Surgical Strike Update Follow-up

EVE Technology and Research Center Upcoming Features & Changes
21

Typical CCP.

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 ?

At least give a fax 2 cap boosters. With 1 cap booster you might as well delete faxes from the game.

12 Likes
22

I mean, that’d be pretty good too.

14 Likes
23

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. This way blingy PvE fits necessary for some PvE content would still work, but would force more players to invest more ISK in their fits. If that causes more mission runners to die to suicide ganks, I don’t care.

Also, why I won’t be able to put two heavy capacitor boosters on my Apostle? They’re still worse than one capital cap booster.

2 Likes
24

This leads to an excessive jump in power from investment in a single module, and those high end modules are often fit to the supers/caps this was aimed most firmly at, meaning that those ships increase their average margin of superiority over the subcap fleets that CCP is hoping will start scoring more kills.

4 Likes
25

Can’t see any part of these particular updates I have any gripes with at all. The only gripe I have with these changes overall remain:

  • This disproportionately affects Active Rep bonused hulls over Resist/Buffer bonused hulls, which means Amarr/Caldari comes out ahead of Minmatar/Gallente ship lines - particularly T1 - in pretty much all situations from solo through large fleet content. This may not be too big of a deal, so I’m willing to wait and see what happens off the paper and in actual space.
  • The way this affects high-end/expensive fits more than mediocre and cheaper fits. One of the ways you could kick upwards against bigger numbers was to vastly increase the quality of your numbers by pouring more isk into them. This becomes much less tenable now, as X-types and so on become far less effective compared to their price range, which makes this tactic far less likely to be used. This may lead to n+1 being the only real factor in whether or not fights even happen, not to mention their outcomes. Skill levels and clever tactics and strategy still has its place of course, but this change may now hit smaller number entities much harder than the n+1 blob entities. Please look closer at how you’re reducing the efficiency of different levels of resist modules, because reducing the viability of smaller entities and making Number Of Pilots the biggest impact on fights is generally speaking a bad change.

tl;dr: Good work, good to see you take feedback into account, overall great changes but please look closer at the details and stand ready to do more balance passes because this will almost certainly have some unintended consequences.

7 Likes
26

Thank you for coming back in this way and responding to concerns with changes and pauses. It’s a big relief.

1 Like
27

I’d have loved to see them hit with progressively less heavy nerfbat.
t1/t2 = ~20% (minus the tieracide buffs to some specific modules
Faction = 15-18%
Deadspace =12-15%
Officer = 10%

It would also re-incentivize running officer sites, which abyssals seem to have helped deprioritize.
OTOH, that would also benefit the assets which cost enough, base, to justify the cost of those modules without a second thought, which is where the change was intended to hit hardest.

4 Likes
29

In the past 2 years, CCP has been listening. They addressed an issue before the release… amazing. Sensible decision over here.

Genius. Truly genius.

All transport ships in general (esp. DSTs but even T1 indys), and mining vessels will likely need some base HP gain to compensate for both resist nerf and increase of T2 short range turret ammo damage. Carriers were already rather thin as it is, so they could use some base HP improvement as well in light of these changes.

3 Likes
30

how are these fax changes gonna promote more fighting? The only thing this does is prevent people from being able to take fights

5 Likes
32

Glad to see the capital cap booster changes on faxes, this will encourage strategic gameplay in nullsec and WH space instead of just spamming more faxes than the other guy.

1 Like
34

What about pirate BS?

36

:red_circle:

So Rorquals are left untouched and unchanged again. Great stuff. NOT.

PVE and the resist change

Many of you are concerned about high end PVE viability under the resist module nerf. … If situations arise where specific content becomes prohibitively difficult we will make adjustments to that content to bring it back in line.

In other words: Instead of working specifically on PVE to change the issues with “has been solved” you just nerf all resists and “see how things go”. Did you not learn a SINGLE lesson from the last dozens of times you did things exactly like that? Instead of tackling the "PVE has been solved issue specifically and targeted, you opt for a frustrating, annoying and not thought through patchwork approach that will never finish, only cause more issues and will lead to a satisfying experience. I mean, really… :man_facepalming:

At least the Scan Res bonus for battleships is something akin to a silver-lining on the horizon. Now could you please fix the Abaddon? It needs more capacitor. Badly. It never needed more DPS because it cannot use that additional DPS due to lack of cap.

5 Likes
37

Pirate Battleships count as T1 in these things, just like plex access counts pirate ships as T1 rather than T2 for instance.

4 Likes
39

Yes, it includes Faction and Pirate Battleships.

Source, CCP Convict on r/eve:

41

Dear CCP Rise, when will you consider making Widow not trash?

4 Likes
42

Thanks for quickly responding. I hope that when these resists nerf happen that PvE activities such as Burner Missions should be adjusted. Better yet why not reduce all npc resists by 20%? If it’s bloodier for us why can’t it be bloodier for them?

2 Likes
43

Does that include Jump freighters, or just normal T1? @CCP_Rise

44

Great changes. Specifically the FAX cap booster limitation. Don’t listen to all the crying. This will let ■■■■ die again.

Now if you could just make grinding structures a bit less cancerous and adjust asset safety…wew lad making eve great again 2020

7 Likes
45

Fax change that promotes n+1. Well done…

5 Likes
46

Procurer w/ 2 mining laser upgrade IIs YPM:1082.4m3
Covetor w/ 3 mining laser upgrade IIs YPM: 1572m3

~50% increase in yield says it’s worth it IF you have circumstances you can use the Covetor in.
Retriever decreases single toon downtime, or reduces cargo management if boxing/fleet mining.
Use cases for both for you. Doesn’t mean they’re particularly good ones for every case, and tank is almost always gonna be my vote but…

3 Likes