Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xaeon
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:13:00 -
[1]
I'm seriously concerned about how overpowered these modules are going to be post RMR. Stacking three of them will give insane res's - ~65% EM res without taking into account the stacking bonuses (if you know what the actual res for three with the penalty included is please say).
Paired with the removal of pure gank setups (which I totally agree with) and cap boosters now allowing a the Invun Fields with an XL SB to run fo a long time (due to the cap booster size change and duration of Invun cycles), a tanked Raven will be a hell of a ship to beat.
What concerns me the most is the consequences for faction shield hardeners. For example, a Gist-X EM, Therm, and Kin hardener should have a significant advantage over 3 x T2 IFs, which (w/o the stacking penalty calculated granted) they don't.
I would like to know if this is going to be changed? Imo the %s need to come down from 30% - from what I can see having messed about with the T1 IFs, 3 x T1 IF is approx the same res as 3 x specific T1 hardeners (as above) - obviously though with higher exp res. Imo this is the way the T2 should be; they should match a rough fit with their T2 specifics.
Your thoughts please ladies :)
Xaeon
|
Burlock Ironfist
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:51:00 -
[2]
I think this will bring the shield tankers in line with the armopur tankers to be honest so im happy with it. Removed signature image, reduce width to 400 pixels or below before reposting please. - Daigon - it was only 420 big :-( Registered Carebear and Mining Barge Enthusiast. |
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:53:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 05/12/2005 15:53:35 The third invulnerability field doesn't help all that much over the second - I've tested this.'
EDIT: And armor tanked ships can achieve the same results with 3 energized adaptive nano II's - only fair since armor tanked ships have more lowslots than shield-tanked ships have mediums. -Wrayeth
Go away. |
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 20:46:00 -
[4]
i did tests with them on rmr to, they still use more cap then a normal hardeners.
and shields have 20% less base resistance.
and if u know what u are up against u stil beter of fitting normal hardeners.
and shield tankers in pvp have less slots to tank.
its all ok, i dont see why they made them use that much cap in the 1e place
|
Plystrain Farnas
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 23:28:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Plystrain Farnas on 05/12/2005 23:31:21 Edited by: Plystrain Farnas on 05/12/2005 23:30:09
wot the guy above said.. two is fine.. the third does almost nothing
much better with specific type II
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2005.12.06 01:44:00 -
[6]
totally agree, nerf them or give armor something similar
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.12.06 09:01:00 -
[7]
Armor have the passive ones which give 25% to all with max skills for no cap.
So i'd say its pretty balanced.
As to the reason why they used so much cap:
In the ancient days before stacking penalty ppl would put 8 Invuls on a scorp, and what youd get was the Invulna-scorp, with resists of 99% on everything.
The ludicrous cap use was a nerf for that... a nerf that survived long after its reason for existence was gone. ------------- Where are the named 800mm Plates and Mega Ions, CCP?
|
Tobiaz
|
Posted - 2005.12.06 14:20:00 -
[8]
It should require Tactical Shield Manipulation at level 5 though, not 4.
This things are extremely good and that should be compensated at least by their training time.
Recruiting |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |