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) |
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:13:00 -
[1]
T2 Energized adaptive nano membranes are now using 40 cpu on sisi, 10 more than currently on TQ. Thats only 4 cpu and a bit of cap usage less than a T2 invuln field yet the invuln gives 10% more resists.
CCP please rethink this change, Gallente blaster pilots already have enough problems with cpu as it is and are forced to use hybrid cpu reduction implants to fit almost any setup, now it will be even harder for us to fit a decent setup.
If this is all some "genius" plan to boost amarr, why don't you just reduce the EANM EM resistance bonus to around 12.5% on T2 EANM while leaving the other resist bonuses and cpu usage the same? That change will result in armor EM resistance being around 70% with 3 T2 EANM and armor comp skills at 4, much more amarr friendly and you do it without making other ships needlessly harder to fit.
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:21:00 -
[2]
EANM is fine as it is. Now if they decide to give us active armor hardeners that do the same as Invuln fields
Also, I wouldn't mine a mod that increases armor rep amount
Make Mining Better |
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:22:00 -
[3]
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.
|
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:26:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Mysterlee on 30/05/2007 19:25:48
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
Also, I wouldn't mine a mod that increases armor rep amount
Did you read my post? They're nerfing them to use 10 more cpu than before.
And to amy, I only said that their EM resist bonus should be nerfed to 12.5%, that will leave armor tankers with 70% EM resistance with 3 eanms instead of 80% as it is now.
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:34:00 -
[5]
yea nerfing only the em portion doesnt sound too bad
but then one could argue that invul fields also needs their explosive portion reduced etc
my point is that even if amarr ships or lasers are broken, nerfing other modules and thereby races that depend on them is not the logical thing to do
|
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:37:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Amy Wang my point is that even if amarr ships or lasers are broken, nerfing other modules and thereby races that depend on them is not the logical thing to do
Yep, definately.
Before this gallente blaster pilots couldnt fit active hardeners due to cpu, now we cant fit passive hardeners due to cpu so what exactly are we supposed to fit for tank? nothing?
|
Butter Dog
The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:41:00 -
[7]
I hope this is a joke.
As a gallente specialist, I can tell you now that this will only really hurt Blaster pilots who struggle for every last inch of CPU - and even then sometimes have to fit implants and faction mods just to make a setup work (think neutron mega, ishtar etc).
They better change this before it hits the server for real.
---------- signature removed - please do not discuss moderation in your signature graphic - Jacques([email protected])
|
Serilla
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:42:00 -
[8]
This is a terrible idea with very little thought put into it. __________________
|
Azheri
Amarr The Unbeholden
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:48:00 -
[9]
well amarrians use EANM as well, but i guess amarrians have never recieved a buff without something being nerfed first, and i cant complain about laser damage(even though a 3rd damage type would make me sad-.-).... the main thing about lasers is their insanely high cap use and our gimped ships
|
Serilla
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 20:07:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Serilla on 30/05/2007 20:06:19 TS/DB/Amarr/(faction) are up from 25 CPU to 33 CPU (+8) Centum A Types are up from 32 CPU to 42 CPU (+10) __________________
|
|
BlackHorizon
Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 20:24:00 -
[11]
This is not a good change, and I'm an Amarr spec pilot.
Increasing EAMN fitting is not the solution to the Amarr problem.
|
Ozzie Asrail
Exploited
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 20:49:00 -
[12]
This is not a fix for anything, gallente spec pilots already need a -3% cpu implant for most fittings -----
|
nickky01
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 20:59:00 -
[13]
/signed, what a horrible horrible idea.
i think some of the devs need to spec gallente and amarr instead of minnie/caldar :|
|
Morris Falter
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:00:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Morris Falter on 30/05/2007 20:59:29 I've actually stopped flying amarr ships(*) because they were so ineffective, so its hard for me to comment on whether this will specifically help or not. Guessing probably not.
However, I can see lots more badly tanked gallente ships being popped before they get to anything like their optimal though, without cpu to beable to ewar their way to get there, or tank while doing it. Lets not even start on powergrid with gallente ships.. as it gets even worse if you are trying to fit long range weapons.
Hope this is just a test.
(edit* except the curse which is a dream boat <3 <3)
|
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:05:00 -
[15]
DON'T NERF EANM.
Sorry for the caps but the point needs to be made with emphasis. The solution to a race's damage problems is not to change tanking for all races but to change the damage type for that single race methinks. Make lasers deal primarily thermal and some EM damage. In other words, reverse their damage numbers and they will be just fine.
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.
|
pardux
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:14:00 -
[16]
;/ crappy idea
not needed
|
Neuromandis
Novastorm Inc Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:37:00 -
[17]
A long overdue gallenete nerf? I hope it does not hurt amarr though...
Oh wait... It wasn't the blasterships that needed the nerf, it was the droneships. Damn... Near miss again...
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:38:00 -
[18]
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
This is would break all armor tanking assault frigates... pay attention Devs please, this has absoluteley no usefull purpose. -
|
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:39:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Neuromandis A long overdue gallenete nerf? I hope it does not hurt amarr though...
LMAO I just realized that it will hurt Amarr just as much as the other armor tanking races since they suffer from the added CPU as well. Nice.
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.
|
Evil Thug
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:49:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Mysterlee T2 Energized adaptive nano membranes are now using 40 cpu on sisi, 10 more than currently on TQ. Thats only 4 cpu and a bit of cap usage less than a T2 invuln field yet the invuln gives 10% more resists.
10% ? are you sure ? Afaik t2 eanm with good compenstaions skill gives MORE resistance than dread guristas invul field, using NO cap, and less CPU. So may be think, before whine ?
|
|
Neener
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:54:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Mysterlee T2 Energized adaptive nano membranes are now using 40 cpu on sisi, 10 more than currently on TQ. Thats only 4 cpu and a bit of cap usage less than a T2 invuln field yet the invuln gives 10% more resists.
You have a flaw in your logic.
Invuln field is active module which uses cap when active and dont benefit from shield compensation skills.
EANM is passive module that does not use cap and benefits from armor compensation skills. With decent armor compensation skills you get pretty much equal resists from EANM as you get from invuln without any cap usage.
I wouldnt whine too much about EANM, because I would take shield version of EANM over invuln field any day.
|
Feawina
Ducks of DooM
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:59:00 -
[22]
if they go though with this they will in essence remove high end tech2 blasters from usefulnes... good play
|
Arenis Xemdal
Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 22:00:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Evil Thug
Originally by: Mysterlee T2 Energized adaptive nano membranes are now using 40 cpu on sisi, 10 more than currently on TQ. Thats only 4 cpu and a bit of cap usage less than a T2 invuln field yet the invuln gives 10% more resists.
10% ? are you sure ? Afaik t2 eanm with good compenstaions skill gives MORE resistance than dread guristas invul field, using NO cap, and less CPU. So may be think, before whine ?
EANM II = 20% to all, 25% to all with compensation skills to 5 Invul II = 30% to all DG Invul = 37.5% to all
So, no, you're wrong.
Increasing the CPU requirement of EANM to 40 is pretty absurd, since CCP claimed they were going to reduce the CPU requirements of tech 2 active armor hardeners from 44 tf. Blaster ships will suffer greatly from this change, because most current setups are made or broken by a difference as low as 0.2 cpu
|
GO MaZ
Chaos Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 22:10:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Arenis Xemdal
Increasing the CPU requirement of EANM to 40 is pretty absurd, since CCP claimed they were going to reduce the CPU requirements of tech 2 active armor hardeners from 44 tf. Blaster ships will suffer greatly from this change, because most current setups are made or broken by a difference as low as 0.2 cpu
Apart from my astarte, every single blaster ship I fly comes down to 0-2 cpu spare after fitting with a -3% cpu implant.
I have a feeling if this change gets implemented I'm going to have to scoop up TS adaptive nano platings by the dozen - any cpu-tight passive tanked ship is going to have issues after this.
As for it being an "amarr boost"... well the only thing I can see it doing is nerfing passive tanked pulse geddons which are almost impossible to fit with EANM II's as it is now.
I honestly can't think of any good reason to nerf them at all.
|
Azirapheal
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 22:16:00 -
[25]
am i the only person that sees the problem as something else entirely -
an armor tanked ship is more likely to go into hull than a shield tanked mofo when the enemy are unsuccessful in an engagement - cost to repair armor is negligible in comparison to hull damage.
the invuln field gives better resists but is active EANM is the only equivalent armor tankers have - stacking nerfed aswell :@ to be quite frank - armor should be an omni tanker - esp on the amarr front - since thats what they are, rocks with spitwad guns
sigh, too much other stuff needs changing, and amarr in particular are fuxxored without their rock hard resists - especially since unlike gallente we dont have any fuxxing rep bonuses.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for.
|
Davik Kurchek
The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 22:32:00 -
[26]
This nerf is like opening a can of worms S: ---
|
Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 23:36:00 -
[27]
Unneccessary and destructive. Because clearly Megathrons were the awesome overpowered pwnstick of doom.
|
Wheya
Amarr Bruderschaft des Wahrhaftigen
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 00:12:00 -
[28]
Yes, I am using EANII, too. Yes, the new cpu requirements will comromise a lot of my setups on amarrian ships. They are not really that famous for having plenty of cpu.
Nevertheless I think it is a huge step into the right direction because people will more often use active hardeners instead of the EANII + DC combo. I would have preferred a nerf from 20% down to 15% resistance, though. As a benchmark we can observe the sales of amarrian drones and fighters. If they are being used in PvP as well then we can talk about balance.
Another problem still remains untouched. The huge buff to HP of armor plates (shield and shield extenders) a while ago. Oversized armor plates on cruisers/frigates or triple armor plates on battleships are a common sight. Each 1600mm plate adds 5250 armor HP with 60% em resistance but only 10% explosive resistance.
I would like to see if plates and shield extenders come with their very own inbuild resistance that mixes with the ships resistance.
Example: ship has 5250 armor HP with 60%em, 35%th, 25%ki, 10%ex resistance. Average resistance is 130 (+10 race specific) / 4 = 35%
Now let's add a new plate with inbuild resistance to this ship. The new HP is 5250+5250 = 10500 HP The new resistances are em (60+35) / 2 = 47,5% th (35+35) / 2 = 35% ki (25+35) / 2 = 30% ex (10+35) / 2 = 22,5%
Same would apply to shield extenders. There is no other buff needed for Amarr. Ships are fine, weapons are fine (...in general. I am not talking about other problems such as insane fitting requirements for fregate sized medium beam lasers etc).
I also do believe the HP boost to armor plates and shield extenders was way too high. My Pilgrim for example comes with 2250 armor HP. One 1600mm and I have 7500HP. That's 3.33 times more HP. I think that's wrong.
I know I am talking about nerfing something that everybody is using and loving, me included. But I do believe in the current situation the 'fair 1:1' fights suffer greatly from the HP and tanking boosts. People can slow boat to gate and jump or dock in station or call reinforcement way too easy. I don't want to talk about other measures to escape too easily from a fight that lasts so long because of the tanking boost. In gank situations not much changed, regardless of HP boost. It doesnt make a difference if a ship dies in a 6:1 fight in 5 or 10 seconds.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 00:26:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Wheya
....
While i'd like to see something like this as well, i'm far more concerned that this thread is going to go unnoticed by CCP and result in nurfage of more of my setups on more ships than i want to think about.
It's not broken. Don't fix it.
-
|
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 00:54:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Wheya I also do believe the HP boost to armor plates and shield extenders was way too high. My Pilgrim for example comes with 2250 armor HP. One 1600mm and I have 7500HP. That's 3.33 times more HP. I think that's wrong.
That's because you're putting a BATTLESHIP sized module on a CRUISER. You can't fit a proper sized armor rep with an oversized plate like that. It's a choice you make to sacrifice repair capability for more overall HP. That's called balance and variety. You may be able to buff up your HP big time but you do it at the expense of resists and repair capacity.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |