|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.06.25 00:11:00 -
[1]
Lovely thread guys, please keep all amarr related whines in this thread, so the rest of the forum is usefull, and all the crap ehm... interesting suggestion i mean is collected in a single thread.
|
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 21:03:00 -
[2]
This thread is a disgrace for the ship&module forum... really.
|
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 10:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lord WarATron This thread shows the proof and Justifaction for some sort of boost.
lol just lol
|
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 11:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Gariuys lol just lol
An extremly eloquent and convicing counter-argumentation indeed.
If I had any hope that you could be convinced, I'd try, well that's also assuming I'd take a day off to do it ofcourse. But I think you're pretty much set in stone in your opinion, you and your brethern in this thread. Besides, it's done to death.
|
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 13:17:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Gariuys on 16/08/2006 13:21:48 Edited by: Gariuys on 16/08/2006 13:20:41
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Gariuys If I had any hope that you could be convinced, I'd try, well that's also assuming I'd take a day off to do it ofcourse. But I think you're pretty much set in stone in your opinion, you and your brethern in this thread. Besides, it's done to death.
Afraid the only opinion set in stone is yours.
The amarr core problem is quite simple.
Considerably more armortanking ships than shield tanking ships. Even if we ignore the whole medslot utility issues it's about 66% armor, 33% shieldtankers. Simply because we have 2 armortanking races, 1 shieldtanking race and 1 half armor, half shieldtanking one. It's pretty obvious that a race which has no real alternative weapon systems and is generally weak vs armor and strong vs shields has a disadvantage there.
Now, pre-RMR this wasn't much of a problem because armor tanking had no viaable all-resistance harderner. So standart setup was 3 active harderners, therm, kin, ecp, resulting in about 60% resistances in all damagetypes.
Now, though, with the passive tanking boost an 2 EAN2 + DC setup is *more* effective. Resulting in 80% EM and about 60% in the other resistances.
So, please, try to explain how that *isn't* a considerable damage nerf for lasers compare to other weapon systems. Thats a bit harder than "lol". And in case you want to bring up the exp resistance issue for shields with invul field for minnies jim mcgregor style please remember the that we do not have a 50:50 shield:armortanker distribution.
The shield/armor tanker distribution has a lot to do with the whole gank vs tank problem EVE has, which is the relative uselessness of tanking in general compaired to dealing damage, and it has to do with the relative usefullness of ECM vs tanking ( more specificially shield tanking ) Edit: and it's got a lot to do with what meds are used for in fleets other then ECM ( sensor/tracking boosts. ) And the stacking nerf... not a lot of usefull things that can go into your other low slots besides 3 damage mods at most.
It's got **** ALL to do with the Amarr being underpowered.
|
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.21 13:17:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Gariuys on 21/08/2006 13:19:28
Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 21/08/2006 09:06:56 I dont even fly with EANM II anymore... the kinetic resists are abit too low, considering all the gallente ships you encounter out there. Definently more gallente ships than amarr ships out there in my experience.
Edit: Also kinetic is often the damage type choosen by caldari ships.
I fly all mine with 1 EANM at the very least... but I still got 70%+ across the board, differences are between 5-10% of each other, with explosive being the lowest normally... and yes that's on t1 ships too.
Edit: Must note that I find it extremely ammusing that there are people that say there are ships that are designed to armour tank, when armour tanking was designed long after most those ships where ( since this is mostly regarding battleship balance ).
|
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 14:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 21/08/2006 17:49:10
Ah never mind... I dont want to argue in this thread anyway.
Yeah, personally I feel teaching a hungry lion how to fish while being covered in a thick layer of fresh blood would be a more productive use of my time.... accomplish very little on the learning front, but atleast the lions fed.
|
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.25 09:19:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Nyxus
Originally by: inSpirAcy
Originally by: Nyxus No problem. Thanks go out to NB for making the uberest spreaksheet known to Eve. Kudos to Meridius and Sarmaul for the graphs.
Umm... ok, call me stupid, but why do you have large blasters on the Ishtar and Deimos?
Because I linked to the wrong graph. I liked the ones with the descriptions better. Didn't notice the incorrect weaponry. Linked to the correct weapon graph.
Ironically, the Ishtar just got more uber than it already was. <sighs>
Still, its an interesting graph nonetheless. If anyone wants to see the 5 turret zealot against all the other Hacs I can do that too. Please note how Fury missiles on a Cerberus makes Scorch pointless. Better damage, better range, no tracking. I can't wait to see the "high damage" assault missiles.
The only thing that keeps me hanging on is the idea that Assault Missiles can go on my revamped Sarmaul style Khanid ships.
Nyxus
the only thing that that graph shows is that the cerberus is horribly broken... just like I said would happen when people where *****ing about a boost to it....
|
|
|
|