Because that massively changes the isk/hr of all activities focused on “shot rat, get loot/isk” and changes their overhead costs.
Especially on the higher resist enemies meant for elite or fleet pve.
Burners, which got stated based on what our ships could do, probably do need some serious tweaking to keep them in line with expected minimum fits to complete.
I just don’t understand why people are complaining about this now, but weren’t complaining about it in the earlier thread. This change to faxes was always going to happen, it’s just that now, it’s only faxes.
Capital Capacitor Boosters limited to 1 per ship
That’s from an un-refreshed copy of the devblog.
‘We’re going to make it so all capitals only get 1 cap booster’ ← Nobody complains.
"We’re going to make it so force auxs only get 1 cap booster’ ← ‘MUH FAX!!!’
Doesn’t make sense. Those Naglfars whose damage you’re trying to offset? They don’t care. Neither do the fighter/bombers.
@Arrendis Limiting Capital cap boosters to 1 per ship is way different than limiting ALL CAP BOOSTERS to 1 per ship on faxes.
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. It also included all other capitals that would now have been easier to neut and thus had their resists turned off in particular if it is PVE capitals and supers. This would also have led to more things dying. That remark from Pitts is just plain rubbish and shortsighted, just like what CCP did here.
if you are part of a blob and will be able to find anyone fighting your ■■■■ after these horrible changes, sure
otherwise you can just enjoy ferox fleet vs ferox fleet
Once again CCP paving the road to hell with their good intentions :3
Eh, not really. Sure, you could have fit a rack of heavies, but the real issues with faxes come in 2 flavors: jump-in, and neuts. Capital batteries protect against the second better than heavy boosters do (and don’t suck up all your fleet hangar space), and the first poor bastards in the door were always going to be shredded on jump-in if they triage and their enemy’s at all competent.
It is not a nerf to only respond to a buff elsewhere with a buff to the specific ship of a set meant to counter the primary second order effect of a buff elsewhere.
It is a targeted buff to the ship meant to be tanky out of that set.
I’m not going grrr miners, but saying “make them yet more distinct, so they all have a proper usecase, and maybe, maybe people will actually bother tanking mining ships reasonably”
Less faxes means more fighting imho.
Ganking is already so hard on live support since the removal of bumping. I dont get it. You guys have literally nerfed High Sec ganking of freighters without ever gigving it a buff since 2008ish. Having a little damage buff would be rather welcome.
However, freighter ehp will get buffed regardless because HS ganking doesnt matter to CCP, so I personally wont bother writing a wall of text. Pretty certain non of the devs will read it or even remotely give a ■■■■ anyways.
Well, the damage buff only applies to short range ammo, excluding exotic plasma -so when it comes to optimal ships, only the vindi will get a buff. Plus, shield leshaks might be a thing of the past since they already required a fair amount of bling to get their tank up to snuff pre-patch. Then on top of that, we’ll need to tweak some fits away from efficiency and towards tank, and/or roll logi heavy. So, I doubt site times will go down (well, at least for shield communities. Armor communities get to keep their leshaks, so the downsides won’t be as bad for them).
I fly a bunch of logi, and, as far as incursions are concerned, I’, honestly kind of excited by the change. I mean, I’m not thrilled about possibly losing income, but I never look at the clock when flying logi light, and, get bored and distracted when things are going too smoothly. Of course, I am less optimistic when it comes to logi in PvP, but we’ll see.
Not necessarily. It just means when there IS a fight, there will likely be more dead ships on either side.
Still waiting to see what conflict drivers CCP will put in to encourage fights in the first place.
Since when has Init needed a reasonable chance of survival to go balls deep for Valhalla? 
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.
You give the impression that you do care about the miners and ganking. In fact, you seem to care way more than most of the miners.
So in order to make an absurd amount of ISK, you might need to spend an absurd amount of ISK? 
How is bumping removed?
Suicide ibis with civilan point is all you need to reset the timer for another 3 min… For any group that even are half awake its still on like donkey kong…
So git gud!
Gosh, it’s almost like people can understand that a playstyle other than their own has value. Human beings have empathy and rational thought… who’d’a thunk it.
If you need bumping to gank, you are not a good ganker. Bumping is entirely optional and completely unnecessary to gank things successfully and with limited numbers of people. You are completely unreasonable when you claim that the removal of bumping when it wasn’t really removed in the first place. You still have 3 minutes to bump a target and get your people undocked from the structure in system. If you cannot manage that, you are not competent enough.
Furthermore, ganking has not received any buff? Considering that you need no more than 6-8 Taloses to gank an unbumped freighter these days, I would very much like to know what kind of buff you want to see to make ganking anymore viable? What do you want? Gank a freighter with one Tornado volley like any T1 hauler? You are unreasonable like a small child if you thin that is needed for ganking.
I already dropped 2 bill on my fit.