-
Kiting ships don’t need buffs. They’re already pretty dominate when it comes to small gang.
-
And this is a boost that’ll encourage people to brawl over kiters, how? The ehp of nearly everything that isn’t a kiting ship has been nerfed, while kiting ships haven’t lost DPS or EHP, making brawlers easier targets of long range kiting ships.
15% damage to ammo that wasn’t hitting kiters in the first place isn’t going to help. -
/4 How is this good? EVE already is heavily slanted towards how many Jita recruits you can jam into a standardized, cheap ships, pushed into fleet, anchor up and press F1. We should be encouraging people to leave large groups, forming smaller groups to encourage conflict and fighting. And one of the things a small group can do is use expensive, high quality doctrines that are out of reach of mass F1 blobs to even the playing field a bit and fight outnumbered.
Removing tools to fight outnumbered is just pushing that numbers are the only thing that matters. -
The Muninn is one of the few mass fleet doctrines that only uses a single resist mod, relying on extremely high speed, small sig, and long range to survive.
Because of this, the resist nerf barely touches it. It’s EHP is down by around 4%, A negligible amount.
Anything else relies on 2-3 resist mods. A 2 invul/1 EM ward Eagle, loses nearly 15% ehp. Ferox loses over 10%.
The damage reduction to the Muninn of around 10% alpha, is made up for the reduction of everything elses EHP by at least 10%.
Other than losing around 10km optimal range to 80km, nothing has changed for it. -
There’s more targets of suicide ganking than just haulers. Missioning ships and miners have lost a lot of EHP too, making them easier targets.
So you think if mission ships suddenly have an increase in ganking, they are just going to add HP because of feedback?
Yeah, I don’t think so. They have a lot more tools available than just HP buffs. That’s just the one they’ve chosen for Freighters, and they’ll look at the data for ganking to see if there is a problem (not necessarily player feedback, since that doesn’t always represent things well).
How do you know what most freighter pilots do if you only see the ones who die?
Yeah, he probably should have written “most stupid freighter pilots deserve to be ganked, for being stupid”. But there are plenty of smart ones playing the game too.
Dime-a-dozen fits are what drive small gang PVP for many. I’m not going to say most, but certainly a not-insignificant chunk. It also gives courage to newbies who otherwise might not be inclined to expend their limited funds if they think they’re going to be blown up (without becoming an unthinking cog in the machine of a superpower) but still want to contribute meaningfully. This is especially true of PVP at FW complexes (other than Open).
I think miners and indys/transports should get HP buffs as well. Not combat ships (other than T1/Faction BSes), though, with one exception: it would not be unreasonable for all ships should getting base HP buffs across the board, to a lesser extent than certain classes that get extra buffs, only because HP buffs don’t compensate for the repair multiplier offered by resist modules, so it would actually make sense for global buffs in addition to stronger class-specific buffs. Whether ships previously self repaired, benefitted from logi, or neither, no amount of HP buff will fully compensate for a missing repair multiplier, so some love is better than none. (The “neither” cannot be understated in its relevance.) Not saying across the board base HP buff should happen, but if it does happen some ships should get more love than others: transports and mining ships to be sure.
I was thinking more along the lines of Indys/Transports and Barges, not missioning ships. I don’t think missioning ships necessarily need compensatory buffs (save for global buffs + extra buffs for certain classes). I think the inability to do certain PVE people could solo previously but not post-patch forces people to fleet, which is a good thing 
have a support subcap fleet around to peel those neuters. Ez.
This is the good thing about CCP’s approach in going to the data and looking at the health of ganking in highsec.
It doesn’t matter what the bulk of us think, because we all have our own bias and if CCP see a problem, then they’ll take action, including if missioning ships suddenly have a spike in gank loss.
I don’t think CCP will take any option off the table at the moment, including locking alphas green/yellow in highsec, changing the stats of popular gank ships (although that has other consequences for non-gank ships), etc.
But buffing the HP of T1 industrials, barges/exhumers etc. also has other consequences (there are already some good uses of these ships in pvp for example). So I think CCP will take more targeted action if it is needed and not just HP buffs.
So it’s all good. When I saw the comment I thought I might have missed some other follow up from CCP, but it was just an extrapolation of what Rise said above.
Resist nerf is not the only thing that is getting changed with surgical strike. There is also 15% damage buff to T2 close range ammo on close range weapons (Hail, Void, Rage, Conflagration).
커맨드쉽에게 접근 범위 ??km 이내에 특정 레지 감소 커맨드 부여 아군/적군 관계 없이
예를들어
아머 커맨드에 EM 레지 감소 - 20% 오라, 범위 80km
사이트 안의 스폰된 렛이 락온된 대상에게 TH 레지 감소 - 30% 효과
방법은 많음
레지 관통탄(레지 - 10%) 새로운 타입의 탄
Goodbye Ninazu… its been a good run! QQ
Bit surprised by this comment, all T1 ships sub-BS will be more fragile than before and more expensive to tank. Marauders will now get the scan res buff but could also use a buff to their resists
And what would be your brilliant suggestion to make PvE content more friendly to new players? Even after the nerf, I’m sure that most low-end PvE sites, including most non-burner level 4 missions will be runnable with T2 tanks. I’m worried about high-end PvE content - burner missions, incursions, C3 and above wormhole sites, T4/T5 Abyssal sites, 10/10 DED complexes - neither of those thing were new player friendly and some of them may not be runnable after changes even with blingiest fits.
Incursions will be perfectly fine. HQ’s used to get run by fleets that were 50% BC, before the BC buffs of late. I’ve seen things like Shield Harbingers run HQ’s and survive taking whole room agro. They just might not be able to run 5 damage mod fits any more.
Ccp! Please! Don’t kill active capital gameplay! U can ballance that by restricting using dst’s fllet hanghars whole in siege/triage and have active aggression timer or smth so capitals can use what they brought on field only
No one runs 5 damage mod fits for much of anything. It’s 6 for vindis and 4 for everything else.
Also, as the person who made the ferrox work in 2013, agreed.
Probably all the unsubs they got in 24h.
Read the update…
I have thought this way for years. Then just offer a mining rig (limited to one and some interesting penalty), which generates the options/choices between shield or drone rigging.
You can search and find killed ones that are actively tanked. Or look for Niballe, to see that tanking is irrelevant.
Although I am surprised at a lack of nerf to mining power, rather than a specific focus on mineral distribution/reduction.
The hulk had its resist/level nerfed a couple of years ago, and had always been anaemic in grid.
Yes, my proposal causes a problem of tank on caps not being nerfed enough. So, how about plan two: To compensate for the loss of resists, effectiveness of all non-capital local shield boosters and armor repairers should be increased to keep the amount of tankable dps roughly the same. This way caps still get nerfed, and subs still get less ehp meaning they still get alphaed or ganked more easily, while minimally affecting high-end PvE fits.
Have you considered that maybe they also wanted to impact those high end solo PvE fits and get people doing most of that content in groups, the way nearly all of it was originally done?