# Surgical Strike Update Follow-up **URL:** \ **Category:** Upcoming Features & Changes\ **Created:** [April 8, 2020, 7:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/surgical-strike-update-follow-up/231061 "2020-04-08T19:04:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 127
**Author:** ![Archer\_en\_Tilavine](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/archer_en_tilavine/32/461718_2.png) [@Archer\_en\_Tilavine](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Archer_en_Tilavine)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 9:24pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/surgical-strike-update-follow-up/231061/127 "2020-04-08T21:24:59Z")
> [@Lucia\_Denniard](#): > > This will make faxes completely nonviable in wormholes and smaller fights where neuts are on grid, is this intentional? could you consider lowering their tank in stead or something rather than making them so vulnerable to neuts? The enemy neut ships will have to be prioritized in either use case. I imagine the community would respond to this as negatively as when I suggested Mauraders get some CAPWAR resists in bastion. Neither a Maurader in bastion nor a FAX is triage can get logi, and a Maurader is more liable to take a beating than the FAX - if the community won’t support CAPWAR love for the bastion Maurader, I don’t think they will support CAPWAR love for the triage FAX (esp since there has been complaints about it abusing cap boosters up to now, which is what the patch is supposed to address) > [@Lucia\_Denniard](#): > > would you consider splitting faxes into a capital fax and a supercapital fax? This is a bad solution to a nonexistent problem. SuperFAX would be OP by design and would also be liable to neut just as much as the original. The idea is to make FAXes MORE susceptible to CAPWAR than they are now - introducing SuperFAX that is both stronger than existing FAXes and less susceptible goes in the complete and total opposite direction. > [@Loroseco\_Kross](#): > > Does this mean that caps besides FAX can fit multiple capital capacitor boosters? The wording here is ambiguous. The other caps can fit at most one capital-sized cap booster, and as many smaller sized as they want (Heavies). > [@InnerDrive](#): > > The nerf to faxes is WAY TOO MUCH. Where is a fax supposed to get its cap after jumping now? How many remote reps do you want a fax to be able to run… ? 1 ? I think the idea here is to decrease the extent to which a single player satisfies a fleet’s logi needs (ie: have other players also fly logi in fleet), and also to encourage gameplay around which targets neuting the FAX are prioritized to a greater extent than it is now. Batteries will now be used in place of additional cap boosters and they’ll provide CAPWAR resist that inherently softens the blow of the otherwise intentional nerf. To the contrary of doomsayers, I anticipate the reality of the changes to be as devastating as sesame seeds being removed from market. > [@Luscius\_Uta](#): > > Regarding survivability of PvE fits with resists mod nerf, my solution for this would be to nerf T1 and T2 resist mods while leaving deadspace and possibly faction modules unchanged. There are numerous issues with this proposal. Many caps tend to use higher tiered mods anyway, even if they’re just super cheap Type-Cs, which are comparable to T2s and would therefore make this patch have zero practical effect if they used Type-Cs instead of T2s. Presently, higher tiered modules are overvalued in their contribution toward victory - your supremacy should come from your fleet’s coordinated efforts, not from sporting ultrabling. Lowering the effectiveness of higher tier resist modules (in addition to lower tier ones, mind you) makes the higher tier modules less important now than they were previously in terms of resist multipliers: given the nerf, there is substantially less to be gained in terms of resist multipliers than there was previously when using high end modules over low end ones. Given that their contribution to both buffers and resist multipliers has decreased, this means the success of your fleet will rely more on your fleet’s composition and coordination than quality of fittings, which is the way it should be. > [@Mizhara\_Del\_thul](#): > > This disproportionately affects Active Rep bonused hulls over Resist/Buffer bonused hulls In terms of active repping, direct active rep bonuses contribute more than passive resist bonuses on the hull. The hull resists themselves are not nerfed, and both ‘suffer’ the same in terms of additional resist mods, so the net effect from active reps is the same. > [@Mizhara\_Del\_thul](#): > > The way this affects high-end/expensive fits more than mediocre and cheaper fits. I consider this to be a very good thing per what I said previously. The market should adjust its prices to reflect the diminished utility of higher tier modules. This will happen organically > [@Zhalyd\_Lyehin](#): > > 🔴 > > > [@Arrendis](#): > > > > ‘We’re going to make it so all capitals only get 1 cap booster’ ← Nobody complains. > > Because it included Rorquals and that was the best thing CCP could have done. More Rorquals need to die but now CCP backpaddled yet again from a good change. Worth looking into. CCP’s focus was on combat in general, and Rorquals aren’t represenative of ships present in combat in either cap or subcap fleets. But definitely worth looking into. Rorqual has taken numerous nerfs over the years, but if it’s still OP, by all means, let the nerfs continue. Rorqs weren’t buffed by this patch so I wouldn’t give them too much of a hard time 😄 > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > Mining is already the worst profession in highsec by a mile, has just been nerfed in terms of income and is now receiving a double nerf in terms of defensibility while alpha clone gankers (who do not pay to play the game) get a buff. Fortunately 1. Resource redistribution will improve the value of more common goods and make hisec mining an essential part of the EVE economy, even down in nullsec, to a substantially greater effect than it was previously, making it more profitable to miners. (Not saying it’s still a good career, just that it’s better 2. CCP has indicated they are willing to consider additional ship classes in addition to BSes and freighters to get HP boostss. I am confident that they will boost barges (or give them some other form of defensive love) > [@Evie\_Kouvo](#): > > As a wormholer i make a lot of money from solo C3 combat sites. Fitting omni is deadly important, dropping the resistance may mean spending an absurd amount of isk to fit what t2 use to be. EVE is an MMO. Perhaps CCP intends to make certain content merit fleets to a greater extent than was the case previously. Perhaps fleeting up is the way to go 😄 > [@Zero\_Thenos](#): > > Have you thought about the impact to stuff like Marauders and Black Ops in terms of the resistance nerf as well? Unlike other ship classes, Tech 2 battleships do not get full Tech 2 level resistance profiles. I think an unstated goal here was to nerf Mauraders overall (in addition to bridging the gap between them and T1/Faction BSes). A lot of people say Mauraders aren’t fleet ships/don’t need fleets to operate… well… with these changes, that attitude is going to change, and I think that’s a good thing. Mauraders should work well in fleets, and now with changes like these they will be increasingly reliant on fleets to survive than they were previously. > [@Surgical Strike – Coming 15 April](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/surgical-strike-coming-15-april/230569/746): > > It just occurred to me… Mauraders ‘gon’ dieeeeee rofl +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 … > [@Knowledgeminer](#): > > Freighters are precisely the less affected by these changes because they cannot fit resist mods. +15% DPS to short range ammo is an indirect but pretty damn substantial nerf to opsec of freighters. > [@DragoFire](#): > > I wonder why you don’t replace this resistance reduction with an increase to stacking penalties. What’s wrong with stacking penalties the way they currently are now? 1st mod: 100.0% effectiveness 2nd mod: ~86.9% effectiveness 3rd mod: ~57.1% effectiveness 4th mod: ~28.3% effectiveness 5th mod: ~10.6% effectiveness 6th mod: ~3.0% effectiveness > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > > [@QuakeGod](#): > > > > I look at EVERY barge, exhumer, and Orca kill whether it’s by players or by NPC’s. Most miners that get shanked, regardless of the attacker, don’t fit tank. > > Again though, you are only looking at ones who die. That’s not “most miners”. You’re selecting a subset of miners most likely to be less tanked (because they died) and then making a declaration that that’s representative of miners as a whole. Yet again, @Lucas_Kell hits the nail right on the head 👍 > [@Knowledgeminer](#): > > For those that missed it, in February @Lucas_Kell said in another thread that he has a 16 man fleet he uses for AFK mining in high sec. Sure. Let’s take things out of context. Totally what he said. 🙄 > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > That whole “bringing back the fleet” thing was a… wait for it… fib! _tee hee hee_ I GOT YOUR BACK BRO --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/surgical-strike-update-follow-up/231061)._