Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
26
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:19:00 -
[181] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Reducing speed by mere 10-15% is killing? lol
Back in 2005 and early 2006 they trippled HP. Now that was a kill. Active tanks became very niche precisely since then. Oh, wait, b00ns didn't even play back then, so what can they know...
Still, just a simple fact: my Prophecy had 2k armour HP when I first bought it. Nowadays it's over 6k. Oh yeah? Did you also fly it against hordes of 200-1000 drake fleets? Did it have as much damage as an oracle or tornado? Were BS as popular back then as they are now? No? But what do i know ~.~ |
H0RR0R P0WNZSH0W VACUUM500
DEAD BEAT H0RR0R SH0W CULT III
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:21:00 -
[182] - Quote
Is this like a massive troll or something? |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
674
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:27:00 -
[183] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Reducing speed by mere 10-15% is killing? lol
Back in 2005 and early 2006 they trippled HP. Now that was a kill. Active tanks became very niche precisely since then. Oh, wait, b00ns didn't even play back then, so what can they know...
Still, just a simple fact: my Prophecy had 2k armour HP when I first bought it. Nowadays it's over 6k. Oh yeah? Did you also fly it against hordes of 200-1000 drake fleets? Did it have as much damage as an oracle or tornado? Were BS as popular back then as they are now? No? But what do i know ~.~ Suggesting EHP values should somehow reflect degree of retardization is counter-productive by definition. Blobtards can form an entity of 2k units the other day, so what? 14 |
Rajji Jones
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:34:00 -
[184] - Quote
This is insanity. There is a reason active tanking will never work for large gang pvp. As soon as you are in a situation where you don't have time to get off 5 or 6 rep cycles, you would get more ehp out of buffer mods than your reppers will give you.
In large gang pvp primaries fall fast.
The only way to make active tanking viable in these situations would be to buff it so heavily that active tank ships would be indestructible in small gang pvp... It would be like noob ships with logi support fighting it out.
Plus, if you are going to fit a repper, in a large gang fitting remote reppers and spider tanking gives the gang way more ehp than local reppers could.
I think this is just a fact of the nature of the game that needs to be accepted. Local reps only work in situations where you take damage slowly enough to get a lot of rep cycles off.... 1 v 1, small gangs, and pve.
All this change is going to do is make fast heavy hitting ships a thing of the past. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
674
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:37:00 -
[185] - Quote
Rajji Jones wrote:All this change is going to do is make fast heavy hitting ships a thing of the past. Just like The Great Nano fix, right? 14 |
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
694
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:49:00 -
[186] - Quote
Rajji Jones wrote:All this change is going to do is make fast heavy hitting ships a thing of the past.
Fast + Heavy Hitting + Defensive. Pick two?
|
Shade Millith
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:55:00 -
[187] - Quote
Stupid change.
1) Caldari are already natively the slowest faction, and even with armor slowing them down, a lot of other factions are still faster, and we're now even slower?
2) Doesn't make any sense story wise, as shields don't increase mass or weight.
3) Increased sig was a great way to balance fast/shield ships. They're fast, but easier to hit. Actually meant that the pilot had to do evasive maneuvers to get to their target.
4) Active tanking is still almost completely useless, doesn't change anything.
I'm not for this massive, uncalled for nano nerf, at all. Nanos these days are fine, they're speedy, but not too fast and can be dealt with easily.
Stop homogenizing your game for your misguided ideas. |
Bouh Revetoile
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:55:00 -
[188] - Quote
The goal is not to make active tanking blob proof, goal is to balance armor vs shield and active tank vs buffer tank. Right now, unless your ship is bonused or very fast, you don't have any advantage with an active tank in regards to the drawbacks. Active tank should be better in small scale engagement ; right now, active tank is only good on bonused hull, and even then, you often see them buffer tanked. Do you realized that a lot of people prefer to get rid of one of their bonus for a buffer ?
By the way, a blob going 20% slower will still be a blob, and that will not change anything to blob. Only people crying are minmatar/angel pilots which will be less winmatar (not by so much by the way).
The change may not be perfect, but it's a perfect start. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
251
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:01:00 -
[189] - Quote
Xython wrote:Rajji Jones wrote:All this change is going to do is make fast heavy hitting ships a thing of the past. Fast + Heavy Hitting + Defensive. Pick two?
You're ******* dumb. Go look at the EHP of your average nano cruiser. And their DPS. Notice how they have ~20-25k ehp and do less dps than a Drake outside 10km? |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
130
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:05:00 -
[190] - Quote
As someone who solo roams ~on an alt~ I already active shield tank. I have yet to master active armor tanking, because finding the right fits for my current piloting skills and my character skills are a work in progress.
1.) Blaster ferox's and Solo Cyclones are awesome. F the haters. Everyone who solo roams finds these at some point. 2.) I hear brutixes are the logic step for active armor tanking. I'm going to give it a try this weekend. 3.) The shieldcane/welpcane really ruins most active tank situations. If you get more than one of them, you're done.
If you think active tanking is broken, please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FdO7pjMkY I use the ferox fit, and the rokh fit on my alt, and they absolutely rule. I've refined an autocannon Maelstrom (you'll see a similar one at the end), and cyclone as a minmatar version. If you need those fits, dig through the killmails.
They work. They are VERY vulnerable to neuts. CCP Please don't mess with neuts. The solo roamer is always vulnerable, promoting 3-5man gangs by letting them do their own thing is fun.
I would listen to the hatchery guys though, they seem to like their 15-20man nano roaming gangs..
No Troll: Goons don't only fly in 3x250man fleets. A lot of us like to do covert hotdrops, gate camps, small-medium gang roams. 5-15man is our current thing outside of fleet fights. The other day, I teamed up with some FA friends and convo'ed two bait ships for Dirt Nap Squad and asked them to hotdrop a 20man assault frigate fleet on us to see if we could kill them in our 6 hurricanes. We ended up dying, but it was fun as hell. No one was active tanked. Please don't immediately, categorically dismiss a point of view just because you think we blob 24x7. |
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
251
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:05:00 -
[191] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:The goal is not to make active tanking blob proof, goal is to balance armor vs shield and active tank vs buffer tank. Right now, unless your ship is bonused or very fast, you don't have any advantage with an active tank in regards to the drawbacks. Active tank should be better in small scale engagement ; right now, active tank is only good on bonused hull, and even then, you often see them buffer tanked. Do you realized that a lot of people prefer to get rid of one of their bonus for a buffer ?
By the way, a blob going 20% slower will still be a blob, and that will not change anything to blob. Only people crying are minmatar/angel pilots which will be less winmatar (not by so much by the way).
The change may not be perfect, but it's a perfect start.
Except that active tanking will still be utter garbage, so really you're not "rebalancing tanking" at all. Nor are you penalizing large shield tanking ships, since they're already slow bricks, and a 20% reduction in their speed isn't going to change how they're used on the battlefield. All you're doing is nerfing nano cruisers / frigs. |
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:07:00 -
[192] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We would like to discuss possible changes to Armor / Shield rigs for Inferno
It would be the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking
Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing. First off, both active tanking and propulsion modules consume a lot of cap, thus I don't see how the speed + active model could be properly implemented.
Active tanking in pvp is very rare, it only really happens in 1 vs 1 brawling, and in such a situation it is only helpful if the active tank system is over-sized for the ship (think medium shield booster on a frigate). In which case the tanking system is going to take up a lot of slots and consume a lot of cap, leaving little or nothing for propulsion systems. CCP could make active tanking modules more powerful but there will still be a limit beyond which the only viable type of active tanking is logistics.
Quote:
Passive rigs: any kind of resistance, HP gain, shield recharge rate, shield powergrid reduction ri Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost ri As mentioned before by others: All forms of tanking heavily benefit from resistance.Thus any resistance rigs penalties should not be focused upon one type of tanking or simply should not have any penalties.
If CCP really want to fix tanking in EVE Online then: Make sure that tanking rigs and modules don't interfere with tanking or any faction concepts. For example no speed reduction for use of armor plates (instead go for acceleration and agility penalties)
|
Rynnik
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:07:00 -
[193] - Quote
CCP, have you thought about just biting the bullet and completely removing or trivializing rig penalities. Power creep is always a problem but I think it may be reasonable to consider a few of the other ideas thrown out here or previously considered. (I didn't read every previous post but) Some options could include and are not be limited to:
- Scrapping penalities completely (least desirable? don't dumb things down but it is an option). - Make them all fitting related penalities. - Make them all 'secondary stats' penalities like sensor strength, locking range, scan resolution, cargo space, number of lockable targets, warp speed, shield stats for armour or armour stats for shield (amount or resists or whatever).
Speed, DPS, sig radius, agility, capacitor, armour penalizing armour or shield penalizing shield, are the stats that need to be 'hyper' balanced at the ship level in my opinion and should be left off the respective rig 'penalty' lists. |
Protector X
United Society of Xziles
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:14:00 -
[194] - Quote
I got an idea, how about instead of messing with ships and modules we just add more skills!!!!
No im being serious, think about it, just add more skills we can train, skills on top of skills.
I know alot of skills have secondary tiers, but what about adding a third tier?
Theres a general concesus that active tanking is just bad in most pvp situations, and I totally agree, but heres my remedy, Add active tanking SKILLS, and i think the active tanking problem would then be solved.
My philosophy is more ships + more skills = more better.
|
Smodab Ongalot
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
99
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:32:00 -
[195] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:As someone who solo roams ~on an alt~ I already active shield tank. I have yet to master active armor tanking, because finding the right fits for my current piloting skills and my character skills are a work in progress. 1.) Blaster ferox's and Solo Cyclones are awesome. F the haters. Everyone who solo roams finds these at some point. 2.) I hear brutixes are the logic step for active armor tanking. I'm going to give it a try this weekend. 3.) The shieldcane/welpcane really ruins most active tank situations. If you get more than one of them, you're done. If you think active tanking is broken, please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FdO7pjMkYI use the ferox fit, and the rokh fit on my alt, and they absolutely rule. I've refined an autocannon Maelstrom (you'll see a similar one at the end), and cyclone as a minmatar version. If you need those fits, dig through the killmails. They work. They are VERY vulnerable to neuts. CCP Please don't mess with neuts. The solo roamer is always vulnerable, promoting 3-5man gangs by letting them do their own thing is fun. I would listen to the hatchery guys though, they seem to like their 15-20man nano roaming gangs.. No Troll: Goons don't only fly in 3x250man fleets. A lot of us like to do covert hotdrops, gate camps, small-medium gang roams. 5-15man is our current thing outside of fleet fights. The other day, I teamed up with some FA friends and convo'ed two bait ships for Dirt Nap Squad and asked them to hotdrop a 20man assault frigate fleet on us to see if we could kill them in our 6 hurricanes. We ended up dying, but it was fun as hell. No one was active tanked. Please don't immediately, categorically dismiss a point of view just because you think we blob 24x7.
Looks like goonswarm recruitment is slipping. This guy is much too articulate and well spoken to be a goon.
I'm fine with changes to "encourage" active tanking, but in general I can't except anything that would give a speed penalty for shields. It just doesn't make sense on any level.
I feel a need to follow "space physics", so penalties should be:
for any shield mod with a penalty: increased sig radius
for and armor mod with a penalty: increased mass/increased inertia(decreased modifier attribute)
why?
shields are energy based. So, looking onto something putting out more GJ (or whatever) of shields should be easier.
armor is mass based. So... they should add mass...
amiright? |
Kelleris
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:43:00 -
[196] - Quote
CCP, While I appreciate your willingness to upset the status quo...
WHY?
There were real differences in how shield and armor ships behaved. This would remove some of those differences. There is a multitude of other changes you could make to this game to make it better or even just more interesting. This one was an exceedingly poor choice.
Fix POSs and we can talk about goofing around with shield tanking module penalties... seriously... |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
252
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:57:00 -
[197] - Quote
If you try and fit up an armor-tanked Vigilant, you end up with a ship that does under 400 dps, tanks under 400 dps, and can't run its modules for more than 3.5 minutes. Oh and it's slow as butte (600m/s). Oh and it has an 11k ehp armor buffer.
So lets recap!
Skirmishable? No
Cap stable? No
Does enough DPS to kill your average Drake in under 10 minutes? Nope.jpg
Can tank more DPS than your average Drake can put out? Nope.png
Has a big buffer? Nope.svg
Yeah, active tanking is a swell idea. I, too, enjoy flying ships like this that can't tank more than one opponent (if that), have no buffer, and can't dictate range when your average nullsec "small gang" fight lasts for about 1-2 minutes before one side dogpiles 50 dudes in battlecruisers on top of the other. Don't forget that they're entirely dependent on cap booster charges (that they can't hold more than 12 of) to fight. That's really handy too.
Literally the only time an active tanking ship can possibly have an advantage over a buffer tanked ship (assuming the opposing force is competent and you're not in your own / neutral space) is in a 1v1. In a 1v1, an active tank ship is actually a lot better than a passively tanked one. So, for killing a lone ratter something like an active-repping Sacrilege might be pretty strong (assuming it does enough DPS to break the ratter's tank). In literally every other situation, a nano setup with a light buffer tank is superior, since it means you can engage things while maintaining some ability to get out when your target lights a cyno or a giant gang appears one system out. You give up some of your ability to 1v1 (anyone who's tried to gank ratters in a nano HAC knows how fragile they are) in exchange for the ability to dictate ranges and the ability to fight without needing constant resupplies of booster charges. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 00:21:00 -
[198] - Quote
On the shield side, things are even better! For a mere 1.6 billion isk (not including the price of a full set of low-grade Crystal implants) you, too, could have your very own Cynabal that deals and tanks ~330 dps. Includes a whopping 8k ehp shield buffer!
All you need to do is stack pirate implants, billion-isk deadspace shield boosters, and faction cap boosters + charges onto your 250m isk pirate hull and you, too, can have a ship that's useless for fighting more than one ship at a time. Although, in fairness, at least the Cynabal will still do over 600m/s! |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 00:23:00 -
[199] - Quote
Basically what I'm saying is that active tanking doesn't work acceptably at all on ships smaller than BCs except in very specific scenarios and using ridiculously expensive fits and boosting alts. |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 01:11:00 -
[200] - Quote
I'm not sure what this proposed change is intended to fix. It's easy to see what it breaks, but what does that fix?
The biggest problems with the current frigate line up (as well as many other sub BC size ships) are: 1. Vast speed differences among a ship class that is required to speed tank if anything bigger is on the field anywhere in range. 2. Many T1 frigates lack the mid and low slots to ever be competitive with other things that can be trained for in your first week of EVE.
The solution shouldn't be too hard: Even out / increase slot counts a bit. All frigates should be able to fit a prop mod and a point plus at least one slot for something else like web, damage or tank. Buff the speed of frigates which are required to armor tank by slots or bonuses to have enough base speed to be able to cope.
On a technical note, I'm curious how your ship coding works. Ideally you'd have a system where ship values for each ship attribute from speed to slots are all together in a single, easily modifiable table somewhere that's easy to change in 5 minutes--values could still be brought in at compile time if you need hard coding for performance, but other MMOs are able to make balance tweaks a lot more often than CCP has been.
I understand if some or all ship attributes were hard coded somewhere during early eve development, but if so, separating mechanics from attributes to make balance changes easy should be on the top of the development priority list. Instead of expecting to hash out the right balance in forum sperg, and then implement it and be done, we should be able to change things let players try them and then easily tweak them again after a week or a month if they don't turn out how we'd hoped.
All that said, I appreciate that you are taking the time to ask for feedback from the players. CCP has had a great turn around since last year in the amount and quality of communication and I hope it continues in the future! ~AO
|
|
Iam Widdershins
Diq Holdings
683
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 01:38:00 -
[201] - Quote
I do think this is a pretty interesting idea, and it could very well work. At the very least, I have a nitpick:
- Resist rigs should not be lumped in entirely with buffer. Resist rigs are frequently used in fast and/or active-tanked ships; for example, the Cyclone and the Cynabal. Resistances are useful for both active tanks AND buffer tanks. They should give half-sized penalties to both signature AND speed, more accurately representing that they are halfway between the two tanking styles.
Edit: If you are complaining that "ohh but now my active tank will be harder to hit" -- please. That's not right at all. If you increase your speed by 10% but increase your signature radius by the same amount, you're just as hard to hit as you were before, and you're more mobile. Speed is always the preference. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Lord Aliventi
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 01:53:00 -
[202] - Quote
To be honest i don't like these changes for a few reasons:
1. I get the feeling you are trying to stuff an entire race of ships in to a narrow focus. But we don't play like that. I understand the active cyclones, feroxes, and triple rep myrms. Those are great solo ships. However, it's unfair to tell new people "we use passive tanked ships with logi in our fleets. So i need you to stop training for a Hurricane and instead train for a Drake. " Why can't all races active and passive tank? I get the role playing. But there is a point at which role playing doesn't mesh with what we actually fly.
2. My t2 fit drake is slow. With the MWD on I can go almost 1200 m/s with a sig of 2.5 KM (Think Archon. Only bigger). So I could do with a significant sig radius reduction. However, I don't think velocity is the way to nerf it. And vagas, drams, cynabals are known to be some of the fastest, meanest, shield tanked ships around. The nano-nerf sucked for a lot of players. let's not make it worse please.
3. Boosting active tanking is great. I would love to see more active tanking. Sig radius makes it far easier to lock and tie down the people trying to solo. I think that would be counter productive to the goal.
I love the willingness to change what may player never even considered as possible to change and asking for players feedback. Keep it up. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
131
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 02:07:00 -
[203] - Quote
Please don't own my cynabal and vagabond nano roams with this bologna. |
BrokenBC
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 02:26:00 -
[204] - Quote
I really see this as a step towards a class system.Please if I wanted to play WoW i would.If some ships arnt working and dont get used scrap them or rethink them, but please continue to allow us to decide how we fit and use our ships.Thanks. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
687
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 03:17:00 -
[205] - Quote
shield rigs should effect cap regen rate or something cap related, in the vein of shield power relays also gimping cap
trimark and core defense rigs should be increased in config cost
capacitor control circuit should be nerfed, and semiconductor memory cells and egress port maximizers should be buffed
hull rigs, sensor strength and thermodynamic rigs should be added |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Excuses.
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 03:25:00 -
[206] - Quote
So my rokh is apparently too fast at the moment, and must be made slower. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
108
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 03:52:00 -
[207] - Quote
Djakku wrote:no no no no NO NO NO.
You are effectively nerfing an entire tactic by making all buffer rigs have a velocity penalty.
90% of fast attack ships are shield tanked.
and this doesnt seem like a problem to you? Not only do you get range dictation and the ability to disengage because your ship is fast, but you also get a huge buffer and extra damage mods/tracking enhancers? And the penalty to this, a larger sig and thus being easier to target/hit doesnt matter at all because you always have the ability to disengage; you can always just run away.
Djakku wrote:Due to the current state of the game if you are planning on flying any high-speed ship it is best to max out your tank including the use of shield extender rigs, other rigs do not offer enough to make them useful. which is why they want to change the current state of the game in order to bring the shield extender rigs in line with the other rigs . . . i dont see the problem here.
Djakku wrote:Are you honestly suggesting that you change the game so that anyone who wants to fly fast has to fit an active tank? 'But Djakku you could use gun/missile or speed rigs!' You need to get off EFT and play the game. If you're already going fast due to natural speed speed + mwd + nano, then velocity/agility rigs are only gonna make you go faster which isn't helpful, gun/missile rigs dont give enough boost as you've already stacked damage or tracking mods in your low slots because your shield tanked and you get dimishing returns for using those rigs. no, theyre suggesting that you need to be more creative with your fits if you want to have all the things.
Consider fitting Power Diag's in your lows instead of tracking enhancers, then to increase your range, fit ambient extension rigs, the PDS even have a nice side effect of countering the grid drawback of the projectile rigs
Djakku wrote:lets take an example, a major threat from fast moving ships such as the Hurricane or Vagabond is the Drake, the Drakes damage projection is insane, you need TANK if you're planning on flying fast ships and keeping out of scram range, flying fast and kiting is literally "how long do I have to kill something before these lolheavymissiles force me to warp away" You are reducing that time. And you just handed me a perfect example of why speed + buffer needs a nerf. Look at the section i emphasized in your quote. If you were in any armor tanking ship, that prhase would read "how long do I have to kill something before these lolheavymissiles force me to die you never have to commit to a fight when you have speed. You gain the ability to run away, you lose the ability to have as large a buffer. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
108
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 03:57:00 -
[208] - Quote
BrokenBC wrote:I really see this as a step towards a class system.Please if I wanted to play WoW i would.If some ships arnt working and dont get used scrap them or rethink them, but please continue to allow us to decide how we fit and use our ships.Thanks. At a base level CCP has always decided what ships are "supposed to do"
Please describe for me a ship that is a clean slate that doesnt have any bias about what it's "supposed to do" . . .
What would that look like? it wouldnt have slots because having low slots might indicate its an armor tanker it wouldnt have bonuses because that defines what it's supposed to do. it wouldnt have weapons because that might indicate its a combat ship it wouldnt have a cargo hold because that might indicate that its a transport ship
I have no problem with the more defined "ship lines" as long as they dont make it so those ships can ONLY do those things. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Excuses.
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 04:08:00 -
[209] - Quote
Sigras wrote:ambient extension rigs |
Kenshin Tzestu
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 04:30:00 -
[210] - Quote
I like the changes proposed by CCP and think they would make the game better. Right now it is clear that a large shield buffer is better than any other tanking option. With a shield buffer you get a massive tank and some degree of limited active tank at no real cost (through passive regen). Shield rigs and passive tanking are a complete no brainer. The proposed changes won't completely balance out active tanking, but are a step in the right direction.
A great change and a good sign for the direction of the game.
I hope CCP has the balls to ignore all the whiners who are content with the unbalanced and boring status quo and can't understand how to adapt to positive change. MMO's seem to have a lot of whiners, the amount of tears in this thread alone is pretty epic. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |