EVE Search - EANM Nerf

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

EANM Nerf

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
podd0r Fudgepackers R Us	Posted - 2007.06.04 01:45:00 - [241] Originally by: Sadist Edited by: Sadist on 03/06/2007 23:49:45 So, there goes another brilliant balancing move by CCP. I guess their balancing department is now run by a hundred monkeys, based on the assumption that if enough keys are hit on the keyboard, monkeys will type War and Peace or balance the game in the right way. Armor tanking has been inferior for AGES, and what does CCP do? Right, nerf it even more. Well, actually let me expand on this a little bit: in Kali, aka Revelations, we saw the biggest shield tanking boost ever in the form of: 1. Cycle speed rigs for shield boosters - non-stacked 2. Booster pills - non-stacked with anything. This may not seem like much, but consider this: these items do not stack with either 1. Crystal set 2. Ship bonus 3. Shield amplifier. Well so what, you may say, shield tanking is less cap efficient, right? Wrong. If you devote yourself to tanking with a setup that does just that, you are able to boost something stupid, in excess of 1500 shield with a t1 shield booster every 3 seconds or so. While it does eat a lot of your cap, the sheer amount of shield boosted every second makes up for any resistance advantages and/or insane cap use. Dont forget, most armor tanking ships have to fire guns that use cap, over caldari and minmatar ships (mostly shield tankers) that use no cap at all. Does it maybe seem a LITTLE bit unfair to you that 2 races' ships get a massive tanking advantage while having entirely cap free weapon systems (i.e. all cap devoted for tank). So what's the right course of action? 'Boosting amarr' in the form of nerfing a module that's used exclusively by armor tankers in an effort to prevent EANM whoring, which supposedly hurts amarr because of their EM damage. at last someone that actuallt realising sheild tanking is far better than armour id like to see sheild boosting get a delay of about 10secs just like armour reps
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.06.04 02:10:00 - [242] Originally by: Sadist Dont forget, most armor tanking ships have to fire guns that use cap, over caldari and minmatar ships (mostly shield tankers) that use no cap at all. Actually minmatar ships are almost exactly 50/50 shield/armor. Certainly not almost all shield. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
n0thing omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.04 07:14:00 - [243] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Sadist Dont forget, most armor tanking ships have to fire guns that use cap, over caldari and minmatar ships (mostly shield tankers) that use no cap at all. Actually minmatar ships are almost exactly 50/50 shield/armor. Certainly not almost all shield. Take a look into Ships & Modules, top Minmatar performers are usually: Vaga/Sleipnir/Claymore/Tempest/Maelstrom Im not counting in cruisers/frigs. Well, 4 out of 5 above are shield tankers. Moreover, that same boost amp doesnt even have any penalty at all. While armor tankers dont even have such module, we can use only rigs that have velocity penalty. ---
Mr Delacroix Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.04 07:57:00 - [244] /signed This proposed change both sucks and blows.
ChalSto The Galactic Empire Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.04 14:15:00 - [245] Originally by: Letheeth Kayl PSYCHE!!!! Nerf everybody if you're going to nerf me. Triple the shield recharge time, halve the explosive sheild resists, quarter the shield hp of all ships!!!! Burn the bastards to the stake. Stop coddling those capless weapon **s NOW! Finaly someone said it! Will you marry me? Half the EM-Resistance on EANMs. And while u are on boosting/nerfing...... BOOST THE FREAKING DEIMOS ALLREADY FFS GOD DAMNIT Evil will allways triumph, becouse Good is dumb**
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.04 14:41:00 - [246] Originally by: podd0r Originally by: Sadist Edited by: Sadist on 03/06/2007 23:49:45 So, there goes another brilliant balancing move by CCP. I guess their balancing department is now run by a hundred monkeys, based on the assumption that if enough keys are hit on the keyboard, monkeys will type War and Peace or balance the game in the right way. Armor tanking has been inferior for AGES, and what does CCP do? Right, nerf it even more. Well, actually let me expand on this a little bit: in Kali, aka Revelations, we saw the biggest shield tanking boost ever in the form of: 1. Cycle speed rigs for shield boosters - non-stacked 2. Booster pills - non-stacked with anything. This may not seem like much, but consider this: these items do not stack with either 1. Crystal set 2. Ship bonus 3. Shield amplifier. Well so what, you may say, shield tanking is less cap efficient, right? Wrong. If you devote yourself to tanking with a setup that does just that, you are able to boost something stupid, in excess of 1500 shield with a t1 shield booster every 3 seconds or so. While it does eat a lot of your cap, the sheer amount of shield boosted every second makes up for any resistance advantages and/or insane cap use. Dont forget, most armor tanking ships have to fire guns that use cap, over caldari and minmatar ships (mostly shield tankers) that use no cap at all. Does it maybe seem a LITTLE bit unfair to you that 2 races' ships get a massive tanking advantage while having entirely cap free weapon systems (i.e. all cap devoted for tank). So what's the right course of action? 'Boosting amarr' in the form of nerfing a module that's used exclusively by armor tankers in an effort to prevent EANM whoring, which supposedly hurts amarr because of their EM damage. at last someone that actuallt realising sheild tanking is far better than armour id like to see sheild boosting get a delay of about 10secs just like armour reps Shield tanking has always been horribly overpowered. Try fighting a Maelstrom with a Gist X XL shield booster, full high grade crystal set, and a shield boost amp II. You can sic two full gank Blasterthrons on it and barely dent it. Because I said so...
BugxEarl Amarr Amaterus Boot Camp Izanagi Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.05 02:19:00 - [247] Alright, I see lot of gallente people whining but why aren't Amarrian whining!? For christ's sake have anyone noticed how CPU tight OUR god damn ships are? Geddon, Zealot, Absolution, Abaddon, Apoc, Pilgrim, Sac(god damn), Retri, Vengeance, you name it. Every one of those freaking ships run a very cpu-tight setup, not to mention most of em won't gain much in term of tank since Amarrican t2 ships use 2 slots only for tank, and t1 ships use EANM (or with abaddon's case 3 active hardeners). What I would rather want, would be that energized specific membranes get their CPU reduced.
Sadist Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.06.05 03:56:00 - [248] Just because people are whining about gallente, doesn't mean that the smarter of us hadn't considered what the change will do to amarr. Hell, I've seen most amarr ship fittings and they have to use adaptive nano-plating already which use no CPU at all. If they couldnt fit EANM II before the patch, they certainly won't be able to fit one after. EANM II was a decent module. It could provide decent resists, given your compensation skills are at 4, also because it always works in a lag and no-cap environment. 10 cpu may not sound like much, but I can name at least 5-6 ships, which are barely ***ble NOW, with FACTION fittings, they literally have 0-1 cpu spare, fitting them after the patch will almost require you to leave an unused slot, which is stupid. What es me off most, is that the balancing department never gives reasons as to why they are doing this - do they really think they are so above common folk that listening to any advice from the community (the competent members anyway, who can construct a sound paragraph) will ruin their precious balance? I know they have feedback lines from sisi people and bughunters and testers, but it seems too small of a circle where problems may get overlooked. òòòòòòòòòòòò VIP member of the [23] Quote:** - Numbers alone do not win a battle - No, but I bet they help.
Ssoraszh Tzarszh Minmatar Retribution Corp.	Posted - 2007.06.05 07:52:00 - [249] Originally by: Letheeth Kayl If I'd wanted life to be easy, I'd have spec'd caldari or minmatar. Now i dont agree with the cpu increase of the EANM module, i dont think it will solve the problem with the current Amarr ships. But what i just quoted form you made me laugh so loudly my neighbor came asking if i was ok. Flavor of the month, When i started Eve, Minmatar was the worst race to train for, ever since conception Minmatar pilots have to train all skill's to be able to fly their own races ships. We recieved some nice new ships yes, and the 20% tracking boost was a nice adition to the fray it made minmatar on par with the other races. Only if you specced Shield, Armor, Projectile, Missile and Drone skills to the brim, new characters often find themself unable to fit setups or fly ships effectively when speccing for Minmatar. I dont see that problem with Amarr, its all the same with only a few t2 specialisations out of whack from the usual training doctrines. So yes i agree some boost to Amarr is needed due to the overly nerf the crystals recieved but saying Minmatar is easy. Clueless In my opinion undo the crystal nerf, make therm more heavy on all crystals. And yes i do also fy Amarr ships, the skilltime for lasers and the ships is nothing compared to all the prerequesites i allready had :P
MasterDecoy Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.05 11:52:00 - [250] Originally by: Elk Dorengard Ok. So almost everyone agrees that's the worst idea of the year. nah... personally, i don't care. i'll adapt like i do after every nerf/boost.

n0thing omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.05 13:50:00 - [251] Originally by: Sadist What ****es me off most, is that the balancing department never gives reasons as to why they are doing this - do they really think they are so above common folk that listening to any advice from the community (the competent members anyway, who can construct a sound paragraph) will ruin their precious balance? I know they have feedback lines from sisi people and bughunters and testers, but it seems too small of a circle where problems may get overlooked. Reason was given in live devblog actually. - Reason for it to make people fit specific hardeners and lower average EM resistance value on armor tankers so lasers do more damage. - Thats not exact quote, but something very close. ---
DarkXenon	Posted - 2007.06.05 14:39:00 - [252] Just Lower Base EM and EXP Resistance! /Signed Bad Idea
Karlemgne The Black Fleet Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:05:00 - [253] I am going to have to agree with just about everyone else here. There are about 50 ways you can boost Ammar pilots, and their damage dealing, that don't involve gimping everyone who armor tanks. -Karlemgne Edited by: Ginger Magician on 16/03/2007 14:07:36 whereas those who constantly and deilberately exploit every possible aspect of the game mechanics get away scott free.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:07:00 - [254] Originally by: murder one Shield tanking has always been horribly overpowered. Try fighting a Maelstrom with a Gist X XL shield booster, full high grade crystal set, and a shield boost amp II. You can sic two full gank Blasterthrons on it and barely dent it. On the faction lvl I would definately agree. T2 is another story though.
Major Stallion The Dark Horses Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:41:00 - [255] Originally by: ghosttr EANM is fine as it is. Now if they decide to give us active armor hardeners that do the same as Invuln fields well, by nature if theyd put those in then they need to put in passive shield tank equivelants of the EANM.
Hephaesteus Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.05 17:45:00 - [256] Actually Gallente will not be affected all that much. I checked on my Mega what the nerf will do and tbh, not much. Why, Shadow Serpentis Mag Stabs use 10 cpu less than T2, so you stay the same fitting wise. Of course it helps to have a tidy sum of isk then it's not so much of a big deal. That said newer players will suffer more and of course Amarr will if they dont have the same low cpu option for their heatsinks.
n0thing omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:11:00 - [257] Originally by: Hephaesteus Actually Gallente will not be affected all that much. I checked on my Mega what the nerf will do and tbh, not much. Why, Shadow Serpentis Mag Stabs use 10 cpu less than T2, so you stay the same fitting wise. Of course it helps to have a tidy sum of isk then it's not so much of a big deal. That said newer players will suffer more and of course Amarr will if they dont have the same low cpu option for their heatsinks. A ship should have enough stats to fit full T2 setup with close to max skills. If ship needs faction gear not to perform better, just to perform at all. Its broken. ---
Brother Todd	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:16:00 - [258] Originally by: n0thing Originally by: Hephaesteus Actually Gallente will not be affected all that much. I checked on my Mega what the nerf will do and tbh, not much. Why, Shadow Serpentis Mag Stabs use 10 cpu less than T2, so you stay the same fitting wise. Of course it helps to have a tidy sum of isk then it's not so much of a big deal. That said newer players will suffer more and of course Amarr will if they dont have the same low cpu option for their heatsinks. A ship should have enough stats to fit full T2 setup with close to max skills. If ship needs faction gear not to perform better, just to perform at all. Its broken. Oh, really? I'd like to see you do that on a Raven, Armageddon or a Typhoon. Most, if not all battleships need to sacrifice something for a t2 fit. And that's how it should be IMO.
Hephaesteus Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:22:00 - [259] Originally by: n0thing Originally by: Hephaesteus Actually Gallente will not be affected all that much. I checked on my Mega what the nerf will do and tbh, not much. Why, Shadow Serpentis Mag Stabs use 10 cpu less than T2, so you stay the same fitting wise. Of course it helps to have a tidy sum of isk then it's not so much of a big deal. That said newer players will suffer more and of course Amarr will if they dont have the same low cpu option for their heatsinks. A ship should have enough stats to fit full T2 setup with close to max skills. If ship needs faction gear not to perform better, just to perform at all. Its broken. Actually there are a load of ships that do not have the grid and cpu to fit a full T2 loadout. Most ships have a trade off with what you want to fit and what you can fit. I dont see how this will buff Amarr though, maybe CCP have another trick up their sleaves we do not know about.
LordRene Amarr Global Economy Experts	Posted - 2007.06.05 22:13:00 - [260] today is a race between software engineers to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

Macro Terrorist	Posted - 2007.06.06 00:38:00 - [261] Originally by: Sadist Whine goes here. Die mega DIE!!!!!
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.06.06 02:47:00 - [262] Edited by: Icome4u on 06/06/2007 02:46:53 Armor tanking > Shield tanking Sure we got passive shield tanking... Drake showed us where that leads Truth is you guys get better cap regen b/c of the no penality mid slot (we need those to tank...) and you have better resistance (not all the time but most of the time). Shield tanking is BETTER for SHORT tanking time. Armor tanking is BETTER for LONG tanking time. Wich do you prefer? Tank for 5 mins and die... or tank longer to give your corp/alliance/friends more time to come help you. Oh and we do have low slot +cap regen... they etheir gimp our cap boosting or our total cap %... lame ______ Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
Cyan Nuevo The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2007.06.06 03:12:00 - [263] While it's natural that Gallente pilots are whining, all of you Amarr pilots need to shut up and think. This helps us. Right now blaster ships are the #1 PVP ships and therefore can handle a bit of a nerf. Also, encouraging a little bit of variety in setups is actually a good thing and one of the primary principles of the game. Taking away a must-have module is, generally, a good thing. Originally by: Icome4u Shield tanking is BETTER for SHORT tanking time. Armor tanking is BETTER for LONG tanking time. Wich do you prefer? Tank for 5 mins and die... or tank longer to give your corp/alliance/friends more time to come help you. Think before you post. Armor v. shield is not at all one-sided; very often an armor tank simply cannot take the DPS even while you still have cap. --- Your signature was inappropriate, email [email protected] to find out why (don't forget to include a link to it) -Sahwoolo
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.06 05:03:00 - [264] Originally by: Cyan Nuevo While it's natural that Gallente pilots are whining, all of you Amarr pilots need to shut up and think. This helps us. Right now blaster ships are the #1 PVP ships and therefore can handle a bit of a nerf. Also, encouraging a little bit of variety in setups is actually a good thing and one of the primary principles of the game. Taking away a must-have module is, generally, a good thing. Originally by: Icome4u Shield tanking is BETTER for SHORT tanking time. Armor tanking is BETTER for LONG tanking time. Wich do you prefer? Tank for 5 mins and die... or tank longer to give your corp/alliance/friends more time to come help you. Think before you post. Armor v. shield is not at all one-sided; very often an armor tank simply cannot take the DPS even while you still have cap. I think you need to think. This nerfs laser ships tanks. Now, its true that the lower the tank the better for laser ships. But the change is terribly small, equaling between 2 and 5% of total damage taken. Since hardeners were not given a significant reduction in CPU usage, omni tanking is STILL the best ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Durethia Momentum. The Reckoning.	Posted - 2007.06.06 07:46:00 - [265] CCP. I have always been jealous, and annoyed, with how well shield tankers were. If anything, their ability to have a true passive tank. The Energized Membranes are... not very good as they currently are. They also, require too much CPU, especially on frigates. Even with Armor Compensation Skills maxed out, fitting a EANM II really doesn't do that much for your bottom line; in practice, when you are getting hit by god knows what. I see this as an attempt to roll back from the boost in armor HPs. Why? Why boost armor hps, for the sake of "longer fights", then turn around and practically strip all defenses from armor tankers (Gallente and Amarr alike). Will Railguns, Blasters, Lasers get a compensating boost to their ability to deliver damage? Here's the bottom line. I've seen a Nighthawk tank a ridiculous amount of firepower, passively even. Any other Command Ship, probably can't come close. Please, my travel fit on some of my ships are nothing but Energized Membranes and a Armor rep. Even then, the tank isn't that great. Seems that I won't have enough CPU to do the same things anymore. Seriously... CCP, Please. Of all the nerfs, this is the mother of them all, sofar.
Durethia Momentum. The Reckoning.	Posted - 2007.06.06 07:52:00 - [266] Edited by: Durethia on 06/06/2007 07:50:44 Originally by: Amy Wang I dont think t2 eanms need to be nerfed to 12,5%, they are perfectly fine. With maxed skills they still give 10% less then t2 invul fields. Just leave them as they are now on TQ and think about something else. If laser damage is really that bad and if high EM resist is really the problem, then up the %age of thermal damage on lasers. Thats just one quick idea from the top of my hat but it is already better then nerfing entire races tanks for no good reason. On TQ, Lasers are not hurting in the least. Just a couple of days ago, I had 92-3 EM, 89 Thermal resists, and a Amarr pilot ate through it as if I hadn't had a tank at all. Beserker IIs can't eat 60% explosive resists as fast as this guy ate through 93% EM resists.
Durethia Momentum. The Reckoning.	Posted - 2007.06.06 08:00:00 - [267] Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Think before you post. Armor v. shield is not at all one-sided; very often an armor tank simply cannot take the DPS even while you still have cap. QFT! The last 5 or so ships I lost, had atleast 25% cap left when I popped. My Astarte's, ofcourse, fly with cap boosters... but neither I lost ever actually activated the booster module during engagement. Yet to need to. (I even lost one, to a Dominix at a Empire gate tanking him and the sentries. Still had 40% cap when I finally popped--he popped shortly after too, it was an exciting fight.) I personally think armor tanking modules should be given a boost to resistances. But, apparently, someone doesn't think so.
n0thing omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.06 10:14:00 - [268] Originally by: Icome4u Edited by: Icome4u on 06/06/2007 02:46:53 Armor tanking > Shield tanking Sure we got passive shield tanking... Drake showed us where that leads Truth is you guys get better cap regen b/c of the no penality mid slot (we need those to tank...) and you have better resistance (not all the time but most of the time). Shield tanking is BETTER for SHORT tanking time. Armor tanking is BETTER for LONG tanking time. Wich do you prefer? Tank for 5 mins and die... or tank longer to give your corp/alliance/friends more time to come help you. Oh and we do have low slot +cap regen... they etheir gimp our cap boosting or our total cap %... lame Well, with shield boost amps and skills to reduce cap use, you are slowly leaning towards more extended tank period with same big amount of hp boosted. Originally by: Brother Todd Originally by: n0thing Originally by: Hephaesteus Actually Gallente will not be affected all that much. I checked on my Mega what the nerf will do and tbh, not much. Why, Shadow Serpentis Mag Stabs use 10 cpu less than T2, so you stay the same fitting wise. Of course it helps to have a tidy sum of isk then it's not so much of a big deal. That said newer players will suffer more and of course Amarr will if they dont have the same low cpu option for their heatsinks. A ship should have enough stats to fit full T2 setup with close to max skills. If ship needs faction gear not to perform better, just to perform at all. Its broken. Oh, really? I'd like to see you do that on a Raven, Armageddon or a Typhoon. Most, if not all battleships need to sacrifice something for a t2 fit. And that's how it should be IMO. Ok maybe I havent explained. I mean that ship shouldnt need 300mil to fit it with faction mods just because it cant handle even named ones. Faction mods is used not to just fit your ship, they are used mostly to boost further your already good skills. Like putting Core X-Type hardeners on your already 4 mil SP mechanic skills. Oh and btw, theres no #1. Gallente #1 in close-range, right, inside of 10-12km range. If you wish to change it, 200% increase to falloff/optimal for blasters will do. Then you can nerf tanks. No race currently fights inside the 10km unless forced to. Minmatar mostly 15+, Amarr 20+, Caldari pretty much even more. Really, sometimes in smaller ship your half way thru your defences before you even start shooting. ---
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.06 11:45:00 - [269] Uhm.. that lower range is balanced already by superior dps. They certainly do not need easier fitting in addition.
4rc4ng3L Gallente C R Y O FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.06 11:50:00 - [270] Has this really been thought through. this "small increase" isnt going to be so small when you look at the frigs, af's, inties etc. It becomes a serious change for trying to get a good tank. You said you were taking player feedback on this, take a look, im pretty sure its a step too far. If there is a problem it doesnt mean the god dam NERF BAT(TM«) is required. Maybe use the BUFF BAY instead. I cant speak for everyone, but this will have a serious effect on my ship fittings. .......Ridiculous! Death is the only true freedom, brought on by our own ignorance.... Welcome to the "free" world in which we live...



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: 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.