EVE Search - Dare I ask, the removal of EANM's

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Dare I ask, the removal of EANM's

» 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)
gu o Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.12 18:39:00 - [1] I will start off as I typically do, I have terrible writing skills and am sorry for the poor gramaticle errors that will be in this post. Also I am not trying to sound like a jerk nor flame anyone simply hope that tux can hear my side of the story. I will not introduce what an EANM is simply because if you do not know what one is, I highly doubt you have the place to be responding to this thread. Sorry but just the way I feel. As many of you know the vast majority of people who are actuvly engaged in pvp are armour tankers. And as such typically you will find most tanks fitted with an EANM or two. This addition of EANM's has hurt the damage output of many weapon systems but the biggest race/weapon type to be nerfed by this is Amarr. Yes I know soundign like another Amarr whine but it's not. I will however use the EM resistance to clarify why the EANM's are over powering. The advent of EANM II's to the game has Vastly limited the damage output of lasers. Before the EANM era people had to add an EM specific hardener which limited the resistances to the other damage types, as well as hurt their damage output. I made a quick little chart of the races who typically armour tank and their resistances on armour with the addition of just one EANM II. (M)76%-EM (G)68%-EM (A)68%-EM (A)28%-XP (A)28%-XP (M)36%-XP (T)40%-KI (L)52%-KI (A)40%-KI (A)48%-TH (L)36%-TH (R)48%-TH I hope this is legable, the race abriviation runs down the side and the resistance next to that. As you can see just adding an EANM hurts the Amarrian's damage type a ton. In the past people would have to add a resistance specific hardener to increase the resistance of a damage type. now they can buffer all the resistances and boost one beyond a necessary level. I admit I enjoy the idea of people still trying to use a triple hardener setup. But lets be real, everyone fits 3 hardeners and one EANM. The need for an em specific hardener no longer exists. Please Tux these EANM's need to be removed they are too over powering. Yes I use them on all my ship setups, they are the king addition to any tank. If i can add one or two and totally remove the effectiveness of a race mean while boost my lower resistances. Heh who wouldn't? If anyone else has something to add please feel free. But please there is no reason to flame here. I am trying to make an honest post not some ranting and raving crazyness (yeah thats a word in my world) and do not feel like gettign blasted by someone. I realize my point is hard to understand becuase of my looped crazy though pattern sorry hopefully someone can unscramble my post and make it legeble. Thanks for your time, ~gu o~
Soyemia Minmatar Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.12.12 18:41:00 - [2] So there is nothing wrong having meaninglesly high explo resists on shield, whateverm no1 cares about minmatar. Proud member of FIX. Hated on finnish channel. FIX lives \o/.
gu o Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.12 18:58:00 - [3] Originally by: Soyemia So there is nothing wrong having meaninglesly high explo resists on shield, whateverm no1 cares about minmatar. Well man as you know the vast majority of pvp is armour tanking. And my alt is minmatar spec'ed and I must say, mimatar are pvp champs. I can choose my damage type and run without cap. It's awesome. I am not certain how you are fitting your ships, but my wolf smashes. Its funny how small projectiles out damage med lasers, and med prjectiles seem to outdamage large lasers. I love the 80-85% resistance on Em, and the ability to change damage types...
Kery Nysell Caldari Nysell Incorporated	Posted - 2006.12.12 18:59:00 - [4] yawn As far as I know, EANM are in the game since the end of 2004 ... when I started in november of that year, they were already there. The only thing that has changed is the "new" Armor Compensation skills, and those were introduced because the passive hardeners, for both shield and armor, were too weak and barely used ... before those skills, there was no point in fitting an EANM, simply because they didn't give a sufficient boost for the slot taken. So in summary, you're complaining about a module that is just fine, while you should be complaining about the skills that give that module a too high bonus (and that "too high bonus" is debatable). I'll let the PvP specialists finish this debate, I don't do any PvP, I find that more boring than watching paint dry ...
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:06:00 - [5] The concept of EANMs is fine, and so are the skills, which are actually there to benefit the damage-specific passive hardeners. The real issue is EANMs' disproportionate effect on armour EM resistance, considering its high base value (and yes, I realise that shield/explosive has the same issue). The fix I suggested a couple of months ago was taking 1/3 of EANMs' modifier to EM damage and adding it to the modifier for Explosive damage. This means that stacking EANMs gives more even resistances to all damage types, rather than giving EM a massive boost while leaving Explosive as a weak spot. More dull, but it seems to me that is the intended function of EANMs anyway.
gu o Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:10:00 - [6] Originally by: Cmdr Sy The concept of EANMs is fine, and so are the skills, which are actually there to benefit the damage-specific passive hardeners. The real issue is EANMs' disproportionate effect on armour EM resistance, considering its high base value (and yes, I realise that shield/explosive has the same issue). The fix I suggested a couple of months ago was taking 1/3 of EANMs' modifier to EM damage and adding it to the modifier for Explosive damage. This means that stacking EANMs gives more even resistances to all damage types, rather than giving EM a massive boost while leaving Explosive as a weak spot. More dull, but it seems to me that is the intended function of EANMs anyway. That is a really good idea, I would totaly back it. Although I am certain a few mini's are about to smash on this idea with a sledge hammer. "Ahh wth we shoot XP nerf us to heck thanks alot"
Sir Bart Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:11:00 - [7] Originally by: gu o I made a quick little chart of the races who typically armour tank and their resistances on armour with the addition of just one EANM II. ... As you can see just adding an EANM hurts the Amarrian's damage type a ton. Actually, it hurts all damage types equally. -20% to each one. The fact that Amarr do the worst damage against those resists is because we're looking at Armor resists. If we didn't have the EANM on board, the result would be the same. The real problem imo is that it's so popular to use an armor tank with EANM + DCU that Amarr ships suffer. There's two ways for this to be fixed: Make shield tanking more common (I think Kali took a step towards this with the ECM nerf and new ships) and another way is to make the active hardeners more usable... I mean, with the CPU cost of t2 they just aren't worth it (even if they didn't use cap and fail when you're getting nos'd). -Bart
Angus McLean Gallente Divinity Trials	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:14:00 - [8] I just had an amazing revelation Dont let the passive skills affect EANMS. Only passive hardeners. as a matter of fact im going to post that...
ARMORINE	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:16:00 - [9] Edited by: ARMORINE on 12/12/2006 19:26:35 i liek sys's idea, but we would need to spread it out instead of putting it all on explosive, sure put alot on explosive but put it eslwhere too. would fix alot of things
Sessho Seki	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:16:00 - [10] curious that EANM's used to be laughable mods, but once compensation skills came out they became useful and are being employed quite commonly now. so I guess the moral of the story is people will whine if anyone is using anything... the solution is for everyone to just not use anything... honor system!

Byzan Zwyth Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:17:00 - [11] if minmatar were stuck with expl damage then they would have the same problem vs shields but they can choose another damage type so it's not. This is an amarr issue only... ---------------------- I fly Amarr and Gallente ships Amarr because they peow peow - and look cool... Gallente because they are effective
D'onryu Shoqui Vengeance of the Fallen Imperium Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:18:00 - [12] can we nerf shield tanking aswell? invun fields are far to over powered, remove that skill for reducing the cap need of shield boosters, isnt there one for reducing the power grid need of shield boosters to? nerf that while your at it. because we all know only armor tanking is overpowered when it comes to dmg types weapons deal. ------------------------- I am a nobody of IMP my views are my own.
Sir Bart Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:22:00 - [13] Originally by: gu o Originally by: Cmdr Sy The fix I suggested a couple of months ago was taking 1/3 of EANMs' modifier to EM damage and adding it to the modifier for Explosive damage. That is a really good idea, I would totaly back it. This is a terrible idea. It's equivalent to taking all the damage types out of the game and making everyone do just one type of damage. Making everything equal is balanced... but it's pretty boring too. An armor tanking ship is supposed to have higher resists against lasers, the problem is that people don't use modules to increase the most common damage types right now, the just use EANM because it has so many benifits: lower cpu, requires no cap, more overall resists added than using actives (although more stacking penalties too so if you have enough slots, eventually, you need to mix actives in). Of course the other problem is that there isn't enough sheild tankers. -Bart
The Anointed Caldari StarBug Industries	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:28:00 - [14] Originally by: gu o I will not introduce what an EANM is simply because if you do not know what one is, I highly doubt you have the place to be responding to this thread. Sorry but just the way I feel. As many of you know the vast majority of people who are actuvly engaged in pvp are armour tankers. Dude, where are the stats for that? Is there even a basis for that assumption? EANM have been in for a long time, and I have never had a problem with them. I dont mean to make this sound like a flame, but I personally do not beleive that you have an argument at all with this.
JeanPierre Gallente Acheron Vanguard Armada The Shadow Ascension	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:40:00 - [15] Originally by: Soyemia So there is nothing wrong having meaninglesly high explo resists on shield, whateverm no1 cares about minmatar. No man, really, once this is gone, we'll whine for the removal of high explosive resistance mods. Once we get rid of all of the passive, then we can turn to powered, because really, it's unfair that something lets you turn it on and get 50% or more damage resistance! And once that's gone, we can eliminate any bonus that stops weapons from working at full effectiveness. Hull tanking is for Real Men, after all. Assuming we get rid of those unfair Damage Control mods I mean. But then we have people who would use armor/hull reps. Do you realize how much that effectively cuts down on my damage dealing ability, if they repair? Geesh, it's a wonder CCP ever introduced them. So away with them too. ------------------------------ Ever notice that people who spend money on beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets are always complaining about being broke and not feeling well?
Xori Ruscuv Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:41:00 - [16] Originally by: Sir Bart Originally by: gu o Originally by: Cmdr Sy The fix I suggested a couple of months ago was taking 1/3 of EANMs' modifier to EM damage and adding it to the modifier for Explosive damage. That is a really good idea, I would totaly back it. This is a terrible idea. It's equivalent to taking all the damage types out of the game and making everyone do just one type of damage. Making everything equal is balanced... but it's pretty boring too. QFMFT. This is a ridiculous idea. What are you trying to do here, nerf Minmatar? It's great playing Caldari-online, isn't it? This IS my main! I just did a portrait swap...
Toshiro Khan Gallente	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:49:00 - [17] Originally by: Byzan Zwyth if minmatar were stuck with expl damage then they would have the same problem vs shields but they can choose another damage type so it's not. This is an amarr issue only... Not entirely true.. While the Minmatar have some minor flexabilty, in their damage types they can not truely choose another damage type due to various penalties etc. Only the Caldari have the ability to choose their damage type. (And before someone mentions the ability to use drones or launcher points.. the same can be stated about amarr after all they have ships that have drone bays and launcher points.)
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:55:00 - [18] Edited by: Mila Prestoc on 12/12/2006 19:57:15 Increase CPU use of EANM and DC's Decrease CPU use of Active Hardeners. People would then have to make a conscious decision what to use. EANM + DC to get good passive resists and structure resists but compramise somewhere else due to cpu (so maybe named reps/lower tier weapons) Active hardeners to get good all round resistances but uses cap, saved cpu allows for better mods (pg allowing of course) elsewhere such as t2 reps. Do not remove them, balance them. They add variaty and choice. It's making that choice a actual decision instead of an instant decision which is key. ------------------------- Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
Dixon Caldari Hells Donkeys	Posted - 2006.12.12 19:57:00 - [19] Originally by: Mila Prestoc Increase CPU use of EANM and DC's Decrease CPU use of Active Hardeners. People would then have to make a conscious decision what to use. EANM + DC to get good passive resists and structure resists but compramise somewhere else due to cpu (so maybe named reps/lower tier weapons) Active hardeners to get good all round resistances but uses cap, saved cpu allows for better mods (pg allowing of course) elsewhere such as t2 reps. Now that is a good idea. - - - - - - Originally by: Ath Amon as long as there will be such umbalance there is no hope to make ships balanced...
gu o Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.12 20:11:00 - [20] Edited by: gu o on 12/12/2006 20:12:57 Hey guys just back from lunch break, wow some people truely like to try and respond as harshly as possible. But never the less, When I stated that the majority of ships used in pvp are armour tanked I did not have actualy numbers to support. Simply personal experience, It is fairly rare (at least where I am) to find a ship coming at you shield tanked. Its just too limiting on your mid slots to shield tank. I can think of a few T2 caldri ships that shield tank, and the vaga. But the rest are armour tanked. Like domi's, rax's, geddons, ruppies, temp's, ect ect ect. It is fairly rare to find a good shield tanked pvp ship. Another point was brought up that I was able to barely respond to before leaving. The minmatar's "issue with shield resistances" While I can somewhat see your issue here I fail to find it holding water in debate. I realize that shields have high explosion resistance, but Minmatar have a keen ability to change their damage type. Granted this is somewhat limited, but it is certainly doable. Most other races are limited to two damage types, but minmatar have an ability to choose somewhat. Some other guy, Jean, was a royal smart-as$ if I was looking for dilusional unitelegent answers I would probably ask my dog. Thanks for trolling have a nice day. Mila had a good idea with the increased CPU use of EANM's and decreased use of hardeners. This makes good sense to me. I would like to hear other comments about it. Well thanks again for all the good replies, ~gu o~ edit:"when I say few caldari ship shield tank; I mean there are few caldari ships used in pvp. they are all for the most part shield tanked"

6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.12 20:19:00 - [21] Change the way passive and active hardeners affect resistances such that you get very small returns beyond 75%. Only tech II ships or tech I with faction/officer mods could get very (+80%)high resists.
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction	Posted - 2006.12.12 20:30:00 - [22] Originally by: Sir Bart This is a terrible idea. It's equivalent to taking all the damage types out of the game and making everyone do just one type of damage. Making everything equal is balanced... but it's pretty boring too. EANMs are not the only form of tanking. I think if you fit a module which raises all resistances by 15% or 20% plus skill, you deserve to get boring uniform resistances, not just a uniform modifier. Meanwhile, everyone else will keep enjoying the variety they already have.
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.12.12 20:32:00 - [23] Originally by: gu o But never the less, When I stated that the majority of ships used in pvp are armour tanked I did not have actualy numbers to support. Simply personal experience, Most player's "simple personal experience" is that all targets are shield tanking Ravens. What else do you see in belts and in (scanned-down) missions? Beware making general statements about ship & setup distributions. As far as minnies go - T2 ammo is only exp with a bit of kinetic. Even T1 is not "selectable" - EMP ammo is 46% EM, 36% exp and 18% kinetic. Similar goes for long range variant (Proton) - 43% EM, 57% exp. Thermal ammo and comes only in short range variant (Phased Plasma). Rest is mix of kinetic and explosive. All in all, that's nowhere near missiles where both T1 and T2 ammo damage is perfectly selectable. You would achieve much better flexibility for lasers by making half of the crystals deal between 50% to 70% thermal (and rest EM) damage. ------ No ISK, no fun
Sir Bart Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.12 20:58:00 - [24] Kinda funny, I said cpu usage in t2 actives is too high, another guy says we should reduce the cpu usage of them... and he gets credit for the good idea. heh heh. Anyways, I agree with reducing cpu usage on actives. I would also like to see cap usage on the t2 actives reduced so they are more usable on cruisers (ei, my Deimos). Finally, change EANM from 20% each to something like ... 18% (10% reduction) so that EANM is still giving better overall resists than actives but to a lesser extent. 18 * 1.25 = 22.5 to all instead of 25%. -Bart
Ergo Morte Gallente	Posted - 2006.12.12 21:08:00 - [25] Ammar get good damage VS shields with poor damage VS armor Matari get poor damage (exp) vs shields and good damagea VS armor Gallante get average damage (kin) VS both shield and armor Calderi can choose damage type but have lowest dps weapons in the game. Nah that can't be right it sounds like it's balanced. nvm.
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction	Posted - 2006.12.12 21:12:00 - [26] Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 12/12/2006 21:16:09 Originally by: Xori Ruscuv QFMFT. This is a ridiculous idea. What are you trying to do here, nerf Minmatar? Perish the thought that they might have to shoot at a 53-58% rather than a 42-49% resist! That really puts the 74-81% commonly achieved on armour EM into perspective. Come on, the only thing balanced about EANM is how it affects Thermal and Kinetic resistances - because they are both in the middle of the range to start with. Check the ship setup threads, 2x EANM II is standard, has been for months, and does Minmatar a slight favour while dealing a blow to the main Amarr damage type by default. I emphasise again, this is the default impact of most common armour tank PVP setups. When was the last time 60% EM resistance was the lowest on an armour tank? When was the last time anyone saw a full active tank used in PVP? Faction battleships aside, you film one in an EVE movie, people laugh. Noob - EANM, plate and damage mods 4tw! So we have to ask exactly what is CCP's and community's desired vision for this module anyway? 1) Uniform modifier, leaving a vulnerability to exploit? 2) Uniform outcome, leaving armour resistances broadly similar? Option (2) is said to be boring, as applying a dual-EANM II tank would leave everything at 50-65% resistances. But look at Option (1), is a module that gives +20% to all resistances intrinsically interesting? And more to the point, while leaving omni-tanks with a vulnerability is in principle a sound way of ensuring balance and the availability of a counter (this even exists in myth and legend, for god's sake), the spirit of the balancing mechanism is somewhat undermined when one race lacks the tools to adapt to exploit it. A handful of ships aside, are Amarr known for drones, missiles or projectiles? To sum up my argument, with EANMs the default PVP armour tank on account of effectiveness and slots freed for plates and/or damage mods, EVE casts the Amarr as Odysseus or David, while denying them the ability to deploy a pointed stick or slots for a slingshot. Or maybe EVE System can say that a pebble is not the Amarr racial damage type, it conflicts with the backstory, sorry, watch out for Goliath's sword. I bet most Amarr users will stop complaining about their damage issues once EANM modifiers are rebalanced, or they are given the tools to adapt. As things stand, EANMs combined with a plate offer only one way of adapting to exploit the enemy's weakness - use another race's ship or bring more friends.
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction	Posted - 2006.12.12 21:14:00 - [27] Originally by: Ergo Morte Ammar get good damage VS shields with poor damage VS armor Matari get poor damage (exp) vs shields and good damagea VS armor Gallante get average damage (kin) VS both shield and armor Calderi can choose damage type but have lowest dps weapons in the game. Nah that can't be right it sounds like it's balanced. nvm. Yeah, I have the manual from the original CD release too. PVP has moved on.
Atar Perpetua Umbra Brotherhood Of Steel	Posted - 2006.12.12 21:15:00 - [28] Maybe we should just remove armor tanking, right? I mean it's already more intensive then shield tanking, takes up low slots so you can't fit as many damage mods, repairs less HP per cycle then shield tank and takes training all those passive skills to make it effective. So yeah ditch it, what's the point! I'd rather see a Kenetic or explosive laser (OMG it's not possible FFS it's a game, like whiping around a kilometer long ship in 5 seconds is!) Explosive laser, the high frequency of this beam is so energetic it causes the armor from the intense energy to react with it's self in an explosive manner. Or maybe a device (Fits like a lens) that converts light energy to a super dense particle (or hell a neutrino) stream for kenetic damage. It's the future, it's sci-fi, make something up! Base it off the tractor beam, it can move objects, a weapon version could move the area it ineracts with with so much force it just rips part of the armor off. So many other ways then nerfing something else, enough nerf, more buff! Click ^^ for a large version!
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.12.12 21:54:00 - [29] Originally by: Atar Maybe we should just remove armor tanking, right? I mean it's already more intensive then shield tanking, takes up low slots so you can't fit as many damage mods, repairs less HP per cycle then shield tank and takes training all those passive skills to make it effective. So yeah ditch it, what's the point! You, sir, are an idiot. Look at the stats with all skills applied. Armor reps, with repair 5, use less cap than shield boosters with comp 5. Armor reps repair more with repair 5 than shield boosters (which have no equivalent skills). Don't bring up shield amps which are basically caldari only due to CPU use. Why do you think you see more armor tanks in game than shield tanks? Also who are the biggest armor tankers? AMARR! You are your own worst enemy! Also, the rest of you are idiots, too. Waaaah my lasers suck vs armor!!! They are supposed to suck against armor, thats part of the game. I find it funny how the same people that whine that armor tanks **** up amarr too much also whine that armor tanks are too weak. If you think lasers suck against armor, wouldn't you want shield tanking to be better, so you'd fight more shield tanks? No, you want uber armor tanks (but only for you), weak shield tanks (because you dont fly them) AND lasers that do awesome damage against everything. God you guys are dumb. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?
Diana Merris Minmatar	Posted - 2006.12.12 21:57:00 - [30] Edited by: Diana Merris on 12/12/2006 21:58:01 There where 2 main possible solutions proposed and everyone discusses the one that treats the simptoms rather than the one the fixes the problem. The thing is most people do armor tank for pvp and use EANMs because they are passive so they keep working even when you are Nosed to zero cap. The correct solution is to fix the game mechanics so people can shield tank and still be effective. That is the source of the problem so that is what needs to be addressed. The ECM nerf is a step in the right direction. Moving webs to high slots where they belong would be another major step. edit: spelling



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.