These changes are clearly aimed at some sort of simplified code and has nothing to do with balance of game mechanics.

Is it good, is it bad? It's irrelevant.

Smaller engagements revolve around tackle. Larger engagements revolve around fleet alpha. Gank beats tank, it always has in EVE. Do what you want.

The question is, what are we trying to solve? what problem comes up that is the result of a resist bonus on these ships?

So while a 37.5% rep bonus increases effective repping by 37.5%, and a 50% armor hp bonus increases effective hitpoints by 50%, a 25% resistance bonus actually increases both by 33% (not the 25% that might be assumed at first glance).
In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus.
This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.

To answer this question, let's go back to the original post in this thread:

For example: The difference between an active tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon - at active tanking - is minimal. The difference between a buffer tanking Prophecy and Myrmidon is disproportionately large.

Except that the differences between an active tanking Prophecy and a similar Myrmidon are that the Myrm is far more vulnerable to alpha, because the Prophecy gets free buffer with its 33% bonused active tank, and it also gets 33% better reps from anything that decides to augment its local tank.

Local tank bonuses come with downsides. Resist tank bonuses don't. That's the problem.

It's only a "problem" if you assume all bonuses need to be exactly equivalent.

Even if the resist bonus was arguably a better bonus, I still saw allot more myrmidons than prophecys. You would think that was impossible after reading that fairly myopic discussion of percentages of armor repped.

I saw more myrms because under the old philosophy they didn't try to do a 1 to 1 coorespondence on every trait of the ship and every piece of equipment. They let certain things be out of balance and balanced the races in other ways. Now there is no talk about the general balancing of races. Its each and every ship and module and indeed every bonus on every ship and module must be exactly equivalent.

The most obvious indicator of this trend may have been when they were going to have tracking disruptors work on missiles. I am glad ccp dropped that. Not because missiles might not need some balancing, but because making everything the same is not good for those who like the complexity of eve.

I am hoping that it is exactly what they said it is, they were trying to balance some mechanics in the game and realized that the resist bonus were causing a disproportionate impact. They needed to fix this first then, they can fix the ral issue. This is a reasonable long term goal, but from the players point of view it more like, hey my ship was subpar before and now you are nerfing it ?

Nobody ever had a problem killing ships with resist bonuses. If anything they only served to give people a false sense of security. No ship in EVE is immune to gank. Again, this seems to me to be a change based on some formulation factor they can't come to at the server end. A Dust one no doubt. I really don't see this factoring in to more or less killmails.

It's only a "problem" if you assume all bonuses need to be exactly equivalent.

Even if the resist bonus was arguably a better bonus, I still saw allot more myrmidons than prophecys. You would think that was impossible after reading that fairly myopic discussion of percentages of armor repped.

If a TD for missiles was made it hardly does anything to bridge the mechanics of missiles and turrets. Also, as I recall it wasn't scrapped, but delayed pending a more detailed look at large missile systems.

Also having more options, such as adding missile affecting ewar, doesn't reduce complexity. It increases it.

Given that neither of us are designers for CCP, the only answer to that question is to look at the current design of bonuses, and the direction of the design, and ask which assumption better reflects the design methodology that CCP uses. Even in superficially asymmetrical cases like rate of fire vs. damage bonuses, the slightly greater damage of the ROF bonus is paid for in increased ammo and (when relevant) cap use. There is no payment for the resist bonus. It's as good or better at everything.

You can say, balance the ship and not the bonus, but it's easier to balance the ships if you have more-or-less consistent bonuses, with drawbacks proportional to their advantages. (This is why so many Amarr pilots hated the -10% bonus to cap use--its "advantage" was that you didn't neut your cap out with your own weapons; the drawback was that it took the place of one of two ship bonuses. Um, yay? Maybe if lasers were all that and a bag of chips again..

Sure, the Myrm has other advantages. Speaking as someone who's been known to tool around in a space chicken, one of them is that the Myrm doesn't fly like a damn battleship.

If it were that I'd question why we haven't seen the change sooner, like when dust was integrated into TQ. Your reasoning feels somewhat like grasping at straws. In the end the bonus will function the same with a lower number. That being the case I don't see any conceivable way that a server problem would be the cause of it. Unless you think Dust code is somehow allergic to counting in multiples of 5?

The hardeners will now have more to start with when they are added. In the case of Shield, you can add 55% of 100 for the first one or 55% of 75 or 80. An EM hardener on a Drake for example will now render 44% rather than 41.25% assuming you have BC to 5.

Current: 75x.55=41.25 & New: 80x.55=44.00. 2.75% of the lost 5% will be given back with a T2 Active hardener and from aan EVE PvP perspective I doubt you are seeing a full volley difference in when that ship goes pop.

I may have misunderstood. I don't think they were going to make a new module but instead just make the current tracking disruptor work on missiles. If I am right it was going to bridge missiles and turrets and reduce the complexity. They would probably need to rename that mod a "damage minimizer" or something that would reflect the more simple minded approach.

Not 5 but odd numbers in general because they create decimal values more often. That's really not core to anything I am saying though. What I have continued to say and will say again is, it isn't a game changer. Except in missions you never know what your fight will look like anyway. The resist bonus is still an Omni armor or shield resist bonus. The hardeners will now have more to start with when they are added. In the case of Shield, you can add 55% of 100 for the first one or 55% of 75 or 80. An EM hardener on a Drake for example will now render 44% rather than 41.25% assuming you have BC to 5.

Current: 75x.55=41.25 & New: 80x.55=44.00. 2.75% of the lost 5% will be given back with a T2 Active hardener and from aan EVE PvP perspective I doubt you are seeing a full volley difference in when that ship goes pop.

Myrm: Speed - 145, Align - 12.8, Mass - 13,100,000
Proph: Speed - 150, Align - 12.6, Mass - 12,900,000

Why not just modify remote rep bonuses to resists?

The higher the resist, the more difficult it is to rep it.

This change please. Not the 4% nerf across the board.

Doesn't affect local rep effectiveness increase and if you include that you may as well get rid of the bonus and replace with HP. That said I'm still not understanding why people want a less versatile bonus.

Modelling it you can see that on the margin high resists cause an issue in the interaction with repping. So to really fix repping CCP need to look at resists. Which is one thing. But nerfing ships that aren't OP is another. Hence, a) why not make the changes they want to repping first and then go to resists, and b) why not keep the affected ships where they are for survival under fire by giving them percentually larger buffers. Say around +10%. Which will also make them forgiving for lower skilled players. So CCP are not saying that EHP are the issue. But nevertheless, they've chosen to blanket nerf a wide range of ships that don't need it. Some members of which rely on their super EHP to balance other disadvantages!

Replacing the resist bonus completely with an HP bonus is not the same thing. Instead of pulling in the margin they'd have changed the play of the affected ships altogether. And much for the worse IMO given the versatility of the resist bonus. Hence I'm only suggesting a one-off offset for the nerf. But whatever. You might as well expect these ships to come down to 3% and sell them now.

Sigh. I'm repeating myself. Out.

Is repping the issue? That's not the impression I get here. If the interaction of repping and resist bonused ships is an issue it numerically falls on the 44 ships affected as being the issue since repping still works on the rest of the hulls in game, which is the majority of combat ships So why rewrite repping when it really isn't the culprit.

This is why I said we may as well convert to an HP bonus. As you seem to desire it preserves and perhaps would further increase EHP. In addition it leaves RR alone for all the other ships that do not have resist bonuses and aren't problematic. Remember that those ships raise their resists as well through mods to enhance the affect of RR yet aren't mentioned. This means RR enhanced by resists in and of itself is NOT broken and doesn't need fixed.

Unless you are suggesting ONLY the bonus given portion of resists be penalized in RR. But again, if we take away the versatility of the bonus and a raw HP bonus would give MORE EHP, why not convert to that? We rid ourselves of the ships breaking RR while increasing their buffer to compensate for the loss in versatility at the same time and avoid "fixing" RR which in isolation isn't broken, thus avoiding actually breaking the same mechanic on ships which RR is not broken now.

To put it simply, some people use reppers and can care less for EHP.