No, I mean that if you nerf income enough, you will have to do BOTH things.
Before nerfs, you can have lets say 5 accounts, plex them all and get all the ISK you need for your ships, activities, etc. CCP gets the money other guy had to spend for that 5 plexes.
Now you have to sub with money the 5 accounts, and yet buy like 3 plexes to get you isk for your ships, activities etc. CCP gets the money of your 5 subs and the 3 plexes you buy for getting isk.
It´s a quite extreme situation we haven´t reached yet but seems like its where we are heading.
Now you know that making stupid remarks only makes you look stupid.
Except that the activities that are not worth doing with optimal fits, may still be interesting doing. Who are you to claim that people should be making IG money in fleet ? That’s just plain BS.
Removal of support fighter tubes for Super Carriers with the addition of one extra Heavy Fighter tube
Bonuses to XL plates and extenders for Super Carriers reduced to 200% and for Titans reduced to 300%
Long Range Heavy Fighter explosion radius increased 50%
Please tell me how a ship of this size (XL) may not have protection against the small size of the ships, apparently those who produce them are absolute autists. What is the purpose of these changes, do you want a fleet of 3 precurson destroyers and 1 interdictor (which cost as 1 pack of drones from the mother ship) to be able to kill the mother ships and consider it fair? What to do to those pilots of mother ships that do not have constant support for sub capital fleet?
Without protection against smallsize ships, mother ships will cease to fly at all through jumpgates, in small-size and mid-size gangs - this will lead to the fact that they can be caught only in 2 cases - when dropping on the structure or capital ship. In battles of large fleets, fighters are very vulnerable (for example, this video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TzqrfbRXk), which makes them not particularly useful even now, this not the best isk \ dps. The update will lead to the fact that the scope of these boxes is reduced, as well as the use of them as a whole - many mother ships will be hung on holders and offline until the next fix.
Nope. You can only play the core part of the game. You can’t even post on their forums without a paid account (makes me grin). The ftp part is a glorified demo of gw2 with some very annoying restrictions.
It’s not me who claims that. It’s CCP’s aim and something that has been a popular demand for years. I’m not sorry for your loss in PVE activities, though. Someone so toxic as you should just leave EVE behind and play some Hello Kitty Online to calm down. I won’t have issues with these resist nerfs to my PVE ships and I will be able to continue to do what I do without problems.
The more I think of this whole affair, the more worried I get. Sadly I suppose giving constructive feedback is pointless due to all the spam but hey let’s try.
So, first of all, there are indeed too many too easy ways of being overtanked. This is true. Things often truly take too long to die, especially in a setting with just 1-2 people doing the shooting. However the problem isn’t overall resistances of every ship in the game, but specific cases of modules and ship bonuses. Also, problem isn’t that all close range weapons do too little dmg, blasters are for example fine, at least on medium and large ships. Torpedoes and autocannons on the other hand are less so.
Therefore nerfing and buffing everything together won’t improve much, while disrupting everything.
This is the rough list of changes I’d do to make overtanked setups less attractive while not disrupting the game in general:
Ancillary shield boosters can only be fit 1 per ship - funnily enough this type of tanking will be very little affected, as they tend to use a single invu and dc for resists
T3 defensive subsystems that allow covert cloaking have their bonus to repair/boost amounts removed
T3 defensive subsystems that give repair/boost bonus without cloak have their bonus reduced to 7.5%
Reinforced bulkheads are stacking penalized - another currently obviously too efficient way of tanking that won’t be affected by the incoming change
Slightly improve both damage (or launcher rof?) of torpedoes while also slightly improving explosion radius of rage torpedoes. At the same time accordingly reduce the dps bonus on ships that are already doing well, such as stealth bombers and possibly fleet typhoon
Slightly increase the dps of autocannons, while accordingly reducing the dps bonus on ships that are doing well (not that I know which these would be, maybe tempests)
Not sure about pulse lasers
Hyperion - it’s just broken. Return it to 6 low slots perhaps, reduce the dmg bonus, whatever you do its current ability to deal dmg and actively armor tank while having 5 medium slots and an utility high makes it a poor man’s marauder compared to other battleships. Notice its 10% bonus with 6 guns means it effectively gets an extra slot compared to megathron which needs 7 guns to do comparable dmg. Its dumb.
Bet theres more I could think of, but you get the drift. Tweak specifics, don’t do this overarching upset to every aspect of shooty part of the game in both pve and pvp.
It will make new players without access to t2 ammo completely outclassed, it will make more deaths in pvp so fast that the loser will get the impression that there was nothing he could have done and just decide the game is dumb. You don’t need more of that, since already established groups easily hotdrop new players who try to strike out in their own groups, giving them the impression there’s nothing they can do except join big established groups. Being 2-shot by thorax instead 1-shot by a haw phoenix won’t make this impression go away.
I doubt you’ll change your minds since you already got a release date set, but there.
A %20 nerf to top speed across the board makes more sense than a %20 resist reduction or a %20 buff to close range ammo
There is just way too much nano kitey risk adverse engagement trash with interceptor scout flying around to even think about getting a good old brawl anymore.
Maybe having 5 or more accounts subbed at a time doesn’t need to be normal to begin with. Problem is the more people do this the more the entire game becomes geared toward requiring it to get anything meaningful done, which means anyone starting out with 1 account is left behind.
If you don’t want to sub 5 accounts with money then unsub 3 of them. CCP obviously is willing to take this loss if it means improving the overall health of the game.
Why, because this is not logical - you can take examples from real life.
Yes, for large alliances, it is not a problem to assemble a fleet of cover for large ships, but what do small allies and solo pilots do - do they not use mother ships? In addition, all cannon ships of XL size have the opportunity to install a sub-weapon …
### Capital changes in this update include:
