i have seen you make great changes fozzie

some were in the beginning creeping me out but in the end it all went good
im still ok with all the changes
BS changes and the laser changes are a nice thign to start aswell

but kicking alot of ships in the nuts that cost a alot to train buy flie etc,
those are the onces being kicked in the nuts unprovoked

but i will see what happens

remember neuting the hardners is also killing resist recently to the bare hull resists
thsi might be a bit to much i advice to look at each ship itself and not nerf the full rack of ships out there that have bonus to resists

and then see what happens a bit more math and less trial and error perhaps
they get paid for it really good i expect a bit more care when its hitting a large group at once

rest im just going to sit this one out and see what happens

Why not make a new ewar type that lowers remote reps on the target? Even that would be better than this change.

No argument that this particular area needs adjustment, we are just arguing over where the adjustment should be made, and how. As it stands, the current suggestion of the 1% nerf to hull bonuses is deeply unpopular with those people who actually fly those hulls. CCP should consider this significant. I am hoping that this nerf will be implemented in another fashion.

So sayeth the Minmatar player, who stands to gain in every way from this, as opposed to a small time Rokh pilot, who will be drastically effected negatively by this change. I don't run in megablobs, or often have access to an OGB and/or booster.

Probably nothing except CCP said they didn't want to raise the self repping bonuses.

And please show more love the the Nighthawk and Vulture.

Don't lower resists make alpha-only strategies even more powerful?

If the goal is to weaken alpha-strikes, how about adding modules or game mechanics that reduce possibility of, or the impact of, a massive amount of damage incoming at the same time?

Oh yet further destroy solo and small gang PvP by taking our ships that give us time to survive and gtfo of outnumbered engagements. Perhaps I should run a t3 booster to compensate because that obviously puts more money in ccp's pocket for the 2nd account that's required....

Then why not increase the active tank bonus from 7.5% to 10%, like range bonuses? Oh, right, CCP hates tough tanks on ships.

How I fit my ship is very relevant, because how much actual raw dps is sliced off at the end of the calculation is dependent on where my resists are at the time. I have already done the math for you, explaining to you how this works.

Indeed, it is this phenomena that has directly lead to the discussion and planned implementation of the proposed nerf. If what I was saying was false, we wouldn't be having this conversation. After all, a 13 Dps bonus will eat thru your ship a lot more slowly than a 30 DPS bonus, even though both bonuses are given by the same proportional stat adjustment.

Also, the previous example uses the same DPS against two different resistances. No difference in original damage was made. So I'm now starting to wonder if you are even reading what I'm writing.

Thrown in for the tears or was this really an issue with these hull?

If you would think for a while you would notice that this won't actually address the problem too well and also creates even more issues.

There could be 90% reduction in capitals ehp or 90% reduction in moongoo with some random excuse and your kind of people would be here telling how great it is.

Some people said prophecy is better at active tanking than the gallente active tanking BCs but that's only because it gets one more lowslot than the two. But in the contrary it gets 100 less dps in such fit to balance it out. Even if utilizing the excess lowslot for damage modifier it gets slightly worse tank but still can't beat the two gallente ships in dps.

I think you are making a serious mistake, and that is based on the underlined part. What you say is definately related, but i would argue that the issue lie in the opposite of what was underlined:

The unchecked power of alpha and numerical scaling is what has cemented the popularity of buffer-RR and dumbed the game down to alpha-only strategies.

It's disheartening to see that CCP do not learn from their mistakes.

We do not have alpha-only strategies because that is the only way to deal with powerful resistances, buffers and RR; we have alpha-only strategies because that has gradually become the most powerful way to deal with any resistance, buffer or RR. The buffer-RR tanking strategies splashing over into Carriers is simply the result of buffer-projection scaling to the next level. This does not provide alternatives to subcapital blobs any more than the HP-nerf provided alternatives to supercapital blobs. The king is dead, long live the king.

Lowering buffers lower the barrier of entry to alpha-only strategy, but it does not encourage other tactics, smaller ships, smaller gangs or fighting undermanned. The first few months of BC3 should have taught you this. What happened to all those (smaller-) gangs roaming the map in BC3?

Most of the interesting smaller-scale action (think: RnK movies) in the game involve defensible gangs, utilization of other effects (EW, control) than sheer volley damage and sticking one's neck out in order to overcome the status quo. When that status quo exist you also see all those other inventive ways to deal with buffers and RR.

Look at any undermanned action and you will see that they favour highly defensible gangs (100mn, cloaking, drops etc.).

It's a terrible shame to see you getting it backwards, again, and heading towards implementing changes that feed the blob, discourage undermanned engagement (so we get more "nah, they had more dudes, let's not even try to fight them") and send more smaller entities from the holistic interactive sandbox and into peer-active themeparks... again.

Baddons, Rokhs, Loki, Tengu, Archons et. al. are favoured because too many ships or weapons Alpha other options even easier and tackling people have become far too easy so it's just a matter of sitting still and projecting both tackle and damage. Who sticks their neck out, take that risk chasing after those targets to land that precious tackle anymore? Who grabs that extreme damage SR weapon and overheat his guns like a madman to break through anymore? Now, we'll have even less reason to do it.

If you want to switch-up the paradigm you do it by affecting the offensive power of damage projection first; improve counters to bubbles, points, webs and painters - depreciate alpha, reach and ammunition flexibility. Then couple that with bottom-up economy, changes to infrastructure and all those prioritized issues that we expect you to fix by this summer.

Is that why i have more likes than you?

If you take exception to my arguments...

Here's a novel idea:
Try to raise some points against them, leave that safety railing and come discuss the topic in earnest.

What do you expect to come out of this change? I am very curious about that.

I am giving you the benefit of doubt here and don't write you off as that stupid, so take this opportunity to plead your case. I am assuming that there is a very specific balance you must be referring to because the content-driving "balance" in EVE right now is Alpha on free platforms (Goons) vs. Supers (PL). If you'd refer to some balance in general, that would be it.

Can we please have all local rep armor bonuses transferred to 4% armor resistance bonuses??? Who uses local reps anymore anyway??? I'd rather not take a lot of damage than repair a lot of damage.

Remove this, nerf that...you killing this game and people do not have reason to play it more because they always apset and feel, theys skills and time now worth nothing.
If you want to create some balance - create new ships with new abbilities and bonuses, and leave Amarr ships like they are, and simply create new ships, or new guns. But no, you from BMW try to do AUDI and from AUDI try to do some chinies cheap copy, and in the end after few changes we will all get some metal scrabs.

Try to create new ships, and not modify 10 times 8 years old ships.
If we will have ships with new abbility - we will have ballance in game by this new combinations of fleets and not reusing 100 times same tactics and after your "ballance" we need to find how the f**k we can do the same now...

That's true! High resistances are better than lot of Hitpoints!
You will quickly understand the effect of these change when a two undred ships fleet will alpha something. If beforr you had the hope to survive enough time to get reps, this time is over.

There is a small number of alliances capable to create such fleet, their domination sould be reinforced by this change.

Good Job CCP.

I ask myself something, why should we come with logi as they will have nothing to repair? We should perharps come with only more BS to have a better alpha.