EVE Search - Boost Energized Adaptive Nano II's plz.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Boost Energized Adaptive Nano II's plz.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nyxus GALAXIAN	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:36:00 - [1] Back in the good old days, everyone active tanked armor. This made a "tanked ship have resists that looked like; 60em/60therm/60expl/60kin With racial ship bonuses providing flavor. This was balanced. Then came the boost to tanking. Boosting tanking was good. Boosting tanking so that 1 race that was primarily 1 damage type does 50% less damage than the others was not. With EAN II's and skills the resistance profile of a tanked ship is now; 80em/60therm/60expl/60kin With racial bonuses providing some varaiation. Everyone who armor tanks now has this profile, as it takes no cap, less cpu, and damage controls provide the equivalent of a built in plate. Only an idiot or someone kitting out for specific NPC's does anything different. TBH this situtation unfairly punishes Amarr, as Amarr are unable to switch crystals to different damage types and are stuck with primarily EM damage, especially at longer ranges. Rather than nerfing the EM component of energized adaptive nano II's I suggest boosting the other 3 to EM resistance levels. Tanking needs a bit more love anyway. Please consider making the resistance profile with 2 EAN II's and a DC look like; 80em/80therm/80expl/80kin This would boost tanking a bit more (good thing) and somewhat mitigate the extreme pain of shooting anything with lasers and put turrets back on a more even footing. Thanks from Your Amarr Overlords, Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Blind Man Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:39:00 - [2] what about the shield tankers
Wrayeth PAX Interstellar Services Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:40:00 - [3] I seriously hope this is a joke post. We don't need 80% across the board ships running around everywhere - it'd make 1-v-1's more a matter of who has more cap booster charges in his hold than who can break his opponent's tank through damage output. I vote a resounding 'no'. -Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Xendie	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:43:00 - [4] Originally by: Wrayeth I seriously hope this is a joke post. We don't need 80% across the board ships running around everywhere - it'd make 1-v-1's more a matter of who has more cap booster charges in his hold than who can break his opponent's tank through damage output. I vote a resounding 'no'. so why do you need 80 against EM then or they could trim it down so EM is a MAX of 60 res with "EAN+DCU" tank then. Quote:* Nertzius > having fun being incompetitent?
Sancho Matar	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:48:00 - [5] EM is the best against shield and the worst against armor. nuff said.
Dixon	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:49:00 - [6] This is a horrible idea... just horrible. Nerf the damn things, don't boost them... jeez.
Nahia Senne Fortunis Novum Black Flag Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:52:00 - [7] awesome! after this is implemented, my next thron setup will sport cargo expanders so i can load even more 800's
Jin Entres Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:54:00 - [8] The same can be said about projectiles vs shields with invul fields. Rather than going into tampering EANM, just tune the EM/TM damage balance toward TM on ammo types that are heavily EM based. ---
tookar	Posted - 2006.07.26 13:01:00 - [9] EM is not the best against shields cos it is such an obvious hole it often ends up a higher resist on shield tanked ships than the others . Before everyone was fitting ean2 armour em resistance was nearly always 60% , now we have 80% on armour tankers and 60-70% on shield .
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.26 13:07:00 - [10] Originally by: Sancho Matar EM is the best against shield and the worst against armor. nuff said. Yes, and since we have an equal amount of shieldtanking and armortanking ships (especially with PvP fittings) everything is fi...oh, wait. Also, I agree with Dixon.
Nyxus GALAXIAN	Posted - 2006.07.26 13:09:00 - [11] Originally by: Jin Entres The same can be said about projectiles vs shields with invul fields. Rather than going into tampering EANM, just tune the EM/TM damage balance toward TM on ammo types that are heavily EM based. Well this is almost true with projectiles, except for the fact that there is no 100% expl projectile ammo as there is 100% EM ammo. Oh, and the expl projectile ammo is also has an EM component so it's not that bad at shooting hardened shields as EM ammo is against 80% hardened armor. But tbh I could care less about the shield thing, and I don't see many matari complaints about invul field II's even with the resists. I would be fine with nerfing the EANII's down to 60/60/60/60 as opposed to boosting, but as people always get their panties in a knot about nerfs I went with the boost side of things. To everyone who says "OMG 80 WTF THAT'S NOT BALANCED!!111!!ONE". Why is it balanced for EM to be 80, but not anything else? Especially when you have 1 race that is most restricted in damage types forced to use primarily EM? Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Dred 'Morte Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.26 13:17:00 - [12] I fly Amarr ships and you know I have to say to CCP? Keep nerfing us. I really don't care as long as they don't make Amarr ships worse at the only thing they are good at: NPCing belts. Signature made by Mr Floppykickners
Nyxus GALAXIAN	Posted - 2006.07.26 14:04:00 - [13] Blech, maybe I should have changed the title to "OMG NERF EAN II'S PLZ". I would rather see that happen since resistances can lead to infinite tanking of smaller ships, but more survivability and length of time fighting sounds pretty good to me at this point. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Shadowsword Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.26 15:55:00 - [14] When reading that thread an idea crossed my mind: Why not increase all shield EM resist to a base 20% and decrease EM armor resist to a base 40%? Still balanced, problems about amarr damage types solved. ------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy.
Liet Traep Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.26 18:14:00 - [15] Nyx shush, :) Don't ask them to nerf my tank.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.26 18:19:00 - [16] Originally by: Shadowsword When reading that thread an idea crossed my mind: Why not increase all shield EM resist to a base 20% and decrease EM armor resist to a base 40%? Still balanced, problems about amarr damage types solved. This is actually a great idea.
Nyxus GALAXIAN	Posted - 2006.07.26 19:34:00 - [17] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Shadowsword When reading that thread an idea crossed my mind: Why not increase all shield EM resist to a base 20% and decrease EM armor resist to a base 40%? Still balanced, problems about amarr damage types solved. This is actually a great idea. It sounds interesting. What does the resistance profile look like with Armor: 2 EAN II's and a DC or third EAN II? Shield: 2 invuln field II's and an EM hardner? (commmon shield tank setup) Nyxus PS - Liet maybe Tuxy won't nerf ean IIs. Maybe he will boost them so all resists are 80%. One can only hope something is done for us laser users though. Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Drenad	Posted - 2006.07.26 20:31:00 - [18] Originally by: Shadowsword When reading that thread an idea crossed my mind: Why not increase all shield EM resist to a base 20% and decrease EM armor resist to a base 40%? Still balanced, problems about amarr damage types solved. best idea I have read in ages.. agreed!
Shadowsword Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.26 20:51:00 - [19] Originally by: Nyxus Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Shadowsword When reading that thread an idea crossed my mind: Why not increase all shield EM resist to a base 20% and decrease EM armor resist to a base 40%? Still balanced, problems about amarr damage types solved. This is actually a great idea. It sounds interesting. What does the resistance profile look like with Armor: 2 EAN II's and a DC or third EAN II? Shield: 2 invuln field II's and an EM hardner? (commmon shield tank setup) Nyxus PS - Liet maybe Tuxy won't nerf ean IIs. Maybe he will boost them so all resists are 80%. One can only hope something is done for us laser users though. For the suggested armor tank the EM resist would be the same than the thermal resist, before you factor in racial resistances. For the shield tank EM and Therm would be the same, and players would probably replace the EM hardener by a thermal one, since it's a more frequent damage type. Ironically, it would give the same effect on shield that the suggestion some players made to switch EM and thermal as primary and secondary damage types, and on armor you'd have a base 40%/40% for EM and thermal resists to chew throught. ------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy.
Stamm Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.26 21:01:00 - [20] Originally by: Liet Traep Nyx shush, :) Don't ask them to nerf my tank. Hah! I'm sure I read you saying something about finding a stack of cheap ones in Vinko's channel :P Seriously though, something needs to give. It's NOT Amarr DPS. We really don't have a DPS problem, please don't believe the hysteria, our raw DPS is fine. (There ARE issues of course, fitting etc). It could be base armour resists - but flattening these detracts from the game I think. It could be the %ages on EANs - possibly. It could be the fact that EANs are the no brainer fit for everybody - Here's the solution. EANs as a whole need to be less competitive than single membranes. Some figures for you. A Dominix (nothing special about it's resists) 60/10/35/35 resists With an explosive, a thermal and a kinetic membrane, tech 2. (Comp skills at 4) 60/50.5/64.25/64.25 - Average 59.75 With 3 EAN IIS (No damage control to keep this comparison accurate) 79.24/53.28/66.26/66.26 - Average 66.26 WTF? It's BETTER _everywhere_. Why on earth should fitting an 'uh I don't know' module end up better than specific resists? Something needs to give here. Please note I could have used active hardeners, but I didn't, I'm comparing like for like. And like for like specific membranes are rubbish. Either EANs need nerfed down so that they always give worse average resists than specific membranes, or specific membranes need a boost (then hardeners will need a boost). I'd suggest EAN 2s gave 10% to each resist, rather than 20%. Sound harsh? Not really when they give you a flat 20% damage resist bonus. Specific hardeners give you a 37.5% damage resist to 1/4 of the damage, equivalent to a 9.375% damage resist bonus.
Guillame Herschel	Posted - 2006.07.26 21:29:00 - [21] Edited by: Guillame Herschel on 26/07/2006 21:32:24 What if they were to replace EANs with 4 racial Energized Adaptive Plates that boost resists for two damage types? Amarr EANs would boost EM and Thermal resists. Minmatar EANs would boost Explosive and EM. Gallente would boost Kinetic and Thermal. Caldari would boost Kinetic and Explosive. The resist boost amount should be something in between the boost from existing EANs and existing single resist plates. The same idea can be applied to sheild resist amps. This would let you tailor your tank to your ships' strengths and weaknesses. You couldn't tank everything like now, but you could tank the ones you care about pretty good, maybe even a little better than before.
lofty29 Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.26 21:31:00 - [22] Edited by: lofty29 on 26/07/2006 21:32:26 Originally by: Blind Man what about the shield tankers May I say - Estamels Invulnerability Field? 50% resistances to all. 3 of those and you've got 85 / 95 / 90 / 90. Add on a gistii sheild booster (XL) and a boost amp, coupled with some RCU's, and there you go. A pretty sustainable tank, and a beast of one. I-win-1v1? But then again, that would cost 5 - 7 billion --------------------------- Originally by: HippoKing ...I suck at forums
Father Weebles Lost Dawn Technologies	Posted - 2006.07.26 22:04:00 - [23] Originally by: Wrayeth I seriously hope this is a joke post. We don't need 80% across the board ships running around everywhere - it'd make 1-v-1's more a matter of who has more cap booster charges in his hold than who can break his opponent's tank through damage output. I vote a resounding 'no'. ecm beats both
Nikolai Nuvolari Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 22:59:00 - [24] Originally by: Shadowsword When reading that thread an idea crossed my mind: Why not increase all shield EM resist to a base 20% and decrease EM armor resist to a base 40%? Still balanced, problems about amarr damage types solved. \o/ ------------------ Originally by: kieron Buy ISK for RL cash here! Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
TuRtLe HeAd Apocalypse Enterprises	Posted - 2006.07.26 23:14:00 - [25] /me Sells all his faction hardeners instantly.
Durethia RillaCorp	Posted - 2006.07.27 00:37:00 - [26] Edited by: Durethia on 27/07/2006 00:39:17 I agree that the Armor tanking modules/skills (especially for Gallente) need a little love. But, I do not agree with 80 resistances across the board... for T1 ships, for one adaptive nano. Particularly, in face of Caldari shield resistance bonuses (i.e. Ferox and BC lvl 5), I think some of the resistance bonuses for the Armor Compensation skills should be a little better. The Armor Compensation skills are rather skimpy, but we are compelled to train them up becuase it's all that's available. Please look at these bonuses. But, most importantly... the values for armor tanking modules and their T2 equivalents seem somewhat bugged. A 'Colateral'/'Refuge' Adaptive Nano plate has better resistances across the board than a T2 Adaptive Nano plate. A Rolled Tungsten plate is often better than the T2 equivalent becuase the T2 equivalent doesn't provide that much more HP and requires much more fitting requirements. (Every time I fit a 800mm II, it's just becuase my ego want's T2. There's only a 2hp difference... I mean you don't even gain enough HP for just one more average hit from a T2 weapon.) A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline... --Nicolo Machiavelli (1505 AD)
Double TaP The Establishment	Posted - 2006.07.27 04:17:00 - [27] Originally by: lofty29 Edited by: lofty29 on 26/07/2006 21:32:26 Originally by: Blind Man what about the shield tankers May I say - Estamels Invulnerability Field? 50% resistances to all. 3 of those and you've got 85 / 95 / 90 / 90. Add on a gistii sheild booster (XL) and a boost amp, coupled with some RCU's, and there you go. A pretty sustainable tank, and a beast of one. I-win-1v1? But then again, that would cost 5 - 7 billion Would cost about 10bil. But the look on your face as the domi drains the last ounces of your cap would be priceless
Weirda Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 04:22:00 - [28] if weirda can kill an armor tanked minnie HAC w/a zealot then you can STFU... good for a laugh as all of the Amarr thread are. funny that it would seem a minnie with split specialization (amarr/minnie) can fly Amarr ship better then the slavers... __ Weirda Join QOTSA Now
Weirda Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 04:25:00 - [29] Originally by: Guillame Herschel Edited by: Guillame Herschel on 26/07/2006 21:32:24 What if they were to replace EANs with 4 racial Energized Adaptive Plates that boost resists for two damage types? Amarr EANs would boost EM and Thermal resists. Minmatar EANs would boost Explosive and EM. Gallente would boost Kinetic and Thermal. Caldari would boost Kinetic and Explosive. The resist boost amount should be something in between the boost from existing EANs and existing single resist plates. The same idea can be applied to sheild resist amps. have always wanted this - even posted a few time before. would <3 this so much! __ Weirda Join QOTSA Now
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.27 08:27:00 - [30] Nah, the biggest point in using passive modules is the fact you can survive LAG. At least in BattleShips. The active modules don't use enough cap to be of any relevance. It's just about having them active without the need to activate them. You get better resistances using a shield tank, and better boosting. But that is not lag proof. As long as we have that as a problem, ppl will passive tank. Mind control and tin hats

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.