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) |
Mahavy Seth
Amarr Vure Ultio Animi Causa
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:30:00 -
[151]
/signed... for me they can also raise EAN cpu usage by even more. Nice thing!
|
Discobird
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:30:00 -
[152]
Edited by: Discobird on 31/05/2007 17:31:04
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton
Or any ship that armor tanks indeed. Which might just change the shield/armor tank ratio in PVP? And lasers have more effect on shields........ Helping Amarr again without changing lasers damage type, which would go against the game setup of each race having it's own prefered damage type.
That ratio is the way it is because of the necessity of PVP mids, not because armor tanks are currently better than shield tanks (they're worse, when you remove prop mod, scram, injector...). This change would make armor tanks weaker without affecting the armor:shield ratio much if at all. And Amarr suffer most since they have the least CPU available after fitting a full rack of top-tier pulses compared to blasters and ACs. Which wouldn't be so bad if Amarr had better downgrading options, but they lack mid-tier pulses at the cruiser and BC level and they lose the most by fitting bottom-tier weapons for usually less gain.
|
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:35:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Ozzie Asrail
[quote=Ragnor Dayton How can putting 3 passive modules on to gain the greater benefit than 4 active modules be reasonable in any way? The greater benefit being 60% structural resists by the way.
Incorrect. 4x actives far outclasses 3 EAN with or without a DCU. 3 actives + dcu v 3 ean + dcu is still better. Sure 3x actives + dcu makes EM a little better but then nerfs every other dmg type.
With maxed armor compensation, 2EANM2 + DC2 = 50% across all 4 resists. first eanm = 25%, second eanm = 25%x75%x87% = 16.3% for 41.3%, DC2 = 15%x58.7% = 8.8% for a total of 50.1%.
Even using 3EAMN, 3rd EANM = 25%x58.7%x57% = 8.4% = 49.7% across all 4 without cap vs 55% using cap, and 1 more slot.
------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
Sailon
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:38:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Sailon on 31/05/2007 17:37:37 Edited by: Sailon on 31/05/2007 17:36:48 heres example of nice ship with bare setup after this new change i think you see the difference
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:42:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Azerrad InExile on 31/05/2007 17:43:16
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton DC2 = 15%x58.7% = 8.8%
Pretty sure the damage control doesn't stack.
Edit: and thats really the problem imho. When the damage controls were updated to give massive hull resists and don't stack with other resist mods they became must have items in pvp. Combine this with that fact that slots are in limited supply and EANMs become infinitely more attractive than a set of active hardeners. -- t20: "So Let us play and enjoy the game you and I both love on the same level." |
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:50:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Azerrad InExile Edited by: Azerrad InExile on 31/05/2007 17:43:16
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton DC2 = 15%x58.7% = 8.8%
Pretty sure the damage control doesn't stack.
Edit: and thats really the problem imho. When the damage controls were updated to give massive hull resists and don't stack with other resist mods they became must have items in pvp. Combine this with that fact that slots are in limited supply and EANMs become infinitely more attractive than a set of active hardeners.
Damage controls stack in that way, i.e. you get 15% of the outstanding, same as always. They don't have a stacking penalty, hence only one multiplier which is the cumulative of the 2 EANM's. Otherwise it would have had a another 57% multipler for 3rd module of type. ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
Serenity Frye
Defile.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:57:00 -
[157]
Worst idea ever
CCP Fail
'Tis better to be a Lion for one day then be a sheep for a hundred years' |
Ruciza
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 18:02:00 -
[158]
Guys don't forget that Nos is going to be nerfed too, so you might reconsider switching to your nosdomi
Whatever, all I'm reading here is that there will be no chance of a "decent setup" and that my friends lies in the eye of the beholder. You will still be able to fit any tank you like, but you will have to drop a magstab, or downsize one or two of your guns. No full rack anymore, pity. You still do more damage than all the others (who will feel the nerf, too).
And there is another general tanking buff expected.
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 18:13:00 -
[159]
Edited by: n0thing on 31/05/2007 18:15:57
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton
Originally by: n0thing
As for Blasterthron, adaptive plating wont save it. On T! ship a gap of 7-8% is huge when you got no rep and enemy got better tank.
3% difference on Gallente Thermal/Kinetic ship - 67% with 2EANM2+DC2 vs 64% with EANM2, ANP2 & DC2.
Isn't a blasterthron meant to be a gank ship, rather than a tank ship?
Correct, its a gank ship.
But, gank tactic not only based on damage dealt, but also on dealt/absrobed ratio. If you have plate megat with no rep setups, 9% is alot.
Moreover, dont assume max skills. We are not playing game with only 3 year old characters. Assume lvl 3/4 on compensation. Will give you better picture.
Also, in smaller ships that fit only 1x EANM II + 1x hardener + DCU, you will notice bigger difference.
As for downgrade your setup for one less magstab, a megat with 1 magstab is laughable. Anything below 1k dps on gank-BS is useless with tanks/reinforcements. ---
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 18:14:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton Damage controls stack in that way, i.e. you get 15% of the outstanding, same as always. They don't have a stacking penalty, hence only one multiplier which is the cumulative of the 2 EANM's. Otherwise it would have had a another 57% multipler for 3rd module affecting same ship stat.
Edit: Which is why they need a nerf as basically on a T1 ship you only need 3 slots to tank all 4 resists as well as or nearly as well as 4 active hardeners. I would suggest making all energized passive modules operate like the DC, i.e. active with minimal cap use and only allowed 1 active at any time (it does say energized!), but as per other posts above, you would still end up with 45% across the board instead of 50% using EANM, ANP and DC. Which is a small improvement, but not much.
Ok, didn't realize what that 58.7% was in your equation... thought it was due to stacking penalty. DC most certainly do only apply to unhardened portion. -- t20: "So Let us play and enjoy the game you and I both love on the same level." |
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 18:29:00 -
[161]
To the dev who thought up this idea:
This is the wrongest anyone has been since Neville Chamberlain held up a treaty and proclaimed it promised ''peace in our time''.
Pro tip: think before you act. __________________________________________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire |
LOwRANCE
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 19:34:00 -
[162]
;) another good joke, from an amaar player
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II zu aktivieren erfordert 36.0 CPU Einheiten, jedoch sind nur noch 30.6 der 562.5 Einheiten Ihres Computer verfngbar
this is always a problem ! fitting geddon high¦s 7 duel pulse II med¦s mwd webber cap injector low¦s 2x accoumo damage control 2 platings 2 damage mods but cant put on my eann ----> learn gallente or mimatar better it is or stop playing eve and play WoW
|
Dixon
Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 19:34:00 -
[163]
There was a time when EANMs were useless, now they're just hard to use. The sky shan't be falling anytime soon. Just lower active specific hardener fittings (alot) so we can all go back to tri-hardening... mmm.
|
RogerWilco
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 19:47:00 -
[164]
oki while you are on the drugs could u then move all my gallente oriented skills to minnie skills plz or lower all cpu reqs of hybrids - before the haze wears off.
this is plain wrong and would render quite a lot of weapon types and ship useless - do not implement.
|
Arushia
Nova Labs Empire Research
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 19:51:00 -
[165]
So Amarr, with the game's worst CPUs, are getting their tanks nerfed. Umm, weren't Amarr supposed to get BETTER?
Tired of Waiting? Use Empire Research |
Biosourcy
Gallente Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 20:19:00 -
[166]
why the change? as a gallente pilot we are allready in enuf trouble with the lack of cpu on our ships.
|
Elk Dorengard
Gallente Altera Odyssea Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 20:22:00 -
[167]
Ok. So almost everyone agrees that's the worst idea of the year. It has been said before : simply dump the bonus to EM resist. It helps Amarrs greatly, has a sense RP wise. But this will definitly ruin close combat PVP as well as most Gallente/Amarr ships. Bonus to Therm/Kin/Explo only. Or create another "omni module" easier to fit with a gap in a damage type, but as it now, that nerf is simply a mistake.
(and dump the bonus to Explo on Invul ^^)
On a side note instead of nerfing the only passive mod that helps active armor tankers whose guns require ****load of cap, you should reconsiders the so called passive shield tank nerf.
|
Dominique Vasilkovsky
Techmart Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 20:33:00 -
[168]
Keep the EANII as it is and move some of the base EM resist from armour to shield...
Signature approved by Eldo |
Borasatar
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 20:39:00 -
[169]
So, Amarr ships will now get modified 2nd bonuses... They all get laser cap usage reduction and armor hardener cpu reduction bonuses!
|
doctorstupid2
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 20:49:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Arushia So Amarr, with the game's worst CPUs, are getting their tanks nerfed. Umm, weren't Amarr supposed to get BETTER?
werd. This change is NOT for the best, no matter what race you fly (I fly amarr and gallente, for the record).
|
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 21:10:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Arushia So Amarr, with the game's worst CPUs, are getting their tanks nerfed. Umm, weren't Amarr supposed to get BETTER?
They did get better, at being worse
As for suggestion above on dumping EM increase on armor and Explosive on shields, best idea really. Would suit everything really. Wont get the high enough base resists sky-high and wont hurt any T2 resist specific ships. ---
|
FraXy
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 21:16:00 -
[172]
Edited by: FraXy on 31/05/2007 21:16:57 On some Ishtar setups i have used 2 True Sansha Adaptive Nano Platings just to get the goddamn stupid ship to be able to fit mids and highs so that it`s not a really really expensive Vexor with Dominix dronebay.
This gotta be the most bull**** "buff" i have seen in my entire Eve Career and i`ve seen a few crazy moves...
Like people have said nearly every single Gallente/Amarr ship is running on a double-edged sword regarding the cpu remaining on setups and 9/10 of mine have to used best named to even get the fitting together.
I cannot honestly think that this will go through, but if it does then shieldtanking need a severe restructuring against armortanking.
This is just
|
Val Wiggin
Cult of Osiris
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 21:23:00 -
[173]
Dumping the EM Resist is the way to go.
|
Wandering Fire
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 21:40:00 -
[174]
I skipped through a lot of the posts, so good chance I'm missing the point...but from what I understand, the nerf is to compensate for the Amarr damage. Since it seems any armor tanker hates this idea (this includes most Amarr pilots yes?) Here's a few possible ideas:
*Add a bonus "effect to lasers (e.g. occasional explosion on successful attack that does explosive damage or random DoT <damage over time for those unfamiliar w/ other MMORPGs>...probably a pain to implement, but would be cool)
*Increase the RoF for laser turrets (this would probably hurt shield tankers though).
*EM damage..make it act like it...has side effect of shutting off some/all modules on the ship it just shot
There's a ton of potential stuff you could do to Amarr lasers...personally I like the explosive proc...might even make sense...lot of thermal energy, no where to go...something might explode
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 21:48:00 -
[175]
Edited by: n0thing on 31/05/2007 21:47:53
Originally by: Wandering Fire I skipped through a lot of the posts, so good chance I'm missing the point...but from what I understand, the nerf is to compensate for the Amarr damage. Since it seems any armor tanker hates this idea (this includes most Amarr pilots yes?) Here's a few possible ideas:
*Add a bonus "effect to lasers (e.g. occasional explosion on successful attack that does explosive damage or random DoT <damage over time for those unfamiliar w/ other MMORPGs>...probably a pain to implement, but would be cool)
*Increase the RoF for laser turrets (this would probably hurt shield tankers though).
*EM damage..make it act like it...has side effect of shutting off some/all modules on the ship it just shot
There's a ton of potential stuff you could do to Amarr lasers...personally I like the explosive proc...might even make sense...lot of thermal energy, no where to go...something might explode
Theres alot of Laser potential but any side effect will turn them into something more then a turret. Will be like '2 in 1' wich will certainly be overused.
The only thing is to dump EM/Explosive damage increase on EANMs and Invul Fields, or/and fix Amarr capacitor and grid, while also fixing all the cap using weapons so they wont shut down so easily. ---
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 22:17:00 -
[176]
An alternative would be to straight lower the base EM resist, as someone proposed.
The "fringe benefit" of EM resists that adaptive nanos offer is certainly one of the things that hurt Amarr lasers. Hell, even if the EM resist bonus was completely removed from them, people would still use them any day over active hardeners or other armor tank modules, because they're still so effing overpowered.
Look at it like that: Tech 1 ships have basically 3 low armor resists and 1 high armor resist. The differences between exp and kin/therm aren't that big at the end of the day. Fitting an EANM or two and a DCU will level them out even more, and bring them almost up to par with the "high" resist, but oops, EM resists just went up to 80. EANM are helpful if you have overall low resists, since they add 4x24%, whereas single resistance platings add 1x45% or hardeners 1x50/55.
Tech 2 (Caldari/Gallente) ships have 3 highs, 1 really low. Fit an active for the low one and then... errrr... fit an EANM and/or DCU, since everything is roughly levelled out by then and you're not running anywhere near stacking penalties.
Afaik, T2 Minmatar ships are a fair bit better off shield tanking, given their resistance bonus.
Tech 2 Amarr ships have the best base armor resists, with thermal being quite low. So fit an active thermal, and then we're back to (you guessed it) EANM and/or DCU.
EANMs just beat the crap out of all other armor tank mods. There should be a significant drawback for their superior performance, like for example added fitting reqs. Adding a stacking penalty to DCUs might also help. ______________ Join the Family |
Rooker
Lysian Enterprises United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 22:20:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton Also most PVP ships fit cap booster, so capacitor size is largely irrelavent.
Well, when someone can point to the available slot or available powergrid or available cpu (or any combination thereof) I'd need to put such a hoggish module on a Thorax or a Vexor, I'll be happy to do it. I'm tired of dying to NOS anyway. Until then, cap size is NOT irrelevent.
If the object of all this is to buff Amarr, then why don't they buff Amarr instead of breaking something else?
If this rubbish change is not squashed by someone with some sense, it will encourage more blobbing. They increased hit points because they wanted fights to last longer. The response: Bring more ships. They want to nerf the most useful tanking module for armor tankers, for unknown reasons. The response: People won't bother with a tank at all, they'll go full gank and bring more ships so they won't have to tank at all.
Welcome to blob online
-- SAVE EANM FROM THE NERFBAT! |
Ank Myrandor
Amarr Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 09:37:00 -
[178]
tbh most of my setups are even surviving the nerf :P
get ur skills up amarrians with gd skills its no problem to fit a pilgrim or zealot, sacri etc
|
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 09:52:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau bleh Thread is full of people with big mouths and no clues.
CPU usage needs to be around the 38-40tf mark. If you don't have the CPU to spare, fit a different type of tank, that is what CCP wants you to do. They did not intend every armour tanking ship in the game to fit 2x EANM + DCU, this is how they're fixing it.
Seriously guys, Thermic + Explosive + Kinetic gives you even resists with a mild explosive hole.
This change is a step towards differentiating gank and tank ships, no longer will you be able to do both at once. And it will help get rid of supertanked bait ships somewhat :)
So riddle me this oh fountain of knowledge, just what 'tank' are you supposed to fit on a Blasterthron? - where fractional CPU savings count for everything... Three active hardeners?, hello CPU?...
Or where you talking about 'tanking' the shields...
Contrary to popular belief the Blasterthron is not an I-win button at close range, even a full tank/gank Torpedo Raven will send it running in flames (or in pieces if the Megathron pilot realises it's going sour too late...)
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 10:45:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Bailian Moxtain How am i suposed to fit a tank on a megathron? Anyone?
Not to mention that said tank most of times has no rep.
Seriosly..I hope change wasnt thought out well. ---
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |