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 22:14:00 - [31] Well tasty, sinse you appear to be the most intellegent person to ever grace this god-given earth. Please divulge us with your infinate wisdom. Or does it extend beyond personal attacks? I will grant you that there are some ill thought replies in these forums. dare I call them non social gatherings of drama? yes. Thank you adding to them, without your most keen reply I think none would have slept tonight. So is there anyway I can help you out in game? no I doubt it you seem to have everythign/everyone under your belt. "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?" Congradulatins for missing the entire reason no one uses shield tanks for pvp...oh wait your talking about everything, like missions n stuff oh nvm your so off topic its silly. But still I think most here can agree; the real reason shield tanks are not typically used in PVP is the fact that without midslots to tackle with pvp is rather pointless. But you knew that... "It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?" I enjoy your sig man that's classic the ole "it sucks to be us" slogan sweet deal. Please if you havn't anythign to contribute other than your own experience ratting in 0.0 sec and shooting back a couple of times before you popped in your one and only PVP engagement or should I say getting ganked engangement; spare us all. IF you have nothing worth a darn to say other than an ill attempt to "Flame" someone then please don't bother to reply. You make yourself out to be nothing more than a troll and quite ill mannered arse of a boy.
MrTripps Gallente	Posted - 2006.12.12 22:29:00 - [32] IMHO the OP has not made his case. I don't see how a mod that boosts all damage types equally is unfair to one race. If anything EANM levels the playing field against EM dealers, but still leaves them with an advantage. After all, as the OP stated, they can use them too. Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Fortior STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.12.12 22:32:00 - [33] Have EANM's use cap like their shield counterpart the Invulnerability Field and bump their CPU usage. Lower the CPU on the damage specific hardners. There, good ideas that have been stated already. They're worth repeating.
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction	Posted - 2006.12.12 22:35:00 - [34] Originally by: MrTripps I don't see how a mod that boosts all damage types equally is unfair to one race. Equal modifier =/= equal outcome.
gu o Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.12 22:55:00 - [35] Originally by: MrTripps IMHO the OP has not made his case. I don't see how a mod that boosts all damage types equally is unfair to one race. If anything EANM levels the playing field against EM dealers, but still leaves them with an advantage. After all, as the OP stated, they can use them too. Yes as Amarrians we do use them you would be a fool not to. They totally factor out a race if you fit 2, why not make it so you only ahve to worry about 3 races. I am trying to justify my claim here so please bear with me I am terrible at making my idea make sense to anyone but myself. I am trying to put across here that EANM's are too good, especiall when factored in with comp skills. People use them to leavel the other races resistance but at the same time totally factor out amarrian damages. I would much preferr if you had to fit resistance type speific hardeners or membranes in order to gain resistance. Not one mod that increases them all. If this were the case I think we would see a general decrease in the EM resistance on armour tanks, unless specifically tanked against them. They would have to use A low slot per resistance and in the case of xplosion more than likely 2 mods. I hope I made some sense this time, sorry for the confusing posts.
Atar Perpetua Umbra Brotherhood Of Steel	Posted - 2006.12.13 00:32:00 - [36] Originally by: Tasty Burger 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. Sarcasm my friend. Click ^^ for a large version!
Twin blade Minmatar The Caldari Confederation	Posted - 2006.12.13 01:11:00 - [37] There is a simple way to balance it Boost Amarr damage to do higher them and lower Em damage that way they will have a better balance in damage vs shields and armor. The reason why so many people armor tank is down to a few reason's. 1 Lack of Cpu for shield tanking 2 Lack of mid slot's needed for shield tanking 3 Lack of a low slot warp jammer to hold the enemy in place 4 NO good low slot speed Mod a nano/overdrive don't replace the lack of a MWD. 5 Cap use given how most ships weapons need cap an a injector needs a mid slot. EANM's are fine and balanced its just amarr damage is to EM heavy. !
Kayden Drake Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.13 03:16:00 - [38] Originally by: Fortior Have EANM's use cap like their shield counterpart the Invulnerability Field and bump their CPU usage. Lower the CPU on the damage specific hardners. There, good ideas that have been stated already. They're worth repeating. Yes I think that is a good idea as well. It only makes sense for the omni-armor tank hardnener to use cap like the omni-shield tank one. The only thing to look at is that the Invulnerablity Field t2 gives 30% to everything, while with max skills, EANM 2s give 25%, which I dont think is a horrible ratio. So if EANMs were to be made active, theyd need to get their resistance boosted to 25% or so as a base since they will lose the compensation bonus (or make it still effect them even though they are active), and their CPU usage/cap usage raised to that of other armor hardeners (they use less cap overall than shield hardeners so I think the 5% less resistance is a fair trade). Maybe all armor hardeners should have their CPU usage lowered by 4 as well (aka 40 on t2 and 36 on t1), but that might be slightly overpowering. I also agree that the ratios of EM/Thermal damage on some crystals need to be looked at and maybe flipped.
Mortuus Minmatar Just-fun Distant Star Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.13 03:39:00 - [39] Yea, because nobody would possibly shield tank a ship for PvP.... Or you need to stop flying solo and use an organised gang. I seem to find a mix of tank types in PvP, smaller ships usually armor tank due to the need for midslot tackling mods. When you are flying a BS with a gang however, thats not needed. Depends on gang makeup, but I'd take a shield tanking high damage BS over a low damage armor tanked BS with enough tacklers and some support. Dear god, maybe you need to take a mix of ship types, set up to perform specific jobs?! Huh, maybe not, that way we can keep wiping gangs 2-3 times larger than ours... Ignore my last sentence, everyone continue to fly easy to negate cookie cutter ships. Thanks and have a nice day. Oh, and my Amarr playing friend often gets to the top of killmails, we seem to be about 50/50, but he has a better tank. My minmatar just fly faster. ex-Occassus Republica <3
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.13 04:36:00 - [40] The solution is simple. Limit the number of EANs and Invuln fields that any ship can fit. Similar to a DCU, only allow 1 EAN/Invuln field to be fit to a ship at one time. Keeps them still really usefull, but you have to think and make tactical decisions on what to harden against. That is the real base problem I have with Omni resist hardeners. Instead of tactical decisions that optimize a ship for some encounters and make them suboptimal for others you can just fit omni hardeners to just tank everything. Tactical decisions on loadouts is part of what makes Eve fun/interesting. Multiple omnimods tanking everything takes away from that. Nyxus Originally by: Sarmaul Probing times are (still) too long. It needed to be made easier to probe people, not like playing hide and seek in a 6x6 room with no furniture.

NeoGeist	Posted - 2006.12.13 05:32:00 - [41] Originally by: Nyxus The solution is simple. Limit the number of EANs and Invuln fields that any ship can fit. Similar to a DCU, only allow 1 EAN/Invuln field to be fit to a ship at one time. Keeps them still really usefull, but you have to think and make tactical decisions on what to harden against. That is the real base problem I have with Omni resist hardeners. Instead of tactical decisions that optimize a ship for some encounters and make them suboptimal for others you can just fit omni hardeners to just tank everything. Tactical decisions on loadouts is part of what makes Eve fun/interesting. Multiple omnimods tanking everything takes away from that. Nyxus EANM's/Invuln are already limited due to the stacking penalties nooblar (unless you already knew this, then i take back the "nooblar"). The only reasons why DCU's are limited to 1 is that A.)they don't follow the stacking penalty and B.) They'd give you 75% all res for your hull, which would make hull tanking an actual possibility, which is kinda nice . Oh, and the amarrians will still complain cause 1x EANM II and 1x DCU still give you a 73% res on EM (assuming max skills). Oh, and if you limit the eanm/dcu's, it won't change the fact that now, armor tanks will tank for thermal more, which will in turn make laser do less dps; then we'll see yet more posts on how thermal damage sucks. Sad, yes i know. Oh and to tasty who posted something like, shields don't give you more hp/sec w/ armor rep skill to 5 is just plain wrong. 1x LAR II give your 800 hp / 11.25 sec where as 1x X-L booster II gives you 600 hp / 5 sec. Do the math please before you make incorrect statements such as these (the X-L booster is the equivalent to a LAR in terms of fitting requirements). In order for an armor tanker to out rep a shield tanker is to do a dual rep, but then a shield tanker could then jsut simply fit a sba. Now the shield tanker w/ max comp skill and an sba now reps just as or faster than the armor tanker and has a better hp/cap ratio: For the x-l II, (6001.3)/(400.9)=2.167hp/cap For the LAR II, 800/400=2hp/cap thus x-l hp/cap > LAR hp/cap.
Sorela Gallente	Posted - 2006.12.13 06:21:00 - [42] To the OP I don't think anyone disagrees that a problem exists but just flatout removing them is too extreme that's all. I mean if you look at them all alone the reality is if you fit EANM's on most ships you will suffer a resistance hole (usually in explosives but sometimes thermal or kinetic depending on the other resistance mods). If you instead use hardeners you can get good resists to all 4. This is supposed to be the real drawback of EANM's. I think the real problem is not in the EW but in the Explosives. For whatever reasons (leave it for another thread) a probably too large majority of what you run into is not heavily explosive damage. Thus the armor hole EANM's leave isn't all that big a deal. Plus with regards to EW damage shiled tanking in a pvp setting really needs more looking at.
OrangeAfroMan Minmatar Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.12.13 07:06:00 - [43] Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 13/12/2006 07:06:49 I have to agree with the OP. The reason all of the Amarr whining has been happening as of late, a lot of it at least, is that EANM tanks have become very, very common, and as stated, 95% of PvPers armor tank at the moment. So as a side bonus to the added resists you get to exp/kin/therm you get a very, very large EM resist as well. I don't think EANMs should be removed, but I DO think that EM resist needs to be taken off of them, so they only boost exp/kin/thermal. And to the person below the OP - Not many people shield tank, so hush about explosive resist on shields. (and yes, I fly only Minmatar, bud.) -Edit, one more reason for the Amarr whining is the introduction of a much harsher stacking penalty on damage mods :)
Jin Freaks	Posted - 2006.12.13 07:56:00 - [44] EANM are good as they are. A year ago everyone was complaining that shield tanks were to overpowered and now it's armor again. Guess I'll train both so that I can swap to whatever gets nerfed. btw if armor tanks get nerfed for pvp then shield tanks should get nerfed for pve
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.12.13 08:17:00 - [45] Edited by: Tasty Burger on 13/12/2006 08:18:23 Originally by: Twin blade There is a simple way to balance it Boost Amarr damage to do higher them and lower Em damage that way they will have a better balance in damage vs shields and armor. You know what would happen, then? People would heavily tank thermal. No net gain for anyone. People fitting EANM is not the source of the problem. It is the logical outcome of the current state of damage type balance. Make lasers do more thermal and people will then take out an EANM and fit a thermal hardener, because EM damage would be even more rare than it already is, while thermal even more popular than now. People will tank against you, no matter what you do, and you need to deal with it. People fit triple eanm tanks, as opposed to exp-kin-therm tanks, because even though they would get slightly better exp-kin-therm resists, lasers are still very strong weapons, and not having any extra EM resists could be fatal. Having strong weapons means that people will tank against you more. That is a fact. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?
trasportbetty	Posted - 2006.12.13 08:42:00 - [46] Why can't they just lower the base resist of Armor for EM. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all ships get a Base 60% EM resist on armor?
Darpz Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2006.12.13 08:54:00 - [47] Originally by: Tasty Burger 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. umm yah but a t2 shield tank does not even require one lvl 5 skill. to be a proper armor tanker it requires ALOT more training. it takes about a month to get all the armor skills properly trained up it takes under a week for shield Shield Tankers need: (you don't need the comp skills as much as armor since most shield tanks use invuls or normal active hards) Shield Op 4 Shiel Managment 4 Tact Shiel 4 Shield Comp 4 that pretty much covers whats needed for a t2 shield tank now Armor: Explosive Comp 4 EM Comp 4 Kin Comp 4 Therm Comp 4 Repair Systems 5 Hull Upgrades 5
Viktor VonCarstein Amarr Phoenix Industries	Posted - 2006.12.13 10:02:00 - [48] Why not have EANM's just affect the lowest 3 resists on the armour instead of all. http://sprayandpray.xippy.co.uk
Sokratesz Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2006.12.13 10:23:00 - [49] Solution: lower base armor EM and shield EXP resist to 50%. IMO shield should keep a base EM of 0 and armor get a base EXP of 0. Increase armor kinetic and shield THE resist to 45 and 30 % respectively to compensate. Basilisk Fitting Link
Kery Nysell Caldari Nysell Incorporated	Posted - 2006.12.13 10:24:00 - [50] Originally by: Darpz umm yah but a t2 shield tank does not even require one lvl 5 skill. to be a proper armor tanker it requires ALOT more training. it takes about a month to get all the armor skills properly trained up it takes under a week for shield Shield Tankers need: (you don't need the comp skills as much as armor since most shield tanks use invuls or normal active hards) Shield Op 4 Shiel Managment 4 Tact Shiel 4 Shield Comp 4 that pretty much covers whats needed for a t2 shield tank now Armor: Explosive Comp 4 EM Comp 4 Kin Comp 4 Therm Comp 4 Repair Systems 5 Hull Upgrades 5 And now, check the ranks on those tanking skills ... you'll find that Armor Tanking needs 1 rank 1 skill and 5 rank 2 skills, while for Shield Tanking, you need 1 rank 1, 1 rank 2, 1 rank 3 and 1 rank 4 skills, and yes, that's not counting the 4 compensation skills and the Shield Upgrades skill, all 5 rank 2 skills, that you need too if you ever want to fit a passive shield tank ... Yes, it's not required to use the modules to have those skills at 5, but if you're serious about shield tanking, those last 5% to shield capacity, recharge and all ARE a must-have, just like maxed skills in armor tanking ... All in all, it takes about 3 times longer to max out the shield tanking skills than the armor tanking ones ... trust me on that, I have both sets of skills maxed, I said that from personnal experience.

Lenaria Caldari Draconis Navitas Aeterna	Posted - 2006.12.13 10:28:00 - [51] I have nothing against nerfing EANM... but please, PLEASE look at Invulnerability Field. Its 10 times worse than EANM.
Nicholai Pestot Gallente Havoc Inc	Posted - 2006.12.13 10:29:00 - [52] Make warpscramblers a highslot device and watch the number of shield tankers in PvP increase? ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Yamaeda	Posted - 2006.12.13 11:29:00 - [53] Originally by: Nyxus The solution is simple. Limit the number of EANs and Invuln fields that any ship can fit. Similar to a DCU, only allow 1 EAN/Invuln field to be fit to a ship at one time. /Signed Actually Invul fields dont need to be limited to 1, the cap cost and stacking penalty takes care of them rather fast, but for the same tactical dilemmas invul's also need to be limited. As someone else said "Then amarr will whine about eanm+dcu". Well, no. If someone makes a 2-slot armor tank (frigate or full gank setup) that extra resistance isn't destroying the laser as weapon system. If they're fitting a 3 slot armor tank I'd be quite surprised it they'd choose eanm+dc+hardener instead of 3*hardener. If fitting a 4-slot the logical choice is either 4 hardeners or 3 hardeners+eanm/dcu, and if using 5 it's ofcourse 3 hardeners+eanm+dc. Now, with those circumstances there's actualy a benefit of having more low slots (if only amarr had a real world low slot advantage, but that's another thread), and only with 4+ slot tanking lasers get tanked really good, but then, isn't that the whole idea of 4+ slot tanks? Sure, with a 2-slot tank you can fit em+the, but then you've made a tactical choice which will make you good against amarr but lousy against most else. That's the tactical choices we want back. /Y ---------- It's great being Amarr, ain't it?
Redback911	Posted - 2006.12.13 11:52:00 - [54] Make warp scramblers AND webbers high slot. Deals with the NOS problem as well :-) But I agree with the stupidly high base EM and Explosive resists, they should be lowered a tad.
SSgt Sniper Gallente Zekarus Ltd.	Posted - 2006.12.13 12:00:00 - [55] Edited by: SSgt Sniper on 13/12/2006 12:02:44 I've tried to suggest a fix for this before and was ignored, I'll try it again. To start with the long range crystal is all EM right? Okay you get a small buff to damage and leave it that way. Next you go to the closest range crystal and change it to solid Thermal instead of a mix, and again a slight buff to the base damage. As you switch from long range to short range the two damages slowly intermingle so that whatever crystal is the equivalent of lead charges has even Thermal/EM damage. Folks then see an Amarr ship and wonder "Is he set for long range or short.....?" Changes the dynamic a little. I'd also give you guys a small (2% per level) damage mod on all the ships you have that don't currently have one. (IIRC that's pretty much all of them) Because that's what really hurts you IMO. --------- Gallente need ONE ship with an ecm bonus option. JUST ONE.
theRaptor Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2006.12.13 12:22:00 - [56] Originally by: OrangeAfroMan The reason all of the Amarr whining has been happening as of late, a lot of it at least, is that EANM tanks have become very, very common, and as stated, 95% of PvPers armor tank at the moment. I have been using EANM's nearly exclusively since half way through last year. So have most people I know, which is a good selection of people from a lot of top PVP corps. 95% of PVPers have been armour tanking since I started playing this game in October of 2004, with the exception of Raven pilots. And the Raven got nerfed from being the top PVP BS in early 05. Shield tanking anything but Caldari hasn't been viable since before Castor. So what you are complaining about is that the plebes have caught on, and those in the know can't wtfpwn them anymore? To bad. Some people (like me) will just need to PVP better instead of relying on uncommon but effective fittings. Get over it, these things go in cycles. The Amarr where pretty much the only viable PVP race for a significant time (pew pew gankgeddon), CCP will buff you again. Every vet knows this, and knows that to specialise to deeply in one thing is death (20 million SP and the only thing I am deeply specced in is Interceptors). I don't think you trust, in, my, self-righteous suicide.
Nicholai Pestot Gallente Havoc Inc	Posted - 2006.12.13 13:20:00 - [57] Originally by: Redback911 Make warp scramblers AND webbers high slot. Deals with the NOS problem as well :-) But I agree with the stupidly high base EM and Explosive resists, they should be lowered a tad. \0/ Would also make those utility slots on the Amarr ships useful ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Fortior STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.12.13 13:33:00 - [58] Originally by: Nicholai Pestot Originally by: Redback911 Make warp scramblers AND webbers high slot. Deals with the NOS problem as well :-) But I agree with the stupidly high base EM and Explosive resists, they should be lowered a tad. \0/ Would also make those utility slots on the Amarr ships useful That would have the added benefit of people fitting less NOS as well! \o/ Guns + tackling, or Guns + NOS or NOS + Tackling. I really like that idea.
Vasiliyan PAX Interstellar Services Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.12.13 13:46:00 - [59] If lasers are so bad, why don't we remove THEM from the game instead? This nerf/buff metagaming is getting out of hand.
Juan Andalusian TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.13 14:03:00 - [60] EANM whining : The art of the truely clueless. Pain is meant to be felt



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.