EVE Search - Swap Amarr and Gallente Defensive Bonuses

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Swap Amarr and Gallente Defensive Bonuses

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Poisson Distribution	Posted - 2009.05.05 12:48:00 - [1] A succession of rebalancing attempts has led to the clear superiority of Amarr gunboats over their Gallente counterparts. Amarr and Gallente armor-related ship bonuses should be swapped. Amarr passive-tank ships would become active-tanking, forcing upon them significant tank-or-gank choices and further ramping up the tactical cost of cap usage; Amarr gunboats will continue their trend of medium-range superiority and front-end damage dealing at the start of battles. Gallente active-tank ships would become passive tanking, offering superior ablative capabilities which would allow them to fight more protracted combats in blaster range, albeit at the cost of greater commitment to the battle. Gallente ships that choose to stack resist bonuses with plates will suffer from a lower agility, acceleration and top speed.
Shadow Devourer	Posted - 2009.05.05 12:58:00 - [2] Edited by: Shadow Devourer on 05/05/2009 12:58:05 AHahahahaha. No. To be constructive: ask yourself which guns take more cap, what Geddon dps would be like with dual lar (can't fit it without downgrading lasers) and it would straight up fail for the Abaddon (no cap bonus). Once again: no.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.05.05 13:00:00 - [3] Gallente need a buff to their ability to fit a "gang tank" especially in the BS class. But considering the range blasters get a gimp to speed and agility would cripple them big time as they rely on getting into optimal range to do good dmg, especially as ALL ships just took a agility reduction due to the agility/tackle issues that have been around since the nano nerf.
Poisson Distribution	Posted - 2009.05.05 13:27:00 - [4] Originally by: Shadow Devourer To be constructive: ask yourself which guns take more cap, what Geddon dps would be like with dual lar (can't fit it without downgrading lasers) and it would straight up fail for the Abaddon (no cap bonus). This change would have the effect of clawing back a little of the advantage that Amarr laser boats have gained in the past year of rebalancing, as lasers are clearly the superior gun in today's pvp environment. Currently cap is a non-issue for Amarr ships, given the length of most engagements. With these changes Amarr ships would retain their advantages (range, tracking, quality damaging hits) at the start of the battle (and throughout in most short engagements), but become progressively more cap-challenged as the fight wears on. The choice for Amarr ships then becomes "can I finish this fight before my cap evaporates?" while for Gallente it becomes "can I finish this fight before my armor ablates?" The Armageddon is a red herring in this discussion, as it does not have either an active or passive tanking bonus.
Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.05.05 14:07:00 - [5] It would make gallente awesome gank tank mobiles while amarr would suffer from the need to fit the second lar + hardeners + dmg mods in the low slots and cap modules in the few mid slots. Think about all the mid slots in gallente ships. They would still fit an armor repper or rr, with lots of cap to run them because of the mid slots. Take a look on thanatos. How would you balance it if it would get the additional 25% armor resistance? Where shall the nerf bat hit something? How would you rebalance archon to compensate for the nerf of its defense? While asking to pimp the armor resistance on gallente ships, you are implicit asking to nerf the mid slots on these ships too. Effectiveley, you could instead ask to swap alle the weapon systems of both races. Amarr ships with large drone bays and drone bonus instead of lasers would be cool, isnt it? My suggestion: You like the +25% bonus of the amarr ships? Train for them, they are fun to fly. Or get a phobos, its a gallente ship with that armor resi bonus.
Poisson Distribution	Posted - 2009.05.05 15:02:00 - [6] Originally by: Ausser My suggestion: You like the +25% bonus of the amarr ships? Train for them, they are fun to fly. This isn't about what I like or don't like. I fly both Gallente and Amarr ships with proficiency, so I know that Amarr ships are now superior gunboats to their Gallente counterparts in both real damage and survivability. I also know that the traditional disadvantage of Amarr cap-dependency almost never becomes an issue in combat situations. The changes to the game in the past couple of years (starting with the HP buff) has made close-range blaster ships increasingly obsolete. This proposal is one way to address this obsolescence by offering some Gallente boats an increased survivability while retaining agility, a survivability that is sorely needed in an environment that includes webs, scramblers, nos and neutralizers - which Amarr can avoid with range, but Gallente cannot. The Thanatos is another red herring, as it does not currently have an armor-based ship bonus.
Mohenna	Posted - 2009.05.05 15:12:00 - [7] Quit with the laser whining already, look at the balance thread. Lasers are at the 50th place or worse. The only problem is that scorch doesn't work against its strength, while blaster and AC short range t2 ammo does (-% tracking @ short range lol). The only sensible thing to ask for is a change of that malus...
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.05.05 15:30:00 - [8] Originally by: Mohenna Quit with the laser whining already, look at the balance thread. Lasers are at the 50th place or worse. Considering that the thread is about systems with PROBLEMS that pretty much sums up and clearly shows how GOOD lasers are...
Juliette DuBois	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:00:00 - [9] Edited by: Juliette DuBois on 05/05/2009 16:00:55 Resistance bonuses are too good IMO. In vast majority of the cases they are preferable over active tanking bonuses simply because it also applies to remote tanking unlike personal bonus. And since active tanking is also cap intensive it has addional weakness against neutralizers and need to carry cap boosters. If boost bonuses also applied to RR modules things would get much more "balanced". Or just make all tanking bonuses based on resistances.
King Rothgar Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:09:00 - [10] I assure you, the cap cost of lasers on the abaddon is massive. Using cap booster 800's I can either fire my megapulses or use my single LAR (it's mostly plated), I can't do both at the same time for more than a few cycles. Switching the abaddon to an active tank would make it fail completely as it just doesn't have the cap to run both guns and reppers. Also, MWD/AB are a big nono on most amarr ships. Gallante are fine for the most part, they could use a bit more of a tracking bonus to compensate for the web nerf that hit them so badly but other than that they are fine.

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:59:00 - [11] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 05/05/2009 16:59:59 Originally by: Poisson Distribution Amarr passive-tank ships would become active-tanking, forcing upon them significant tank-or-gank choices and further ramping up the tactical cost of cap usage; Amarr gunboats will continue their trend of medium-range superiority and front-end damage dealing at the start of battles. So pretty much the current status quo then. Guns exert such a large drain on the capacitor as it is that what you mention here is already the case. Originally by: Poisson Distribution Gallente ships that choose to stack resist bonuses with plates will suffer from a lower agility, acceleration and top speed. Again the status quo, what pilot active tanks in this age of fat buffers? The ship most used with active tank (Myrmidon) has a large portion of its damage tied to drones and has a near perfect slot layout so can fill all lows with tank. Even then a plate+rep is beneficial. But, I'll take the repairer bonus on a few conditions: 1. Reduce laser cap usage by 50% and give back proper bonus on ships. 2. increase Hybrid cap usage by 50% 3. Add mid slots to all relevant ships that they may have the cap booster. etc. etc. It is not as easy as just swapping bonuses I am afraid. The real issue is that buffering is better than active tanking in almost all scenarios. Change that and the repair bonus will shine once more.
Veng3ance Multiversal Enterprise Inc. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.05.05 17:19:00 - [12] Yeah lets give the CAP INTENSIVE laser race active tanking bonuses. ......nope actually dumb idea.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.05.05 20:26:00 - [13] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 05/05/2009 20:30:31 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida The real issue is that buffering is better than active tanking in almost all scenarios. Change that and the repair bonus will shine once more. The resist bonus would still beat the repair bonus since they give roughly the same benefit for active tanking but the resist bonus also gives you more buffer. A 5% resist bonus is the equivalent to a 6.7% repair bonus, 6.7% hp bonus, and 6.7% incoming remote-repair bonus all at the same time. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Ouro Akala	Posted - 2009.05.06 08:57:00 - [14] Isn't it an element of CCP's design philosophy for EVE to make Amarr the race that has roughly the toughest (in terms of survivability) ships in the game? That would last long and ceaselessly fire their lasers? Contrary to the vision of the Gallente "survive-long-enough-to-get-in-blaster-range-and-pop-the-bastard-quick-with-uber-close-range-damage" type? Forcing the Amarr to fire literally cap-devouring weapons AND permarun their reppers would essentially send them back to being the near obsolete ships they were back before the resistance changes. EVE is an incredibly complex game, and thus hard to balance with all the factors that influence each fight and we have to be prepared that these factors will very often work completely against us, while at times basically give us a WIN button. Swapping the bonuses would seriously upset the relative equilibrium the Amarr boats have found themselves in, that makes them actually work, for a change. This, of course, doesn't mean that everything's fine and dandy.
Chi Quan Perkone	Posted - 2009.05.06 10:28:00 - [15] Originally by: Ouro Akala ...vision of the Gallente "survive-long-enough-to-get-in-blaster-range-and-pop-the-bastard-quick-with-uber-close-range-damage"... and once again, since this is NOT the case something is broken. either with the gallente concept or the current amarr status. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.06 17:58:00 - [16] What I find really amusing in this thread is that so many people are against active tanking in any form. So perhaps what this should reveal to the people complaining that an active tank bonus would utterly ruin their ships: Resist bonuses are far, far more powerful than local rep bonuses. They affect EHP, local rep, and remote rep. Local rep affects local rep. Additionally, resist bonuses aren't that much worse than local rep bonuses (33.3% and usually an extra slot vs 37.5%). So in practice, what would happen if the OPs idea came to pass is exactly what the rest of us do: you'd either ignore your active tanking bonus in PVP (Cyclone, Maelstrom, Brutix, Rokh in most cases, etc) and come "back down to earth" as far as plate tanking goes, or you'd fit a single rep like we typically do for the Hype (ion/plate/rep fits). I really have to appreciate the reactions that the Amarr pilots are having to this idea... but I would like them to take a moment to reflect that their ships deal more damage, at better range, have better EHP, and better RR capability... than almost everyone else in game. Surely something has to be done? However, I will say that I'm rather with them: Laser ships are meant to plate tank, and I don't like the idea of removing that. I think a far better course of action would be to boost rep tanking. But it's a complicated issue... rep tanking is almost entirely limited to small gang combat, and making it useful as gang sizes go up will require a major rethink in the way reps are applied. Either plates need a serious nerf or reps bonuses need a major boost (boosting reps themselves would mean that resist tanks just get more powerful... and that's not really the goal as they are already very powerful). I'm thinking on the order of boosting rep bonuses to either 15%/level (local only) or 10%/level (local and incoming RR). It may even need to be even more powerful to overcome the problems of EHP. Eh, I dunno. I just know that the "WHAT NO MY PERFECT UBER SHIPS OF DOOM NERF!" is really funny when the pilots with active tanking bonuses are like.... "sigh, I ignore this bonus every time I get in the ship!". And then the "Oh yeah, make my lasers even more uber than everyone else so my Geddon (which doesn't have a tanking bonus) can be even more OP next to everyone else" is pretty amusing. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Poisson Distribution	Posted - 2009.05.07 13:58:00 - [17] Originally by: Ouro Akala Forcing the Amarr to fire literally cap-devouring weapons This is an often-repeated and overstated argument. However, in practice, I have never run into cap problems with laser boats: in a tactical situation, the fight is over before cap becomes an issue. Since this is an intended drawback for these weapons systems, some measure of cap management should be returned to Amarr for balance sake. The point that passive tanking bonuses are far superior to active ones is also telling - Amarr laser ships have the most effective guns AND the best tank (quite a change from two years ago!) While it's fair that Amarr ships have their day in the sun (finally!) they should not be immune to critique. Thanks to everyone for a constructive discussion so far.
Grez Minmatar Core Contingency	Posted - 2009.05.07 14:02:00 - [18] Originally by: Poisson Distribution Originally by: Ouro Akala Forcing the Amarr to fire literally cap-devouring weapons This is an often-repeated and overstated argument. However, in practice, I have never run into cap problems with laser boats: in a tactical situation, the fight is over before cap becomes an issue. Since this is an intended drawback for these weapons systems, some measure of cap management should be returned to Amarr for balance sake. The point that passive tanking bonuses are far superior to active ones is also telling - Amarr laser ships have the most effective guns AND the best tank (quite a change from two years ago!) While it's fair that Amarr ships have their day in the sun (finally!) they should not be immune to critique. Thanks to everyone for a constructive discussion so far. Go train Amarr BS to 5 and fly the Abaddon with 8 Mega Pulse. Enjoy your cap going from 100 to 0 in no time at all. --- Grez: I shot the sheriff Kalazar: But I could not lock the Deputy BECAUSE OF FALCON
Mohenna	Posted - 2009.05.07 15:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Mohenna Quit with the laser whining already, look at the balance thread. Lasers are at the 50th place or worse. Considering that the thread is about systems with PROBLEMS that pretty much sums up and clearly shows how GOOD lasers are... Being OP=problem. And there are some who ask for the nerf in that thread. It's just that they're are a incredibly undersized minority. Hopefully CCP will see them as the unyielding 3 or 4 that they are and ignore them better than the forum average does.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.07 15:57:00 - [20] Gallente is good at PvE, so there's no reason they should be good at both that and PvE. If you want to pew pew, cross-train for Amarr.

fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.05.07 16:10:00 - [21] Edited by: fuxinos on 07/05/2009 16:11:39 Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Gallente is good at PvE, so there's no reason they should be good at both that and PvE. If you want to pew pew, cross-train for Amarr. Stupid logic. Every race should be good at PVP, thats what balancing is about...
honey bunchetta	Posted - 2009.05.07 16:17:00 - [22] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Gallente is good at PvE, so there's no reason they should be good at both that and PvE. If you want to pew pew, cross-train for Amarr. What kind of stupid logic is that?. Amaar are great at PVE as well and have the best ships for virtually every form of pvp in the game. Solo = pilgrim/curse. Sniper = Apoc. Various Gang types of pvp = take your pick of the best cruiser, BC or BS hulls....
Distorted Perception	Posted - 2009.05.07 16:19:00 - [23] Edited by: Distorted Perception on 07/05/2009 16:20:51 Originally by: fuxinos Stupid logic. Every race should be good at PVP, thats what balancing is about... I found it amusing and doubt he was serious. That argument is made about caldari a lot. On topic: active tank is for solo (theoretically) and plates are for gangs. Lasers being longer range lower damage weapons are for gangs. Blasters are for solo/small gang. See the pattern?
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.07 17:20:00 - [24] Originally by: Mohenna Being OP=problem. And there are some who ask for the nerf in that thread. It's just that they're are a incredibly undersized minority. Hopefully CCP will see them as the unyielding 3 or 4 that they are and ignore them better than the forum average does. How many people complained that projectiles suck? How many complained that blasters suck? How many complained both? All of those are not only votes that a particular weapons system is "bad", but also that the other platform (lasers) is simply that much better. Would you have preferred that they all ask for nerfing lasers? -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.07 17:24:00 - [25] Originally by: Distorted Perception On topic: active tank is for solo (theoretically) and plates are for gangs. Lasers being longer range lower damage weapons are for gangs. Blasters are for solo/small gang. See the pattern? That might be true if lasers actually had "low damage". They don't. It might be true if lasers had "bad tracking". They don't. It might be true if lasers even had a bad damage type. They don't (EM isn't a bad damage type, and is roughly evenly split between "best damage type" and "worst damage type" most of the time. There are alot of shield tankers in PVP... and that totally discounts that your average Amarr ship deals 40-50% Thermal damage due to Multifreq+Drones). -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.05.07 18:04:00 - [26] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Distorted Perception On topic: active tank is for solo (theoretically) and plates are for gangs. Lasers being longer range lower damage weapons are for gangs. Blasters are for solo/small gang. See the pattern? That might be true if lasers actually had "low damage". They don't. It might be true if lasers had "bad tracking". They don't. It might be true if lasers even had a bad damage type. They don't (EM isn't a bad damage type, and is roughly evenly split between "best damage type" and "worst damage type" most of the time. There are alot of shield tankers in PVP... and that totally discounts that your average Amarr ship deals 40-50% Thermal damage due to Multifreq+Drones). -Liang Pulse abaddon with faction MF, 3 x mag stabs and T2 gaurde does 531 EM dmg and 565 Thermal dmg. So more thermal than EM and even more of a thermal % with T2 ogres.
Distorted Perception	Posted - 2009.05.07 18:07:00 - [27] That's why I said lower not low. If there's a problem with lasers swapping the tanking bonuses will not fix it. They make perfect sense in terms of racial design.
Holy Lowlander Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.05.07 18:37:00 - [28] amarr doesn't need a nerf in the first place ~ gallente are the solo pvpers , amarr are the fleet pvpers. They always been and now that it starts to pay off it needs a nerf all the sudden ? think of it like this , amarr battleships can do only 1 thing amor tank and gank. They have the least versitile battleships ingame, they are just good at the one thing they can do. If you start messing with that you would outright kill amarr battleships. And a nerf isn't needed at all. they stole my sig :'(
honey bunchetta	Posted - 2009.05.07 18:52:00 - [29] Originally by: Holy Lowlander amarr doesn't need a nerf in the first place ~ gallente are the solo pvpers , amarr are the fleet pvpers. They always been and now that it starts to pay off it needs a nerf all the sudden ? Those are absurd distinctions as well as innaccurate. Amaar has the best solo pvp ships in the game, IE: curse/pilgrim. Amaar has the best sniper pvp ship in the game, IE: apoc. And amaar have the best short range gang ships in the game, IE: zealot, harbi, abaddon, geddon. Over the years i have played its quite amusing to watch ppl who are trained in whatever happens to be the best at that particular time try to justify it with comments about "roles" ect ect.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.07 18:56:00 - [30] Originally by: Holy Lowlander amarr doesn't need a nerf in the first place ~ gallente are the solo pvpers , amarr are the fleet pvpers. They always been and now that it starts to pay off it needs a nerf all the sudden ? think of it like this , amarr battleships can do only 1 thing amor tank and gank. They have the least versitile battleships ingame, they are just good at the one thing they can do. If you start messing with that you would outright kill amarr battleships. And a nerf isn't needed at all. Actually, you're wrong. Either lasers need a nerf, or both projectiles and blasters need fairly substantial boosts. Lasers encroach strongly upon blaster territory, and projectiles simply don't have territory where they're really reasonable. Even solo, lasers don't have much of a weakness (a Geddon without a web deals 2/3rds of a Blasterthron's max damage (with web) at 4.5km). This is "fair" how? Really, the OPs idea is actually pretty golden after its own fashion. It would remove the ridiculous triple bonused resist tanks (RR, Local rep, EHP) and replace them with single bonused tanks (local rep if you choose to use it). I'd rather see: - Tiny laser tracking nerf to emphasize DPS at range. This leaves your damage alone in most situations. - Med sized tracking boost for blasters to emphasize close range DPS. Med raw DPS boost for blasters to alleviate damage at range. - Add falloff to projectiles by weapon tier to alleviate falloff damage reduction. Swap Fusion/EMP and unnerf high damage ammo. - Double artillery alpha, cut ROF to .55 current. - Fix rep bonuses to either be really powerful with local reps (15-25%/level) or to also apply to inbound remote repping. Implications: - Lasers stay good (fantastic) at range. They aren't quite so bbqpwn up close. - The Mega becomes the <10km king again (this crown is actually shared with the Geddon ATM), and does a bit better damage at range. - The Rokh does signficantly better. Right now you would always be better off in a Geddon over a Rokh as far as close range combat goes. - Projectiles do slightly better raw damage (unnerfed ammo) artillery alpha finally means something. - The Hype would deal better overall DPS and would have a place in either RR gangs or small gangs. Finally. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.