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) |
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Trifectas Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 23:08:00 -
[421] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps
Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we.
Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow.
Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward.
Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone.
Frustrating. |
Psychoactive Stimulant
TinklePee
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 03:11:00 -
[422] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we. Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow. Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward. Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone. Frustrating.
Did you get nerfed or something? How did they hurt you? You sound like you were nerfed, but I can't seem to find anything in the OP that could possibly hurt you in any way. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:19:00 -
[423] - Quote
Nice changes so far!
But here I am still standing by my point that medium and large armor reps need to loose 50% capacitor activation cost and 33% cycle time.
Note here: A 50% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle is only for the case that the cycle times of medium and large reps go down by 33%. If not a 25% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle should be fine.
So far I cannot see anything wrong with the capacitor cost and cycle times on small armor reps but correct me if I'm wrong.
A general buff in repair power of shield boosters and armor reps is always welcome since the the amount of damage on the field has increased by a ton.
Proceed
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:52:00 -
[424] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Nice changes so far!
But here I am still standing by my point that medium and large armor reps need to loose 50% capacitor activation cost and 33% cycle time.
Note here: A 50% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle is only for the case that the cycle times of medium and large reps go down by 33%. If not a 25% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle should be fine.
So far I cannot see anything wrong with the capacitor cost and cycle times on small armor reps but correct me if I'm wrong.
A general buff in repair power of shield boosters and armor reps is always welcome since the the amount of damage on the field has increased by a ton.
Proceed
Seriously? Do people even think about this stuff before posting it? I'm going to go enjoy my 4000 DPS tank on my strategic cruiser. |
TehCloud
Carnivore Company 24eme Legion Etrangere
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 17:59:00 -
[425] - Quote
Can't really see why Deadspace Large and X-Large Shield Boosts get a 10% increase. 5 or maybe 7.5 should be more than enough imho.
The 15% on the AAR make the module way more attractive, but I fear that this might even be a little bit too much.
Time will tell.
My Condor costs less than that module! |
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Trifectas Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 18:45:00 -
[426] - Quote
Psychoactive Stimulant wrote:HeXxploiT wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we. Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow. Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward. Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone. Frustrating. Did you get nerfed or something? How did they hurt you? You sound like you were nerfed, but I can't seem to find anything in the OP that could possibly hurt you in any way.
I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last..
Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts.
CCP you want tears? You got'em. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 19:35:00 -
[427] - Quote
These are excellent changes, and will really have an impact on active-tanked battleships (as they should). The small and medium Deadspace boosters are super-efficient and don't need any buffs. I honestly don't know what people are complaining about with a nerf... |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:30:00 -
[428] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
Not commenting on shields at all.
You're still not addressing any of the problems that armor actually has. I'm not going to complain one bit about the 15% boost, but that's not where the problems lie.
As I mentioned before, in PVP the problem is that the rep doesn't occur until the end of the cycle. This is not in itself a problem, it makes armor tankers think ahead more while shields are more reactive. As a trade off for the increased fitting and cap efficiency of armor, thats fine with me. But the cycle length is far too long. 12 seconds (medium t2 rep) is enough time for a battlecruiser to go from untargeted to pod. The core mechanics of the module mean that it won't be used over plates.
Where is armor repping used in pvp? On frigates, where the cycle is 3-4 seconds after skills. This is not a coincidence. Until the cycle delay is addressed, armor pvp fits will not change notably. Cut the delay in half, and adjust the HP and Cap per second to match. Then we can see if total rep amount is a problem or not.
In addition, the AAR has far too much downtime compared to it's uptime. 20-odd seconds (too lazy too look up numbers atm) of boosted reps followed 60 seconds of no reps at all is pretty crap. The only time I ever use them is in dual rep fits, and the only time I ever dual rep a pvp ship is with a heavy tackle Vengeance. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:55:00 -
[429] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we. Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow. Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward. Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone. Frustrating.
Yeah, you totally spent a year on farming your Gistum A-type Medium Shield Booster. I have news for you. and it's related to you being bad.
If you're whining because your hilariously OP small/med pithum/gistum(pithi/Gistii) didn't get buffed(they should actually have been nerfed aeons ago) you should just quit this game.
Edit : Make DG/CN boosters 15% aswell, at very least 10% |
auraofblade
Kid's Logistics Inc Moose Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 02:04:00 -
[430] - Quote
I'm a bit worried about Pith boosters since those are effectively Booster+ and doing a relative nerf to them is a rather direct nerf to their niche.
Gist boosters, on the other hand, are primarily cap efficient so the nerf won't be nearly as damaging, just because a Gist can still be left on autorepeat with relative ease. |
|
Whitehound
1805
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 13:35:00 -
[431] - Quote
Why did you not decide to extend the ship bonuses to active tanking to include a bonus to the amount of received remote reps?
I still believe that a bonus such as "+7.5% bonus to local and received armor repair amount per level" will allow these ships to compete better with ships that get bonuses to resistances.
I agree that a bonus to only the local armor repair or shield boost amount will help in shifting around the numbers in CCP's ship statistic if this is the goal of the change, but I do not see how it addresses the source of the problem, which is the competitiveness with other hulls. These ships with bonuses to active tanking will still only be used in small gangs. What makes it worse is that active tanking will become more dominant for small gangs and thereby only destroys the choice and the variety of ships just like the resistance bonuses have destroyed the choice and variety of ships for large fleets. It is like you are dividing the ships into two new roles, one being a small gang role and the other a large fleet role and leaving the players with less choices. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 14:44:00 -
[432] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Why did you not decide to extend the ship bonuses to active tanking to include a bonus to the amount of received remote reps?
Remember how all the brain dead gallente pilots whined that shield resist affected active tanking setups (although not as well as a repping bonus)? You now want ships with rep bonus to be the strictly superior ship in 99% of scenarios. Think for a minute about just how stupid that (and by extension, you) really is. |
Whitehound
1805
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 15:46:00 -
[433] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Whitehound wrote:Why did you not decide to extend the ship bonuses to active tanking to include a bonus to the amount of received remote reps? Remember how all the brain dead gallente pilots whined that shield resist affected active tanking setups (although not as well as a repping bonus)? You now want ships with rep bonus to be the strictly superior ship in 99% of scenarios. Think for a minute about just how stupid that (and by extension, you) really is. No, and please do not label others as brain dead and stupid, but think about it yourself. You seem to forget or to ignore the meaning of the bonuses with regards to small gang and fleet warfare. Increased resistances lower the amount of incoming damage and so reduces the amount of armor repairs or shield boosts needed. These bonuses further increase the effective hitpoints of a ship, which then gives logistics more time to respond. As such are bonuses to resistances always superior for large fleets. Bonuses to local reps do nothing similar, but are irrelevant to large fleet fights. Resistance bonuses can work for solo PvP and small gang PvP in a same way as the bonuses to active tanking do, but after the resistance bonuses have previously been lowered to 4% and active tanking now receiving further increases will it polarize the ships only more in that active tanking bonuses become dominate for solo and small gang PvP, whereas resistance bonuses will continue to be the only option for large fleets. The idea of adding a bonus to the amount of received reps is also rather old and I would like to know from CCP why they have decided against it and to make active local tanks as dominant as is proposed and why they do not want to do anything for fleet fights. Further, bonuses to active local tanks practically demand that every setup requires either an ASB or an AAR or else it becomes a failfit. These bonuses leave one no choice but to always require an active local tank fitted onto these ships and so destroy the freedom of fitting choices. Boosting these bonuses is making this only worse. Please remember that with resistance bonuses one still has the freedom to decide if one wants to fit an active or a passive tank. This is why I say that with these bonuses and the newly proposed changes to them will the ships be split into two roles and thereby the choice of ships itself is being dictated by CCP and is not left as a choice to be made by the players. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 00:25:00 -
[434] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last..
Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts.
CCP you want tears? You got'em.
You have trained for 3 years for a single ship to *START* PVP'ing? WTF takes 3 years to start PVPing with?
wow.
You realize the meta shifts over time, even without CCP tweaking things, right?
I think it's awesome that you wasted 3 years. |
Lynx Sawpaw
Explorer Corps Disavowed.
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 02:15:00 -
[435] - Quote
I am sad capital boosters/reps aren't being touched. I don't think capital reps are in a bad spot to begin with so i understand why they aren't being included now, but I'm just disappointed i cant cackle like a maniac as i face tank a fist of moros in my archon. |
Castelo Selva
Selva Brasil Moon Warriors
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 11:44:00 -
[436] - Quote
OK, I think I am a bit GÇ£dumbGÇ¥.. After all boost, nerf, boost again, I am lost.
Is it possible to make a spread sheet listing the armor repair / shield booster name and the old / new amount?
I think that will be incredible easy for the people to understand what is going on.
Thank you Fozzie for your hard work with balance stuffs.
Castelo |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1125
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 11:57:00 -
[437] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Seriously? Do people even think about this stuff before posting it? I'm going to go enjoy my 4000 DPS tank on my strategic cruiser.
Loki/Tengu for sure you can, even with a medium Pithum A-type and "elite pvp skills/implants/booster" you get already 1100 so 4K fitting a large one is not hard already, Proteus/Legion 4k active tank?- no way. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:54:00 -
[438] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:HeXxploiT wrote:I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last..
Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts.
CCP you want tears? You got'em. You have trained for 3 years for a single ship to *START* PVP'ing? WTF takes 3 years to start PVPing with? wow. You realize the meta shifts over time, even without CCP tweaking things, right? I think it's awesome that you wasted 3 years.
Best Part is that its still not a nerf to his so called plan, it will still tank the same, it just wont be quite as amazing tank number over other bosters as it was before, but the targets he was planning on killing are likely still going to be fit the same and he will tank the same so there is really no nerf. But the tears sure are sweet. |
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:14:00 -
[439] - Quote
Since you are already at the modules, a few need a helping hand.
The Domination\Republic fleet boosters\armor reppers offer very little in performance gain over the meta 4 or T2 ones. Could you consider to:
A:
Knock off 10-20% of the CPU and power grid requirements for the fitting, to make them more attractive on Cruisers/BCs/HACs and T3 or on thigh BS fittings like the fleet phoon?
or
B:
Reduce her cap use by another 10%, to make them more attractive for a her cap efficiency, similar to gist stuff?
Similar things are true for other domination\republic fleet tanking mods:
Domination Invulnerably field:
25% to all resists, 34 cpu, 1.3 cap/s
Caldari Navy Invulnerable Field:
37.5% to all resists, 27 cpu, 3.3 cap/s
Suggestion: Give the Domination at least 30% resists and cut down the CPU use to 20-25 points.
Similar stuff is true for the armor hardeners:
Domination Explosive Armor Hardener(stats are similar for republic fleet):
50% resist, 33 CPU, 0.5 cap/s
Imperial Navy Armor Hardener(stats are similar for the rest):
55% resists 16 CPU, 1.5 cap/s
Suggestion: Give the domination\Republic fleet also 55% and reduce the cpu use to 20-25 points, since CPU is the main reason why faction armor hardeners are used.
The hole line of domination\republic fleet tanking mods needs a few adjustments to become useful compared to the other faction mods. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
Keith Planck
League of Extraordinary Equines Disciples of Vectron
517
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:26:00 -
[440] - Quote
I significantly approve of this new list. |
|
Ubat Batuk
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:33:00 -
[441] - Quote
Trade boosting with local rep? As if they were related. Then you can just remove the boosting and scrap command ships. |
Job Valador
Super Moose Defence Force
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:41:00 -
[442] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:Psychoactive Stimulant wrote:HeXxploiT wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we. Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow. Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward. Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone. Frustrating. Did you get nerfed or something? How did they hurt you? You sound like you were nerfed, but I can't seem to find anything in the OP that could possibly hurt you in any way. I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last.. Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts. CCP you want tears? You got'em.
I am awaiting the contract with all of your stuff "The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement." |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
113
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:02:00 -
[443] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:XXSketchxx wrote:Will these changes affect capital reps? I know you don't say they won't, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Cause this could have an interesting effect on combat triage. They will affect local capital reps, yes.
Cant really follow you there. Doesnt the OP say "No change to ... Capital reps" ? |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 05:25:00 -
[444] - Quote
While you're checking out modules, take a look at the faction medium armor reps. Some of them offer nothing more then easier fitting over t2, and some of them are actually worse (republic fleet i'm looking at you.) Give the underdogs better cap efficiency or lower fitting or something to make them worth existing. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 05:40:00 -
[445] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff? i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.
buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep... I'd say what you're looking at is CCP trying to encourage people switching to active tanking outside of big fleets because active tanks are weaker by nature. It really doesn't matter how you slice it: active tanks die to alpha and are weaker to neuts or high dps. Buffer tanking will always be preferable to active tanking for any situation where dps can be spared for logi. I would expect nerfs to remote repairing to come before the year is over. It makes sense if they're trying to weaken blob tactics by reducing their buffer hp, their links and finishing the process by nerfing remote reps probably by making logi ships incapable of cap stability it's not to make small gangs more attractive against large fleets. large fleets are here to stay simply because having more numbers always gives you an advantage.
When it comes to large numbers of people, you will always have certain people specializing in a certain field. thats how things work, it's more efficient.
these changes just make active tank more usable compared to buffer between small scale engagement gangs. has almost no effect on large scale fleets. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 06:40:00 -
[446] - Quote
Cpt Boomstick wrote:Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly. dont forget the other aspects of shield boosters. A X-Large T2 booster only gets 600 hp for 400GJ while a T2 Large Armor Repairer get 800 hp and 400GJ.
Armor has 1.5 cap/hp ratio while shields have 2.0.
And if your going to compare an ASB to anything do it against the AAR:
The Large Ancillary Armor Repairer does 1350hp for 400GJ (assuming nanites loaded) and does it for 8 cycles (120 seconds)
The X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster does 980hp for 0GJ (again assuming cap charges loaded) and using cap booster 400 does it for 7 cycles (35 seconds)
AAR repairs 10800hp total (90hp/s) ASB boosts 6860hp total (196hp/s)
So, the shield ship becomes vulnerable within 35 seconds. it's not a matter of 1 being more powerful than the other, it's all reliant on playstyle. armor is more passive and drawn out while shield is quick and fast. With an ASB fit shield ship your hope is to kill the enemy before you run out of cap boosters. With armor, you hope to outlast the enemy and use your utility mid slots to keep him where you need him until he has exhausted his options and is vulnerable.
AS for fittings, it's an opposing situation, Armor needs more PG while shield requires more CPU. Shield fits require more cpu than armor and vice a versa. Along with generally higher resists armor also has the option of the 1600mm plate where shields do not have a similar option.
It's all about playstyle.
But the main reason shields have a X-Large booster is because armor has a 1600mm plate, which gives almost 2x as much hp as Large shield extender. |
Diana Kim
State Protectorate Caldari State
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:36:00 -
[447] - Quote
Bad idea IMHO. Some ships are already quite hard to kill, for example, it took me ~10 minutes to kill an incursus with rocket hookbill. Imagine if it had links... and this 15% booster. It will be way harder to fight for solo pilots, because you would need both dps and neuts to break such tanks. |
Kallie Rae
NorCorp Security Tribal Band
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 22:40:00 -
[448] - Quote
Are all these changes on SISI now? Am not 100% sure, but it looks like the Ancillary Armor Repairer is worse off than the T2 variant now with nanite paste loaded? At least according to the number in the fitting window. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:03:00 -
[449] - Quote
Diana Kim wrote:Bad idea IMHO. Some ships are already quite hard to kill, for example, it took me ~10 minutes to kill an incursus with rocket hookbill. Imagine if it had links... and this 15% booster. It will be way harder to fight for solo pilots, because you would need both dps and neuts to break such tanks.
rockets have pitiful dps really.. but more importantly how come it took ten minutes to kill it and you never died and he never got away? 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. |
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
196
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:13:00 -
[450] - Quote
Wait... armor reppers are weaker than shield boosters so you are nerfing them?
CCP please. I can has blogging skills! |
|
|
|
|
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 |