That’s because they weren’t intended to be impacted by the change…? Or are people still having a problem trying to wrap their head around this?
1 Like
oh there are a lot out there having issues with how the resistance adjustment actually works.
doesn’t help CCP drops little bits of info with no context behind it, like freighters will get an HP boost!
you have to wonder how much actual thought was done on this update and it’s log term effects not just on fits, but also market.
3 Likes
Instead of balancing the unbalanced stuff, CCP chose to unbalance all so the unbalanced would seem less unbalanced…
Will drop sub if the patch is applied
4 Likes
Oh no! Cancel the patch!!
1 Like
Then all of them are dumb, wrong, and don’t know what they’re talking about.
Reactive Armor Hardeners and Damage Control Unit resistances are calculated separately compared to other resistance modules.
Anyone who claims that they’re seeing RAHs and DCUs give less resistances are lying garbage.
Yeah, because they don’t have all the answers right now and are considering different potential % changes. Who knew.
God, you’re dumb. You’re just throwing “market” out there hoping it’ll stick without having any idea of what you are talking about either.
1 Like
And the related Surgical Strike – Coming 15 April | EVE Online release;
Subcapital Updates:
Fleet diversity and an evolving meta are things that are always encouraged, and in that interest there is a small package of Subcapital updates coming as well. The resist module power reduction will naturally favor Tech II hulls slightly, and as these ships already dominate the fleet meta, Battleships will be given an upgrade to keep them competitive while adjusting critical bonuses for ships like the Muninn, Loki, and Eagle.
All talks about it benefits T2 ships (which makes use of their role and ship bonuses) and adjustment to certain ships, plus the bonuses to T2 Short Range turret ammo, that’s ok.
But what Trig short range ammo (Occult), like all other ammo of this class it has bad range and high CAP use, but also has high Tracking reduction. Seem odd to give a 15% damage increase to all but this ammo, specially when you take into account all the other turret ammo has falloff range, while the Occult ammo is limited to a short optimal range of less than 10Km, this ammo already has a massive disadvantage in PVP/PVE from the range limitation, and the other negatives compared to it’s own T1 ammo, let allow it’s disadvantages compared to other T2 ammo. Not to forget the time to cycle up to an good damage.
And back to the ships, the Trigs only have a T2 frigate, destroyer and 2 cruisers (one heavy logi focused), but no T2 Battlecruiser or Battleship, so will this be amended? Will we see the introduction of a T2 BC and BS to give players a T2 option to take advantage of this The resist module power reduction will naturally favor Tech II hulls slightly?
Sure the Leshak gets a 10% bonus to it’s HP’s, but on it’s shield HP you’re talking sweet all (350HP), enough to handle one Destroyer hit, next to useless.
Trig ships focus around Resistance armour tanking, shields on these ships have been from day one classed as an ignored item, as the HP is almost equal to a lower sized ship. So without major work on it’s fit it can’t match other armour based ships in shield HP. Their Armour HP is high, but not the highest in their ship classes.
Now in saying that both Frigates (T1 and T2), T2 Cruiser and the T1 Battlecruiser have the resistance bonuses, no other Trig ship has any form of resistance or HP bonuses.
Now there are other ships from other factions that will have no resistance or HP bonuses, but they do have T2 option ships available, so when do we expect to see the Trig T2 Battleship and Battlecruiser?
2 Likes
think about it, office modules after this update drop to within only a few % of an A-Type version.
the lower the difference between the meta in resistance bonuses will be very small in some cases less than 1%, and you don’t think players making fits aren’t going to adjust they purchases to focus on other options.
I know of some that have decided instead of wasting near a bill on an A-Type they’ll go for an B-type, take the minor resistance difference and spend the isk they saved on better regen and HP modules.
and you think the armour resistance module market won’t be effected?
3 Likes
You have no idea what you’re talking about, T2 Talos were ALWAYS the better choice. Nobody that has the several months extra of skills required to fly T2 Talos would use T1 fitted ones.
Thats not true. T2 Talos allow the much more cost efficent T2 cats to be mixed in making the gank cheaper.
If I need 600k damage, why would I use 16 T1 Talos and 4 T2 Cats when I can use the several hundred million isk cheaper 11 T2 Talos mixed with 9 T2 Cats.
Not to mention the guns drop
95%+ of freighters are ganked by literally 3 people
Funny I remember a bunch of carebears on this forum saying that prior to the bump nerf which saw freighter ganking dropping of a cliff
5 Likes
“There is excitement here about this approach because not only does it lower Capital survivability, it also diminishes the overall power of logistics and will make modules focused on speed and damage a more attractive option”
This is stated as the purposes of the resistance nerf.
“lower Capital survivability”: nerf cap then, why nerf all?
“diminishes the overall power of logistics”: you could nerf remote repair modules, or logistics ship bonus, based on which class is overpowered.
“modules focused on speed and damage a more attractive option”: I don’t know the cases in pvp. However, in most PVE and high end PVE scenarios (lv4 misison/burner/invasions, etc.), speed/range tank is very unlikely, as there are many stasis frigates, and they are faster than usual player fits. And due to the numbers of NPCs and sometimes their EHP is way more than player’s, damage tank is not viable in many cases. Leaving active/passive tank the only option for players. And now you destroy it. You need to check every mission, every abyss site, every conduit, and make sure they are still possible. That means an overhaul for nearly all PVE contents. And I don’t think CCP can handle it in time before pve players drop out.
Besides, the nerf will diminish the survivability of small gangs/single players, they are already in disadvantage in terms of numbers. At last, resistance is the only tank option for miners. I don’t know how many of them can survive the incoming buffed catalysts.
7 Likes
Without The Code they were doomed anyway. The resistance changes will not make a difference.
1 Like
Why are you people so damn stupid. You just made it so capitals can now alpha any and all subcaps on grid because you reverted the capital changes but kept subcaps getting dumped on. hope you enjoy losing 10 subs, cause I am not going to play again til you idiots who dont even play the game can fix your way of thinking.
7 Likes
Right, but that doesn’t make what I said not true. We’re actually in agreement here, just using the same term to refer to different things.
I was referring to the ISK/DPS cost of a single Talos, whereas you’re referring to the overall ISK/DPS cost of the whole gank fleet for a given number of gank toons.
I said that T2 Taloses are the best choice before the change already because they reduce the number of pilots required without incurring additional ISK costs, whereas you’re saying that they’re the best choice because, if you have more toons available than would be needed with T2 Taloses, then you may reduce the overall ISK/DPS even further by using those extra toons and replacing some of the Taloses with cats.
CCP could you please reconsider the resistance nerf? I see multiple people talking about it but not much explanation on your side. It goes completely against encouraging brawling and T2 ammo buff barely helps. If you want people to brawl, make brawling fits more forgiving or make kiting harsher, not the opposite.
3 Likes
There is still typhoon…
We PVE players need to keep up the pressure on CCP.
The nerf must be stopped before it causes chaos in New Eden!
1 Like
Ha ha ha. Good one.
You are joking, right?
1 Like
Yes… it must be doubled so PvE becomes more valuable! that’s what you meant right?
Because that’s what I see from this.
1 Like
I think one of the most important thing about this update is not being talked about:
That CCP Rise stated that if problems arise in PvE, that specific content will be adjusted to bring it back into line.
That implies that any changes in ships themselves are unlikely be rolled back, instead CCP will reduce the NPC side of the encounter, thereby reducing bounty, loot, and salvage. This accomplishes their goal of reduction in isk production (both directly and indirectly), meaning that the highest risk PvE currently being run AND requiring much higher than normal resistance to complete are more than likely going to be retooled for less difficulty, but also far less payout.
2 Likes
This must not be allowed to happen!
1 Like
Dear @CCP_Rise
My biggest hesitations are related to the suicide ganking. It is already a big issue which kills new players experience and I would not be surprised if that is it the main reason why new players drop out after first few weeks. You wrote it is not your intention to make suicide ganking easier or cheaper. I am sure you are honest here - you need more players not less. On the other hand I am surprised that making suicide ganking easier or cheaper is exactly what you are doing. Especially that it is easy to avoid it.
There are few mechanics in the game. One of the most important in suicide ganking in high sec is time. How fast police get on site and destroy the abusers determine how big dps (how much ISK spent on ship and fitting) gankers need to have. It works fine - it is cheaper to gank a ship in 0.5 than in 1.0 security. With the new patch you will increase dps and lower defense what will make ganks cheaper and more frustrating for miners and manufacturers - new players. You will do it intentionally and against your intentions. If you would have done the opposite - increase armor/shield and decrease the dps it would have helped. Moreover - it will not disrupt the balance. Scrambled in low or null sec industrial or mining
ships will still have no chance - their execution will just take more time. In high sec players would have more time to get police on site and save them.
We can discuss long time about further consequences of the above proposition - safer mining in high sec will attract more players, then you will need to make mining in low more profitable to balance the risks what will… Let’s stop here and take a look on the problem from the other angle. What if insurance would have paid 100% of the ship value when ship was destroyed with kill right gain? Cargo? OK. Players risk. But then player can almost instantly come back to the activity he/she was doing. Although it does not solve cheaper ganks it is at least saving players experience. I have to admit it is not a pleasant feeling when you dock to station in 1.0 sec and get instantly destroyed. Why? My ship is worth 200 Mill while ganker’s one only 70 Mill. What is the point of learning skills and flying such ships if these are insta destroyed even in 1.0 without any proper compensation?
Kind regards
Pinneman Karakgar
1 Like