|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
366
   |
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was about to train EM ad TH to lvl 5, and bring kin and Exp to lvl 4
I now see this would be useless if CCP goes through with the planned changes
I'd vote against this, and I'm holding off training those unless CCP makes it clear this is not going through. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
366
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 07:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adeena Torcfist wrote:well, ill tell you what. make ur reisistive skills effect rigs then. since thats passive too, to your ship. & start adding invul/adaptive rigs 
If they made the comp skills affect rigs, then I'd think its a fiar tradeoff to remove passive boosts on hardeners....
but right now... its just a stealth nerf with no justification, other than "we're lazy, and don't like it"
If its bad for gameplay, you'd think some armor guy would have been complaining about it... or even some shield guy would have been complaining about it..... you know, like the poorly conceived ASBs.
But they double down on that and are adding AARs, and then doubling down on the bad active rep bonuses by lowering the incursus repping bonus to 7.5% - so that it is plainly inferior to a resist bonus
And its going to be another 2 years according to CCP's schedule of major rebalance changes.... leaving newer players to just wander aimlessly through skill trees, not knowing if the skill will even be useable.
Poorly done CCP |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
367
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kasutra wrote:Yeah, the poor noobs, training and training, never realizing that the passive hardener augmentation skills are in fact not affecting the active hardeners. This must be restored! Think of the children who have all been slaving away, training support skills to maximize their use of inactive invulns at the expense of being able to fit T2 guns!
If the poor noobs can't read, then there is no helping them...
The description wasn't that bad... in fact it was the bonus to passive resist mods that was poorly worded.
If I have a passive resistance plating giving 37.5% resists, and I train a skill to get a 5% bonus, is it now 42.5% (ie 37.5+5) or 39.4 (ie 37.5*1.05).
That was where the ambiguity was... the bonus to active hardeners was clear.
As to there being no armor IFs... the EANMII, when at lvl 5 skills, is as good as a T1 IF - so its pretty close, and base armor resists are higher anyway. Nobody has complained that they can't get enough EHP with armor...
They complain about things like ASBs...
T2 EANM vs T2 IF -> 25% vs 30% resists... not a major difference, the difference really becomes apparent when one looks at deadspace invuln fields...
So buff those...
And while you're at it, you can buff the layering membranes so they give a greater % EHP boost than EANMs, at the expense of not boosting rep effectiveness.
But nerfing shield comp skills, which nobody has complained about, is dumb. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Will someone please post a reasonable fit (no officer/deadspace mods, please) that would ever make use of the shield comp skills, if they don't give a bonus to active hardeners?
If a viable one cannot be provided, then one must conclude that CCP will make the shield comp skills worthless. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 13:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote: Ive checked my alli fittings and none of them had any passive shield resist modules none.You can check killboards with same result.
QFT |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
373
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 10:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote: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... I think I'd be unanimously supported - devs should play the game more. CCP Greyscale wrote:in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules I cannot understand what does it mean, and considering your way of making stealthy updates - could you please comment, here in this thread, on the following multi-function modules:
- drone omnilink - tracking & optimal
- autotargeting system - autotarheting itself & +maxtargets
- SeBo (local and remote) - range & scanres
- dampeners - same
- signal amplifier - range & scanres & +maxtargets
- warp scramblers - warp-jam & MWD-jam & MJD-jam & jump-jam
- signal distortion amps - optimal & strength
- cap.batteries - +cap & neut-protection
- power diag. sys - many
- damage control - resists to shield & armor & hull
- damage modifiers - damage & ROF
- track.ench. - optimal & falloff & tracking
- track.comp and links - same
- track.dis - same
Then I think CCP should get rid of resist modules all together.
Want more EHP, we have plates/ layering membranes/shield extenders for that
Want more effective reps? use a shield boost amp
Resists boost EHP and effective reps, they are useful for both buffer and active tank, OPd!
Yet.... CCP is nerfing the incursus rep bonus....
If CCP doesn't like "multi function" - then lets change all resist bonuses to either % hitpoint bonuses (like the % armor hitpoints per command ship level for the damnation ) or booster effectiveness bonuses (like the mael and hyperion).
The EM and Thermal passive resist shield mods *might* see use, the Exp and Kin passive armor mods *might* see use - but fully one half of the resist skills will be utterly useless if this change goes through.
For those whining about fully cap independent ships (ASB+ missiles/projectiles + passive resist hardeners) - you forget about sansha and hybrid caldari ships - and I would recommend removing ASBs.
I absolutely hate that they are doubling down on these "ancillary boosters" with an ancillary armor rep... |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
387
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
While I agree with your sentiments, I will simply drop down to 1 account....
As I sympathize with you, may I have your stuff? If you return later, I'll give (most of) it back. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
398
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'm still trying to find a use for my kin and exp shield comp skills, I'll keep my em and therm, but I'd like to get my Exp and Kin sp back... I'll never use them now |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
398
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 22:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Huh? how is using a shield booster ship with shield fit ships out of whack?
Certainly you don't have a problem with allowing "armor" ships to field viable shield tanks - or would you like to pretty much know the other guys fit simply by seeing his ship type?
I do agree the OGB is out of whack... but I don't see any specific problem in what you mentioned.
They are planning on fixing it so that the T3s don't boost as well as the T2 command ships (Command ships get 3% bonus to 2 types of links, T3s get 2% bonus to 3 types of links).
I would like to see boosters needing to be on grid (I'm hoping for command ships with 100% damage bonuses, and 4 missile/turret launchers, so they can still throw out good DPS on grid while boosting, otherwise the change will nerf some incursion fleets, as on grid DPS is sacrificed)
but back to the topic:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There have been many criticisms of the balance in this game, the passive resists on active hardeners wasn't one of them - if you don't want passive effects for "active modules", then please remove the cap penalty (previously actually a bonus on hulls like the thorax) of MWDs, the scan res penalty of cloaks, the +3 to max locked targets of auto targetting systems (making them thoroughly useless)... so we at least have some consistency. Otherwise... it just looks like a lame attempt to nerf shields a bit more than Armor, as part of a lame attempt to try and balance the two rather than getting rid of the abomination that is the ASB, or fixing the still basically useless reactive armor hardeners.
Oh wait, it wasn't even for balance reasons, it was primarily because they wanted an easier job coding.
I have 2 accounts, this (combined with some other changes I'm not pleased about) is causing me to allow one's subscription to lapse. I may reactivate the 2nd account later, I may not, we'll see how CCPs changes go. |
|
|
| |
|