Surgical Strike Update Follow-up

[Rominor_Anthar]

If the nerf of resistance module is inevitable, how about at least reduce their CPU requirement? At least it provides more flexibility to changes.
Still, putting all investment of time, effort, and in-game asset to trash can by one simple change is a VERY GOOD IDEA to drive player population down.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Rominor_Anthar

Still, putting all investment of time, effort, and in-game asset to trash can by one simple change

Strange. I didn’t realise that they had their resistances reduced to zero…

[Benji_Rackner]

The only way CCP will be able to ensure they don’t break the game will be to have a round table on ganking with the 3 major gankers as there should be risk in high sec but the change should not break the game

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Benji_Rackner

a round table on ganking with the 3 major gankers

That’s a great way to ensure an echo chamber.
A round table on a topic needs to include both sides, and also include people who are interested in the topic but don’t actually currently participate. Because the reasons why people don’t participate or enjoy an activity is just as important and may lead to an important update that would otherwise be missed.

However none of this update has any danger of breaking the game, it might change the balance of ganking, the current plans certainly will change the balance of ganking significantly, but that isn’t game breaking.

[Benji_Rackner]

What the entire eve community fails to understand is that gankers care more for the community than anyone else, why? over the last few years there have been less and less people to gank, and many gankers have left the game because there is nothing to kill. Ganking has typically become a hard and harder form of game play due to changes made by CCP (which yes were for the benefit to the community ).

But why I ask do people think that logistic chains should be 100% safe, it is in fact the most broken game mechanic in eve that you can carry billions or trillions of cargo with zero risk.

That’s a great way to ensure an echo chamber.

Yes it would be but it would be the most productive session CCP would have to address ganking mechanics and not have to listen to many people claiming that we are still using ISboxer to broadcast the ganking and that we should be banned.

[Zhalyd_Lyehin]

@Benji_Rackner

Ganking has typically become a hard and harder form of game play

That is patently false. Ganking has never been easier. You just need 7 characters to gank a freighter. You can sit on a structure on grid with the gates and CONCORD and FacPo cannot harm you while you align to the gate where the target jumped in. In the past, you had to be off grid on a ping. EHP on freighters carrying goodies is ridiculously low, making it easy to grab them with few chars. Scanners chars are cheap and the routes for big prey are few and easy to monitor.

If you want to get started, all you need is an Atron and you are set and ready to gank Ventures.

How much easier should it possibly be?

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Benji_Rackner

What the entire eve community fails to understand is that gankers care more for the community than anyone else

Yeah… Don’t talk rubbish.
Gankers are not on some mighty pedestal above the rest of EVE. This sort of thing is why people are so anti gankers, because a lot of gankers take this sort of attitude.

[Dravick_Afterthought]

@Mingshoa

I am thinking that at some point Pearl Abyss steps in and says to CCP, look at what we have done with Black Desert. Yes there is PVP in BD, but it doesn’t effectively start until level 45 at which point your well established in the game. They give a player time to be hooked, Eve can destroy your interest in very quick order.

It works both ways (if it works at all). I joined Eve for the PvP. If I’d have had to wait till level 45 before I could even start PvP’ing, I’d never have joined in the first place.

[Dravick_Afterthought]

@Lucas_Kell

Most people don’t. Most people just seek a reasonable level of balance that does not currently exist because CCP have failed to eve try to balance ganking.

Nonsense. ‘Most people’ don’t give a toss because they’ve never been ganked anyway.

[Xeux]

We should all get a good laugh out of the fact that CCP announced this patch and didn’t even think about highsec ganking. It was only after the announcement of the boost to short range dps that they scratched their head and said:

"Oh yeah . . . I guess that would make highsec ganking easier . . . "

[Big_Country_Boy]

The thing I don’t get about all this is the fact that this will severely impact new players coming in. A lot of people don’t seem to realize pve is where we get the meta modules that run the ramp up phase for players entering the game in the first few months. With the loss of pve players, we see a dramatic price increase in these modules, as well as a reduction in corp income from taxes on these activities. I don’t know that CCP considered the longer term implications of lost players, or if they did, they used a majorly optimistic view of what they would lose changing everything at the drop of a hat.

[Clancy_Davis]

@CCP_Rise

we are planning to increase freighter hp

How about “Q Ships”?

[Xeux]

Do you mean Q-Tips?

[Murkar_Omaristos]

We discovered issues with the implementation of this change and will be shifting approach slightly. Rather than limiting capital cap boosters to one per group, we will be adding a new limitation for FAX only which limits number of cap boosters fit to 1 per ship. This will include all cap booster sizes.

Surely this must be a joke. You couldn’t fix it properly so you decided to just trashcan a whole class of ships instead as a half-measure?

This is a patch held together with spit and shoestrings, you should be ■■■■■■■ embarrassed to ship this to TQ.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Murkar_Omaristos

Surely this must be a joke. You couldn’t fix it properly so you decided to just trashcan a whole class of ships instead as a half-measure?

It makes sense. The cost of making the fix would be to move each cap booster to its own game group : smallcapbooster, mediumcapbooster, etc.
Because the only way in the engine is to limit to one per group(attribute MaxGroupFitted set to 1, eg ancil armor rep, DCU, siege modules) .
So that means, at the very list, that the capital cap booster should be placed in their own group, but then you have blueprints that need to also be moved, and market group that also needs to be moved, and potentially other issues.

[Murkar_Omaristos]

Ok? So just decrease the power grid of the aposlte/ninazu so that it can’t fit multiple capital-sized injectors, or has to make sacrifices elsewhere to do so. Or nerf their rep amount bonus? Or nerf capital remote repairers themselves slightly. Or enhance the stacking penalty for multiple reppers applying to a single super.

There are a hundred other ways around this problem that don’t involve making a whole ship class basically garbage.

[Kugga_r]

Has anyone considered what effect this will have on abyssal pvp and abyss stuff in general. Seems to me that its essentially going to make the content completely affordable for the average pilot.

[Kugga_r]

Sorry just to add - abyss has been the main content release, therefore, this seems a very strange move to completely destroy it with this release. Apologies, if i am missing something here.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Kugga_r

abyssal pvp

Will have no real effect on balance, will decrease stalemate. Since both sides get reduced resistances.

[Evie_Kouvo]

I would imagine the balance of buffer vs active changes now.