| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Azeroth Uluntil
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2006.07.27 08:49:00 -
[31]
No, leave them alone. They are good as is when you get the skills relevant to them. I like my 25% boost across the board from a passive module, when those that use an active module only get 30% across the board(Invulnerability II) for shields.
|
Ithildin
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 08:59:00 -
[32]
OP: No, what needs to be done is make specific (active and otherwise) hardeners much more attractive to fit. The concept of the multi-hardeners is that they should be better in smaller numbers or when you don't know what you are up against. Currently, they are better regardless.
A flat out boost of somewhere between 10% and 20% to all specific hardeners (shield and armour, both) should do it (so that an active T1 hardener would end up between 55% and 60%).
When 3 specific hardeners are better than 3 multi-hardeners, the EM resistance balance on armour tanks become much more in favour to the laser users as even explosive resistance tend to become higher than EM resistance due to the fact that EM is the last hardener you fit on an armour tank.
Dark skies torn apart
Heavens open before me
I, the light of death |
Armi Tage
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 09:07:00 -
[33]
you want the EAN IIs to stop to be a no-brainer mod? Make them active, comparable to invulfields, with less reists as now with comp.skills, might work.
They would still see wide use but maybe a bit less
fix Interbus Missions - don't remove them |
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 09:26:00 -
[34]
 Originally by: Ithildin
OP: No, what needs to be done is make specific (active and otherwise) hardeners much more attractive to fit. The concept of the multi-hardeners is that they should be better in smaller numbers or when you don't know what you are up against. Currently, they are better regardless.
A flat out boost of somewhere between 10% and 20% to all specific hardeners (shield and armour, both) should do it (so that an active T1 hardener would end up between 55% and 60%).
There is a small problem here, though: damage controls.
The better named DC give you about the same resistance boni as a 3rd EAN2 (with high com skills) and also give you 56-58% hull resists.
Even if t2 active harderners would give 65% resistance a 3 active harderner setup will most likely still be in the end a smaller effective HP boost than a 2 EAN2 + DC setup if you include the additional hull hp (and this even if you do not get any EM damage).
|
Sebroth
FinFleet
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 10:21:00 -
[35]
The big Q is why lasers are em/therm. It just dont make any sense at all. Lasers should be therm/exp and the em should be restricted to some missiles and smartbombs.
anyway I do agree that amarr did take a hit when they boosted the use of EAN and the devs should be thinking about if that was a good thing or not aka if the amarr ships needed that nerf. I dont fly amarr ships myself and hardly never meet one in "fair" pvp since everyone is using gallente or caldari ships + the odd vaga pilot so I only have the forums to go by and we all know how much crap that is posted on the forums
moving some of the em res from armor to shield sounds like a good idea but if you move to much you guarantee that the few that are using active hardners will start using EANs
but if you are moving em res you have to move some other res the other way or the natural resist on shield will be higher then that on the armor... and with the tier 3 minne bs that might not be a bad thing
-----
Never knock on Death's door; ring the doorbell and run (he hates that) |
Dano Sarum
Giants in the Playground
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 21:04:00 -
[36]
Easier solution, nerf the hell out of everyones lowslots. Annoys me no end that some ships got 1/2 midslots max, yet things like ferox's have a ton of lowslots and can armor and shield tank.
|
Murukan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 21:35:00 -
[37]
lower shield explosive resists then 
In rust we trust!!! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |