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

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

xenorx 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.12.13 15:08:00 - [61] From what I can see, the root of this issue is not really about the EANM, Skills, Amarr, or Lasers. The primary issue goes back to the very beginning of the game when they decided to put a base 60%EM resistance to every ship in the game. The very first step to ballancing this issue out is to reballance the base resistances on armor and shields to every single ship in game. A few months back someone made an excellent post on this that I wish I had bookmarked. No one can hear you scream in space, so just shut up and die already.
Darknar Gallente Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2006.12.13 15:25:00 - [62] lets just get rid of improving armour/shild resistances altogether, and only have AR/SB and sheild extenders and the equvalent for armour. combat can last for the same ammount of time as if we all had resistance boni but without any of this EAMN whining all the time. or you could just shut up and live with it personaly i think tanking is perfectly balanced as it is if i would change it i would make shild tanking stronger with fewer modules however shorter lived and armour tanking slightly weaker but sustanable. so shild tankers wont need to use so many modules to shild tank whilst being able to use other intresting stuff, like webbers and AB. instead of fully tanking with all there meds. but i satnd by my ground that current tanking is perfectly balanced.
Gauss Belloid Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2006.12.13 16:58:00 - [63] I use EANMs alot but I still think it's pretty silly that 3 of those give overall better resists on explosive, kinetic and thermal than fitting 1 of each type passive energized membranes - for the same fitting reqs. And on top of that you get the nice EM resist also :)
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.12.13 17:09:00 - [64] I don't see why amarr whine about EAMN yes your damage is lowered by it but guess what, everyone else's damage is lowered at the same rate, if you damage is halfed so is every other damage type if you didn't notice, you start off at 60 so the number may look large but when you go down to the number and real combat their damage reduction is on par with the other damages. If anything ask for a 30% damage modification boost to amarr lasers so they will be worth their cost. Increasing them even 40% would put them under hybrids so 30% is fair. This would wake them worth their cap and let gallente keep their rate as the top close range damage dealers, laybe increase marr falloff aswell to make them better at ranges and consistant damages even using pulses. giving the amarr a leg up atleast in this area over other races. And befor people with shield tanks complain they will still be doing damage on par to minmatar ex damage to armor.
marioman Caldari Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.12.13 18:02:00 - [65] If the whine is about lasers getting the shaft on armor compared to other types, I'll have u know on MOST of my armor tanked ships EM is THE LOWEST resistance I have, so lasers are actually the best to use. Also in reference to the post about skills for shield tanking vs armor tanking, XLarge Shield Booster II reqs shield op 5.
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2006.12.14 08:38:00 - [66] 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. can i do this for invuln fields? /drools
Almarez	Posted - 2006.12.14 15:39:00 - [67] gu o, I have said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think the EANM is the problem but the base high resists to EM and thermal, especially EM. I mean, why is it that each BS has very low base armor resists for exp and kin and mid for therm and high for EM. I mean Amarr are the only race that really use EM. Caldari can but how many actually do? So yes putting one or two EANM will leave EM resists at over 80% but the true problem is the high base resists to EM. I think that those resists need to be lowered closer to that of the other 3. For some races they should be less than the other three. Caldari and Minmitar many times armor tank because it is so much easier that shield tanking, in part because armor tankers only have to worry about 3 damage types. I mean a tempest has base 70% resists to EM in armor. By reducing this, these pilots might be more willing to shield tank since the resists to kin and exp are better in shield than in armor.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.12.14 15:57:00 - [68] Removing EAN/Nerfing EAN/lowering EM resistance on armor changes the tank/speed dynamic that exists in the game. Lasers ought to do less damage to armor tanks, this is intended. Because of the higher optimal range, amarrans get a couple extra seconds to shoot at targets before they close[if they out-range them, so its strictly comparing short range weapons on similar sized platforms]. If lasers did as much damage to armor tanks as AC's or Blasters there would be a tank/speed imbalance in that lasers would be better, or similar enough in damage to blasters/AC's that would magnify the optimal range bonus. The otherside of the coin is the speed/tank dynamic. Armor tanks cannot sacrifice low slots in order to boost speed[i stab/nano/overdrive] and still maintain a respectable tank or gank. Which means that faster ships are typically shield tanked and slower ships typically armor tanked. Lasers do a lot of damage to shield tanked ships, this balances out their ability to close past the Amarran tracking/optimal to the point where they do their maximum damage and lasers do not. Armor tankers do not take a lot of damage from lasers, this balances the fact that if they fit a strong tank, they are not going to close very fast against the laser using ship. If you increase the damage of lasers versus armor tanks you might simply break the mechanic as it stands. And its a good mechanic, because without it, it is difficult to balance speed, tank, damage, and range. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
gu o Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.14 16:45:00 - [69] Originally by: Almarez gu o, I have said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think the EANM is the problem but the base high resists to EM and thermal, especially EM. I mean, why is it that each BS has very low base armor resists for exp and kin and mid for therm and high for EM. I mean Amarr are the only race that really use EM. Caldari can but how many actually do? So yes putting one or two EANM will leave EM resists at over 80% but the true problem is the high base resists to EM. I think that those resists need to be lowered closer to that of the other 3. For some races they should be less than the other three. Caldari and Minmitar many times armor tank because it is so much easier that shield tanking, in part because armor tankers only have to worry about 3 damage types. I mean a tempest has base 70% resists to EM in armor. By reducing this, these pilots might be more willing to shield tank since the resists to kin and exp are better in shield than in armor. Al, I am not argueing with you over the base EM resistance being high. I think its, the lask of better words, silly. But then again at the same time SHields have a high base XP resistance so I guess I shouldn't worry about it. There is always a counter to something. So I will refrain from any further commenting about "issues" with any race/weapon ect ect. I was just feeling that if ccp is catering to all the other races, makeing the entire game a mesh-pot of the same thing same special abilities; why even bother. All the special atributes have been worn off durring countless nerf's/boosts. Noone stands out damage wise, the entire mind set of amarrian design has been smashed. The minmatar idea of High speed has too been matched by pretty much all the other races. So its all the same thing over n over now. No more complaints from me. So I am done complaining, and needlessly voicing issues with EvE. I will go back to work. thanks for your wasted time though, sorry I took so much of it. GU O *Fix Lasers give them a bleed through to structure bonus! Bleed through only effects armour though, something like a 15% damage of the inflicted armour damage bleeds to structure.*
Yamaeda	Posted - 2006.12.14 17:15:00 - [70] Originally by: Almarez So yes putting one or two EANM will leave EM resists at over 80% but the true problem is the high base resists to EM. I think that those resists need to be lowered closer to that of the other 3. No, the problem isn't EM's high base resistance, since shield get as much to EXP. The problem is that there is a cap-less omni-tank that with 3 slots lowers 4 damage types as much as 3 specialized resistances did before. Technically it's the same problem as if people were to use 4 invul fields for minmataar, but the cap usage makes it rather impossible (and 4 since they can change to em and stuff). It's rather simple to describe the problem. 1 Energized membrane with 5 compensation = ~47% resist 3 membranes = 47% to 3 damage types - which would you sacrifice? 4 Energized membrane = 47% to 4 damage types 3 EANMS = 47% to 4 damage types. (number might be slightly off, but that's of little concern for the problem at hand) So, see the 60% base EM resist isn't the problem, but it's an indication of the problem. The problem is that 3 modules are as good as 4! EM is generally the "bonus resistance" since if you harden them specifically that's the one you leave out (unless you're rather certain of what you're up against) which is why, relatively, EM/laser are affected most by the EANM-issue. /Y ---------- It's great being Amarr, ain't it?

Yamaeda	Posted - 2006.12.14 17:42:00 - [71] Originally by: Goumindong Removing EAN/Nerfing EAN/lowering EM resistance on armor changes the tank/speed dynamic that exists in the game. Well, yes, the whole point is to get a change, or? Limiting EANM to 1 wouldn't change the dynamic though, only the possible setup combinations. Originally by: Goumindong Lasers ought to do less damage to armor tanks, this is intended. Because of the higher optimal range, amarrans get a couple extra seconds to shoot at targets before they close[if they out-range them, so its strictly comparing short range weapons on similar sized platforms]. With base resistance Laser do less damage to armor, as it should be. If people choose to harden against specific enemies that might change. The EANM give em-hardening "for free". The Lasers long range is partly a myth, if you look at 1 falloff (50% hit) Lasers with standard crystals have the same range as AC's. They can reach longer with low damage crystals though, but the higher damage crystals lose performance fast due to low tracking. On frigates the range difference is close to neglible and on cruisers the idea would hold true if amarr ships weren't so slow. :) Originally by: Goumindong If lasers did as much damage to armor tanks as AC's or Blasters there would be a tank/speed imbalance in that lasers would be better, or similar enough in damage to blasters/AC's that would magnify the optimal range bonus. Looking at fitting problems and cap usage i dont really see the problem there, do anyone outside amarr use lasers? Do anyone outside minnie/gall use AC's/blasters? Might this suggest lasers are currently a bad weapon system? Rails reach far longer than lasers, are they considered the best weapon? The optimal range is a factor, a balancing point, but it's not all you make it out to be. (or looking at short range weapons, AC's hit randomly, but shoot often, it's a typical spray'n'pray system like machine guns, while the optimal of lasers refers to the precision of light, always hitting. DPS turns out very similar anyway) Originally by: Goumindong The otherside of the coin is the speed/tank dynamic. Armor tanks cannot sacrifice low slots in order to boost speed[i stab/nano/overdrive] and still maintain a respectable tank or gank. Which means that faster ships are typically shield tanked and slower ships typically armor tanked. This is where the Amarrian "low slot advantage" should activate, which it doesn't due to huge fitting cost of lasers. Originally by: Goumindong Lasers do a lot of damage to shield tanked ships, this balances out their ability to close past the Amarran tracking/optimal to the point where they do their maximum damage and lasers do not. Armor tankers do not take a lot of damage from lasers, this balances the fact that if they fit a strong tank, they are not going to close very fast against the laser using ship. Conceptionally, yes. With webs and MWD's that's rarely the case. Originally by: Goumindong If you increase the damage of lasers versus armor tanks you might simply break the mechanic as it stands. And its a good mechanic, because without it, it is difficult to balance speed, tank, damage, and range. Agreed, the mechanic is good, and simply raising laser damage is probably not the right answer (they might need a nudge though), the problem, as stated is that 3xEANM (or 2eanm/dc, but it's longer to write) has 2 effects: It lowers laser damage as EM is a "bonus" resistance, and it frees a low slot on most armor tanking ships reducing amarr low slot advantage. /Y ---------- It's great being Amarr, ain't it?
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.12.14 17:50:00 - [72] Originally by: marioman If the whine is about lasers getting the shaft on armor compared to other types, I'll have u know on MOST of my armor tanked ships EM is THE LOWEST resistance I have, so lasers are actually the best to use. Also in reference to the post about skills for shield tanking vs armor tanking, XLarge Shield Booster II reqs shield op 5. Then your way of tanking ships is obsolete, or you just avoid putting 10 millions- isks mods in it. EANM II's market price has risen to one of the most price-gouging T2 mods for a reason, and that's because the demand, thus the use, is high... ------------------------------------------ Every ship has a base 60-70% resist against the primary damage type of the race that is the least able to vary it's damage types.
marioman Caldari Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.12.14 18:56:00 - [73] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: marioman If the whine is about lasers getting the shaft on armor compared to other types, I'll have u know on MOST of my armor tanked ships EM is THE LOWEST resistance I have, so lasers are actually the best to use. Also in reference to the post about skills for shield tanking vs armor tanking, XLarge Shield Booster II reqs shield op 5. Then your way of tanking ships is obsolete, or you just avoid putting 10 millions- isks mods in it. EANM II's market price has risen to one of the most price-gouging T2 mods for a reason, and that's because the demand, thus the use, is high... No i just use 3 55% hardeners, kin, explo, therm, then an EANM II with comp skills at 4 which nets me about 74% average resistances across the board. After testing I found this to be the best combo over say 1 explosive and 3 EANM II, or any other combo of 4 hardeners.
Arleonenis Minmatar Republic Defenders	Posted - 2006.12.14 21:43:00 - [74] And even more simpler solution:P Take 10-15% from em resist on armor and add it to explo resists And to make it fair take 10-15% from explo on shields and add to em :P It wouldnt brake the game it will still be much higher em than explo on armor and much more explo than em on shields BUT it will shut up amarrians without nerfing everything;)
Jenstruant Fogg	Posted - 2006.12.14 22:19:00 - [75] Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Graalum Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2006.12.14 22:26:00 - [76] Edited by: Graalum on 14/12/2006 22:31:03 Originally by: gu o Thanks for your time, ~gu o~ The ironic thing is that ammar also have the best omni tank.
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.12.14 22:50:00 - [77] Originally by: marioman No i just use 3 55% hardeners, kin, explo, therm, then an EANM II with comp skills at 4 which nets me about 74% average resistances across the board. After testing I found this to be the best combo over say 1 explosive and 3 EANM II, or any other combo of 4 hardeners. .........Ex damage is the lowest by .37% if your skills are maxed, And you use 4cap a sec. [stats done form caldary ship as base] [em:70 th:81.44 kn:74.69 ex:69.63] Those are from using active gear so it's a difference from passive. Tho in the end passive wins out if you open to faction gear. Armor tanks are mostly on amarr and gallente ships where every cap counts/
CherniyVolk	Posted - 2006.12.15 01:20:00 - [78] Originally by: gu o (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. 'gu o', hi how are you? I feel you haven't thoroughly looked at this issue you are presenting. Ever wonder why Minmatar AFs and HACs have OVER 90% resists to EM damage? Well, as it turns out, the RoF of Lasers and in general, of Amarr ships, counters "high" EM resistances. While 60% resistances to Explosive might seem high, 80% resists on EM is NOT high at all. Back when I was in Huzzah, I pulled out my Thorax fitted to fight Sansha rats. EM and THE are the damage types of Sansha rats, and my rax had better than "HAClike" resistances for those two damage types. I had 91% on EM and something like 86% on Thermal. I undock, and ask an alliance mate in a Retribution to test my tank. He was bragging that his RoF was less than 1 second. Though he was only hitting me for 3-8 hps a shot, they were coming in so fast it all added up quickly. I was totally unable to tank him, it was as if I had no tank at all, my armor went down that fast. So, my only conclusion is that you likely need to train up some Gunnery skills. Becuase honestly... 70-80% resists on EM is NOT any sort of tank against a Zealot/Retribution.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.12.15 01:58:00 - [79] Edited by: Goumindong on 15/12/2006 01:58:07 Originally by: CherniyVolk Originally by: gu o (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. 'gu o', hi how are you? I feel you haven't thoroughly looked at this issue you are presenting. Ever wonder why Minmatar AFs and HACs have OVER 90% resists to EM damage? Well, as it turns out, the RoF of Lasers and in general, of Amarr ships, counters "high" EM resistances. While 60% resistances to Explosive might seem high, 80% resists on EM is NOT high at all. Back when I was in Huzzah, I pulled out my Thorax fitted to fight Sansha rats. EM and THE are the damage types of Sansha rats, and my rax had better than "HAClike" resistances for those two damage types. I had 91% on EM and something like 86% on Thermal. I undock, and ask an alliance mate in a Retribution to test my tank. He was bragging that his RoF was less than 1 second. Though he was only hitting me for 3-8 hps a shot, they were coming in so fast it all added up quickly. I was totally unable to tank him, it was as if I had no tank at all, my armor went down that fast. So, my only conclusion is that you likely need to train up some Gunnery skills. Becuase honestly... 70-80% resists on EM is NOT any sort of tank against a Zealot/Retribution. Something is wrong here. The Retribution deals 60% more damage than a punisher at max skills. At 100% max skills, using faction ammo, a Retribution caps out at 271.8 damage per second.[half/half with True Sansha Multifrequency, 3 heat sink IIs] Vs your EM resistance that is 12.32 dmg/second em and 19.169 dmg/second A MAR II heals 28.98 DMG/SECOND with minimum skills. After your repper he would be doing 2.509 damage per second to you with you at min skills for a MAR II and him at max skills fitting tech 2 guns[better dmg than faction] with the best faction ammo[better than tech 2]. You should have around 2000 HP without a plate on, which means it would take him 13 minutes to break your tank with these numbers which are highly optimistic. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Almarez	Posted - 2006.12.15 18:10:00 - [80] Originally by: marioman If the whine is about lasers getting the shaft on armor compared to other types, I'll have u know on MOST of my armor tanked ships EM is THE LOWEST resistance I have, so lasers are actually the best to use. Also in reference to the post about skills for shield tanking vs armor tanking, XLarge Shield Booster II reqs shield op 5. Ya lowest because you don't even have to worry about trying to actively tank against them because base resists are so high. So if you fly an Amarr pilot you just have to activate your thermal hardener (which also helps your cap). If the EM resistances were lowered to that of the others then a pilot would be forced to chose between what resistances to actively tank against or trying to tank against all would require an extra low if you're armor tanking. This would make shield tanking more appealing for races like Caldari and Minmitar, which is the way it should be. Also, it would make you chose between a "full" tank or damage mods which right now armor tankers don't have to worry about.

Sir Bart Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.16 18:42:00 - [81] Originally by: CherniyVolk 'gu o', hi how are you? I feel you haven't thoroughly looked at this issue you are presenting. [snip a long story] ... 70-80% resists on EM is NOT any sort of tank against a Zealot/Retribution. I don't think you point is very well thought out either. You seem to be saying that Pulse weapons are so much better than everything else that they can handle higher resists. However, Blasters do more dps, Autocannons do close to the same. Of the three close range weapons my preference goes: On cruisers / frigs: Autocannons, Blasters, Pulse On Battleships: Blasters, Autocannons, Pulse (although I like AC's a lot on BS too) -Bart
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.16 18:48:00 - [82] Lasers are fine, move along. (yes i can finally use t2 pulses and they are 4tw) And don't underestimate geddon. -------- The BoB model is bad for business. Incidently the BoB model is more suited for a game such as WoW where as the ASCN model more suited for Eve. McGreedy
Nir Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.12.16 19:14:00 - [83] As an Amarr pilot I really don't care about EM/Therm, Lasers have far more serious problems that aren't related to their damage types. But I agree that omni tanks suck because they make setups more predictable so a limit on the amount of EANMs/ Invuln fields you could fit isn't a bad idea.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.