I can promise you that we're committed to eating our vegetables and making adjustments either up or down based on our best estimation of what the game needs. We won't decrease the power of items and ships unless we deem it necessary but we also won't forget that our job is to manage the health of the game over the long term.

Finally, the long-awaited Eagle nerf is here!

If you want a tanked mining vessel, the procurer & skiff fit that role. Oh god you might have to sacrafice some yield!

You're already proposing applying the resistance nerf to some widely-used ships (especially the Rokh, which has an entire fleet doctrine based around it). For pity's sake, get some data on what happens to those ships before applying the resistance reduction to dozens of ships, some of which haven't even been touched by the rebalancing brush - or at the very least, don't apply the nerf to a ship that hasn't yet been rebalanced. Make the 5% to 4% part of the rebalancing process, not an across-the-board carpet-bombing nerf to ships that might actually end up broken by it.

Otherwise, there's too much of a chance that some of those broken ships will get lost in the shuffle of the massive changes.

So now we've:
1) Removed the 8th low slot of every Amarr Battleship
and
2) Removed 1% of the extra resist that would of probably kept them balanced.

Personally, I don't see a need to remove that 1%, I was killing Amarr perfectly fine.

Also, doing it to capitals is silly, it's a lot of time/effort to build them, and a lot of ISK to buy them. Removing a percentage of their bonuses just seems a bit dodgy.

Why not increase the value of the local rep bonus instead of reducing the resistance bonus? These two bonuses are designed for different purposes, wouldn't increasing local rep bonuses make these two bonuses more distinct from one another? If the resistance bonus is too powerful, relative to the local rep bonus, it seems logical to me to increase the local rep bonus.

Instead of thinking "I don't want to use my local rep ship because the resistance bonus ship is too strong." Think, "I don't want to use my local rep ship because the local rep is too weak."

Gotta admit, Fozzie's math and logic here makes sense. While I feel that some ships with the 5% resist bonus (Abaddon) are currently very well balanced, I also agree that these bonuses seem more powerful, and more flexible, than most others.

I feel like some of the ships seeing reduced resistances (HICTORS especially) will need some kind of small boost to their other stats in order to remain competitive with their peers.

GÇóConverting the resist bonuses to HP buffer bonuses would be much easier to balance as it affects a smaller set of mechanics, but that also removes what I think are a very iconic set of bonuses. The fact that the resistance bonus is so versatile is something we like about it, it's just the fact that it is so good at so many things that causes it to overshadow other bonuses. We also plan to continue using straight HP bonuses in the future as a defensive bonus with its own flavour distinct from the other defensive bonus options.

1. Um because they are. Hint: I'm not talking about fleet blobs (small scale = better tank and better dps, yet it's still okay as a fleet bs with higher alpha).
2. And? That's the idea of the bonus, you rep less but get more of a buffer, how is this an issue for the rokh? And when I talk about shield: passive tank essentially equals buffer tank, and no, no one brings a passive tanked cal BS to pvp EXCEPT in blolbs.
3.Damage/rof mods ADD to an already extremely good bonus. I can play that game too.
4.Nerfing a couple of modules is far less of an impact thant nerfing 44 ships that didn't need nerfing. RR BS fleets are much rarer than say 44 DIFFERENT SHIPS.
5.And they alsways will be. Fleets are buffer, small scale pvp is active, why can't we have both?? It's not like the rokh can do much else.