Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:45:00 -
[271] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b] I'd say that deadspace is still relatively unattractive when compared to ASBs, and I'd like to see them included in the boost. -Liang
You can't be serious!! In times when you see brutix, harbinger and others armor ships shield tanked, you want to buff shield reps even more? Everything is nowdays shield tanked and they need to change that. Local armor reps need big buff. Shield on the other hand can easily put over sized modules, not to mention how deadspace items are op in that department. Plain 10% buff would also be too much and dev gave it 15. It's too much
|
Savira Terrant
EVE Corporation 1212120482 Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:53:00 -
[272] - Quote
Hey Fozzy, can you please expain why you would exclude faction (maybe) and deadspace boosters from the 15% buff? Do you think they are overpowered for their price at the moment (something also to be considered, no?)? I thought this buff had the specific objective of buffing ships without command bonus, while nerfing ships with the bonus to make the use command ships less overpowering.
Comparing armor and shield tanks with deadspace fittings for PVE (sorry I would and should not know about PVP with such pricey modules) they performed quite similar in actual "combat", while specific armor ships performed even better than shield fits (due to better possibilities of resistence modules eg. "passive invuls" and the new reactive armor hardener. (All ships were fitted to have balanced resists with 600 defense omni, while trying to get as much cap as possible before trying them ingame.)
The problem with the shield fits was not the sheer amount of boost that can actually be higher than armor, but it was impossible to get them capstabe (I had to decide between less boost and capstable or more rep an not capstable, while the armor reps had hit the sweet spot of rep per cap ratio). There are no shield boosters that hit this sweetspot.
So since you seem to want to streamline active tanking between armor and shield tanking can you plase either introduce passive invuls or reduce the cap usage of deadspace shield boosters?
. |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
318
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:49:00 -
[273] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:2. So 2 Archons tanking by mutually going triage and refitting to full hardeners when primary isn't Pantheon? My bad. Whatever its called if active reps including capital reps and RR get a 15% boost well guess what? Those carrier just got much harder to kill. I stand by my opinion this may screw things up a bit. Im assuming you're talking about this? No that isnt Pantheon AFAIK there isnt a name for it, I just call it triage weaving. This is the pantheon video. That being said, archons in any configuration almost always have a damnation or legion giving them boost which means they will be less effective now with boosts than they were before with boosts. If anything this makes them worse.
Michael J Caboose, please go watch the vids and get some education. Those are indeed the remote repping Carriers I was talking about. With so many factors changing like T3 boosts, Command ships and the actual boosts themselves, it remains to be seen the impact of an across the board active repping change. I take on board you've done some maths of T3 boosting etc, but have you considered the impact of combat boosters, implants and all the other stuff people fit and use to gain an edge?
This is my whole point - They are changing so many things at once it is much more likely a few ships and specific fits will get rather screwed up and out of whack in terms of balance. I agree with most of the boosting changes especially the nerf of OG T3 boosters - and it is probably true active repping needs help to make them even more of a competitive option, but one step at a time makes more sense to me. That is all I came here to say and got unnecessarily trolled for it.
As a member of Gallente militia we fairly often fly active armour repped ships probably more so than almost anywhere else in game, so I guess I could have a blindspot to that in terms of thinking it is more common, but in my experience it is still way way more common to see active armour repping ships than active shield boosting ships. It'd be interesting to hear from Amarr FW pilots as I guess they are vs minnie ships more often and might see more shield booster, but I doubt that.
Hyperions, brutixes, incursus are all fairly common in our area of lowsec - properly fit they are all very competitive in their roles and one of my serious concerns you overlook is the incursus - A large amount of FW pvp is frigate pvp, which has been at a fairly good state of balance recently (relatively).
As I said before, repping changes to the Incursus (which at one point was totally broken in terms of being overpowered with AAR) just means it potentially could throw it out of whack again - Incursus becomes the new dramiel and a frigate unbreakable by almost every other frigate returns as it is the easy latest i-win option - No thanks! But yeah you probably don't care about that.
Anyway I'm out of this thread - too many trolls to bother posting more feedback etc. I'll wait until it hits the servers before giving more feedback opinions. Cheers. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:08:00 -
[274] - Quote
raawe wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b] I'd say that deadspace is still relatively unattractive when compared to ASBs, and I'd like to see them included in the boost. -Liang You can't be serious!! In times when you see brutix, harbinger and others armor ships shield tanked, you want to buff shield reps even more? Everything is nowdays shield tanked and they need to change that. Local armor reps need big buff. Shield on the other hand can easily put over sized modules, not to mention how deadspace items are op in that department. Plain 10% buff would also be too much and dev gave it 15. It's too much
You dont active shield tank any of these ships in pvp, pve obviously doesnt matter in any balancing issues, |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1068
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:27:00 -
[275] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:You dont active shield tank any of these ships in pvp, pve obviously doesnt matter in any balancing issues,
Sry to disagree with you but yes you do. We're talking here about ships and pvp situations out of fleet engagements but yes they do shield fit and rather good, so good they can beat up the same ship armor fitted twice.
Shield Brutix over Armor Brutix? -all day, ASB fit it is a pwnmobile
Shield Mega/Talos/Vigilant/Harby/Deimost (this one not only gets huge dps increase but seems it dies slower shield fitted) and known ishtar, just for the sake of some examples of armor ships already being exponentially better shield fitted and specially with links/combat boosters, far better than armor fitted all time.
If those are better shield fitted for solo small gang work it's certainly not because armor mods are too good well balanced vs shield mods or because players are all bad at fittings but rather the other way around.
The real solution is not half bad balances, take of mid slots, give badly balanced modules vs overpowered modules. Don't tell me CCP can't recode ASBs so they now consume cap also, of course they can but they just don't want it, that simple.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:53:00 -
[276] - Quote
That bull, you dont active fit any of those. Asb fits on them are usually lolfits and nothing more. And if you truely think current asbs are op then you havnt pvped in half a year or so. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1047
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 15:41:00 -
[277] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Cearain wrote:Sigras wrote:^^ except when they nerf OGBs at the same time.
Yes, I agree a boost to local tanks is a boost to OGBs, but consider the following:
the local tank boost is a 15% boost, the OGB nerf is a 25% nerf so the result is that OGB links are 10% less effective.
Also youre forgetting the biggest thing that OGB links are used for, RR, which isnt getting a boost at all so this is a straight nerf to OGBs
or are you somehow trying to say that the gap between OGB and non OGB local tanking is somehow bigger after this proposal? Because you can say that, but youd be unambiguously wrong By "this proposal" I mean the one this thread discusses, not the proposals addressed in a different thread(s). And yes this proposal - the increase to local rep amount - increases the gap between ogb and non ogb. All of the buffs to active tanking that we have seen have been buffs to ogbs and they helped get us to the point we are at now. OGB = god mode. It's good thing they are looking for ways to remove OGB. Isn't that good?
They have been saying that for over a year. Yet they never say exactly who this person/team is. Perhaps it's time this as yet unnamed person communicates with the players.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:26:00 -
[278] - Quote
I am sure you should allow fitting 2 AARs or deny fitting 2 ASBs. Tanking capabilities between shield and armor have enormous difference. |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 18:17:00 -
[279] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:Sorry for the incorrect terminology for RR carriers.
Your carefully crafted and witty replies have educated me greatly, so thank you. However I will stick to my opinions and ignore your opinions of my success or failure to express my own opinions.
1. When was the last time you saw a normal active shield booster (not ASB) in PVP? - for me it has been ages - perhaps the odd cyclone or maelstrom, but like around 1% in my experience of FW pvp recently. Hence I would say active shield tanking understandably needs a boost to make it more viable and competitive.
2. So 2 Archons tanking by mutually going triage and refitting to full hardeners when primary isn't Pantheon? My bad. Whatever its called if active reps including capital reps and RR get a 15% boost well guess what? Those carrier just got much harder to kill. I stand by my opinion this may screw things up a bit.
3. Frigates like the Incursus with its rep bonus, getting a further 15% is questionable considering the balance pass wasn't even very long ago and its rep bonus/potential has gone up and down like a yo-yo. This latest change could screw that latest balance up....again.
Those are my opinions and as I said before - testing will identify I'm right or wrong on it screwing things up. I'd happily read your opinions of the changes Sigras/Pelea but you apparently haven't offered anything worth reading yet.
Cheers.
Shield reps need a boost? You must be very slow, or maybe your mommy dropped you on your head. Where are you pvping where armor reps are more resilient than shield reps, please tell me. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
313
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 19:42:00 -
[280] - Quote
Is it just me, or does this Vyktor guy's posts seem to be horrible troll? |
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:48:00 -
[281] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Is it just me, or does this Vyktor guy's posts seem to be horrible troll?
got the same problem with Poetic Stanziel, you never know if you either mistunderstood these people or what not
Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0 |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:56:00 -
[282] - Quote
Quote:We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
Dropped my alt boosters long time ago CCP, I like to play it rough now in... Star Trek Online Still nice of you to be a little considerate of customers who spend a lot of skill training time (and plex) into these maxed out alts. Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0 |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
314
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 21:35:00 -
[283] - Quote
I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P |
Shinzhi Xadi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 23:54:00 -
[284] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P
Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship.. |
Crown Heights
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 23:54:00 -
[285] - Quote
so many changes its hard to keep up with what to qq about.
i want to qq thats for sure.
When something is OP i dont want to do it. I want to get my ass kicked by it and qq about it.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
314
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 00:13:00 -
[286] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship..
Still a Cruiser vs a Battleship. Kind of obscene that it overall takes less incoming damage (sig rad / speed tank) yet can also be fitted out to rep more armor per second. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 05:11:00 -
[287] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Xequecal wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:SHield tanks are still notably more powerful then armor tanks for a variety of reasons, why not give shield reps a slightly smaller boost then armor reps? Like, say, 10%? or 12.5%? Aside from the ancillary shield boosters (which aren't getting buffed) and the Gist line of shield boosters, which also aren't getting boosted, shield really isn't better than armor. it's an arguable point, since for the same amount of raw HP, shield doesn't have to give up speed/agility, and also has passive regen, while armor is only gaining not having it's sig rad boosted by some mods/rigs. Oh, yea, and armor reps typically have higher cap drain to them. Also, even CCP acknowledges that shield is overall all somewhat superior to armor tank, hence the attempted addressing of that balance by introducing AARs and that overly-cap hungry resistance shifting hardner (the latter of which has still overwhelmingly been proven to be useless in PvP despite attempts to 'balance' it). (and from my own experience, because of it's cap need, usually useless in PvE on anything smaller then a BS) Well, armor has better repair to capacitor use than shields along with larger repair amount BY A LOT. This is only offset by a longer repair time. And even including that, armor repairers do their job more efficiently than shield boosters. This coupled with stronger base resistances across the board makes for a better active tank. While it may anger some people that they have to activate their repairers earlier since the repair is at the end of the cycle, armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat, that's why it's the most common choice for brawling fleets. Yes you sacrifice agility when armor fitted but that's the trade-off. It's one if the few things shields are better at. Another trade-off is damage modules vs utility slots. Both types of tank will lose some hp/resists if they try to fit the opposing one. Each one has its upsides and downsides but neither is really better than the other at too many things. It's all about the choices you make when you choose what to fly and how to fit it. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 08:03:00 -
[288] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:[quote=Xequecal][quote=Pelea Ming]stuff. more stuff armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat, that's why it's the most common choice for brawling fleets. extra stuff
No, ASBs are always better for just about any fight not involving remote reps, that's why they've been very deliberately missed from these increases. Hopefully this will give armour reps a greater degree of parity, though with the 1 per ship limit on AARs and ASBs having no such exclusion I expect a considerable difference in efficacy to continue. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1425
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 08:14:00 -
[289] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Well, armor has better repair to capacitor use than shields along with larger repair amount BY A LOT.
Sorry this is only true for burst tanking.
Rowells wrote:Armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat. Shield tanking is better for sustained combat not armor, with passive regeneration, faster reps and over time a lower capacitor usage shield tanking wins.
Shield Booster 1 X-Large Shield Booster II 1 Shield Boost Amplifier II 1 Core Defense Operational Solidifier I 1 Core Defense Operational Safeguard I Will rep 816HP in 4.25s for 342GJ
Armor Repair 2 Large Armor Repairer II 1 Nanobot Accelerator 1 Auxiliary Nano Pump Will rep 1840HP in 9.5625s for 800GJ
With this it takes 153 seconds for the cycles to equal out. 2 min 33 sec
Shield tanking HP boosted 29,376 Cap Usage 12,312GJ Number of cycles 36
Armor tanking HP repped 29,440 Cap usage 12,800 Number of cycles 16 Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
poepstreep66
Heralds of Vengeance The Nightingales of Hades
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 10:22:00 -
[290] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:(except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) So instead of actually addressing the imbalance in progression of power for deadspace/officer shield boosters on a more detailed levels you've just decided to not add a blanket buff you're giving to the other shield boosters? While I agree with the motive, the actions just seem so half assed... I'm not trying to be rude here, it's just that there have been multiple threads over the years in which the specific imbalances of deadspace/officer shield booster have already been outlined perfectly for you and your balance minions. I find it highly unlikely you will be addressing the nonsensicalness of these values once your proposed changes hit the server, this I find worrisome. Finally someone who is getting the picture! |
|
Cambarus
Veni Vidi Vaselini
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 13:50:00 -
[291] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Boris Amarr wrote:AAR shouldn't use capacitor like ASB. Amarr ships don't have enough capacitor to fire. How can they use active tanking. If you remove capacitor usage for AAR - it will be good solution to use active tanking for ship, that have troubles with capacitor. No, no more Neut immune local rep please. If anything needs to change, they should make the ASB use cap when loaded with cap boosters, just probably use way less cap Im thinking like 50 cap per cycle when loaded Nopenopenopenope.jpg
There needs to be more active tanking not affected by neuts, not less. Neuts are far too ubiquitous as it stands, the benefits are just too huge not to slap a neut into every spare high on damn near every ship. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
315
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 14:11:00 -
[292] - Quote
I don't think that AAR's should use no cap... but I think having them use less cap would be a good idea. |
Pheadra Aurilen
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:59:00 -
[293] - Quote
[quote=CCP Fozzie
You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.[/quote]
I'm not sure that this would be the right move. Excluding DG/CN boosters from the buff would actually make them less Cap efficient than T2 or Meta 4 boosters and would mean that their Cap efficiency was only fractionally above Meta 3. Similarly, excluding large and X-large Pith boosters means that the C-Type large or X-large boosters would be less cap efficient than T2.
The reason for this is that large and X-large Pith boosters aren't actually out of step with armour reppers, but actually follow the same pattern of increasing the boost amount by 10% of the boost provided by the equivalent faction booster on each step (Faction to C-Type to B-Type to A-Type) for the same activation cost. The only significant difference being the existence of an X-Type booster for each size for which there is no armour equivalent. Clearly, excluding any part of this chain from a 15% increase in boost amount is going to create some odd overlaps and inconsistencies.
However, the same is not true for small and medium Pith boosters or for any size of Gist booster. For these the gap between the faction boosters and deadspace boosters is huge. For example, small and medium C-Type Pith boosters give almost twice the boost of DG/CN for the same activation cost (albeit with a slightly longer cycle time) and for Gist C-Type the activation cost is significant reduced (up to 33%) whilst the boost amount increases (11%-85%!) compared to the equivalent Domi/RF modules. These are clearly unbalanced.
IMO the correct course of action would therefor be to include faction, large and X-large Pith boosters in the 15% increase to boost amount, but exclude small and medium Pith and all Gist boosters. Ideally, I would also completely overhaul to Gist and small and medium Pith boosters to bring them in line with other local reppers. However, I accept that with so much isk invested in these modules it will be a thankless task and, perhaps, too much to expect on this occasion. |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 18:45:00 -
[294] - Quote
monkfish1234 wrote:this almost sounds like your encouraging something other than buffer and logis........
possibly the best change in the last 4 years.
I agree. This will make kitchen fleet scramble fleets much better for introducing noobs to PvP. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
316
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 18:57:00 -
[295] - Quote
Pheadra Aurilen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.
I'm not sure that this would be the right move. Excluding DG/CN boosters from the buff would actually make them less Cap efficient than T2 or Meta 4 boosters and would mean that their Cap efficiency was only fractionally above Meta 3. Similarly, excluding large and X-large Pith boosters means that the C-Type large or X-large boosters would be less cap efficient than T2. The reason for this is that large and X-large Pith boosters aren't actually out of step with armour reppers, but actually follow the same pattern of increasing the boost amount by 10% of the boost provided by the equivalent faction booster on each step (Faction to C-Type to B-Type to A-Type) for the same activation cost. The only significant difference being the existence of an X-Type booster for each size for which there is no armour equivalent. Clearly, excluding any part of this chain from a 15% increase in boost amount is going to create some odd overlaps and inconsistencies. However, the same is not true for small and medium Pith boosters or for any size of Gist booster. For these the gap between the faction boosters and deadspace boosters is huge. For example, small and medium C-Type Pith boosters give almost twice the boost of DG/CN for the same activation cost (albeit with a slightly longer cycle time) and for Gist C-Type the activation cost is significant reduced (up to 33%) whilst the boost amount increases (11%-85%!) compared to the equivalent Domi/RF modules. These are clearly unbalanced. IMO the correct course of action would therefor be to include faction, large and X-large Pith boosters in the 15% increase to boost amount, but exclude small and medium Pith and all Gist boosters. Ideally, I would also completely overhaul to Gist and small and medium Pith boosters to bring them in line with other local reppers. However, I accept that with so much isk invested in these modules it will be a thankless task and, perhaps, too much to expect on this occasion. Or you could reduce the cap draw abit on the large & x-large pith boosters. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:39:00 -
[296] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:I don't think that AAR's should use no cap... but I think having them use less cap would be a good idea.
AAR's have so much potential but 15% HP increase isn't going to fix them..
- nanite skills affecting AAR's - reduced cap need - remove limit of 1 AAR per ship - reduce cycle time so reps are frequent - change reload time either reduce to 15-20 secs or use an inject system - when nanite runs out AAR reps at 75% until more nanite paste is injected which takes 15-20 secs whilst still repping at 75% of normal and then can rep at usual nanite paste rate.
This promotes armour repping as more continuous but repping less than shield boosters Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1072
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:56:00 -
[297] - Quote
Messoroz wrote:Sweet, my archon can now tank 10 supers with links, drugs, rep rigs and implants. (We already have 2 pimp fit archons that can tank 3 nyxes for ~10 minutes).
Perhaps you should stop overlooking the carriers when you buff the reps because all the changes are overdoing it just a little.
The issue comes from the +resist everyone says for ages is completely op. Take those 4% per lvl away, problem solved. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1072
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:59:00 -
[298] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship.. Still a Cruiser vs a Battleship. Kind of obscene that it overall takes less incoming damage (sig rad / speed tank) yet can also be fitted out to rep more armor per second.
And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it.
It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite?
Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
331
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 21:11:00 -
[299] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it.
It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite?
Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm
Except you failed in reading comprehension. The T3 has more RAW rep than the BS does. Before taking into account any sig/angular velocity mitigation, i.e. Sit both of them completely still inside frig optimal also sitting still and the T3 Reps more. Meaning it tanks dramatically more once you add in those factors. Now do you understand what the complaint on T3's rep power is? |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 21:39:00 -
[300] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:pve obviously doesnt matter in any balancing issues,
I could swear some of the dev types have posted that they can, do, and need to balance things around PvE as well as PvP. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |