|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7422
   |
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:Not a huge fan of this.
* Proper skills + 2x Adaptive Invulns at least gave a little bit of a resistance buffer when neuted out, somewhere on par with the lowest resistances on armour tanked ships. Vs armour which are almost always passive and have greater EHP to boot.
* It does make the Shield Compensation skills pretty much useless outside a small handful of roles.
* There is no shield equivalent to the EANM. Even if there was, at a lower resistance %, they would likely still fail pretty bad EHP wise compared to the armour fits. I have a good idea, we'll swap. You get passive only omni for shield and armor gets an active omni instead. Yes? No? If your answer is no then your whole post is silly nonsense, what you're whining about is having your cake and eat it. Same goes for the above poster.
If we're swapping fitting costs as well, then I'd make that trade.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7429
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 09:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
culo duro wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:Not a huge fan of this.
* Proper skills + 2x Adaptive Invulns at least gave a little bit of a resistance buffer when neuted out, somewhere on par with the lowest resistances on armour tanked ships. Vs armour which are almost always passive and have greater EHP to boot.
* It does make the Shield Compensation skills pretty much useless outside a small handful of roles.
* There is no shield equivalent to the EANM. Even if there was, at a lower resistance %, they would likely still fail pretty bad EHP wise compared to the armour fits. There is no armor Equivalent to AIFs
But there are active armor hardeners, and they're superior to shield hardeners as well (less fitting, longer cycle time)
The point being that the armor comp skills are far more useful than the shield comp skills now, and after this change, that gap will increase even further.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7429
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active
- Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).
Agreed that this doesn't merit a skill reimbursement.
What it does merit is a shield version of Adaptive Nano Plating (NOT EANMs, as the armour tankers should retain the edge in passive omni resists) so that there's some viable use for shield comp skills that isn't a ridiculously marginal edge case.
"Shield ANPs" would still be significantly less powerful than EANMs, and provide a valuable low-CPU fitting but skill-intensive option that shield tanking completely lacks.
Whilst symmetry would also seem to call for a low-powered active armour omni hardener, the principle of making it less good than the shield active omni (ie: the T2 version would be 25% resists) would basically make it no better than the EANM, so it would be pretty pointless. I guess it might be good for people who haven't yet trained the armour comp skills.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7448
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 08:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Ong wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Essentially we came to the conclusion that, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules If this is the official line that ccp does not like multi function modules then when can we expect the removal of scrams turning off MWD's? They already fill the role of stopping people warping that have stabs. So following this president you are setting then I look forward to the removal of scrams effecting mwd's. CCP Greyscale wrote:The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change, and that I felt "the case for the prosecution" was strong enough that extended discussion wouldn't serve much purpose. Seriously? You didnt think this much of a change, and in no need of discussion? With this change you are pretty much resigning shield ships that brawn to the trash heap. Why would you ever brawl in a shield ship now when armor ships have eanms and tackle? If they get neuted out they still have a chance, brawling shield ships pretty much do not. Following this change you will pretty much only see shield on nano from now on imo. lolol your tears are funny. Maybe your shield ships--I dunno--don't use their cap for their weapons (and hell, not even for their tank with ASB). You're just crying out to be completely cap independent. How unreasonable is that? To CCP-- +1 on this change!
So should projectiles use cap, or should minmatar ships have their low slots capped?
I mean if "cap independence" is so very unreasonable.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7554
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 06:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
bufnitza calatoare wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:so will there be any passive omni shield resis mods being introduced? about the same time as a active invuln for armour is introduced. armour has passive. shields have active. a passive shield invuln at around 20% for all resis. and a active enam giving 30% I wold be happy as larry if ccp did that
Why should armor get an active as good as an invuln when shield doesn't get a passive as good as an EANM?
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7704
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 15:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hexxas kozak wrote:well CPP is killing the game , they ****** up the battlecruiser class , the drake got its hp reduce and lost a missile launcher slot as well , and the now the damm resistant modules they are ******* with too , thats is it for me , im quiting , new players dont have fair chance in this game , Drake was a very good lvl 3 mission runner ship for new commers but after CPP desided to nerf this ship , i see no reason for me and my alt account to stay in the game any more . thanks alot for ruining the game for me and others that dont have 7 billion skill points to counter the stupid changes you made in retribution 1.1
instead of messsing with the game like this mabee you should try and focusing on make new stuff.
*Do not bypass the profanity filter* - CCP Eterne
Did you know that there are other BCs than the drake?
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
|
| |
|