down the path for this that makes Concord more effective at not just killing offenders, but saving the one who got attacked. ‘It’s a PvP game’, is always the justification, but this game is not just for PvP oriented players. Hi-sec has long been toted as the safer area of space, and keeping it healthy instead of just being viewed as a target-rich environment for people willing to build ships to lose in suicidal-jihad offensives is something worth keeping an eye on.
I’m not altogether sure that a resist-nerf was the appropriate step. I do believe this actually made it harder to be a brawler (i.e. Soak damage up close, use active reps) than easier, even with the buff to close range ammunition. This probably makes kiting stronger and brawling weaker, though numbers will have to be seen since you guys clearly did your own theorycrafting here, and just have different theories than me.
