EVE Search - Solution to the Amarr problem...simple, easy, and will work.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Solution to the Amarr problem...simple, easy, and will work.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:24:00 - [1] Increas the EM damage on all crystals by 50%. Problem solved. --
Foulis	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:25:00 - [2] Originally by: StinkFinger Increas the EM damage on all crystals by 50%. Problem solved. You know why there isn't a solution to the "Amarr Problem"? There isn't an amarr problem. Their ships are well balanced, and do what they do well. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:29:00 - [3] There is an amarr problem, but it does not need a blanket change, it needs specific ships looking at.
Hakuin	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:30:00 - [4] Originally by: Foulis Originally by: StinkFinger Increas the EM damage on all crystals by 50%. Problem solved. and do what they do well. Yes, nothing. ________ In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.
Cruz	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:30:00 - [5] The problem is a fitting problem. Fix the PG usage on lasers or boost the grid of certain amarr ships. --------------------------- For the glory of the empire!
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:35:00 - [6] Problem is that the vast majority of ships start with a very high base EM resist. Only way to counter that is to lower the resist or increase the EM dmg crystals do. The latter is easier and more effective. --
Foulis	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:37:00 - [7] Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Originally by: HippoKing There is an amarr problem, but it does not need a blanket change, it needs specific ships looking at. That's what I mean. There isn't an "Amarr Problem". There is a Tach problem, and a Sacrilege problem. Just like there was a typhoon problem. The amarrians have (in general) good tanks and a decent amount of damage besides. They have ships that are good at tanking (maller, punisher, absolution, apoc) and ships that are good at ganking (arma, that gank cruiser, zealot). They even have ships that fill a variety of roles (arbitrator, pilgrim, curse). I don't see what they have to whine about in those regards. I especially don't see why they need more damage. Edit: Originally by: Hakuin Yes, nothing. So you're saying that you don't have one of the best tanking BS in the game. That the apoc has actually ceased to exist. That the arma has had all but 1 turret HP removed too? DAMN MAN, you've really been nerfed. Originally by: StinkFinger Problem is that the vast majority of ships start with a very high base EM resist. Only way to counter that is to lower the resist or increase the EM dmg crystals do. The latter is easier and more effective. Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Foulis	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:42:00 - [8] Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:03 fsck double post. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:43:00 - [9] Is this the start of another 37 pages? --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:46:00 - [10] Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. --
Benglada	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:51:00 - [11] Originally by: StinkFinger Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. yes, it is. (and iirc crystals do more base damage then any other ammo, iv been hit by geddons with all 80 resists and they can still gank better then most other ships) --------------------------- Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
Foulis	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:51:00 - [12] Originally by: StinkFinger Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. Yet again, amarr ships aren't all about the gank, that is to a lesser extent gallente territory. You have high quality sustainable tanks to back it up with. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:51:00 - [13] solution to the amarr problem: free +int implants from the emperor and restrictions for forum posting Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:52:00 - [14] Originally by: Foulis Originally by: StinkFinger Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. Yet again, amarr ships aren't all about the gank, that is to a lesser extent gallente territory. You have high quality sustainable tanks to back it up with. dmg > tank Everytime. --
Hakuin	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:54:00 - [15] Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 So you're saying that you don't have one of the best tanking BS in the game. That the apoc has actually ceased to exist. That the arma has had all but 1 turret HP removed too? DAMN MAN, you've really been nerfed. Yes yes, continue talkin' about amarr BS, never talk about amarr t1 frigate, inty, AF, stealth bomber, covert ops, small pulse lasers, small beam lasers... But ehy! Tachs are uber = Amarr are uber too... (I don't fly amarr bs) ________ In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:56:00 - [16] Originally by: StinkFinger 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. You know what, your solution is not going to solve that; it's even going to make it worse. Who is going to shield tank when laser have it even easier against shield tanks ? The real problem is ecm and the like, or how mid slot mods are usually so much better/useful/needed than low slot mods, making it way better, so often, to armor tank - especially with eanm t2. What need to be done is to make shield tanking worthwhile again, by balancing low and mid slot mods, and not the opposite. I'm sorry to say that so bluntly but your solution is awful and not going to improve anything. NB.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:03:00 - [17] Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: StinkFinger 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. You know what, your solution is not going to solve that; it's even going to make it worse. Who is going to shield tank when laser have it even easier against shield tanks ? The real problem is ecm and the like, or how mid slot mods are usually so much better/useful/needed than low slot mods, making it way better, so often, to armor tank - especially with eanm t2. What need to be done is to make shield tanking worthwhile again, by balancing low and mid slot mods, and not the opposite. I'm sorry to say that so bluntly but your solution is awful and not going to improve anything. NB. Fixing shield tanking is going take a hell of alot more work and tweaking then solving the pitiful amount of damage 90% of amarr ships do. Bump up EM damage and stop the whiners from whining. --
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:09:00 - [18] Originally by: StinkFinger Fixing shield tanking is going take a hell of alot more work and tweaking then solving the pitiful amount of damage 90% of amarr ships do. Bump up EM damage and stop the whiners from whining. I know I better have a proper balance than half-assed fix that rules many options out of the game. Many people would like to think that a less complex gameplay would be more interesting, but all it is going to do is make balancing more difficult. Less complex gameplay = less significant variables = gameplay harder to balance. If anything, complexity is very helpful in any balancing process as it increase the variables that can be tweaked, allowing things to be different yet balanced. So, in a word, no. NB.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:13:00 - [19] Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: StinkFinger Fixing shield tanking is going take a hell of alot more work and tweaking then solving the pitiful amount of damage 90% of amarr ships do. Bump up EM damage and stop the whiners from whining. I know I better have a proper balance than half-assed fix that rules many options out of the game. Many people would like to think that a less complex gameplay would be more interesting, but all it is going to do is make balancing more difficult. Less complex gameplay = less significant variables = gameplay harder to balance. If anything, complexity is very helpful in any balancing process as it increase the variables that can be tweaked, allowing things to be different yet balanced. So, in a word, no. NB. I would say that an entire race of ships (except the geddon) being non-viable in pvp is the definition of 'less complex gameplay'. --
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:15:00 - [20] yeah and while you're at it increase base explosive damage of ammo and missiles by 50%, because those damn shields start with 60% base resist to explosive. and while you're nerfing eanm, don't forget to nerf invulnerability field, they make those shields unpenetrable by explosive torps and nuclear ammo. thats overpowered.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:18:00 - [21] Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe yeah and while you're at it increase base explosive damage of ammo and missiles by 50%, because those damn shields start with 60% base resist to explosive. and while you're nerfing eanm, don't forget to nerf invulnerability field, they make those shields unpenetrable by explosive torps and nuclear ammo. thats overpowered. Why? You have the option of using therma, kinetic, or even EM missles and ammo. No need for any changes there. Amarr ships are restricted to EM being their primary with thermal a distant secondary, damage type. --
OrangeAfroMan	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:19:00 - [22] What problem? There literally is nothing wrong with Amarr, they are actually very well balanced. Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:20:00 - [23] Originally by: StinkFinger I would say that an entire race of ships (except the geddon) being non-viable in pvp is the definition of 'less complex gameplay'. First, that's wrong at best, and pathetic propaganda in politically correct terms in any other perspective. Second, ECM is broken, the whole low/mid slot balance is broken since the stacking changes, and those are the problems that need to be adressed independantly from the issues with amarr ships. The only thing mitigating this are stabs, which arguably are very broken too, leaving us with a stack of problems that your solution is nowhere near close to solve. Thirdly, when the current ecm/nos issues are taken care of, it will be time to redefine the role of some amarr ships, as tanking is forever lacking due to how very fundamental game mechanisms are; and for tanking ships more than cap and a small extra armor buffer is needed. As a conclusion, not only is your solution not going to solve anything, but it is also going to break things that are working fine at the moment. Hardly a fix by any reasonable definition of the word. NB.
Zhaine	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:21:00 - [24] It's pretty clear that lowering 'standard' armor EM resitst to 50% (or around that, perhaps lower) would be far more suitable than your solution, as it doesn't mean that lasers would become vastly overpowered against shields with no EM hardener/no cap left. The problem is the dominance of armour tanks, especially passive/EANM tanks with plates, which lasers with their high EM damage are poor against. Your boost to lasers would certainly combat this, but it would overpower lasers in other places where they are fine. By the way I'm not saying that lowering EM resists is the correct solution, it's just a better one than the OP's. - - - - - - - - - - Quote: I don't even want a ship, ships are for carebears. Give me a fish bowl for my head (to keep space out) and smear me with lard, then armed with a toasting fork-
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:25:00 - [25] Originally by: Zhaine It's pretty clear that lowering 'standard' armor EM resitst to 50% (or around that, perhaps lower) would be far more suitable than your solution, as it doesn't mean that lasers would become vastly overpowered against shields with no EM hardener/no cap left. The problem is the dominance of armour tanks, especially passive/EANM tanks with plates, which lasers with their high EM damage are poor against. Your boost to lasers would certainly combat this, but it would overpower lasers in other places where they are fine. By the way I'm not saying that lowering EM resists is the correct solution, it's just a better one than the OP's. 50% was just a random number. 10-15% may be more realistic. Bottom line, an increase in EM dmg would make more amarr ships viable in pvp. --
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:26:00 - [26] Originally by: StinkFinger 50% was just a random number. 10-15% may be more realistic. Bottom line, an increase in EM dmg would make more amarr ships viable in pvp. For the last time. Before making amarr ships better, it's first going to make shield tanking even more useless than it already is. NB.
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:27:00 - [27] Originally by: StinkFinger Why? You have the option of using therma, kinetic, or even EM missles and ammo. No need for any changes there. Amarr ships are restricted to EM being their primary with thermal a distant secondary, damage type. you do have that option as well ... fit some projectiles? launch some drones? Kind of irrelevant but I remember looting lots of projectile guns off some apoc/geddon NPCs :)
OrangeAfroMan	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:32:00 - [28] Originally by: StinkFinger Originally by: Foulis Originally by: StinkFinger Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. Yet again, amarr ships aren't all about the gank, that is to a lesser extent gallente territory. You have high quality sustainable tanks to back it up with. dmg > tank Everytime. LOL So he basically just lost all credibility Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:32:00 - [29] Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe Originally by: StinkFinger Why? You have the option of using therma, kinetic, or even EM missles and ammo. No need for any changes there. Amarr ships are restricted to EM being their primary with thermal a distant secondary, damage type. you do have that option as well ... fit some projectiles? launch some drones? Kind of irrelevant but I remember looting lots of projectile guns off some apoc/geddon NPCs :) So in order to make amarr ships viable, your solution is to fit projectiles or hybrids? Smells like '04 to me. --
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:37:00 - [30] Problem 1: Medium Beams. - Needs powergrid looked into! And this aply to beams and beams only. You know the one that currently take more than 15 powergrid for T1. Problem 2: Tracking. - Tracking is a laser's strong point. It's far better than tracking on hybrids mounted onto Megathrons, even though no specific bonus are given for lasers. The problem? Tracking doesn't matter nearly enough for this massive advantage to become an advantage worth noting. Problem 3: Lack of diversity in all of EVE. - Ships are just too similar within classes. For example, Megathron and Armageddon perform very similarly. What if the 'geddon had a lot better capacitor but it's weapons also consumed more cap? The lack of diversity slightly rob the Amarr of identity. Caldari have strong EWar while Gallente have drones that are more or less unique to them, Minmatar have speedy agile ships, while Amarr have... well... Problem 4: Uneven damage type distribution. - Crystals should do 40% Th and 60% EM (or there about). In some cases they do 100% EM (Radio) - THIS is wrong. New sig coming soonÖ By "soon" I do not necessarily mean "this year"

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.