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.
|
|
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 00:57:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio However, the blasterthron will get a huge hit to surviabiltiy, and should be given some extra cpu to cope.
That is the sign of a poor attempt at balance. If you get more CPU on your blasterthron I want more CPU on my Typhoon as well. See the problem here? This nerf doesn't really help Amarr that much, it gimps everyone equally.
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.
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 01:01:00 -
[32]
My internet goes down for an hour and I return to THIS!?
WTF is CCP thinking?!
I have 2 CPU left on my blaster setups. For just about anything. FFS CCP, why not just come out and say it: You don't want us to fly blaster ships anymore!
And nerf EANMs and NOT NERF Shield tanking? Are you F'ing kidding me? If everyone's tanks were reduced equally, then fine. But ruining armor tanks and leaving shield tanks the way they are is lame.
Furthermore, I thought you wanted combat to last longer? Resistances are the ONLY way to get enough endurance out of a passive armor tank to live long enough to kill a target with a blaster ship before you cap out.
Now I'm going to have to resort to using autocannons on my Hype FFS because I can't afford the cap useage of blasters.
What the hell is going through your heads?
Because I said so...
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 01:06:00 -
[33]
Im a blaster pilot through and through, but that isnt the reason they shouldnt do this (even though its going to *****almost all of my setups, heh), the reason is that half the amarr fleet have no bloody CPU either, and seeing as they all have to fit injectors these days to deal with their cap issues, which also uses a LOT of cpu, you're just going to screw over the people you're meant to be boosting! Nerfing armour tanks to improve the "armour race" - yeah, its not a good one there, CCP!
Go back to what you were suggesting before, and the only logical solution - make amarr cap kings, improve capacitor warfare. Changing EANMs, ESPECIALLY their fitting, is a nightmarish idea, and is going to cause all kinds of trouble in 3 races. One of your two rotating signatures exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes - Devil ([email protected]) |
Serilla
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 01:08:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Wheya As a benchmark we can observe the sales of amarrian drones and fighters.
What a horrible benchmark, you apparently have no clue about drones...
As for swapping to active hardeners in the place of EANMs, assuming you use 3 slots, 3 T2 active hardeners is 44cpu x3 (132cpu), vs 2 EANMs and a DCU II 40cpu x2 + 30cpu (110cpu). So you still use more cpu for the active hardeners than EANMs so this doesn't do anything but screw over everyone. __________________
|
LOwRANCE
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 04:54:00 -
[35]
hmmm ?! hey guys what¦s going on, put eann put to 40 cpu wtf !!! i fly much amaar and i like it really, okay its¦s a pain if a pilot has 80% resist in emp in armor. but i use eann too and amar chip¦s have much more problems with cpu then gallente ! between i fly 3 races gallente amaar and caldari. this will not help to solve the problem ! this adds for an amar pilot an additional problem ! u will not help amaar! u will nerf it more then before!!! when i go to sisi sit in my geddon my 7th duel pulse is off because of cpu issue and i use only one eann, using one is okay i think ! i say it again and again! bad idea u kick amar not help in this art of acting !!!!!!! amar has less cpu then others !!! to fix this issue with amar eann 80% in armor it is maybe better to change the crystal¦s to a little bit more thermal and lesser emp that will help more low
|
Arenis Xemdal
Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 05:11:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Wheya 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.
Why would it result in a greater use of active hardeners, when tech 2 consume 44tf CPU, 4 more than the nerfed version of EANM IIs?
And for the record, more people use active hardeners in combination with EANM II than simply EANM II and Damage Control. They are a basic module of tanking, just like the repairer. There are not that many other options. People critisize the use of dual EANM, but when you include repairer and cap mods, you may not even have low slots left for anything else.
|
Valandril
Caldari Leela's Lamas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 05:55:00 -
[37]
Ok lets see what i can't fly after nerf: platerax, gankrax, blastertix, blasthron, blastermyrmi(tho nos setup will fit, reffiting time). So ccp, whats going on ? Ur nerfing all armor tankers because u want too ? Did anyone from ccp ever tried to fit blastership ?
With current ccp actions i see lately, i'm close to cancel my subscription... ---
Cheap paint ftw |
Didier Oriol
Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 06:04:00 -
[38]
I forsee a huge spike in the prices of named blasters if this nerf hits TQ
/me waves goodbye to B-thron, deimos, ishtar, armor tanked railgank domi, blaster gankdomi... just about any armor tanker...
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 06:18:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Didier Oriol I forsee a huge spike in the prices of named blasters if this nerf hits TQ
/me waves goodbye to B-thron, deimos, ishtar, armor tanked railgank domi, blaster gankdomi... just about any armor tanker...
Named blasters? If this really happens, I'll probably never fly another blaster ship again. And the Amarr guys are going to have the same problems. The only guys who benefit from this are the Caldari guys, as now the armor tanks are just going to be that much weaker.
I can't tell you how much this ****es me off.
Because I said so...
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 07:33:00 -
[40]
If this is the proposed fix to Amarr damage problems then its way off base, rebalance thermal and EM damage on crystals instead of taking the axe to a large proportion of the armor tanking player community.
For all the momentum to make fights last longer, crippling the fittings on one of the most used armor tanking modules is not a step in the right direction, this change does little except make Gallente harder to fit.
Please rethink this approach, Lower base EM resists on all armor across the board or rebalance crystal damage types (much prefered by most of the community, tbh).
|
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 07:50:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Wheya 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.
2xEANM, DCU will still take less CPU than 3x hardeners, so there won't be much incentive to switch to active hardeners.... all this will accomplish is further nerfing armor tanking compared to shield tanking. -- t20: "So Let us play and enjoy the game you and I both love on the same level." |
Ryysa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 08:26:00 -
[42]
lol @ all the gallente fanbois whining...
The real kicker is, amarr have even more cpu issues than gallente. I guess you never tried to fit an amarr ship before...
This cannot be in any way an amarr buff, because it will screw amarr over just as bad...
The only ones who won't be affected that much will be minmatar, since we rarely have cpu issues when fitting our ships.
EW Guide - KB Tool - PVP Event |
Gripen
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 08:56:00 -
[43]
I can't believe whiners get their stuff once again. This change is more a nerf to amarr than their boost. If you want to boost amarr - boost shield tanking.
|
Cpt Branko
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 08:57:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Ryysa lol @ all the gallente fanbois whining...
The real kicker is, amarr have even more cpu issues than gallente. I guess you never tried to fit an amarr ship before...
This cannot be in any way an amarr buff, because it will screw amarr over just as bad...
The only ones who won't be affected that much will be minmatar, since we rarely have cpu issues when fitting our ships.
Yeah, but don't say that out loud, they might nerf our CPU while they're at it ;P
Anyway, I don't really see the rationale for this nerf.
|
Altamekz
Clan Shadow Wolf Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:26:00 -
[45]
My faction fitted Zealot is broken too, I have to downgrade the t 2 guns to t1 named to get it back online.
Solution, boost amarr CPU and leave all the unbeliever behind
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:29:00 -
[46]
The main point here is nerfing EANMs, which is damned long overdue in my opinion. They are in many respects always the best choice for armor tanks, which among other things results in Amarr getting shafted with their EM damage that would usually be tanked against less.
Just compare EANMs to other energized modules, and also to active armor hardeners. 2 EANM IIs with lvl 4 compensations are almost as good as an active hardener of each type, for less cpu and additionally they are passive! Hello?
Single resist energized modules are almost never used, and don't even start with energized regenerative membranes, which in theory should give a similar effective armor HP boost as EANMs. If you don't know what to fit as an armor tank, fit an EANM (currently). It's really a no-brainer, and I think that's stupid and should be rebalanced. I personally would have favored a lower resist bonus, but increasing cpu reqs while at the same time easing up on active hardeners might work, too. While they're at it, they might as well lower the cpu reqs of single resist energized platings slightly, maybe they will see some more use then (on cpu limited blaster boats, for example).
It's the same with power diags owning almost everything else for active shield tank low slots, since they're just so much better than the alternatives (cap/shield flux coils anyone?). ______________ Join the Family |
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:29:00 -
[47]
Niiiiice!
Amarr was way overdue for nerf! Thank you!
"to be honest it makes me wonder about the mental state of a person who would join a corp called Space Perverts and Forum warriors"
|
Lore Isander
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:29:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ozzie Asrail Edited by: Ozzie Asrail on 30/05/2007 21:04:12 This is not a fix for anything, gallente spec pilots already need a -3% cpu implant for most fittings
EDIT: ok this takes the ****, the ships in my hanger after that change...
Electron Vindi - No Ion Vindi - No Ion Hyperion - No Neutron Mega (with empty high)- No Neutron Deimos (with empty high) - 0.19cpu spare Electron Brutix - Woo it fits!
Thanks!
Quote for the ****in truth!
|
Brisi
Veto.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:33:00 -
[49]
This is NOT the way to buff amarr. The only thing this will accomplish, is make blasterboats even harder to fit, not to even mention amarr ships themselves.
This is yet another case of the Dev's using stupid workarounds, in stead of looking at the problem itself (LASERS).
Needless to say, I am not happy about this, basically all my fittings would be screwed. Well all except for the Domi...
Resistance is Fertile. |
Artica Silverfox
Arctic Productions
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:35:00 -
[50]
Should have dropped the CPU on the active hardeners instead of upping the CPU for the EANMs...
If you could save CPU by using active dedicated hardeners, wouldn't you?
|
|
DanMck
Amarr Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:36:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Ryysa lol @ all the gallente fanbois whining...
The real kicker is, amarr have even more cpu issues than gallente. I guess you never tried to fit an amarr ship before...
This cannot be in any way an amarr buff, because it will screw amarr over just as bad...
The only ones who won't be affected that much will be minmatar, since we rarely have cpu issues when fitting our ships.
yep
|
Ruciza
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:38:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Ruciza on 31/05/2007 09:44:26
Well, dear blaster pilots, maybe you have to rethink your fittings. There exist energized membranes of all types and stripes. Those still have their CPU at 30, one of them gives you the resistance of 2 EANMs for their respective damage type. Tux said that he doesn't like the 2xEANM + DC combo. Now you can for example fit 3x Energized Membranes, and if you still want a DC, get rid of a damage mod. The thought behind this is clear. The essential question is:
WILL YOU FIT AN EM-PASSIVE MOD ON AN ARMOR TANK?
Answer: No you won't. It isn't worth the slot with 60% (+DC) default resists. EM damage buff. Either you have a resist hole, or no more 3x Magstabs, no more 1600mm Raxes/Ruppies with omnitank, it's awesome. You might also reconsider your nos.
This may also not be the end of it.
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:41:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan .....Single resist energized modules are almost never used....
Actually, Thermic energized are reasonably well used in combination with 2xEANs on Amarr ships to prop up the weak resist.
|
Miss Sneak
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:43:00 -
[54]
Rev 2 release date. The day armor tankers cried for more CPU
|
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:46:00 -
[55]
We clearly need to buff shield tankers now! Perhaps CCP wants that people go shield tankers and stop using scrams and webs.. those mean pirate griefer modules!
(Known fact: Most of CCP nowadays are carebears .. only few remain pirates ..)
"to be honest it makes me wonder about the mental state of a person who would join a corp called Space Perverts and Forum warriors"
|
Great Artista
Purple Cloud
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:47:00 -
[56]
Rhahaha, enter the GALLENTE NERF!
___________________________________
|
IntegralHellsing
Gallente The League of Legitimate Nigerian Businessmen
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 09:53:00 -
[57]
lol CCP.
2 X EANM T2 = 20 more CPU. currently with best skills, you can't fracking fit 2 EANM T2 unless you use -3% or -5% turret cpu implant.
now, with increase of total CPU by 20, I don't think anyone would fit EANM T2 on armour tank ship unless you're minmatar, as it is virtually impossible thanks to CPU. (My electron megat has 10 cpu spare only because i am using 'accomodation' armour rep. My neutron megat has like 2 cpu left and that is because i use -3% cpu implant.)
Even for Hyperion I only have like 10 CPU left with T2 reps + an EWar module for 5th mid slot, and i doubt anyone would be fracking able to fit 2 EANM for their armour tank.
ps. yes invul t2 is an active hardner but we're not talking about shield tank so gtfo.
ps2. if this eanm t2 nerf comes, i bet everyone will just fly shield tanking ships. if you want everyone to fly shield tank, then go ahead. i could care less as i can just hop in a passive shield tank myrmidon or train for rokh and fly it. but for other armour tankers who trained up their skills to fly armour tanks only, this will be a fracking disaster. --------------------------------------
|
Mashie Saldana
Hooligans Of War
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:01:00 -
[58]
This sucks, now the Sleipnirs will be even more expensive.
We're sorry, something happened.
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 1 Shot 1 Kill
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:02:00 -
[59]
Hmz. I wouldnt mind seeing the reasoning behind this move.
Quote: ItÆs not every day an MMO declares war on a huge segment of their own community. Then again, Eve is pretty damn hardcore |
Wizzkidy
Demonic Retribution Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:03:00 -
[60]
I think we need to hold fire here as they are still testing stuff.
Yes they might be trying to find work arounds instead of going right for the laser issue can't say I blame them considering if they messed with lasers they will either over power them or generally have to change the WHOLE way they work.
Can't blame CCP for trying work arounds that are easier to do.
Just wait and see things change on SISI all the time.
|
|
Elve Sorrow
Amarr Shinra
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:07:00 -
[61]
Ironically enough, this nerfs every Gallente ship, except for the ones that could actually use a little nerf. (*cough*Domi*cough*)
gg CCP.
EVE-O Forums Rules summary: If the thought of doing something makes me giggle for more then 15 seconds, I am to assume I'm not allowed to do it. |
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:08:00 -
[62]
Sounds really crap...
I'm not too much of an EANM user, they're going to be useless (because un*****ble in most setups), the required CPU will make it impossible to easyly switch (for setups with around 0-5 CPU free, like most good setups) between different energized platings when changing tank for the next mission. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon ! |
Zenst
Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:09:00 -
[63]
Nooooooo.
Egads SHeilds already way more better than armour, given the passive sheild aspects and extra skills sheilds have.
IF you are going to do this then BALANCE things as in:
Shield has a powergrid reducing skill, as sheilds are grid biased for fittings. Armour is CPU biased and has NO equivelant skills, actualy no equivelant hardwiring links or rigs. Kinda got padded with salvaging in there :|.
I have maxed fitting skills and I'm always having spare powergrid with CPU being the holdup all the time.
Sheilds, well I can put few hardwirings in or add power and cpu easily in my lows IF needed.
To handicap armour tanking when its not needed by hammerings its fittings and only having one option to counter and that being a CO-PRO which also takes the same slots as armour modules is clearly the thoughts and feelings of somebody who sheild tanks or insane.
OK So registered my feelings upon this before this laments onto the live server.
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:15:00 -
[64]
Thanks, the following nerf just killed:
Ishtar - I dont think every Ishty pilot will spend 200mil for fitting it with faction gear. Those nerfs only force people to use un-conventional stuff like shield tanked Ishtars.
Megathron - It already needs a -5% CPU reduction implant to fit a close-range setup.
Nice, so why change or boost Amarr when you can just nerf other race`s best performers.
Now Im certainly all for using an All-nosf Domi and Myrmi because Im not gonna put another few tens/hundreds mil to compensate CPU on above ships.
Rather then promote Gallente to use all their ships, wer just being pointed back to our I-win ships. Dont ever whine then when you get killed by 5 nosf Dominixes. ---
|
Zirator
Times of Ancar THE R0NIN
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:18:00 -
[65]
Hmmmm look like some strange bug turned the devs balance tool into the biggest nerfstick to ever hit the EVE-universe.
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:20:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 31/05/2007 10:23:51
Originally by: IntegralHellsing lol CCP.
2 X EANM T2 = 20 more CPU. currently with best skills, you can't fracking fit 2 EANM T2 unless you use -3% or -5% turret cpu implant.
...and I think that's EXACTLY the point of this nerf. 42%+ (at compensations lvl 4) passive omni tank for 2 slots, 60 cpu and 4 grid is overpowered.
With the EANM nerf, it might actually be worth tanking versus specific damage types, instead of relying on the holy omni tank of EANMs. Energized single resist platings give 45% resists at compensation lvl 4, which is more than 2 EANMs with compensations at lvl 5. Same fitting as now, two slightly better resists but two holes (one of which is most likely EM, there is your effective Amarr damage boost). Alternatively, you can sacrifice 20 cpu worth of gank, if you absolutely want those 2 EANMs.
Sounds like a fairer tradeoff for me than the current situation.
edit: Hi Zirator, btw ^^ ______________ Join the Family |
R'adeh
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:26:00 -
[67]
Great, now the only viable Blasterthron is the gankathron with a plate tank. My Ishtar will be next to useless as well, it's already hard enough to fit it as it is.
Not a good solution imo. _______________________________________________
My views are my own and I don't represent my corp. |
Katarina Hetiako
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:27:00 -
[68]
Hmm well I guess there are reasons for this change,
In the past though I always modified my tank to gank setups by having two EAN or two Dmg/ROF Mods, or perhaps one of each, I guess those tight fittings I had where I could do that won't be possible anymore, tsk.
Yup, I'm an alt... if only you could see my main... he's so strong and tough! |
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:28:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 31/05/2007 10:33:35
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 31/05/2007 09:44:26
Well, dear blaster pilots, maybe you have to rethink your fittings. There exist energized membranes of all types and stripes. Those still have their CPU at 30, one of them gives you the resistance of 2 EANMs for their respective damage type. Tux said that he doesn't like the 2xEANM + DC combo. Now you can for example fit 3x Energized Membranes, and if you still want a DC, get rid of a damage mod. The thought behind this is clear. The essential question is:
WILL YOU FIT AN EM-PASSIVE MOD ON AN ARMOR TANK?
Answer: No you won't. It isn't worth the slot with 60% (+DC) default resists. EM damage buff. Either you have a resist hole, or no more 3x Magstabs, no more 1600mm Raxes/Ruppies with omnitank, it's awesome. You might also reconsider your nos.
This may also not be the end of it.
There already is a resistance hole, it's called explosive (54% resistance)...
And three passive membranes with maximum compensation skills gives you an awe inspiring resistance total of 60/52/65/65 (compared to 80/54/67/67 currently) - or in other words a 17% drop in normalised armour HP's.
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:31:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 31/05/2007 09:44:26
Well, dear blaster pilots, maybe you have to rethink your fittings. There exist energized membranes of all types and stripes. Those still have their CPU at 30, one of them gives you the resistance of 2 EANMs for their respective damage type. Tux said that he doesn't like the 2xEANM + DC combo. Now you can for example fit 3x Energized Membranes, and if you still want a DC, get rid of a damage mod. The thought behind this is clear. The essential question is:
WILL YOU FIT AN EM-PASSIVE MOD ON AN ARMOR TANK?
Answer: No you won't. It isn't worth the slot with 60% (+DC) default resists. EM damage buff. Either you have a resist hole, or no more 3x Magstabs, no more 1600mm Raxes/Ruppies with omnitank, it's awesome. You might also reconsider your nos.
This may also not be the end of it.
Simply isn't enough slots on a Mega (for instance) to fit passive resists (multiple types) and have enough slots left over for damage mods (2 minimum).
With all the nerfs to DPS setups, a Blasterthron can barely make it by with two magstabs, usually needing three, and that's only if you fit Neutrons. Ions and Electrons are completely worthless.
The thing is, this change only affects a very narrow range of ships: CPU limited ships that armor tank. What ships are those? Blaster ships and Laser BS. Everything else won't be hurt by it.
GG CCP.
Because I said so...
|
|
Caya
Amarr Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:31:00 -
[71]
If this becomes true, i want training time for my compensation skills lvl5 back!
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:35:00 -
[72]
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.
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.
/signed blasterships have even with eanm fitted low resistances and they cant fit hardeners, because cap is a huge problem, plus theyre way short on cpu. this change will nerf gallente, but even more so the amarr. ccp rethink this and come up with a better solution, pls. i know u can do it.
|
DerArt1st
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:41:00 -
[73]
Oh noes... pls let the EAN like they are now. Just increase the thermaldamage on laser, pls.
|
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:49:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 31/05/2007 10:33:35
Originally by: Ruciza Edited by: Ruciza on 31/05/2007 09:44:26
Well, dear blaster pilots, maybe you have to rethink your fittings. There exist energized membranes of all types and stripes. Those still have their CPU at 30, one of them gives you the resistance of 2 EANMs for their respective damage type. Tux said that he doesn't like the 2xEANM + DC combo. Now you can for example fit 3x Energized Membranes, and if you still want a DC, get rid of a damage mod. The thought behind this is clear. The essential question is:
WILL YOU FIT AN EM-PASSIVE MOD ON AN ARMOR TANK?
Answer: No you won't. It isn't worth the slot with 60% (+DC) default resists. EM damage buff. Either you have a resist hole, or no more 3x Magstabs, no more 1600mm Raxes/Ruppies with omnitank, it's awesome. You might also reconsider your nos.
This may also not be the end of it.
There already is a resistance hole, it's called explosive (54% resistance)...
And three passive membranes with maximum compensation skills gives you an awe inspiring resistance total of 60/52/65/65 (compared to 80/54/67/67 currently) - or in other words a 17% drop in normalised armour HP's.
So you get a much more balanced tank then! the drop in the other 3 is pretty marginal, so minimal drop in normalised armor HP, and EM is balanced to them. Don't see a problem. Makes lasers usable again. ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
SFShootme
The Carebear Stare
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 10:55:00 -
[75]
Armor hardners stack better than shield hardners, so the argument in the first post isn't exactly acurate.
And, have you ever tried to take down an abaddon? 90ish% resist?
Tho shall give Life, for Life. |
Eamz
Endgame.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:06:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 31/05/2007 10:23:51
Originally by: IntegralHellsing lol CCP.
2 X EANM T2 = 20 more CPU. currently with best skills, you can't fracking fit 2 EANM T2 unless you use -3% or -5% turret cpu implant.
...and I think that's EXACTLY the point of this nerf. 42%+ (at compensations lvl 4) passive omni tank for 2 slots, 60 cpu and 4 grid is overpowered.
With the EANM nerf, it might actually be worth tanking versus specific damage types, instead of relying on the holy omni tank of EANMs. Energized single resist platings give 45% resists at compensation lvl 4, which is more than 2 EANMs with compensations at lvl 5. Same fitting as now, two slightly better resists but two holes (one of which is most likely EM, there is your effective Amarr damage boost). Alternatively, you can sacrifice 20 cpu worth of gank, if you absolutely want those 2 EANMs.
Sounds like a fairer tradeoff for me than the current situation.
edit: Hi Zirator, btw ^^
less than 40% with 2 eanm IIs at lvl 4 skills fyi.
|
Minas Reul
Dark Horizons Red Horizon
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:08:00 -
[77]
Not a particularly well thought out change, to be honest. Considering that many blaster ship setups relied on a named DC, fitting 3 passive hardeners instead of the DC+EANM actually takes 13 more cpu (which of course the ship doesn't have).
Given that the compensation skills take 4 days of training each just to get to level 4, it's shouldn't be too much to expect that the EANM compares favourably to a module that takes 3 days to train for, and has more resistance (albeit at the cost of cap).
If amarr damage is getting hurt by omni-tanks, then here's an idea: reduce the base em resistance on armor. I fly gallente ships, and i know i'd far rather be taking more damage from lasers that having to find faction items to make a sensible setup, or using active hardeners which are so vulnerable to nos and cap intensive weapons (not that those would ever get fixed )
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:13:00 -
[78]
Originally by: murder one
The thing is, this change only affects a very narrow range of ships: CPU limited ships that armor tank. What ships are those? Blaster ships and Laser BS. Everything else won't be hurt by it.
GG CCP.
Don't forget the Zealot, significant CPU problems on it already
|
Davik Kurchek
The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:16:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Davik Kurchek on 31/05/2007 11:16:40 So devs decide to nerf armor tanking to oblivion, dragging the race they're 'trying' to fix furher down the hole.
This change just doesn't have any logic at all. Funny thing is that the two races that will suffer from this are the ones that use the most cap to fire their guns + run other mods, and now you're making them use active tanks. Wich won't fit because of even more CPU requirement. ---
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:17:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
There already is a resistance hole, it's called explosive (54% resistance)...
And three passive membranes with maximum compensation skills gives you an awe inspiring resistance total of 60/52/65/65 (compared to 80/54/67/67 currently) - or in other words a 17% drop in normalised armour HP's.
I assume you used 3 energized single, compared to 2 EANMs + DCU? I personally think this change doesn't look too bad, since everything but EM loses 2% resistance, which is not so terribly much. The 17% normalized HP drop is a bit misleading I think, since mainly it's a 50% effective "EM HP" drop from 80% to 60% resists and an average 6% (or so) drop versus everything else. AKA, not so bad versus everything but lasers and EM missiles.
The current explosive hole can only be exploited by Minnies and explosive missiles/drones, but not at all by regular Amarr and Gallente guns and Caldari rails.
Here are just some fitting alternatives to 2xEANM + DCU (currently 90/5 fitting, soon 110/5), off the top of my head: - EANM + Adaptive Nano Plating + DCU (77/49/63/63) for 20/1 less than now (possibly "best" alternative in terms of EHP drop) - EANM + Adaptive Nano + Energized Reactive (73/64/57/57) for 20 cpu less if you need exp resists - 3x energized platings (Gabriel's choice) (60/52/65/65) for 1 more grid - EANM + 2 energized platings (69/61/51 and 72 as you see fit on Gallente ships) for 10/1 more - DCU + 2 energized platings (66/58/45 and 70 as you see fit) for same fitting as now
Some percentages might be 1 too low, don't have all lvl 5 compensations. I don't think losing some effective HP on one or two resists is all that terribly bad, since in some cases you actually free up cpu on very cpu intensive fittings, as several people pointed out above. It also makes your setup less predictable, which is always good in my book. ______________ Join the Family |
|
Phish1
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:22:00 -
[81]
Cos amarr have the best CPU in game
|
Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises Babylon Project
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:22:00 -
[82]
I honestly feel this is not a amarr boost, just a armour tank nerf.
So let's see, as quite a few people here have mentioned already, the solo aspect is getting nerfed a fair bit here (blasterthron, gundomi, even pulse amarr shippies) not to mention the small ships ..
Unless you rebuild your fits with heavy nos I think, which takes less cpu than a heavy t2 blaster ..
So we get back the use of nosDomis .. everybody loved those right? yay...
What it does mean for gang action is that a megathron will just start fitting for pure gank and will always fly with buddies.. and you were scared of a solo blasterthron? watch em rip through stuff with a buddy in a recon..
Does shield tanking need to be boosted for amarr to be effective? Does omni armour tanking have to be reduced to make amarr effective?
Why the frell would you change something only partly related to the problem and then expect the problem to be (partly) fixed??
I don't pretend to know what the solution would be for amarr but I certainly feel this is not part of it..
I do understand that by doing this you're forcing blaster pilots to either go for a nerfed active fit (same if you would lower the resistances btw) or to just fly around in gangs .. I thought you guys wanted to lower the blob feeling..
All the stuff above does not necessarily reflect my corp, my alliance or even me.. Drone guide.. |
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:23:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Eamz
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan
42%+ (at compensations lvl 4) passive omni tank for 2 slots, 60 cpu and 4 grid is overpowered.
less than 40% with 2 eanm IIs at lvl 4 skills fyi.
Ok sorry, forgot stacking penalty. So it's 39-40%, still overpowered. ______________ Join the Family |
adriaans
Amarr Interstellar StarShipWrights Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:26:00 -
[84]
won't this nerf amarr also --sig-- Knowledge is power! |
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:57:00 -
[85]
Couldn't you simply use explo + kinetic + thermal energized instead of 2x EANM + DCU?
-----
Originally by: Uncle Chop Chop Harden the **** up
|
Valandril
Caldari Leela's Lamas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 11:59:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Couldn't you simply use explo + kinetic + thermal energized instead of 2x EANM + DCU?
Won't fit on most ships (cpu issues) --- I swear to god, ccp choose changes in game via lottery system. |
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 12:02:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Couldn't you simply use explo + kinetic + thermal energized instead of 2x EANM + DCU?
That would result in 60/50/64/64 resists on armour and no resists whatsoever on hull, thats a pretty big nerf. If we went with DCU and one of each passive hardener then we lose a mag stab or a plate depending on setups and still get lower resists than with dcu and 2 eanm.
|
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 12:12:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Mysterlee
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Couldn't you simply use explo + kinetic + thermal energized instead of 2x EANM + DCU?
That would result in 60/50/64/64 resists on armour and no resists whatsoever on hull, thats a pretty big nerf. If we went with DCU and one of each passive hardener then we lose a mag stab or a plate depending on setups and still get lower resists than with dcu and 2 eanm.
So basically what you're saying, is that you will end up with balanced resists, and to truly tank you have to drop damage mods for a DCU?
Jeez, it's almost like they nerfed omni tanks and made lasers worthwhile or something....
-----
Originally by: Uncle Chop Chop Harden the **** up
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 12:17:00 -
[89]
EANMs are overpowered in so far that they are better than any other armor tanking module, out of a whole zoo that is available. If the devs had wanted everybody to use the same module, they would only have made one. Single resist energized and non-energized platings, energized as well as non-energized regenerative platings and to some extent even active hardeners are made redundant by EANMs due to their overpowered tank/fitting.
If you don't believe that, check the market curves (price and turnover) for the above modules in Jita, which possibly best represent the usage of certain modules over others. ______________ Join the Family |
Tanaka Nari
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 12:18:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Valandril
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Couldn't you simply use explo + kinetic + thermal energized instead of 2x EANM + DCU?
Won't fit on most ships (cpu issues)
Then 2 EANMs + DCU won't fit now, either.
|
|
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 12:24:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau So basically what you're saying, is that you will end up with balanced resists, and to truly tank you have to drop damage mods for a DCU?
Jeez, it's almost like they nerfed omni tanks and made lasers worthwhile or something....
The thing is though, if you're fitting a plated meathron tank you now have to sacrifice 4 lows to resists, then you have the choice of either fitting 2 plates and 1 mag stab which will result in you not having enough dps to kill them in time or you can fit 1 plate and 2 mag stabs which will result in you not having enough hp to survive long enough to kill them.
|
Ozzie Asrail
Exploited
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 12:38:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau
Originally by: Mysterlee
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Couldn't you simply use explo + kinetic + thermal energized instead of 2x EANM + DCU?
That would result in 60/50/64/64 resists on armour and no resists whatsoever on hull, thats a pretty big nerf. If we went with DCU and one of each passive hardener then we lose a mag stab or a plate depending on setups and still get lower resists than with dcu and 2 eanm.
So basically what you're saying, is that you will end up with balanced resists, and to truly tank you have to drop damage mods for a DCU?
Jeez, it's almost like they nerfed omni tanks and made lasers worthwhile or something....
Not quite. End up with around a 25% nerf of the resists and losing the whole 60% reists from hull.
Thats approx 13000 effective HP removed from a hyperion, with the hyps rep bonus the loss of 25% reists makes that 13000hp skyorcket up to easily 20k+ effective HP lost. Or about 8000 efective HP removed from a megathron.
That aint no laser buff but a kick in nads for nearly every armour tanking ship in the game. -----
|
Sailon
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 12:47:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Sailon on 31/05/2007 12:47:19 New signature for free (high quality paper)
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:01:00 -
[94]
There are still viable loadouts with DCUs for PVP and with or without DCUs for PVE (where the EANM thing will be less of an issue anyway). Sure, you lose some resists, mainly on the EM side, but it's not as drastic as some people say. Check page 3 where I posted some alternatives to 2x EANM + DCU. ______________ Join the Family |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:07:00 -
[95]
Edited by: n0thing on 31/05/2007 13:12:18 Edited by: n0thing on 31/05/2007 13:08:39
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 31/05/2007 10:23:51
Originally by: IntegralHellsing lol CCP.
2 X EANM T2 = 20 more CPU. currently with best skills, you can't fracking fit 2 EANM T2 unless you use -3% or -5% turret cpu implant.
...and I think that's EXACTLY the point of this nerf. 42%+ (at compensations lvl 4) passive omni tank for 2 slots, 60 cpu and 4 grid is overpowered.
With the EANM nerf, it might actually be worth tanking versus specific damage types, instead of relying on the holy omni tank of EANMs. Energized single resist platings give 45% resists at compensation lvl 4, which is more than 2 EANMs with compensations at lvl 5. Same fitting as now, two slightly better resists but two holes (one of which is most likely EM, there is your effective Amarr damage boost). Alternatively, you can sacrifice 20 cpu worth of gank, if you absolutely want those 2 EANMs.
Sounds like a fairer tradeoff for me than the current situation.
edit: Hi Zirator, btw ^^
You dont read, do you?
T2 hardener set wont ever fit on Ishtar for example due to CPU being around 100 less.
You cant even fit plate now with MWD/Med Rep/EANM/Explosive due to same issue.
Also, upping faction reqs may as well trash Ishtar even if you got funds for high end mods. Most of Ishtar setups leave you with 1-2 CPU, so I predict that thing gonna cost less then Sacrilege now.
Moreover, EANM used ,again, for same reason, theres no CPU on apporiate ships. You dont think Im gonna fit myself with 70/20/20/20 resists just to protect one damage type and think I can kill anything but indys.
But if you can fit me an Ishtar or Megat that would still have same resists, and no CPU issues, go ahead. When you try, Ishtar being a HAC should have at least 70% on lowest resist.
Your proposed tanking layouts mean that you never engaged anything with good damage. Even at 60% lowest resist you can find your tank outdamaged. And you say we should head with 50% resist as tank? Thats paper. If you engage 2 cruiser-sized damage dealers with BS, they will tear you apart before you nosf them down.
Overall:
Minmatar - not affected. Caldari - not affected. Amarr - slightly nerfed, now their ships also got to struggle with fitting. Gallente - both top end ships of the race now junk. nerfed, best candidate to take Amarr place in future.
---
|
Dalanoria
The-Dark-Legion Ground Zeero
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:12:00 -
[96]
Well there goes fitting out a Pilgrim.....You already need Recon V to fit anything on it, now its faction or nothing...
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:13:00 -
[97]
Mate, I never even talked about fitting active hardeners in this thread. Energized single resist platings, T1 or T2 have the exact same fitting reqs as the corresponding EANMs have now, and will stay that way. ______________ Join the Family |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:17:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Mate, I never even talked about fitting active hardeners in this thread. Energized single resist platings, T1 or T2 have the exact same fitting reqs as the corresponding EANMs have now, and will stay that way.
I reckon I need to write it on one line:
You need a faction EANM and faction hardener to fit a Gallente HAC and still tank something. Even then you end with 1-2 CPU left, without plate.
Thus - 5 lows.
1x True Sansha Med Rep, 1x True Sansha EANM, 1x Best Named DCU, 1x True Sansha Explosive Hardener, 1x Nano/CPR/Anything fits.
With that you have maybe at most 3 CPU left if you have CPU reduction implants.
You propose:
1x Med Rep, 1x Explosive Hardener, 3x Membranes? That takes about 60 CPU more then you have. ---
|
Minas Reul
Dark Horizons Red Horizon
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:18:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Tanaka Nari Then 2 EANMs + DCU won't fit now, either.
Exactly - they don't. Not unless you use a named DC or turret cpu implant, or both.
|
Valandril
Caldari Leela's Lamas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:24:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Minas Reul
Originally by: Tanaka Nari Then 2 EANMs + DCU won't fit now, either.
Exactly - they don't. Not unless you use a named DC or turret cpu implant, or both.
Sad reality, if this is going to happend, after 2 months i'm not going to renew my account. Whats the point if i need implant to even fit my platerax :| --- I swear to god, ccp choose changes in game via lottery system. |
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:25:00 -
[101]
Edited by: n0thing on 31/05/2007 13:24:30
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan
So yes, you will lose some resistances, but (depending on your setup, check my examples on page 3) mainly on EM, because the fewest people bother to fit armor EM resistances specifically. If you want an omni tank, fit an EANM and a non-energized adaptive nano if you can't spare 20 cpu more than now, otherwise stick to single resist platings. If you want a plate setup with many EHPs but no sustainable repair amount, go for energized regeneratives for example.
Agh, you edited post so couldnt quote that.
As I can see, on page 3 the highest resist still being EM if you put em from up to down sequence. The lowest however is either Kinetic/Explosive.
Since at least in 70% of cases a target will deal explosive/kinetic damage either via drones/missles or ammo, with 41% on explosive you have on one of layouts you will die within...seconds? Not even best damage in the world will help you if you lost half of your armor on your way to target. And god helps you if hes not alone. ---
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:30:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 31/05/2007 13:34:16 Maybe your specific Ishtar setup will be broken (since it doesn't use dual EANMs from the start), but if you end up with 1-2 cpu left with nearly all faction/named non-T2 gear, your setup is as high-end as you can currently get. If anything at all is changed, it will stop working.
-edit- If you fit a faction EANM + a faction active hardener now, you could probably switch to faction EANM + faction energized single (or faction non-energized if necessary) and only lose some resistance on a single resist.
Many many setups, especially for T1 ships with lowish armor base resists, rely way too heavily on 2xEANM + DCU because they effectively exchange four active hardeners (ok, three since most people wouldn't fit an EM hardener) for 2 EANMs which are passive AND need way less cpu. And this is exactly what's hurting lasers, if they switched over to a balanced tank (as in, balanced end resists) they wouldn't lose that much resists except on EM and in some cases even save some precious cpu. ______________ Join the Family |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:36:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Dalanoria Well there goes fitting out a Pilgrim.....You already need Recon V to fit anything on it, now its faction or nothing...
Erm...no, not really. I definately have some issues with cpu when I try to fit it with recon 4, but with recon 5 I will have TONS of free CPU unless I try to fit something silly like a probe launcher.
|
Valandril
Caldari Leela's Lamas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:40:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Valandril on 31/05/2007 13:39:18
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 31/05/2007 13:34:16 Maybe your specific Ishtar setup will be broken (since it doesn't use dual EANMs from the start), but if you end up with 1-2 cpu left with nearly all faction/named non-T2 gear, your setup is as high-end as you can currently get. If anything at all is changed, it will stop working.
-edit- If you fit a faction EANM + a faction active hardener now, you could probably switch to faction EANM + faction energized single (or faction non-energized if necessary) and only lose some resistance on a single resist.
Many many setups, especially for T1 ships with lowish armor base resists, rely way too heavily on 2xEANM + DCU because they effectively exchange four active hardeners (ok, three since most people wouldn't fit an EM hardener) for 2 EANMs which are passive AND need way less cpu. And this is exactly what's hurting lasers, if they switched over to a balanced tank (as in, balanced end resists) they wouldn't lose that much resists except on EM and in some cases even save some precious cpu.
U really think that this thing is buffing amarr ? Gl fitting ur t2 setup ships --- I swear to god, ccp choose changes in game via lottery system. |
Cal Morg
Gallente Morpheus industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:50:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Here are just some fitting alternatives to 2xEANM + DCU (currently 90/5 fitting, soon 110/5), off the top of my head: - EANM + Adaptive Nano Plating + DCU (77/49/63/63) for 20/1 less than now (possibly "best" alternative in terms of EHP drop) - EANM + Adaptive Nano + Energized Reactive (73/64/57/57) for 20 cpu less if you need exp resists - 3x energized platings (Gabriel's choice) (60/52/65/65) for 1 more grid - EANM + 2 energized platings (69/61/51 and 72 as you see fit on Gallente ships) for 10/1 more - DCU + 2 energized platings (66/58/45 and 70 as you see fit) for same fitting as now
Nice comparison, but let us do this with a named DCU, not T2 (used Lvl 4 comp skills):
- 2x EANM II + DCU (77/5)->(97/5) = +20/0
79/53/66/66
- EANM II, ANP II, DCU (47/4)->(57/4) = -20/-1
77/48/63/63
- EANM II, ANP II, ERM II (60/4)->(70/4) = -7/-1
73/64/57/57
- 3x E_M II (90/6) = +13/+1
60/50/64/64
- EANM II, 2x E_M II (90/6)->(100/6) = +13/+1
69/60/50+71
- DCU, 2x E_M II (77/5) = 0/0
65/57/44+69
|
Ruciza
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 13:57:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Cal Morg
EANM II, ANP II, DCU (47/4)->(57/4) = -20/-1 77/48/63/63
Seems they have to nerf ANPs too. EM resists are still way too high with this, and you have even more CPU for damage, further tank/Nos.
|
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 14:04:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Mysterlee on 31/05/2007 14:03:52 I really don't see why they dont just reduce the EM resistance bonus on EANMs. They could even reduce it a bit further than I'd previously said.
On EANM II, leaving all bonuses and fitting reqs at their current TQ values but reducing the EM resistance bonus only to 7.5%, at lvl 4 armour comp skills you would end up with 70/53/66/66 resists with a DC II and 2 EANM II. Thats a flat 9% resistance decrease while still keeping EM the highest as it should be on armour. Then all you need to do is make lasers do 50% EM damage and 50% thermal and there you have your amarr fix.
|
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 14:14:00 -
[108]
Ugh. My uber cookie-cutter geddon setup now will have SEVERE cpu issues (and lets say it has 7x dual heavies, injector, hvy nosf, rep, 2x plates and 60% resists overall).
Till now i had 0.00 cpu spare, now it will turn into -20 :S Guess ill have to drop one plate and put something else there...
|
RuSBO
Amarr Solar Dragons Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 14:20:00 -
[109]
OMG, Amarrian ships, with low CPU capacity , cant normally fitting now, and if EANM cpu cost will be increased, amarrians will finally died. __________________
NPC Hunter.
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 14:27:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 31/05/2007 14:34:00
Originally by: Cal Morg Nice comparison, but let us do this with a named DCU, not T2 (used Lvl 4 comp skills): ...
Cool, it looks way better as well .
By the way, I just flew a character to The Forge to check the market. I list the price and turnover of some T2 armor tank modules.
---price(in M), turnover(per day) Passive EANM:3.5, 500 Kin: 0.4, 50 Exp: 0.46, 60 EM:0.15, 25 Th:0.5, 65 Regen: 0.15, 15
Active EM:1.6, 50 Exp:3.6, 250 Kin:3.5, 250 Th:3.3, 250
Ok, some comments. In the passive category, EANMs are sold more often than all other energized platings together, even though they're almost ten times as expensive. EM and regenerative are sold the least, despite being really really cheap, probably barely above production price.
As far as active hardeners go, EM is half as expensive as the rest and is sold maybe 1/5th as much as the others.
Conclusions:
- Few people harden against EM specifically
- EANMs are by far the single most often bought passive armor tank module
- The fact that active hardeners are sold almost as much as EANMs probably comes from mission runners, since enemy damage type is known and cpu is not as much of an issue (no scram/mwd/injector/damper/ECM or other PVP module). Here active hardeners are better, since they give higher resists (and hence, the whole EANM nerf is pretty much moot for PVE anyway).
- Regenerative platings give a percentage increase to armor HP, but don't benefit from compensation skills. They might be an alternative to plates on grid limited fittings if energized adaptives weren't plain better for the same fitting cost AND additionally benefit from compensations. EANMs are better both in a sustainable and in a non-sustainable tank, so I'd propose to additionally buff regeneratives (for example via giving them a bonus from the compensation skills) to be better for non-sustainable tanks only while not being superior to plates.
Summarizing, I think it's fair to say that at least part of the laser problem is due to EANMs being too good compared to the other options, so some sort of nerf is alright to bring them back in line. ______________ Join the Family |
|
Bural
PPN United Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 14:30:00 -
[111]
I'am Amar, I'am a Amor Tanker and i must say EANM nerf is bull**** if you wanna boost amar change the weapondmg, more therm less em dmg and al is fine
|
Sc0rpion
Minmatar MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 14:35:00 -
[112]
Great...Now there will be even more nos domis, and they will have an even easier time killing me.
So far, this breaks: Armageddeon Apocolypse (Like it really needed to be further ruined) Pilgrim Retribution Harbinger (Need a -3% CPU implant now) Zealot
I can't wait to log onto Sisi and find out how many more Amarr ships this breaks. Thanks for the "help" CCP.
The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Killmails are for pooftas. |
EMTsNightmare
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 14:40:00 -
[113]
this is just wrong!!! on so many levels its not even worth talking about.
don't do this, it's that simple!
|
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:06:00 -
[114]
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Mate, I never even talked about fitting active hardeners in this thread. Energized single resist platings, T1 or T2 have the exact same fitting reqs as the corresponding EANMs have now, and will stay that way.
I reckon I need to write it on one line:
You need a faction EANM and faction hardener to fit a Gallente HAC and still tank something. Even then you end with 1-2 CPU left, without plate.
Thus - 5 lows.
1x True Sansha Med Rep, 1x True Sansha EANM, 1x Best Named DCU, 1x True Sansha Explosive Hardener, 1x Nano/CPR/Anything fits.
With that you have maybe at most 3 CPU left if you have CPU reduction implants.
You propose:
1x Med Rep, 1x Explosive Hardener, 3x Membranes? That takes about 60 CPU more then you have.
Use a faction adaptive instead of a a faction energized adaptive then.......... they don't require cpu at all. base 17.5% vs 22.5% but still OK. ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
Cal Morg
Gallente Morpheus industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:23:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Mysterlee I really don't see why they dont just reduce the EM resistance bonus on EANMs.
Because there exist ships like the Damnation: (60/80/62.5/35) base. Put in a Thermic Hardener and 2 EANM II and you get (81/90/83/85). What would happen, if they change the EANM the way you suggest?
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:32:00 -
[116]
I think it would work to lower the EM res bonus on the EANM, but it would feel quite heavy handed to make it asymmetric.
Raising fitting cost is one way of doing it, and although I initially favored lowering the bonus across the board, this would either gimp EANMs completely because single energized platings would always be better, or only slightly change the status quo in so far that armor tanks generally tank less (without affecting the relative strength of lasers). Raised fitting reqs at least causes dedicated tanks to make other sacrifices or alternatively switch to single resist modules (which ungimps lasers). ______________ Join the Family |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:40:00 -
[117]
Edited by: n0thing on 31/05/2007 15:45:00 Thats just looks like a plain Minmatar boost, since apart from Amarr T2 all ships now have giant explosive resistance hole.
As for Ishtar setup, EANM is a must, same as active explosive hardener. Without plate you have at most 2300ish armor i think. Meaning, with 48% explosive resist and 300-350 dps from average pvp same size opponent will break your ship in around....6 secs?
Imo, the whole EANM thing can be compared to a car stuck on a road, instead of calling evacuator, you will go find a big stick and smash the thing to pieces.
Dont touch EANM, nerfing while trying to boost will get you nowhere. Sure, typing new CPU value is alot easier, but it will cost alot more in terms of other stuff.
Best thing would be:
- EANM CPU back to normal. - Start dealing with Amarr capacitor/grid.
Grid and capacitor are most certain Amarr problems atm, so they need to be fixed. Not make under-powered thing be good on even more nerfed one.
As a side idea, why not make EANM be really adaptive, but manually? Can go great with Heat thing.
You have 25% on EANM II to all resistances, but you can choose only 2 to activate. Wich means you cant have 4 damage types hardened from 2 EANM. You can have only Explosive + Thermal on 1st and EM + Kinetic on second.
Then, most of people will use Thermal + Kinetic and Kinetic + Explosive combos with 2 EANM, while leaving EM damage untouched! Yep, you wont bother with adapting EANMs to EM as its good enough anyways.
Now, to activate those 2 adapted damage types, you would need:
- 75% capacitor. - 10 secs like reload. - 30 secs of powerup.
Would prevent people to change em in fight.
As for Regular Adaptive, they still give less on T1 ships then, fine, T2 might not suffer as bad from that to have a standart Adaptive, but T1 will still have some difference. On BSes that makes alot in terms of damage absorbed.
---
|
robeeX
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:42:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Mysterlee EANM II cpu usage has now been decreased to 36tf. Seriously CCP, just reduce it back to 30 and then lower the EM resistance bonus to 7.5%.
what he said ffs.
are you freaking crazy? ccp?! ty for "help"
CCP wont hijack my sig, DAAARE YOU!!!! i will kill your babycats!
|
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:44:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Cal Morg
Originally by: Mysterlee I really don't see why they dont just reduce the EM resistance bonus on EANMs.
Because there exist ships like the Damnation: (60/80/62.5/35) base. Put in a Thermic Hardener and 2 EANM II and you get (81/90/83/85). What would happen, if they change the EANM the way you suggest?
They could always fit an EM resist rig to compensate.
|
Tintifish
Roid Terminators
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:45:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Alski Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
This is would break all armor tanking assault frigates... pay attention Devs please, this has absoluteley no usefull purpose.
Exactly, my ishkur only has 155 CPU, how the feck am i meant to make a fitting? Empty high slot? No MWD? :S
|
|
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:51:00 -
[121]
Talk about CCP pandering to the vocal minority. Already reduced. Shame.
2 EANM2+ DC2 = 50% to each resist EANM2 + ANP2 + DC2 = 45% to each resist
Assuming max skills.
Difference on Kinetic / Thermal for Gallente is 67% to 64% resist. Wrecking setup indeed. And you still have extra of cpu.......... ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
Dodona
Gallente Azure Horizon Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 15:56:00 -
[122]
It would be a better idea for everyone to at least log into the test server and see if you can make things work with the EANM change; that's what it's there for. And the more people that get on and test, the more assuredly you can tell if something does or does not work. I've been on a bit and things seem be going swimmingly, besides the features which are obviously still being tested.
Far too much theorizing in this thread.
|
Broska
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:00:00 -
[123]
This is screwed up.
Nerfing EANM's is NOT the way to fix Amarr. Boost lasers and fix the sodding Amarr Boni.
------------------------------
Originally by: Tovarishch flying a Scorp into a fleet battle is like parking a pink moped in front of a biker bar - you will die... quickly.
|
Chr0nosX
The Good Fellas The Imperial Order
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:02:00 -
[124]
Edited by: Chr0nosX on 31/05/2007 16:04:53 If these changes go live then goodbye blasterthrons. You just won't be able to fit them anymore.
|
Entilzah Valen
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:05:00 -
[125]
Lots of changes lately have just been absolutely ******* stupid, and I see the trend is continuing.
So exactly how many former carebear-types work at CCP?
Good Job __________________________
Quote: Marko Debreault > I WILL MAKE BROTH FROM YOUR BLOOD AND DRINK IT FROM YOUR SKULL
|
Valandril
Caldari Leela's Lamas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:06:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Entilzah Valen Lots of changes lately have just been absolutely ******* stupid, and I see the trend is continuing.
So exactly how many former carebear-types work at CCP?
Good Job
Look at my sig for explanation :D --- I swear to god, ccp choose changes in game via lottery system. |
Sc0rpion
Minmatar MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:08:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Dodona It would be a better idea for everyone to at least log into the test server and see if you can make things work with the EANM change; that's what it's there for. And the more people that get on and test, the more assuredly you can tell if something does or does not work. I've been on a bit and things seem be going swimmingly, besides the features which are obviously still being tested.
Far too much theorizing in this thread.
Boy, why didn't us people who are posting in the development forum and probably sign onto Sisi a few times per week think of that?
The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Killmails are for pooftas. |
wierchas noobhunter
LFC
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:14:00 -
[128]
great move ... i have lots of time to train up my missing minmatar skills .. tho most of my new gal setup involves diferent taking
haha u all noobs just got nefred
|
Ozzie Asrail
Exploited
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:14:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton Talk about CCP pandering to the vocal minority. Already reduced. Shame.
2 EANM2+ DC2 = 50% to each resist EANM2 + ANP2 + DC2 = 45% to each resist
Assuming max skills.
Difference on Kinetic / Thermal for Gallente is 67% to 64% resist. Wrecking setup indeed. And you still have extra of cpu..........
So apart from being an across the board armour tank nerf what good is this change? What exactly does it fix? -----
|
Lisento Slaven
Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:15:00 -
[130]
Soooo...people have to downgrade their guns to fit an EANM setup? ---
Lisento Slaven wants to be a Space Whaler in EVE.
Put in space whales!
|
|
Zhull
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:32:00 -
[131]
I still fail to understand the logic behind this change. Most people agree that Amarr could use a buff. But nerfing every armor tanking ship in the game is a completely different story.
As somebody pointed out before, if you switch from 2 EANM to 1 EANM + 1 adaptative nano plating you loose some resists but you sill can have an average ommi tank.
That is not the problem. The problem is that this change does not address the real problem (amarr needs more damage and more damage types).
Plus there are other ships that desperately need a nerf:
Sabre: Dual extender sabres can tank, run like inties and can also receive a few volleys without breakin a sweat.
Vaga: Can kite every single ship in the game
Curse: Right now it would be unfair to nerf it because it might be the only good ship amarians have but rigth now it can completely disable and kill almost any other ship in the game (at least those whithout a 100% passive tank).
Maybe we are not seing the whole picture here and more changes will hit test soon. I sincerily hope so.
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:33:00 -
[132]
FFS CCP. NO NO NO NO NO.
"To bring Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II online requires 36.0 cpu units, but only 27.3 of the 687.5 units that your computer produces are still available."
No, 36 CPU is NOT better. Put it back to 30 FFS. You're bothering to edit the value, and you're not putting it back to 30? Why are you wasting time and effort F'ing around with it when it just needs to be returned to where it was in the first place?
Sometimes I get the feeling that the devs are just F'ing around, watching us freak out as they mess with our stuff.
Because I said so...
|
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:35:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Ozzie Asrail
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton Talk about CCP pandering to the vocal minority. Already reduced. Shame.
2 EANM2+ DC2 = 50% to each resist EANM2 + ANP2 + DC2 = 45% to each resist
Assuming max skills.
Difference on Kinetic / Thermal for Gallente is 67% to 64% resist. Wrecking setup indeed. And you still have extra of cpu..........
So apart from being an across the board armour tank nerf what good is this change? What exactly does it fix?
You mean apart from nerfing the most overused and overpowered tank in the game which has needed nerfing for a long time? Which in itselfis a good thing. 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. Even with the additional skill time needed to train? It needed nerfing, and needs to be nerfed further to make fitting active hardeners more viable, which in turn will help to solve the Laser damage issue to onmi tanks. Small step in the right direction, but only a small one.
Decrease active hardener cpu to 30 should be the next step, or increase EANM fitting to 60cpu would be better and more balanced. At least then there would be a choice, not a one size fits all which has left one race heavily nerfed for no valid reason.
For comparison the Invulnerability Field takes twice as much cap to run as an active single shield hardener. But EANM has no such drawback as it doesn't use cap so another area needs to be found to act as an equivalent. Twice as much cpu usage as active hardeners therefore is balanced as it acts as half of 4 active hardeners. Seems fair to me. And you still don't have any cap use. ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
Garrakh
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:36:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Lisento Slaven Soooo...people have to downgrade their guns to fit an EANM setup?
Please kind sir, try to fit a deimos with any sort of decent fitting, then compare it with other HACS.
Then do the same with other blaster and pulse laser ships and compare them with other ships in their class.
Then come back here and try to expess an informed opinion.
|
ChalSto
The Galactic Empire Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:40:00 -
[135]
Well, this nerf got the handwriting of Tux. So dear Tux, can you give us one....only ONE good arguement for that nerf, becouse Gallente, Minmatar AND Amarr Pilots dont see ANY good arguement in that nerf.
To Boost Amarr, nerf the others? (but nerfing Amarr even more? )
What Amarr need is a light buff of their dmg (more thermal than EM; allready soooooooo often suggested ) And a massive decrase in Cap-need of their wepaons (-20% at least).
Blasters should be the weapons with the most cap-need. No doubt about that.
Blasters allready suffer from high CPU usage, extreme shortest range (980m optimal range with Void on a CEPTOR anyone? ) and high Cap-Usage. Seems balacend to me, becouse of the high dmg-out we got.
But Laser, in comparison to dmg-cap is unbalanced; so fix
Evil will allways triumph, becouse Good is dumb
|
Wizzkidy
Demonic Retribution Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:40:00 -
[136]
Originally by: murder one FFS CCP. NO NO NO NO NO.
"To bring Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II online requires 36.0 cpu units, but only 27.3 of the 687.5 units that your computer produces are still available."
No, 36 CPU is NOT better. Put it back to 30 FFS. You're bothering to edit the value, and you're not putting it back to 30? Why are you wasting time and effort F'ing around with it when it just needs to be returned to where it was in the first place?
Sometimes I get the feeling that the devs are just F'ing around, watching us freak out as they mess with our stuff.
No matter what they change you are going to be upset, you seem to think that EANM do not neee changing when they DO NEED A NERF, they are overpowered. Yes this might not "fix" ammar but at the moment they are overpowered for what they do.
It just seems your moaning about the change!? what do you want them to do leave the resists AND the fitted req alone?
Whats wrong with you its TESTING
|
Rooker
Lysian Enterprises United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:41:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Rooker on 31/05/2007 16:43:41 WTS: EANM II
WTB: Domi BPO Heavy NOS BPO
Just face it. They want all of us flying those weird looking Caldari rocketships.
That's fine. If you want to destroy the usefulness of EANM, then you also need to 1) dramatically increase the size of capacitor on armor tankers and 2) give them more low slots. The reason *I* use an EANM is because I run low on the first on the way to the opponent and run out of the second before I even undock.
EDIT:
I guess I'll yank Gallente Cruiser 5 out of my skill plan now until I see what happens here. I've heard what happened to people who specced Amarr.
|
FemmeFatal
Control Theory
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:47:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton You mean apart from nerfing the most overused and overpowered tank in the game which has needed nerfing for a long time?
Could have sworn you were about to say PASSIVE SHIELD TANKING there
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:47:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton
You mean apart from nerfing the most overused and overpowered tank in the game which has needed nerfing for a long time? +stuff
Are we playing the same game?
Tanks hardly keep up with the damage one might expect, and usually they don't, to encounter in a fight. In addition to that, forcing ppl to use active hardeners will only make the cap issues of today even worse than they are. Not to forget that the biggest hit from this change will be on... Amarr Since they don't have too much cpu to use on their tanks and have other uses for their cap already. And kicking amarr while they are down is not really fun, at all...
As for the actual topic. FFS this kinds off ****ed tweaks are unneeded and ultimately unnececcary. Please concentrate on fixing things that need fixing like the drone UI etc. Please. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:51:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Rooker WTS: EANM II
WTB: Domi BPO Heavy NOS BPO
Just face it. They want all of us flying those weird looking Caldari rocketships.
That's fine. If you want to destroy the usefulness of EANM, then you also need to 1) dramatically increase the size of capacitor on armor tankers and 2) give them more low slots. The reason *I* use an EANM is because I run low on the first on the way to the opponent and run out of the second before I even undock.
EANM should really be used in that way - as an overall supplement to a tank, rather than as the main part of the tank. Even so there is an even easier to fit module - the ANP. Also most PVP ships fit cap booster, so capacitor size is largely irrelavent. Also this is suppose to be a game where fittings have to be worked out and refined! Otherwise you may as well just give all ships as many slots and as much powergrid / cpu as they want, rather than make it a challenge which the 2EANM2+DC2 tank somewhat got rid of. ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
|
Garrakh
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:53:00 -
[141]
This could be a good time to publish the long awaited ship balancing blog.
|
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:57:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton Twice as much cpu usage as active hardeners therefore is balanced as it acts as half of 4 active hardeners. Seems fair to me. And you still don't have any cap use.
Balanced in that you cant fit them at all?
I've already stated the fix thats needed repeatedly. No one will complain and amarr will rejoice.
Change cpu requirement back to 30 and reduce the EM resist bonus to 7.5% while leaving the others at 20%.
|
Sc0rpion
Minmatar MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 16:57:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton It needed nerfing, and needs to be nerfed further to make fitting active hardeners more viable, which in turn will help to solve the Laser damage issue to onmi tanks.
This does nothing to help lasers. All this does is drive every blaster pilot into a nos boat, which actually makes lasers worse.
The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Killmails are for pooftas. |
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:02:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
There already is a resistance hole, it's called explosive (54% resistance)...
And three passive membranes with maximum compensation skills gives you an awe inspiring resistance total of 60/52/65/65 (compared to 80/54/67/67 currently) - or in other words a 17% drop in normalised armour HP's.
I assume you used 3 energized single, compared to 2 EANMs + DCU? I personally think this change doesn't look too bad, since everything but EM loses 2% resistance, which is not so terribly much. The 17% normalized HP drop is a bit misleading I think, since mainly it's a 50% effective "EM HP" drop from 80% to 60% resists and an average 6% (or so) drop versus everything else. AKA, not so bad versus everything but lasers and EM missiles.
The current explosive hole can only be exploited by Minnies and explosive missiles/drones, but not at all by regular Amarr and Gallente guns and Caldari rails.
Here are just some fitting alternatives to 2xEANM + DCU (currently 90/5 fitting, soon 110/5), off the top of my head: - EANM + Adaptive Nano Plating + DCU (77/49/63/63) for 20/1 less than now (possibly "best" alternative in terms of EHP drop) - EANM + Adaptive Nano + Energized Reactive (73/64/57/57) for 20 cpu less if you need exp resists - 3x energized platings (Gabriel's choice) (60/52/65/65) for 1 more grid - EANM + 2 energized platings (69/61/51 and 72 as you see fit on Gallente ships) for 10/1 more - DCU + 2 energized platings (66/58/45 and 70 as you see fit) for same fitting as now
Some percentages might be 1 too low, don't have all lvl 5 compensations. I don't think losing some effective HP on one or two resists is all that terribly bad, since in some cases you actually free up cpu on very cpu intensive fittings, as several people pointed out above. It also makes your setup less predictable, which is always good in my book.
Well one of the things you missed off was the loss in normalised shield and hull hitpoints, given the use of three passive hardeners over two EANMII + DCU.
That combined with the drop in normalised armour HP's makes this a terrible change for both Gallente and Amarr. ----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:05:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton stuff
Once again, cap boosters use charges. How long do I have to wait to kill you? Your cargo size will tell.
As for the shield vs armor tank.
This is more like not Amarr fix, rather an armor tank nerf. So, question is why?.
Lets compare on basic level.
Shield:
- Reduce cap usage skill. - Increase boost amount module. - Increase shield amount skill. - Increase shield recharge rate. *this is specific one, so not much attention.
Armor:
- Reduce cycle time. - Increase HP amount.
So, shield tanks meant to absorb alot of damage for short time, while armor tanks for more extended tank.
How come then shield tankers get cap reduction skill? To run the said shield booster with same 'pernament' scheme as armor tankers? And then the armor tankers who get a nerf while shield tankers only drawback is lack of taclking utulity slots? Seriosly, lol? Why you need utility slot if your armor tanking enemy breaks like paper.
Really, like i said above, I thought that theres aim to make Gallente use all of their good ships, but now wer even more temped to fly our 5 nosf Domi`s.
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.
---
|
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:11:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
There already is a resistance hole, it's called explosive (54% resistance)...
And three passive membranes with maximum compensation skills gives you an awe inspiring resistance total of 60/52/65/65 (compared to 80/54/67/67 currently) - or in other words a 17% drop in normalised armour HP's.
I assume you used 3 energized single, compared to 2 EANMs + DCU? I personally think this change doesn't look too bad, since everything but EM loses 2% resistance, which is not so terribly much. The 17% normalized HP drop is a bit misleading I think, since mainly it's a 50% effective "EM HP" drop from 80% to 60% resists and an average 6% (or so) drop versus everything else. AKA, not so bad versus everything but lasers and EM missiles.
The current explosive hole can only be exploited by Minnies and explosive missiles/drones, but not at all by regular Amarr and Gallente guns and Caldari rails.
Here are just some fitting alternatives to 2xEANM + DCU (currently 90/5 fitting, soon 110/5), off the top of my head: - EANM + Adaptive Nano Plating + DCU (77/49/63/63) for 20/1 less than now (possibly "best" alternative in terms of EHP drop) - EANM + Adaptive Nano + Energized Reactive (73/64/57/57) for 20 cpu less if you need exp resists - 3x energized platings (Gabriel's choice) (60/52/65/65) for 1 more grid - EANM + 2 energized platings (69/61/51 and 72 as you see fit on Gallente ships) for 10/1 more - DCU + 2 energized platings (66/58/45 and 70 as you see fit) for same fitting as now
Some percentages might be 1 too low, don't have all lvl 5 compensations. I don't think losing some effective HP on one or two resists is all that terribly bad, since in some cases you actually free up cpu on very cpu intensive fittings, as several people pointed out above. It also makes your setup less predictable, which is always good in my book.
Well one of the things you missed off was the loss in normalised shield and hull hitpoints, given the use of three passive hardeners over two EANMII + DCU.
That combined with the drop in normalised armour HP's makes this a terrible change for both Gallente and Amarr.
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. ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:15:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Sc0rpion This does nothing to help lasers. All this does is drive every blaster pilot into a nos boat, which actually makes lasers worse.
This does nothing to help anyone. All it does is make shield tanking overpowered in comparison. -- t20: "So Let us play and enjoy the game you and I both love on the same level." |
Ozzie Asrail
Exploited
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:16:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton You mean apart from nerfing the most overused and overpowered tank in the game which has needed nerfing for a long time?
No. It nerfs every single setup that uses an EAN, even setups that only use 1 ean.
Originally by: 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.
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton Even with the additional skill time needed to train? It needed nerfing, and needs to be nerfed further to make fitting active hardeners more viable, which in turn will help to solve the Laser damage issue to onmi tanks. Small step in the right direction, but only a small one.
It completley changes a huge amount of ship ballance regarding resistances, dmg types and tanks to fix one weapons types problem.
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton
Decrease active hardener cpu to 30 should be the next step, or increase EANM fitting to 60cpu would be better and more balanced. At least then there would be a choice, not a one size fits all which has left one race heavily nerfed for no valid reason.
Lowering actives should be the FIRST step because thats why people fit EAN over actives. On most setups either you only have 2-3 slots for resistance mods or you dont have the CPU to fir actives.
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton
For comparison the Invulnerability Field takes twice as much cap to run as an active single shield hardener. But EANM has no such drawback as it doesn't use cap so another area needs to be found to act as an equivalent. Twice as much cpu usage as active hardeners therefore is balanced as it acts as half of 4 active hardeners. Seems fair to me. And you still don't have any cap use.
Plates don't increase armour repair rates, there are NO mid slot armour mods, there are NO active invuln style mods, boost amps use less than 1/4 of a XL-boosters CPU while armour needs a whole 2nd rep. Missles\Projectiles use NO cap, even with a heavy booster blasterboats are frequently out of cap and that means no guns, no reppers, and no hardners. You simply can't compare them. -----
|
Ragnor Dayton
Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:21:00 -
[149]
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? ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! |
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 17:27:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Ragnor Dayton 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?
Well its actually a 9% difference in the amount of DPS that gets through... which means it can be killed about 9% faster. Gank ship or not, this is a straight up nerf. -- t20: "So Let us play and enjoy the game you and I both love on the same level." |
|
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. ---
|
|
Alpha Type
Gallente Belief in Antimatter
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 11:20:00 -
[181]
The problem:
- Omni tanking in combination with base resists gives a very high resistance to EM damage.
- This causes EM damage to be highly ineffective in general.
- The solution therefore, should be to weaken this combination.
The suggested solution:
- Make EANMS harder to fit, to discourage their use.
- This will encourage the use of single resistance hardeners.
The problems:
- On many setups, an omni tank as on TQ only just fits (<10 tf spare).
- 3 single hardeners in SiSi still use 18tf more than the omni tank, and therefore won't fit.
- Active hardeners use cap, and many armour tanking ships have cap-intensive weapons.
- Gallente ships have a lot of hull HP for a reason (i.e. fitting a DC)
- You can't effectively use one specific armour hardener and two omni hardeners, as a sheild tanker might.
The fallacies:
- Invulnerability fields aren't comparable to EANMs because they are hard to fit on ships smaller that BS size (from the dev blog).
- The omni tank is used because it gives good resistances.
Better solutions:
- Reducing base armour EM resist to 50% would reduce the omni tank EM resist to 75% - a 20% increase in damage taken.
- EANMs only give bonuses to two resistances, but you can choose which.
- Reduce the EM resist bonus on EANMs.
- Adding a stacking penalty to damage controls.
Al that's changed on SiSi at the moment is that some ships keep using the omni tanks, as it still fits easier than three specifics, and the other ships have a really poor tank in general, or have to fit faction mods, neither of which are 'good' results.
|
mamolian
M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 11:39:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Jin Entres I was gonna train for minnie anyway..
There was I thinking how could I phrase what I wanted to say politely
-------------------------------
|
jam6549
SubMerc Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 12:00:00 -
[183]
yey! i support the nerf! haha! ---------- JOIN SMI CORP FOR THE BEST HARDCORE ACTION IN EVE! |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 14:27:00 -
[184]
Originally by: jam6549 yey! i support the nerf! haha!
Another useless comment from obiovisly someone who havent ever left 0.5 space.
As for topic, above post proposes alot of great suggestions.
I personally like the idea of reducing armor resistances and shield resistances at same time to make omni-tanked ships still be vulnerable to lasers as well as projectiles.
oh and tnx for inlcuding my idea as well
---
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 16:21:00 -
[185]
Oh wait, so now gallente are brought down to the same standards as amarr and the screaming is deafening...
We amarr have ALWAYS had to deal with deciding between ganking and tanking...this is nothing more than the same for us.
As far as helping amarr..you bet your bottom dollar (or pound, or yen, or mark, or whatever) it helps us. If you are amarr, your guns just became better, if you think otherwise then you need some more schooling.
As an amarr with maxed flying and gunnery skills (except for large pulse spec 5) i know EXACTLY what hell it is to fit a tank and gank on abaddon/apoc/geddon. Gallente just got brought down to our level.
Luberly
|
G0rF
Gallente The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 16:24:00 -
[186]
So 9 months training Armour and blaster fits, and now you tell me I should have just gone Caldari, just like everyone else?
Thanks then...
Why not just drop the EM resist on EANM II's, as suggested? Not only is it a better solution, it's got to be a hell of a lot less work.
The Causality international MMO gamers' community |
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 16:28:00 -
[187]
Im not going to be one to tell you to train caldari.
I am going to tell you to adapt.
|
William Hamilton
Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 17:42:00 -
[188]
Just take down some armour base EM resist and redistribute it across other resists.
|
Pipboy2K
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 18:08:00 -
[189]
i also say you (ccp) better reduce base armor em resist on all ships and put it like the 10% race specific extra resist of the primary dmg of the enemy ontop on the resist which prevents the secondary dmg of the enemy... e.g.: base resist for all: 50/10/25/35 (without race specific resist bonus) base resist for gallente: 50/10/35/45 (1.kin, 2.thm) base resist for amarr: 50/20/35/35 (1.exp, 2.kin) <-- i would call this boost base resist for caldari 50/10/35/45 (1.thm, 2.kin) base resist for minmatar 60/10/25/45 (1.em, 2.thm)
supporter of the "STOP NERFING EANMS!" activists
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 19:14:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Pipboy2K i also say you (ccp) better reduce base armor em resist on all ships and put it like the 10% race specific extra resist of the primary dmg of the enemy ontop on the resist which prevents the secondary dmg of the enemy... e.g.: base resist for all: 50/10/25/35 (without race specific resist bonus) base resist for gallente: 50/10/35/45 (1.kin, 2.thm) base resist for amarr: 50/20/35/35 (1.exp, 2.kin) <-- i would call this boost base resist for caldari 50/10/35/45 (1.thm, 2.kin) base resist for minmatar 60/10/25/45 (1.em, 2.thm)
supporter of the "STOP NERFING EANMS!" activists
/signed.
Best solution to all problems. Id highly vote for this one to go live for testing at least.
Originally by: Larsonist Oh wait, so now gallente are brought down to the same standards as amarr and the screaming is deafening...
We amarr have ALWAYS had to deal with deciding between ganking and tanking...this is nothing more than the same for us.
As far as helping amarr..you bet your bottom dollar (or pound, or yen, or mark, or whatever) it helps us. If you are amarr, your guns just became better, if you think otherwise then you need some more schooling.
As an amarr with maxed flying and gunnery skills (except for large pulse spec 5) i know EXACTLY what hell it is to fit a tank and gank on abaddon/apoc/geddon. Gallente just got brought down to our level.
Luberly
So you actually say that if one race is somehow underpowered, no need to boost it and rather nerf others to same level? lol. funny.
---
|
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 19:16:00 -
[191]
Tbh I dont know whats all the fuss about omni armor tanks gimping laser damage. The same is true for omni shield tanks and projectile damage, but they are not getting nerfed it seems.
And before somebody now says the usual line "but but projectiles can change their damage type" - yea, if only they really could. All projectile t2 ammo and all long range ammo does only ex/kin and in fact all ammo (except phased plasma which does 75% thermal and 25% kinetic) does a majority of ex/kin damage, yes, that includes EMP. So changing damage type with projectile ammo is only an option for short range weapons to begin with and unless you cant use t2 you are sacrificing a lot of falloff and thus damage with changing to anything other then barrage.
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 19:33:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Larsonist on 01/06/2007 19:32:40
Quote: So you actually say that if one race is somehow underpowered, no need to boost it and rather nerf others to same level? lol. funny.
See, the above is what happens when someone with no clue posts.
If you want to see ********...try experiencing a game where the dev's perpetually "boost" said character classes/whatever until re-tard-ation is beyond control. Once you go down that path dude, their ain't no going back. Taking a breath, rethinking things and pulling things back down into check are a much safer and less devastating move than just caving to all the whining.
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 19:47:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Larsonist Edited by: Larsonist on 01/06/2007 19:32:40
Quote: So you actually say that if one race is somehow underpowered, no need to boost it and rather nerf others to same level? lol. funny.
See, the above is what happens when someone with no clue posts.
If you want to see ********...try experiencing a game where the dev's perpetually "boost" said character classes/whatever until re-tard-ation is beyond control. Once you go down that path dude, their ain't no going back. Taking a breath, rethinking things and pulling things back down into check are a much safer and less devastating move than just caving to all the whining.
You made no point in any of your posts.
So lets do a summary:
- Amarr somewhat underpowered.
- You said, Gallente brought down to their level means a normal race nerfed down to the already underpowred one.
- Thus if we had 1 race under balance line, now we have 2.
- Now, thats exactly what I said in my post, that you propose to nerf all good stuff so there will be no need for fixing bad stuff.
Now, whos missing a clue? ---
|
Butter Dog
The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 19:48:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Ank Myrandor 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
Oh, thats okay then. I'll throw away two years of specialist Gallente training and start training for a Pilgrim or Zealot since they are the only ships which survive the nerf intact.
I DONT F'ING THINK.
---------- signature removed - please do not discuss moderation in your signature graphic - Jacques([email protected])
|
Butter Dog
The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 19:51:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau
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 :)
And given that active hardners take MORE CPU than passive, post-nerf, how do you exactly propose we do that?
The only solution I can see is T1 passive hardners. Nice.
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 20:32:00 -
[196]
Just listened to dev blog about Heat.
It was explained as to prevent EM resist go too high, so they reduced active hardener to 36 CPU and increased EANM to 36 CPU.
Fine, makes sense. But 36 CPU is still way too much to fit on CPU tight ships. We have maybe 1-2 CPU buffer if we lucky. And here we talking about at least 15 cpu gap.
Seriosly, if you really dont want to lower base EM/Explosive resistances on Armor/Shield then reduce active armor hardener CPU usage lower then EANM is now. Means, make it 27 CPU on T2, at least. ---
|
KD.Fluffy
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 20:35:00 -
[197]
LOl Caldari arent even that great at pve. I think ratting in a skilled domi or mega will be much much faster then a raven. Raven might be faster at missions, but I feel pretty certain that a rail mega could blaze through them as well. There is no real reason why one race should be so much better then the other. Behold my evidince of BOB favoritism.
Originally by: Dianabolic We have a "special" line (if you want to call msn that) to our FRIENDS.
|
CampyloBacter
Gallente Chlamydia Online
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 20:46:00 -
[198]
Why does every patch have to be an exercise in alienating a significant part of the userbase?
Instead of devoting time and effort to areas of the game where improvements are necessary ie. fixing the legitimate grievances of Amarr players, yet another part of the game gets broken in CCP's typically esoteric and illogical way of F****ing one thing massively up to make another appear less F***ked up.
There was a time when initiative and intelligence triumphed in this game. Now it's a case of whoever whines wins.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 21:59:00 -
[199]
Originally by: James Duar So, interesting idea, just, sort of, putting it out there, but if the problem for Amarr is they only do EM and EM has ridiculous resists, why not just give the Amarr a boost to EM damage to compensate for the average amount of resist they encounter?
Yes. Ive mentioned this many times James Duaaaaaaaaaaar.
But the reduction in CPU on active hardeners would need to be significant enough to make the 3x hardener setup use much less CPU than the EANM/DC setup. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 22:10:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Larsonist Oh wait, so now gallente are brought down to the same standards as amarr and the screaming is deafening...
We amarr have ALWAYS had to deal with deciding between ganking and tanking...this is nothing more than the same for us.
As far as helping amarr..you bet your bottom dollar (or pound, or yen, or mark, or whatever) it helps us. If you are amarr, your guns just became better, if you think otherwise then you need some more schooling.
As an amarr with maxed flying and gunnery skills (except for large pulse spec 5) i know EXACTLY what hell it is to fit a tank and gank on abaddon/apoc/geddon. Gallente just got brought down to our level.
Luberly
This change doesnt modify the liklyhood of tri-hardeners, so it doesnt modify the ratio of damage taken against armor for amarr. This means it doesnt actualy do anything. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
|
Nicocat
Caldari New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 22:13:00 -
[201]
I smell a price hike in faction EANMs. *rubs his hands together and grins*
Originally by: Splagada SEED ME DADDY
Down with alts! One character per account per IP! |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 22:25:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Nicocat I smell a price hike in faction EANMs. *rubs his hands together and grins*
Id smell Adaptive Nanos rising up. *aims his buy button when Rev2 notes release*. ---
|
KD.Fluffy
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 23:21:00 -
[203]
Guys, this nerf really isnt that bad.... shield tanks are getting a nerf as well, dont forget. Amarr is being buffed, their turrets are getting a tracking bonus. Hopefully this mod will bring armor tanks more inline with shield tanks. ANd please don't tell me that I shouldnt be able to pvp because my raven can run missions. A megathron can run missions just fine, and has enormous pvp potential. Behold my evidince of BOB favoritism.
Originally by: Dianabolic We have a "special" line (if you want to call msn that) to our FRIENDS.
|
Incantare
Caldari Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.01 23:39:00 -
[204]
The whine is strong in this thread. It wasn't the amarr buff I was expecting but more variety in armor tanking setups is welcome. Active hardner CPU use should be low to compensate though.
And to whoever was moaning about shield tankers getting a skill that reduces cap usage: shield tankers have to sacrifice a mid slot (and often a fitting slot if it's a missile boat) to fit an injector, that lost midslot compromises their tank (same for rechargers), they get a penalty on CPRs, and PDU's don't give stellar amounts of recharge. That skill is needed or else shield tanks would cap out too fast.
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 00:04:00 -
[205]
Originally by: KD.Fluffy Guys, this nerf really isnt that bad.... shield tanks are getting a nerf as well, dont forget. Amarr is being buffed, their turrets are getting a tracking bonus. Hopefully this mod will bring armor tanks more inline with shield tanks. ANd please don't tell me that I shouldnt be able to pvp because my raven can run missions. A megathron can run missions just fine, and has enormous pvp potential.
Megathron needs a greater amount of SP to be as good as in Raven in BS vs BS fight.
Moreover, shield tanking alot better now since:
- Have cap reduction skill. - Have amount boost module while armor tankers get rig for it with penalty. - Still have recharge. - They can run XL Booster pernamently with certain setups.
All of the above, can be done by armor tankers. So i cant see how armor tanking is overpowered. Not to mention that Raven can fit 3 BCUs without touching its resistances.
As for nerf, its a nerf. Bad or good it doesnt matter. Might as well add Ishtar 'drone mining yeld' bonus like Vexor has, since that ship not gonna stand being good HAC anymore. You cant fit separate hardeners as they take same 36 CPU, and you cant go out with 50ish explosive resist since your a toast to even a gank rupture lol.
Oh and btw, it still doesnt change the fact that Megat needs -5% CPU reduction implant to fit its main setups. ---
|
KD.Fluffy
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 01:04:00 -
[206]
Yes, you can make xl boosters perma run in some specific mission setups, this takes three rigs though. I've seen amarr ships perma run large t2 repers without rigs. Behold my evidince of BOB favoritism.
Originally by: Dianabolic We have a "special" line (if you want to call msn that) to our FRIENDS.
|
SIlver Light
Minmatar 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 06:53:00 -
[207]
Lee you whinging bugger
/signed.
Don't nerf EAMNs like this CCP. How exactly is this going to help amarr? ------ Proud Member of 5punkorp |
Stribog
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 09:17:00 -
[208]
Well, there go my setup's!
|
Hephaesteus
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 10:05:00 -
[209]
Prob the best solution would be to change base resists on armour and shields to be a little more even across the board, or reduce EANM resists on em alone to balance the high armour resists.
Seems a little extreme to change EANM's this way when a slight armour/shield nerf will do the job better.
|
Trass
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 10:22:00 -
[210]
Edited by: Trass on 02/06/2007 10:22:59 First CCP increasing ships hp (so fight take longer), then they nerfing 'tank' fit. There is no logic in here.
CCP - decide what you really want. Longer fights or shorter fights (besides not only Amarr can do em dmg).
|
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 10:32:00 -
[211]
You know the more I read here the more ridiculous this nerf seems.
On the one hand, we have CPU tight blaster setups fitting EANM + DCU and barely fitting it with an implant.
On the other hand, we have seriously buffed average EM resists due to the high inherent resist of EM on armor and the prevalence of the armor tank.
Solution 1: reduce base armor EM resist, possibly bringing it inline with Kin+Therm resists. Balance against shields by doing the same with their innate Explosive resist. (this would be a major change to tanking dynamics - I don't like it).
Solution 2: Reduce the CPU cost of armor hardeners to below the existing CPU cost to EANMII's (I would suggest the current CPU of EANM's would be a good choice for the T2 armor hardeners).
I like Solution 2. Solution 2 means Megathrons with fractional CPU left after fitting can go tri-hardener to make a fit. Since most people won't buy IFFA's and implants for their Mega's due to expense, the amount of damage done with EM to these setups and many others will increase because fitting tri-hardener will give you more CPU for your tank.
But, crucially, it also means Amarr aren't nerfed out of fitting EANMII's + DCU for their tanks but are more likely to encounter down-fitted Mega's (and be able to engage effectively at range while the Mega's burn into range).
Of course, there is a solution 3 here, which is do a combination: nerf the base armor EM resist back to 50% (and do the same to shield Exp resist) and drop CPU reqs for active hardeners to make it more likely people throw those on.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 12:38:00 -
[212]
Fit something else then..
Seriously, regardless of any Amarr boost, T2 membranes need to be balanced. In direct comparison three EANM IIs beat three single EM IIs in each of the three resists plus added resistance in the fourth type. If you look at the numbers, the adaptive membrane gets a 33% boost from T1 to T2, while the single resist membranes only gain 17,5%. That's a bit odd and also hints as to why the former is more popular. My suggestion would be to reduce the bonus of EANM IIs to 18% and increase CPU usage to 35tf. If shields are overpowered then, that's a different issue. If Amarr still need a boost then, that's also a different issue with some more and different solutions.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well.. - |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 13:17:00 -
[213]
I just tryed to re-fit Ishtar as a CPU tight ship using Adaptive Nano IIs. Only one faction item used so all CPU is used.
Tho, I cant fly it yet, but I have clear idea of lows for non-speed variation.
1x MAR II, 1x 800 Plate, 1x Adaptive Nano II, 1x TS Explosive Hardener, 1x Best named DCU.
The resistances were 70/70/80/80. Not sure on kin/thermal I was mostly looking at EM. So EM is 70%, with armor comp skills on lvl 4.
Now to compare it with:
1x MAR II, 1x 800 plate, 1x EANM II, 1x TS Explosive Hardener, 1x Best named DCU.
The resistances were 73.86% on EM.
Now, ok, even if you can still fit Ishtar even tho its CPU tight. Whats the point in EANM if it give 3.86% resistance in best case and takes CPU? IF you fit faction adaptive nano the difference is about 1-2%.
So, really, ok, even if nerf isnt going to hit cpu-tight ships....how 3% will help the issue with EM damage? 103 dps instead of 100 dps isnt much of help imho. ---
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 14:31:00 -
[214]
3% difference is big when you look at it correctly. Moving from an EANM to an ANM is a big hit to the tank of an Ishtar.
3% difference in resists when you're at 70% damage resist is 10% change in unresisted damage (3 is 10% of 30), so you're looking at a 10% damage increase to the tank with a 3% reduction in resists at that point.
Once you get your resists very high, every little point counts for more and more.
10% more damage to my tank means I just lost 10% of my hitpoints across the board (effectively). No thanks.
Because I said so...
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 14:41:00 -
[215]
Originally by: murder one 3% difference is big when you look at it correctly. Moving from an EANM to an ANM is a big hit to the tank of an Ishtar.
3% difference in resists when you're at 70% damage resist is 10% change in unresisted damage (3 is 10% of 30), so you're looking at a 10% damage increase to the tank with a 3% reduction in resists at that point.
Once you get your resists very high, every little point counts for more and more.
10% more damage to my tank means I just lost 10% of my hitpoints across the board (effectively). No thanks.
I havent said that I like the nerf btw, just was wondering is the resistance gap of 3% will do much to Amarr.
Tnx for explanation. ---
|
Ventallia Renvess
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 15:19:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Ventallia Renvess on 02/06/2007 15:20:39 stupid alt -----------
Rawr, I'm a manatee |
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 15:21:00 -
[217]
Heh, lot of people seem to have forgotten that there are other types of Energized plating apart from the adaptive variety.
Your cap usage will not increase if you're smart, and use Energized Reactive Plate, Energized Thermic Plate, and Energized Kinetic Plate.
Nerfing EM resist on EANM's is a kick to the teeth of amarr T2, unless of course you're happy to waste a low on an EM hardener II?
Yes, EANM becomes tough to fit, that's kinda the point. Adapt...
-----
Originally by: Uncle Chop Chop Harden the **** up
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 15:28:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Heh, lot of people seem to have forgotten that there are other types of Energized plating apart from the adaptive variety.
Your cap usage will not increase if you're smart, and use Energized Reactive Plate, Energized Thermic Plate, and Energized Kinetic Plate.
Nerfing EM resist on EANM's is a kick to the teeth of amarr T2, unless of course you're happy to waste a low on an EM hardener II?
Yes, EANM becomes tough to fit, that's kinda the point. Adapt...
Most ships dont have slots to fit 3 hardeners and surely do not have CPU for it. Only alternative is maybe rig/adaptive nano combo.
Still yelds lower results while shield remains untouched.
The BC shield recharge change isnt going to hit shield tankers as BCs somehow had BS sized tank on them.
---
|
Shinjuro
Chaos Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 16:07:00 -
[219]
I daresay this is one of the STUPIDEST nerfs ever!
|
Gabriel Magnar
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 19:10:00 -
[220]
How about you stop hating on armor tankers CCP?
Wasn't combat supposed to last LONGER btw? Right.
|
|
MotherMoon
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 19:24:00 -
[221]
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Heh, lot of people seem to have forgotten that there are other types of Energized plating apart from the adaptive variety.
Your cap usage will not increase if you're smart, and use Energized Reactive Plate, Energized Thermic Plate, and Energized Kinetic Plate.
Nerfing EM resist on EANM's is a kick to the teeth of amarr T2, unless of course you're happy to waste a low on an EM hardener II?
Yes, EANM becomes tough to fit, that's kinda the point. Adapt...
Most ships dont have slots to fit 3 hardeners and surely do not have CPU for it. Only alternative is maybe rig/adaptive nano combo.
Still yelds lower results while shield remains untouched.
The BC shield recharge change isnt going to hit shield tankers as BCs somehow had BS sized tank on them.
again, go passive buff a battleship then deside if BC's are over buffed
it's not the tank it's the over powering atitude of passive tanks
but then again with these set up you have no offence speed armor tank or anything.
|
Xoduse
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.06.02 20:51:00 -
[222]
horrbile solution, I dont think any of my blaster setups will survive this change... ---------------------
|
Arnold Duncan
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 00:20:00 -
[223]
Funniest thing is that everyone complain about gallentes that are already short on cpu...
Now.. there's a race that's famous for having tons of powergrid but being short on cpu for it's fitting. It is supposed to deal out massive damage and be the best armor tankers in the game.
Now i would like to know how the hell are they supposed to fit an armor tank on pretty much every ship...
And.. no they are not the gallente. Guess who is?
If this is the oomph you were planning to get, no thanks, we don't need it.
|
Altai Saker
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 00:39:00 -
[224]
I don't care too much about this except it nerfs every fitting I have for every amarr ship I have except the crusader.
http://www.omniscient-order.com/
Sahwoolo Etoophie is a noob!
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 02:30:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Arnold Duncan Funniest thing is that everyone complain about gallentes that are already short on cpu...
No, everyone complains about CALDARI that are very short on CPU. ______
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?
|
Auron Shadowbane
Teeth Of The Hydra R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 10:23:00 -
[226]
this nerv SUCKS.
all that has to be said... Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie |
Ildryn
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:28:00 -
[227]
Just toss out all the resists for armor and make everything sheild tank like a passive drake......while your at it just dont give anyone any choice of how they can play a game.....why dont you just give caldari ships a few extra mid slots so they to can pack a ab/web/scram combo and still have crazy tanks
Most people here agree with changing a laser's damage type from EM/Therm to Therm/EM.....SO CHANGE IT ALLREADY and leave the EANMIIs alone
And no it isnt possible to fit a Deimos nicely now.....it cant fit a plate and 5 neuts/nos and tackle and have any kind of decent tank without fitting mods....i have the fitting skills at 5 btw
Yeah im new.....but i feel like its Star Wars Galaxies all over again....Here is your Jedi you earned it...after 8 months of grinding the toon we get a stupid eq nerf.....and now you can just start as a Jedi....so i quit
Keep it up and you will lose many subscribers who have played much longer than me
|
Trev Kachanov
STK Scientific Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 11:42:00 -
[228]
you should of just nicked off some of the EM resist on EANM if it was such a problem to amarr.
instead you've made more problems for everyone that even tries to fit the module, especially ones hard for CPU.
Don't trip |
Proxay
Gallente Fallen Angel's Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 13:33:00 -
[229]
Well; I'd better start training t2 ac spec and shield tanking skills, because gallente is ****ed.
Worst change ever.
Fallen Angel's Recruitment |
Frater Perdurabo
Amarr The Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 15:51:00 -
[230]
If this is meant to 'boost' amarr in some way then, erm, WTB drugs ccp devs are taking :P
If the intention was to nerf armour tanking - which in the opinion of someone who can do both, and ignoring the usefulness of midslots in pvp for other stuff, are inferior to shield tanks by and large - then congratulations ccp, you've nerfed them damn good!
Goodbye decent amarr setups, goodbye blasterboat with a tank. Cos they really needed nerfing, but hey, domi is still untouched and uber as ever :) Sig->
Good isnt it.
|
|
zero2espect
Amarr Exit 13 Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 16:08:00 -
[231]
i am very serious about this one. if this goes through then i may just be cancelling my accounts. i am frustrated by improvements to the game that seem to focus on 2 races in particular while amarr is overlooked in every major content release done over the last 2 years.
the amarr community for YEARS has been suggesting how to fix the race and what have we got? nothing. and what are we likely to get? more of what we're seeing on sisi. while there are no useful pieces of information about any "un-nerfs" amarr can expect, these little gold nuggets that come up are a real kick in the guts for a race already on its knees. already in gangs all i get is "send zero in, at least he's good for armour tanking" or "at least we have a dictor, it's only a heretic but it'll be able to lay down a sphere - it's good for nothing else" (<- 5% bonus to rocket EM damage (are you serious? - rof would have been a better bonus))
i have been playing this game for years now as an amarr pilot. patiently watching the roundabouts of race loving applied to caldari, gallente and our minmatar. for what (when you first join the game) reads to be the most dominant and powerful race in the galaxy in all of the literature, is in fact the worst, gimped, race in existence makes me bitter.
let me break it down for you. we need to be able to hit hard and tank (supported by both CCP sponsored and unsponsored storylines)...right...? well, we cant fit guns across our high slots (like utility slot wtf?). we have far fewer mid slots across the board on all our ships. grid and cpu requirements of laz0rs are insane. while every1 can happily nano up their ships we cant (you see, speed at the cost of armour, and more to the point, amrour at the cost of speed). standard resists to EM are, lets face it, not too bad.
so what does this do. almost all of my ships are already within 3-6 cpu of being maxxed with named fittings (yes, for the most part we have to use best named to fit the CPU onboard). usually with 1 ean2 and a DC on most setups. but it's more than that. i mean is like every dev a minmatar or caldari pilot or something?
we've put up with this whole "need for speed" thing for months now - i'm sure minmatar and caldari pilots have never had it better. let me break it down for you. we cant go fast. end. when we go hunting we often find ourselves flying against caldari/minmatar fast ships. we havent got the mid slots to catch them, trap them or slow them down.....so what's on the plans, nerf the armour tankers some more? u must be joking. i bet if instead of adding cpu to EAN2's you had of placed kin or exp tech2 crystals for amarr in sisi these very same forums would be flooded with "OMG what are you doing?" "Lame Devs!" etc posts.
DO NOT TRY TO FIX AMARR BY NERFING US OFF THE BAT. the solution is simple. drop the utility slot idea. drop lamest bonus ever created "5% cap usage per level" and replace it for damage like every other race. balance the cpu and cap fitting and cap usage for lazers by a modest 3-5%. consider adding a mid slot for tech2 variants (for the loss of a hi or low). (this is stretching it-->) give us the exp/kin crystal! (make us train a new skill if u must).
DO NOT MAKE IT ANY HARDER TO ARMOUR TANK.
just by the by, for the last 3 months i've grown sick of being in a nerfed race so have been cross training. guess to what! Gallente! now i'll have 2 tech trees full of worthless SP! YAY FOR ME!
all the shield tankers who are comparing this to your mid-slot shield mods. don't. easier to fit (cpu/grid). better bonus. u have the mids to do it without losing speed and gank mods. as you're shield fails you still have the extra 2 layers to make good your escape. not to mention you get a "natural" shield regen where we have to sacrifice a mod to repair/replace any damage received.
u want a good idea? increase MWD cap/cpu/capusage by 10/10/10 for each tier of mod (1mn, 10mn, 100mn) and watch the reaction
*rant off sometimes less is more...zero
|
THRASHER23
Gallente Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 17:40:00 -
[232]
Edited by: THRASHER23 on 03/06/2007 17:41:30 oK I'm convinced now ccp are total jar-heads and have lost their ******* minds. Why are you nerfing EANs? If you nerf them pls have some type of solution in hand to address the problems of cpu w/ most gallente ships. Don't just do something thats gonna fix one races problems and totally **** another. Stop being 12yr olds ccp and think it through. For Death and Glory!!! |
KD.Fluffy
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 18:42:00 -
[233]
Hopefully this nerf makes armor tanking comparable to shield tanking in pvp. Just a hope, but I personally feel the nerf was a long time coming. This might also make the raven useful if you are forced to fit specific hardners and have holes in your resists. I am really hoping this gives us caldari cats a chance to compete in the insane resist armor tank world. Behold my evidince of BOB favoritism.
Originally by: Dianabolic We have a "special" line (if you want to call msn that) to our FRIENDS.
|
Uchuu
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 19:24:00 -
[234]
Come on people, learn to adapt.
When looking at this nerf, it seems CCP doesn't want ships to be super tanker/ganker. So now you need to decide whether to gank, or to tank, like amarr. Welcome to our world
|
IHurricane
Sniggerdly
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 19:37:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Uchuu Come on people, learn to adapt.
When looking at this nerf, it seems CCP doesn't want ships to be super tanker/ganker. So now you need to decide whether to gank, or to tank, like amarr. Welcome to our world
Welcome to our world, where we can't do neither! ---------------------------------------------
There was never a genius, without a tincture of madness - Aristotle |
THRASHER23
Gallente Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 20:11:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Uchuu Come on people, learn to adapt.
When looking at this nerf, it seems CCP doesn't want ships to be super tanker/ganker. So now you need to decide whether to gank, or to tank, like amarr. Welcome to our world
erm are you serious? It has nothing to do with adaptation. At best this game has become, blob vs blob and capital fleet vs capital fleet. When you travel in a small gang of lets say 10 you will get the resonse of 30. This nerf is unnessary, it totally messes up setups for Gallente and Amarr bs and imo is a grand show if irresponsibility on ccps side. Nothing indicates that EANM need to be nerfed. TBFH it dosen't matter if your gank or tank setup when you get blobed. For Death and Glory!!! |
n0thing
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 22:57:00 -
[237]
Originally by: KD.Fluffy Hopefully this nerf makes armor tanking comparable to shield tanking in pvp. Just a hope, but I personally feel the nerf was a long time coming. This might also make the raven useful if you are forced to fit specific hardners and have holes in your resists. I am really hoping this gives us caldari cats a chance to compete in the insane resist armor tank world.
Dont forget that only downside of shield tanking in pvp is rather not having tackling slots. Otherwise a combo of EM/Invulnerability with full rack of dmg mods + 3x CCC can make you both in that case tank and gank.
Forced to fit specific hardeners? Id be glad to fit em if I would have any CPU for it at all? Or maybe to keep that paper-thin tank still beng able to deal dmg its meant to deal with damage mods? ---
|
Sadist
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.06.03 23:38:00 -
[238]
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.
òòòòòòòòòòòò
VIP member of the [23]
Quote: - Numbers alone do not win a battle - No, but I bet they help.
|
Letheeth Kayl
Amarr Chosen Path FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 00:07:00 -
[239]
I was angry about this idea of nerfing armor tanking. I have chosen my words as carefully and constructively as possible, and they still stink like a minmatar in heat.
I'll just say that I like to fly paper thin ships that won't hold an ounce of water, and can't stand up against an infant light push. Further, I enjoy using weapons that give my opponent a warm fragrant breeze, a nice tan, and a decent boost of energy, instead of killing him like they're supposed to. I've always prefered a challenge, and that's why I fly amarr. The harder and more impossible it gets for me to win, the better!* If I'd wanted life to be easy, I'd have spec'd caldari or minmatar.
*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!
Put down the mirror and return to live With pain With sin With despair Live with penance in God's glory Lesson of Tobias and the Mirror Scriptures Verses26-29 |
Mezikk
|
Posted - 2007.06.04 00:27:00 -
[240]
/signed
Bad idea.
|
|
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... |
|
Callthetruth
Caldari Logical Logtistics
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 12:02:00 -
[271]
perhaps make ship specific sub types ie ones for frigs with different CPU requiremetns to those of BS but make it one isnt *****ble on the other ?
|
n0thing
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 13:22:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Aramendel Uhm.. that lower range is balanced already by superior dps. They certainly do not need easier fitting in addition.
Megathron already needs a -5% turret CPU implant to fit.
What other ship needs implant for standart fitting? ---
|
Dixon
Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 14:17:00 -
[273]
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Aramendel Uhm.. that lower range is balanced already by superior dps. They certainly do not need easier fitting in addition.
Megathron already needs a -5% turret CPU implant to fit.
What other ship needs implant for standart fitting?
Well that depends, do you want to try to fit an Armageddon with a mwd, heavy injector, web and scram? Well obviously you'd have to pick 3 out of 4 but there is still no way of fitting even 3 of those, even with an empty slot and no rep. No cpu implants can make the geddon fit it (although I always need to fly with the kza1000/2000 to fit something useful), so we tend to stick a bunch of sensor boosters in our mids.
And as previously stated the siege Raven (when shield tanking it) needs a co-processor, no implant will spare you that. Most T2 fitted ships are hard to fit.
Now the EANM nerf will hurt the blasterthron you say? Well you're right and I don't think it should be implemented without boosting active hardeners. EANMs need the nerf but we also need to encourage the usage of active hardeners and a drop in cpu usage is probably the best way.
|
Cyan Nuevo
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 18:03:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Goumindong 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
I'm not saying that this change is purely one-sided, helping and only helping Amarr pilots. It hurts our tanks a bit (in some cases), but helps our damage quite a bit. I say in some cases because when you have 3 slots to spare for specific hardeners (and I think Amarr is the only race for while this would be practical), this change will be great.
(PS: You almost always think through your posts so you can be excluded from my "shut up and think!" comment. I just believe you came to the wrong conclusion. ) --- Your signature was inappropriate, email [email protected] to find out why (don't forget to include a link to it) -Sahwoolo |
n0thing
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 19:03:00 -
[275]
Edited by: n0thing on 06/06/2007 19:03:00
Originally by: Dixon
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Aramendel Uhm.. that lower range is balanced already by superior dps. They certainly do not need easier fitting in addition.
Megathron already needs a -5% turret CPU implant to fit.
What other ship needs implant for standart fitting?
Well that depends, do you want to try to fit an Armageddon with a mwd, heavy injector, web and scram? Well obviously you'd have to pick 3 out of 4 but there is still no way of fitting even 3 of those, even with an empty slot and no rep. No cpu implants can make the geddon fit it (although I always need to fly with the kza1000/2000 to fit something useful), so we tend to stick a bunch of sensor boosters in our mids.
And as previously stated the siege Raven (when shield tanking it) needs a co-processor, no implant will spare you that. Most T2 fitted ships are hard to fit.
Now the EANM nerf will hurt the blasterthron you say? Well you're right and I don't think it should be implemented without boosting active hardeners. EANMs need the nerf but we also need to encourage the usage of active hardeners and a drop in cpu usage is probably the best way.
Sure if they cut the activate hardeners and specific membranes CPU reqs by 1/3 people will certainly fit them.
However comparsion with Geddon isnt right, Geddon doesnt need to get into range, it will feel itself fine from around 18 to 30km, while Megat needs to be inside 10km to do decent damage. Ofc not taking stuff like transversarial velocity into consideration.
As for helping damage, it doesnt that much. You can awlays fit Adaptive Nanos or faction adaptive nanos that will yeld maybe 1% less result. Imo, the gain is not worth the sacrifice. ---
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 19:57:00 -
[276]
Originally by: n0thing However comparsion with Geddon isnt right, Geddon doesnt need to get into range, it will feel itself fine from around 18 to 30km, while Megat needs to be inside 10km to do decent damage. Ofc not taking stuff like transversarial velocity into consideration.
And once the mega is within 10k the geddon will melt like butter. It sure does not need to get into range, but it also sure does need to stay OUT of range of AC and blasterships.
Saying a lasership does not need to move is ignoring this.
|
Dixon
Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 20:12:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: n0thing However comparsion with Geddon isnt right, Geddon doesnt need to get into range, it will feel itself fine from around 18 to 30km, while Megat needs to be inside 10km to do decent damage. Ofc not taking stuff like transversarial velocity into consideration.
And once the mega is within 10k the geddon will melt like butter. It sure does not need to get into range, but it also sure does need to stay OUT of range of AC and blasterships.
Saying a lasership does not need to move is ignoring this.
And outside 15 km range we have to use scorch, which as almost entirely limited to EM damage. Rather crappy.
Boosting specific hardeners fitting requirements is the right move in my opinion. As for faction mods, those things are of limited supply and are hardly going to be on every setup - not to mention that they'll become really expensive if that were to be the case.
|
Mr Linderman
Selective Extinction
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 22:18:00 -
[278]
So to fix Amarr your making it harder for there ships to survive in battle buy nerfing a module that most if not all of there ships uterlize.
you have to ponder what made the Dev's think this was a good idea.
Mr L
"In conflict, straightforward actions generally lead to engagement, surprising actions generally lead to victory." - Sun Tzu
|
Amelie MMCX
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 22:20:00 -
[279]
EANM nerf is awfull. You wanna kill my lovely ship Blasterthron? I dont want to fly Domi, so ill buy several billions isk to spend them on faction membranes. Thank you, e- bay!
|
CherniyVolk
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 01:43:00 -
[280]
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Aramendel Uhm.. that lower range is balanced already by superior dps. They certainly do not need easier fitting in addition.
Megathron already needs a -5% turret CPU implant to fit.
What other ship needs implant for standart fitting?
Well, the Deimos still requires all rig slots filled for a proper fit.
Astarte requires all rig slots filled for a proper fit.
BTW, there is no CPU rig that is similar to a PG rig. :\
|
|
Dadanen1
Immortalis Silens Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 05:06:00 -
[281]
hmm... dunno if someone already mention this, got through page 5 and said screw it, but wouldn't it be a bit better just to switch the em and therm damage on lasers if someone already mentioned this then just ignore this post...
|
Constantinee
Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 05:39:00 -
[282]
psh this damn nerf doesent even need to happen. just give amarr ships more hp and throw explo and kin crystals their way and everyone will be happy. i mean jesus alot of us blaster pilots better start training another race if thats the case.
Omerta Syndicate |
R Kane
Minmatar Phoenix Division FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 07:57:00 -
[283]
If the devs have a problem with the DC2 + 2 x EANM 2 combo, it's worthwhile pointing out that the DC2 module is probably 'overpowered'.
+ 60% hull resists, 12.5% shield resists, 15% armor resists all on ONE module. (shame it doesn't make coffee too) + requires only that Hull Upgrades IV and Mechanic I be trained (2-3 days training time for mad extra tanking) + cheap (~ 1 mill)
Check out this thread:
Linkage
Notice how often Damage Control comes up as 'a must-have' module; nowhere do I see anything about EANMs.
Since DC's are used mostly in conjunction with armor tanks, perhaps questions should be raised about an inexpensive module that effectively adds over half again the structure hitpoints to a given ship and whose shield/armor resistance bonuses aren't affected by the stacking penalty.
*
Finally, back on topic, simply lower the armor EM resist % on all ships in the game to 'boost Amarr' if that is indeed your intent. Bit of a no-brainer I should think, and less likely to get everyone's panties in a bunch.
|
n0thing
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 10:44:00 -
[284]
- DCU costs 5 mil.
- DCU used to extend fights otherwise a gank ship leaves no hope for armor tanker, since shield tankers have resisted armor, while armor tankers had un-resisted hull.
- the module is fine, stop that nerf trend.
---
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 11:01:00 -
[285]
Uh.. that is not really an argument. For the fight duration it makes no difference at all:
Shieldtankers: tanked ships-untanked armor-hull-poof Armortankers: untanked shields-tanked armor-hull-poof
The shields give pretty much the same "time buffer" for armortankers as armor gives shield tankers. The only difference is that it gives it armortankers at the beginning of the battle and not near the end of it. It isn't really a factor for "who wins", it only gives shield tankers a slightly longer time to try to flee when their tank fails.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 13:33:00 -
[286]
Edited by: Goumindong on 07/06/2007 13:35:51
Originally by: Aramendel Uh.. that is not really an argument. For the fight duration it makes no difference at all:
Shieldtankers: tanked ships-untanked armor-hull-poof Armortankers: untanked shields-tanked armor-hull-poof
The shields give pretty much the same "time buffer" for armortankers as armor gives shield tankers. The only difference is that it gives it armortankers at the beginning of the battle and not near the end of it. It isn't really a factor for "who wins", it only gives shield tankers a slightly longer time to try to flee when their tank fails.
Wrong.
Shield tankers can boost their shields while they are in their armor. Armor tankers cannot boost their armor while they are in shields.
Lets compare equal tanks. they boost 250 hit points ever 10 seconds. 125 HP/5 seconds for the shield, and 125 hit points/5 seconds for the armor. Each is taking 100 DPS in damage. And has 50% resist all on their tank and structure, 0% resist all on their untanked. Both have 1000 hit points in shield, armor, and structure.
Armor tanker: Shield gone in 10 seconds[no boost, 100 DPS]. Armor gone in 40 seconds[25 hp/sec boost, 50 dps inc]. Structure gone in 40 seconds[25 hp/sec boost, 50 dps inc].
Shield tanker: Shield gone in 40 seconds[25 hp/sec boost, 50 dps inc]. Armor gone in 20 seconds[25 hp/sec boost, 75 dps inc]. Structure gone in 40 seconds[25 hp/sec boost, 50 dps inc].
In the above mockup, the armor on a shield tanker is twice as effective as the shield on an armor tanker.
As DPS gets closer to the boost amount, this advantage is extended. For instance at 60 DPS incoming results look like
Armor tanker: Shields gone in 16.6 seconds. Armor gone in 200 seconds. Structure gone in 200 seconds.
Shield tanker: Shields gone in 200 seconds. Armor gone in 100 seconds. Structure gone in 200 seconds.
Now, the shield tankers armor lasts 6 times as long as the armor tankers shield. This is becasue when taking armor damage, the shield tanker is still able to absorb its boost amount affected by its resistances[but the rest of the damage passes through to armor]. An armor tanker is not.
There is a video floating around of a faction fitted rattlesnake tanking a bunch of battleships which shows exactly how this applies under real world situations. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Proxay
Gallente Fallen Angel's Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 14:28:00 -
[287]
No,
This nerf is just plain stupid.
If the Dev's / GM's do have in-game characters, they know how much this will change pvp in favour of caldari/minmatar.
Fallen Angel's Recruitment |
Chr0nosX
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 16:18:00 -
[288]
Worst idea ever.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 16:41:00 -
[289]
Edited by: Goumindong on 08/06/2007 16:41:25
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
Originally by: Goumindong 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
I'm not saying that this change is purely one-sided, helping and only helping Amarr pilots. It hurts our tanks a bit (in some cases), but helps our damage quite a bit. I say in some cases because when you have 3 slots to spare for specific hardeners (and I think Amarr is the only race for while this would be practical), this change will be great.
(PS: You almost always think through your posts so you can be excluded from my "shut up and think!" comment. I just believe you came to the wrong conclusion. )
It helps amarr damage only slightly. Since it doesnt change the prevelence of omni tanks. Omni tanks still are the best fitting option, which means that amarr against armor are still poor. The change will either do nothing on ships with 12 CPU to spare. Or will reduce the tank by up to 6.5%[maximum]. The issue is that this isnt just an increase in damage for lasers. ALL resists on the omni tank goes down. Which means that the ratio of damages between autocannons, blasters, missiles, and lasers doesnt change. If the ratio doesnt change and fitting a tri-hardener still never happens because its not beneficial, then the "boost" hasnt done anything for lasers, but for all weapon systems.
And 6.5% is not enough of a change to bring back the superiority of range. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
FawKa
Gallente Old Farts Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 21:47:00 -
[290]
I really wonder when the dev's will reply?
bumped to first page!
|
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 22:10:00 -
[291]
Will the EANM nerf is not what the Amarr need. It not necessary, they should fix Amarr rather than nerfing everything else.
I mean how many threads have there been about the problems with Amarr and how to fix them? I dont think anyone wants everything to be nerfed to make Amarr better. Who ever though of 'nerf everything but dont fix Amarr' needs to be severely beaten with the nerf bat.
Here are two ideas that have been suggested many times, that i feel would have the most benefit rather than nerfing everything else. - Amarr powergrid needs to be boosted so we can fit decent setups without our lows being filled with rcu. - Amarr cap needs to be boosted so that we dont have to fit every extra slot with cap rechargers/relays. It needs to be boosted to the point so we dont need to have the stupid cap 'bonus' to fire our wepoans without drying out our cap.
Make Mining Better |
Dristra
Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 22:36:00 -
[292]
I have said it before, this will change nothing, exept make the poor ships that had problems before really struggle now
It's great being Amarr isn't it.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:54:00 -
[293]
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.
i do believe it nerfs every armor tank.
and a eanm, 1 ex, 1 therm, 1 kin hardeners will give a good amount of resistance to all resists.
or on a t2 ship, 1 eanm and 2-3 passive hardeners will give a good omni tank
|
G Dabak
Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 08:59:00 -
[294]
Don't do this, just cut EM resists in half on adapative hardeners. Do the same on invuln fields too, who cares. EM is still significantly higher but it's more like 75% of the damage of kinetic/thermal instead of 50%.
Active hardener CPU could be lowered too I guess, it's pretty hard to fit them usually.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 10:34:00 -
[295]
Originally by: G Dabak Don't do this, just cut EM resists in half on adapative hardeners. Do the same on invuln fields too, who cares. EM is still significantly higher but it's more like 75% of the damage of kinetic/thermal instead of 50%.
Active hardener CPU could be lowered too I guess, it's pretty hard to fit them usually.
If you do that, EM damage becomes an alpha damage. Good against both shields and all armor tanks. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:55:00 -
[296]
Copied from my other post:
Since its starting to look like the EANM nerf won't be undone, how about reducing the cpu usage of active armor hardeners and energized specific hardeners even more?
Leaving EANM IIs at 36 cpu and reducing active hardener cpu usage to 30 cpu will allow ships that will ships that will struggle to fit setups after the nerf to fit active hardeners instead for similar cpu use as the old EANMs. This will mean you'll need an extra slot to cover all resists but its better than nothing.
Energized specific hardeners should then be reduced to 24 cpu which will help ships with extremely tight fittings such as frigates.
These changes will further promote the use of specific hardeners which is what the devs want and will help overcome some of the problems introduced with the EANM nerf.
Since EANMs and active hardeners currently have the same CPU usage on sisi this won't solve anything, people will still use EANMs since they can use one less slot than the active alternative for their resists, the lower cpu usage on actives and energized specifics will fix this to some extent.
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 15:22:00 -
[297]
Well, or just use faction/named Adaptive Nanos I suppose.
Since there is no even smallish Dev reply, Id say just start getting used on Sisi/TQ and find a nice Adaptive II BPO since they will be selling like mad after nerf. ---
|
Proxay
Gallente Fallen Angel's Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.10 14:35:00 -
[298]
Edited by: Proxay on 10/06/2007 14:36:00 Edited by: Proxay on 10/06/2007 14:35:34 Sigh,
Well there goes any and all practicality in using gallente for pvp, and any hopes people may even GLANCE at amarr.
I mean seriously lets take a look at some fits.
Solo Megathron: 7x Ion Cannon II, 1x Heavy Nosferatu 1x MWD, 1x 20k, 1x Web, 1x Injector 2x LAR II, EANM, EANM, Reactive, DCU, Mag Stab
Solo Vindicator: 7x Electron II, Corpum A-type Med Nos 1x Gist X-type MWD, 1x TS injector, 1x Domi 30k, 1x Domi 15k web, 1x SS Sensor Booster 2x Core X-type LAR, 3x Corpum A-type EANM, 1x Internal Force Field, 1x Cormacks' Mag stab.
This is pretty much a basic passive tank for me, and now; it wont fit; even with an -3% implant. Where is the logic behind this, that tank is weak as buggery, and can only last as long as the cap injectors.
Whereas; Caldari and minmatar both get PASSIVE TANKING command ships which require a small fleet to break, at NO cap cost.
Gallente dont naturally regain amour, neither do amarr, so why the heck is the playing field being changed like this? I'll just finish off minmatar gun spec on this character and wave goodbye to gallente.
Fallen Angel's Recruitment |
Gavri
The Republican Guard The Sundering
|
Posted - 2007.06.10 17:29:00 -
[299]
I agree that this change is quite absurd, particularly since it is claimed to be for the sake of helping Amarr... And as many others have shown, this actually hurts Amarr more than it does any of the other armor tanking races, this tells me CCP has not compeltely thought through this change. It's not too late to revise this CCP...
There are plenty of much better ideas floating around, but eanm nerf is definitely not a good idea.
|
Adia Celeris
Nemesis Industries Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.10 17:36:00 -
[300]
FFS. . . Look at the BASE resists for armor: 60% EM 10%/20% EXP 25%/35% Kin/THRM
Is it disproportionally high on the EM side? Why yes...yes it is. Similar in fact to the 60% found on shields in the explosive catagory? Strange isn't it? No its not.
Whining about EM damage vs. armor is not the problem (EANM Nerf) The problem is the fact that the long-range T2 Amarr ammo is most EM damage thereby eliminating them from the sniping game vs. armor tankers.
How does nerfing the EANM fix this? All it does is make amarr ships a larger pain in the @@#! to fit.
If Energy weapons suck FIX THE WEAPONS. The solution is not to hurt every armor tank in the game. If you think armor tanking is overpowered then by all means add a nerf to armor tanking, but you damn well better slap the shield tankers around a bit too.
BTW: the Domi is totally unaffected by this, really the only suffers are the Apoc/Geddon/Mega/Hyp (maybe a phoon). Oh...and every armor-tanking frigate/cruiser in the game.
Balance is fine on the tanks, fix the damn guns.
|
|
Ort Lofthus
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 07:29:00 -
[301]
The more I read this thread, the more I think that the devs have hit something here nerfing EANM cpu requirements and lowering Active Hardener cpu use, but I think that they are not thinking through all parts of the problem. EANMs are a staple fitting right now. They are vastly superior to other energized plating most of the time, given the unpredictabiltiy of combat, and their secondary advantages over hardeners are numerous enough to make them prefered.
EANM Pro: 1) Easier to fit 2) Use 0 cap (NOS-resistant) 3) Are always active (lag-resistant) 4) Provide great resists, 'better' than tri-hardener setups as a trade off, and far better than tri-energized membrane
Con: 1) Maginally less resist on certain resists.
My proposal: 1) Nerf EANMs to 36 cpu. Some ships will fit 'em. I know that for all my minnie armor tanking ships, 12 cpu is not a limiting factor, so I am still going to use dual EANM. My myrm and enyo? Myrm is going to have to switch to balmer TDs and the enyo? Ain't no way EANM is going to fit on that anymore, so I'll fit an energized explosive membrane.
2) Reduce cpu use of hardeners to 30 cpu. Basicly in every place you would have seen a tri-EANM, you see a tri-hardener. Better yet, its virtually pain-free in terms of players switching their fittings. EANMs may have been taken away, but something else replaced them.
3) Now it looks like the specific energized membranes are inferior, but that is ok, you can just lower their CPU requirements. They jump from 0 for a resist plate and 25 for an energized plate is simply too much, and these items are underutilized as is. Simply reduce cpu needs on these items. Now they serve to loosen certain cpu-tight setups at the cost of resists.
All in all, this change: Nerfs EANMs, Doesn't kill existing setups and reverse the blaster CPU change a few patches back, Promotes the tri-hardener, Promotes specific ENMs. As for nerfing frigates and cruisers, there are the non-energized platings and those take up a nice fat 0 cpu to fit. Sure, they may not be anywhere near as good, but they do relax fittings considerably.
|
LordInvisible
Gallente adeptus gattacus Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:42:00 -
[302]
I dont get CCP. Its not that i dont see that EANM II is fitted on every ship nowadays..
but CCP said, they want longer fights. Why nerfing tankability? This will encourage the blobs and NOSing. We dont want active hardners coz we have so much NOSing around lately, that it isnt viable.
Half of the community is against this EANM nerf, why doesnt CCP find different solution to amarrs? Why dont they listen us for a change? I didnt see any dev reply lately to calm down the crowd.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 10:02:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Ort Lofthus stuff
After you mentioned you fly Minmatar, I honestly already got the whole idea of your post. No offence. But you have prolly never flown Megat nor prolly Ishtar, those 2 ships that are fine balance-wise, are now uberly nerfed, since 3x hardeners fit nowehere into Ishtars 5 lows having 90 CPU need(3x30 cpu), and nowhere into Megathrons lows that need to have raw HP+Resists+Damage to survive even mild resistance while its ganking its target.
Honetly, Minmatar got better CPU so you dont have problems, tho nerfing ships that fine and not touching ships that might be not fine( Nosf-Domi? ), isnt a right thing to do imo. ---
|
Angel Vengen
Caldari Incarnation of Evil
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 18:31:00 -
[304]
Originally by: n0thing Edited by: n0thing on 31/05/2007 15:47:09 Edited by: n0thing on 31/05/2007 15:45:00 Thats just looks like a plain Minmatar boost, since apart from Amarr T2 all ships now have giant explosive resistance hole.
As for Ishtar setup, EANM is a must, same as active explosive hardener. Without plate you have at most 2300ish armor i think. Meaning, with 48% explosive resist and 300-350 dps from average pvp same size opponent will break your ship in around....6 secs?
Imo, the whole EANM thing can be compared to a car stuck on a road, instead of calling evacuator, you will go find a big stick and smash the thing to pieces.
Dont touch EANM, nerfing while trying to boost will get you nowhere. Sure, typing new CPU value is alot easier, but it will cost alot more in terms of other stuff.
Best thing would be:
- EANM CPU back to normal. - Start dealing with Amarr capacitor/grid.
Grid and capacitor are most certain Amarr problems atm, so they need to be fixed. Not make under-powered thing be good on even more nerfed one.
As a side idea, why not make EANM be really adaptive, but manually? Can go great with Heat thing.
You have 25% on EANM II to all resistances, but you can choose only 2 to activate. Wich means you cant have 4 damage types hardened from 2 EANM. You can have only Explosive + Thermal on 1st and EM + Kinetic on second.
Then, most of people will use Thermal + Kinetic and Kinetic + Explosive combos with 2 EANM, while leaving EM damage untouched! Yep, you wont bother with adapting EANMs to EM as its good enough anyways.
Now, to activate those 2 adapted damage types, you would need:
- 75% capacitor. - 10 secs like reload. - 30 secs of powerup.
Would prevent people to change em in fight.
As for Regular Adaptive, they still give less on T1 ships then, fine, T2 might not suffer as bad from that to have a standart Adaptive, but T1 will still have some difference. On BSes that makes alot in terms of damage absorbed.
EDIT: Once again, lasers are gimped not by tanks they are attacking. Give Geddon a seasoned tanker without nosfs and give same geddon a cap-transfering BS and it will take down said tank easily.
The problem is in cap usage and in grid usage that makes Amarr ships unable to fire/tank/get nossed at same time. Not their bad DPS on tanks.
ZOMGies! IMHO Quite possibly the best idea I've read. Thats a really really good idea. I am an Amarr pilot, and I can tell you, nerfing the EANM's cpu will not help amarr. On my Abaddon for example, with all the fitting skills maxed (cept for awu, thats at 4 but not relavant here anyway) I have 1 free CPU. You guys finally gave us an Amarr ship that was useful, and good at what it does. I can actually fit a full rack of t2 guns and a real tank on this thing, so I fel in love when I saw it. Now lets look at the geddon. You want t2 guns? throw 5 on and get yourself a medium rep kid, and hope you dont run out of cap. Zealot: Had to fit a cpu mod just to set it up. Pilgrim : Need a cpu mod or recon 5 to fit it. Please CCP... don't do this...
Originally by: Nyxus Yes but the Apoc is kind of like a mullet - business in the front, party in the back.
|
Rainsdon
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 13:16:00 -
[305]
Edited by: Rainsdon on 12/06/2007 13:15:34 /Signed
Leave the ENAM alone. --------------------
|
Callthetruth
Caldari Logical Logtistics
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 13:19:00 -
[306]
nerf the ENAM then boost something else or add yet another module or advanced skill to offset
|
Voltron
Caldari STK Scientific Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 21:06:00 -
[307]
/me packs up all of his gallente ships for a year.
Shall I bend over now or when the patch comes out? I'd rather get it over with now tbh....
Volt It's great touching your own dink isn't it?
"Droog812 > normally id care if it was a logon trap - but considering bobs history of taking down super caps, i dont care how it died" |
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 21:15:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Proxay Whereas; Caldari and minmatar both get PASSIVE TANKING command ships which require a small fleet to break, at NO cap cost.
Matar commands can passive tank? Huh?
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.
|
Oedus Caro
Caldari Cross Roads
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 23:32:00 -
[309]
I'd just like to say that I am very disappointed with this so-called Amarr boost. Agreed, a major factor of Amarr's disability is the prevalence of armor tanks with disproportionately high EM resistance. However, as many have already said, adjusting the fitting requirements on EANM's is certainly not the right way to go about fixing this. Myself, I am at a total loss to see how the proposed changes will help Amarrian ships. Every single one of my current configurations - and my CPU skills are maxed - will become impossible following this nerf, even that of my beloved Abaddon, and I believe I can safely say that they are nothing out of the ordinary. If the only feasible fix is to lower the EM resistance on typical armor tanks, why not just globally redistribute the base armor resistance points? Is there any particular reason for the EM rating of armor to be so high before hardeners?
|
Ort Lofthus
|
Posted - 2007.06.14 23:52:00 -
[310]
To add to oedus' concerns, none of my minmatar setups will be affected by this nerf at all. This change isn't a boost amarr, its a nerf amarr and gallente and boost minmatar... If they insist on going this route, then they should at least make hardeners use 30cpu so that decent tanks can still be fitted on ships that would have used triple EANM. That, and reduce the cpu of specific ENMs by 6 so that on smaller ships you get a reactive ENM and an EANM anywhere you would have used two EANM before.
|
|
Hellspawn01
Amarr Falcon Advanced Industries
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 01:49:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Voltron /me packs up all of his gallente ships for a year.
Shall I bend over now or when the patch comes out? I'd rather get it over with now tbh....
Volt
As if it were that easy. It just doesnt affect only gallente, amarr and minmatar get the nerf aswell unfortunately.
Btw, you see how devs care about our opinion after 12 pages in any thread. Unless you offer free beer or boobies.
Ship lovers click here |
hundurinn
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 02:08:00 -
[312]
Edited by: hundurinn on 15/06/2007 02:07:50 Wow, thank you ccp for adding the EANM nerf in the next patch. All that without even discussing it with the community or giving us one reason for it.
|
Incantare
Caldari Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 03:01:00 -
[313]
Edited by: Incantare on 15/06/2007 03:00:22
Originally by: Proxay [
Whereas; Caldari and minmatar both get PASSIVE TANKING command ships which require a small fleet to break, at NO cap cost.
Firstly, passive tanking destroys your cap regen, saying no cap cost makes it sound a lot better than it actually is. Enough SPRs and cap recharge is so low you'll cap out running three active hardners, not to mention not being able to tackle, no e-war etc.
Secondly, it's getting nerfed.
Thirdly, do not complain about Caldari command ships being IMBA, coming from a gallente player that's really rich, unless you truely think the eos is balanced compared to the other fleet commands? lol
Grass is greener etc.
|
William Hamilton
Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 03:33:00 -
[314]
What Ort Lofthus siad is the best Idea IMO, it requires minimal rethinking of the setup, just replacing the old EANM for an active hardner wherever aplies.
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 07:23:00 -
[315]
Well, patch notes state clearly that noone cares about 12 page thread.
Honestly, at least a post stating that they READ our feedback would be a great thing to have here.
---
|
Atreides Horza
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 10:02:00 -
[316]
I don't get the logic of this...
Nerfing the EANM will cause severe probs for gallente.
To top it off, they don't do anything to myrmidons and passive tanking. With the new heat **** coming out, I predict more passive tanked drakes than ever, overheating their setups to a tanking level that will cause more moaning than ever before.
Bizarrely enough, the way out of this seems to be shield tanking the myrmidon...
Someone went home early from work on this one.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 11:26:00 -
[317]
Originally by: n0thing Well, patch notes state clearly that noone cares about 12 page thread.
Honestly, at least a post stating that they READ our feedback would be a great thing to have here.
Get it to 100 pages and in 6 months you'll get a 25% reduction in EAN2 grid needs
|
Bad Leroy
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 13:41:00 -
[318]
It really doesn't have the "feel good factor" to it
Way to waste a great game, I want exiting new things to keep my mind happy, not crappy NERFs to make me feel bad.
Come on devs, see some sense, expand the game and make it even better it. Don't muck about with stuff that is going to make a hell of a lot of us unhappy.
:p
|
Macro Terrorist
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 16:18:00 -
[319]
Any nerf that affects gallente, even slightly, is cause for celebration.
Rejoice! I know I am.
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 18:34:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Macro Terrorist Any nerf that affects gallente, even slightly, is cause for celebration.
Rejoice! I know I am.
Please, in your next post, list the ships of Gallente that are overpowered without use of the following 'need fix' modules.
- Nosfs - Shield tanking Myrmi
Untill then, im urged to yell ST** at you with the biggest speaker system I can find in existance.
---
|
|
Macro Terrorist
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 18:48:00 -
[321]
Edited by: Macro Terrorist on 15/06/2007 18:54:53 Please, in your next post list the ships classes in which Gallente does not have multiple solid PvP choices, now do the same for Amarr and Caldari.
Until then, im urged to yell ST** at you with the biggest speaker system I can find in existance.
|
hundurinn
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:31:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Macro Terrorist Edited by: Macro Terrorist on 15/06/2007 19:09:32 Edited by: Macro Terrorist on 15/06/2007 19:07:47
Please, in your next post list the ships classes in which Gallente does not have multiple solid PvP choices, now do the same for Amarr and Caldari.
Until then, im urged to yell ST** at you with the biggest speaker system I can find in existance.
To illustrate: at the cruiser level Gallente gets the rax, the celestis, the vexor. Three excellent ships, Caldari get the Caracal (sic), Moa (slightly better) and the Blackbird (good).
T1 Battlecruisers Caldari get the Ferox, Amarr the Prophecy, Gallente the Brutix. Guess which one is the best ship?
T2 Batllecruisers Caldari get the Drake, Amarr the Harb, Gallente the Myrm. Guess which one is the best?
Myrm passive tanks better than a drake, active tanks better than a drake, it does more damage than a drake if setup with guns and can fit a rack of nos. All that while having 5 free mids to play with.
Etc, etc. The NosDomi is the most flagrant imbalance, but its not the only one. Gallente has the best ship lineup and I wouldn't call that balance so whenever another race gets boosted, or Gallente gets nerfed, its celebration time.
Too bad this nerf hurts Amarr more.
Oh and...
You're getting nerfed.
Let me guess before I answer this post. Do you fly Caldari ships?
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:43:00 -
[323]
[Insert Whine] My uber damage and uber tanker solo wtfpwnmobile got nerf ______
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?
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:45:00 -
[324]
Originally by: hundurinn
Originally by: Macro Terrorist Edited by: Macro Terrorist on 15/06/2007 19:09:32 Edited by: Macro Terrorist on 15/06/2007 19:07:47
Please, in your next post list the ships classes in which Gallente does not have multiple solid PvP choices, now do the same for Amarr and Caldari.
Until then, im urged to yell ST** at you with the biggest speaker system I can find in existance.
To illustrate: at the cruiser level Gallente gets the rax, the celestis, the vexor. Three excellent ships, Caldari get the Caracal (sic), Moa (slightly better) and the Blackbird (good).
T1 Battlecruisers Caldari get the Ferox, Amarr the Prophecy, Gallente the Brutix. Guess which one is the best ship?
T2 Batllecruisers Caldari get the Drake, Amarr the Harb, Gallente the Myrm. Guess which one is the best?
Myrm passive tanks better than a drake, active tanks better than a drake, it does more damage than a drake if setup with guns and can fit a rack of nos. All that while having 5 free mids to play with.
Etc, etc. The NosDomi is the most flagrant imbalance, but its not the only one. Gallente has the best ship lineup and I wouldn't call that balance so whenever another race gets boosted, or Gallente gets nerfed, its celebration time.
Too bad this nerf hurts Amarr more.
Oh and...
You're getting nerfed.
Let me guess before I answer this post. Do you fly Caldari ships?
Maybe he does, i play all 4 races and i can honestly say that, yes, gallente are overpowered. You can't? ______
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?
|
Macro Terrorist
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 20:03:00 -
[325]
Edited by: Macro Terrorist on 15/06/2007 20:04:00
Originally by: hundurinn
Let me guess before I answer this post. Do you fly Caldari ships?
I started with Caldari, but switched to Gallente because of their better PvP lineup. Should the races be balanced I would switch back.
Oh and my Myrm (armor tanked) setup is unaffected by the nerf, good stuff .
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 20:40:00 -
[326]
Edited by: n0thing on 15/06/2007 20:44:27
Originally by: Macro Terrorist Edited by: Macro Terrorist on 15/06/2007 20:23:29
Originally by: hundurinn
Let me guess before I answer this post. Do you fly Caldari ships?
I started with Caldari, but switched to Gallente because of their better PvP lineup. Should the races be balanced I would switch back.
Oh and my Myrm (armor tanked) setup is unaffected by the nerf, good stuff, but even if it were you wouldn't see me whining on the forums.
- Your certainly have no idea what your talking about. Dominix still can fit even 5 EANM IIs and full rack of nosfs. It has enough room to do anything you wish in it. The ships that got nerfed were the ones that already are fine and that nerf ticked them down like Ishtar, Megathron.
- For Tier 1 BC pvp id stick Cyclone in too, as very very good if not best BC.
- For Tier 2 BC I would pick Hurricane as well, being great.
- Once again, your prolly never flown any of turret ships in Gallente and trained it just for domi-insta-doom. The nerfed ships are the ones that were fine. Domi still fits everything fine. Hence, it didnt even need that much of EANM. If i fly one I fit 3 hardener/DCU combo in first place.
Ok, so lets see how overpowered Gallente are:
- Constant, and I mean constant need of cap booster charges on blaster boats. You miss those, you need to fly 'omg' number of jumps to get those in hostile space.
- Drones aggro whole agent mission spawns causing a big threat to the ship. If each spawn has tacklers, you might not make it in time if they are close.
- Drones have to share UI with gang/overview that turns into complete 'move and slide' fest during big fights.
- Drones switch targets randomly, on quite rare occassions but they still do.
- Close-range ships have to go into web range. No matter what. As widely known, web range is usually "2 go in, 1 goes out". For any other race, theres still chance to fight outside of it with close-range guns.
- DPS is maybe 20-30% higher then other maxed gank ships of other races. The other ones however either speed or hp tank better or at least stay out of range for longer.
Overpowered? Barely. And well...Amarr are the ones with smaller CPU. They have pretty much 2/3 of ships tank nerfed apart from Gallente has 2-3 victims.
---
|
Macro Terrorist
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 20:56:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Macro Terrorist on 15/06/2007 20:57:49 And you missed the point. Do I think this is the appropriate nerf? No. Am I happy to see Gallente get nerfed? Yes. Because even if the Gallente turret ships are not as imba as the nos domi, they're still heaps better than most.
Also I refuse to fly a NosDomi and my Myrmi is set up with blasters. Kthx.
PS: EOS compare it to a vulture, damnation (lol) or Claymore, then compare the Moros to the other Dreads for other examples of very balanced Gallente ships.
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:45:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Macro Terrorist
PS: EOS compare it to a vulture, damnation (lol) or Claymore, then compare the Moros to the other Dreads for other examples of very balanced Gallente ships.
Well, fleet command ships each like the 2nd HACs have specialization. Vulture is like big Eagle, while Eos like big Ishtar. Tho, Vulture could use dmg bonus imo. Damnation is Amarr and needs fixing. Tho it being an uber hardcore tank is imo a good specialization. Claymore....havent seen those really, but judging by Sleipnir it should be same just better tank, dunno.
As for Moros, well, it lacks the resist bonus 2 others have, so being able to defend itself with drones is on par with the resistance increase.
Oh and btw, Gallente doesnt need a nerf, the nerf needed for mods and tanking layout(read passive tanked myrmi).
---
|
Haerana
The Republican Guard The Sundering
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:21:00 -
[329]
Sooooo anybody want to buy a fully fitted pilgrim? Its good for about... oh i'd say 4days then you can either spend minimum of 60mil on it for 2 faction eanms or you can store it up. seriously thanks for this. 437/437 cpu with best named mods where possible salutes you ccp. Oh and my megathron is unflyable in my standard setup now. good job i lost it a lil while ago and hadnt replace it yet eh? what a waste of money that woulda been.
|
LordofWars2
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 01:26:00 -
[330]
Edited by: LordofWars2 on 16/06/2007 01:25:09 Some good thought out responces and then theres 99% whine. For all those quiting the game because of this stage one change that could change again.... Can I have your stuff? Your all flipping out because many of the ships named are absolute monsters on the PVP battlefield and now you cant pwn allz. CCP maps this data out in ways that 99% of us wont even bother thinking out. So how bout some of you take a breath and adapt like so many of the other races have. The constant OMGZ THEY RUINED THE GAME.... Is BS and boring and will make podding any of you on the battlefield that much more enjoyable.
Battle on.... (Or quit!)
|
|
Chr0nosX
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 01:34:00 -
[331]
Originally by: LordofWars2 Edited by: LordofWars2 on 16/06/2007 01:25:09 Some good thought out responces and then theres 99% whine. For all those quiting the game because of this stage one change that could change again.... Can I have your stuff? Your all flipping out because many of the ships named are absolute monsters on the PVP battlefield and now you cant pwn allz. CCP maps this data out in ways that 99% of us wont even bother thinking out. So how bout some of you take a breath and adapt like so many of the other races have. The constant OMGZ THEY RUINED THE GAME.... Is BS and boring and will make podding any of you on the battlefield that much more enjoyable.
Battle on.... (Or quit!)
No. I'd say one of the best PvP ships is Dominix that won't be affected by this. Amarr and gallente(Mega+Hyp). Tbh I don't think Amarr are overpowered or their ships are "pvp monsters". I also wouldn't say the Mega or Hyp are that good tbh. Your pretty new to the game too so you probably haven't fought many bses tbh.
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 09:19:00 -
[332]
Originally by: LordofWars2 Edited by: LordofWars2 on 16/06/2007 01:25:09 Some good thought out responces and then theres 99% whine. For all those quiting the game because of this stage one change that could change again.... Can I have your stuff? Your all flipping out because many of the ships named are absolute monsters on the PVP battlefield and now you cant pwn allz. CCP maps this data out in ways that 99% of us wont even bother thinking out. So how bout some of you take a breath and adapt like so many of the other races have. The constant OMGZ THEY RUINED THE GAME.... Is BS and boring and will make podding any of you on the battlefield that much more enjoyable.
Battle on.... (Or quit!)
- There were about 10 great suggestions in that same thread on how to both, fix EM damage, fix Amarr and fix the EANM thing. Alot of those. All can be tryed and Im sure one of them would work. Yet, no dev attention. At least i hope they read it and took into consideration.
- Like poster above stated, the most powerfull solo ships are untouched. While Im not considering Domi or Myrmi a PWN ship, I do consider the certain fitting layouts for them as PWN setups. Yet they are still unchanged. Hence Im all for nosf balance so we get smaller ships boosted and not outclassed with whoever got bigger nosf. I really would like to fly Deimos or Rax and not get capped out on approach.
- If you say its 99% of whine, you havent read all the thread. Theres maybe...half of it, but still paired with good suggestions.
---
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 09:35:00 -
[333]
Originally by: n0thing Well, fleet command ships ... have specialization. ... Damnation is Amarr and needs fixing.
So THATs the amarr specialisation!
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 10:30:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: n0thing Well, fleet command ships ... have specialization. ... Damnation is Amarr and needs fixing.
So THATs the amarr specialisation!
Lol, well, if the cap issue gets really fixed with the nosf nerf/balance, then if Damnation will be able to field a tough tank that wont be nosf dependant, it will be a good ship to primary at. Ofc, should tank like passive Drake does now. ---
|
Haerana
The Republican Guard The Sundering
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 10:52:00 -
[335]
Heh My other post was whiney. But tbh it doesnt matter. im just being resigned to fly myrmidons and dominix's instead now untill they get nerfed. Im sure alot of people will be heading this way. Inc whine threads about the double amount of domi/myrm pilots weee
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |