EVE Search - Current state of the test patch- 3.2.32813

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Current state of the test patch- 3.2.32813

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.05.31 01:50:00 - [1] Cloak changes- have any been implemented? T2 EANM Nerf- unneeded, unwanted. Shield tanks don't get a similar nerf. Only hurts CPU limited ships like the Geddon and Mega. (And Astarte, and Deimos, oh wait, basically all the blaster ships). Heat- modules still take damage immediately, plus they damage other modules when in operation. Both are bad. ECM can be overloaded for a 20% bonus (!!!), Damps can't. Why is that? Missiles get a ROF bonus while overloaded, guns get a Damage bonus while overloaded- what this means is that for the same percentage increase (15%), missiles recieve a larger DPS increase than guns. Is this fair? (Faster ROF nets more DPS for the same percentage increase than a damage bonus). Tanks- passive modules can't be overloaded, actives can. Active hardening is more common and effective on shield tankers than it is on armor tanked ships. Overloading benefits shield tanked ships (which already have the highest peak tank in the game) much more than armor tanks. Furthermore, tanks benefit from overloading much more than weapons do, leading to an even larger gap between gank/tank setups. Blaster ships are the real losers here due to cap useage: missiles don't need cap, shield tankers just overload their tanks for the beginning of the fight to reduce overall blaster damage until the target is out of cap, remove overload from modules, then continue until target is out of cap. The ability to overload scrams/webs/mwds is really great. Perfect for nabbing targets, then removing overload once you have them in range. Now all we need to do is remove the instant damage to modules caused by overloading. Frankly, I wouldn't mind the 'instant damage' part, as long as it wasn't really damage, and was just an indicator for when that module would go offline, and once offlined, I could online it again after a battle, just like normal, but having to wait for it to 'cool off' completely and have the required cap to online it. Bombs- they're a mess. Bombers are a mess. Not even worth discussing. Because I said so...
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.05.31 02:18:00 - [2] Yeah the EANM nerf ranks as one of the dumbest nerfs in EVE history, it will never make Tranq. I LOL that it nerfs amarrian tanks when the goal is to boost amarr. Heat is useless, they need to give the modules at least a little while to be overheated before something dies. Bombs I like, but they need to fix the SB cloaked speed issue and give them a bit more speed. A happy medium between the doubled speed (too fast imo) and original speed (slower than some BCs) must exist. Also, 20m per bomb is going to see them going almost unused, but I understand that CCP will change it as necessary to make bombs somewhat common but they don't want them cheap enough to just spam at random. They should be a decisive decision that results in loss like warping you fleet in on top of their blob. 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.
Brucette	Posted - 2007.05.31 02:39:00 - [3] <- has no sympathy for crying gallente.
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.31 02:45:00 - [4] Aye, the instant damage is problematic, and doesn't make sense from both a RP and gameplay perspective. Why would your modules start overheating when the ships heat sinks are still capable of absorbing more heat? Modules shouldn't start taking damage until heat reaches 100%, as it is the "heat" bar seems to have no practical meaning whatsoever, or at least none I can discern. Personally, I'm for removing the hi/mid/low slot heat separation mad making everything run into one pool, forcing ships to either tank or gank, but not both. This is more of a personal preference though.
MotherMoon	Posted - 2007.05.31 03:02:00 - [5] Now all we need to do is remove the instant damage to modules caused by overloading. but this fixes the whole tanks can overload thing because then the tank will break. as in break break. gone forever
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.05.31 03:02:00 - [6] Originally by: William Hamilton Aye, the instant damage is problematic, and doesn't make sense from both a RP and gameplay perspective. Why would your modules start overheating when the ships heat sinks are still capable of absorbing more heat? Modules shouldn't start taking damage until heat reaches 100%, as it is the "heat" bar seems to have no practical meaning whatsoever, or at least none I can discern. Personally, I'm for removing the hi/mid/low slot heat separation mad making everything run into one pool, forcing ships to either tank or gank, but not both. This is more of a personal preference though. I agree. I think that heat should just be in one pool like cap, and no modules should take damage until it reaches a critical point (like 95%). And the EANM nerf: wtf? Why not just add more EM damage to Amarr? Then they'd actually be worth something- killing shield tankers, and they'd do a little better vs. armor tanks. Problem solved. Because I said so...
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.05.31 03:26:00 - [7] Originally by: murder one And the EANM nerf: wtf? Why not just add more EM damage to Amarr? Then they'd actually be worth something- killing shield tankers, and they'd do a little better vs. armor tanks. Problem solved. They already do horrible damage to shield tanks. Fixing the over-popularity of the eanm is the correct fix. Anything that makes people think a bit about their hardner setup before they undock is good.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.05.31 03:41:00 - [8] Originally by: Battlecheese They already do horrible damage to shield tanks. Fixing the over-popularity of the eanm is the correct fix. Anything that makes people think a bit about their hardner setup before they undock is good. If they nerf EANM I demand a proportional Invuln Field nerf. Add 1/3rd more CPU like they did to EANM to make it 58. If they do that I call it fair. But it does go against CCP's desire to make combat longer and less gank oriented. 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.
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.05.31 04:22:00 - [9] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix If they nerf EANM I demand a proportional Invuln Field nerf. Add 1/3rd more CPU like they did to EANM to make it 58. If they do that I call it fair. But it does go against CCP's desire to make combat longer and less gank oriented. This has nothing to do with fairness or combat length. CCP obviously feels that overuse of this particular module is distorting the game. The only reason they are popular is because they are so easy. Needing to make tradoffs is good.
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.05.31 04:57:00 - [10] Originally by: Battlecheese Originally by: Vicious Phoenix If they nerf EANM I demand a proportional Invuln Field nerf. Add 1/3rd more CPU like they did to EANM to make it 58. If they do that I call it fair. But it does go against CCP's desire to make combat longer and less gank oriented. This has nothing to do with fairness or combat length. CCP obviously feels that overuse of this particular module is distorting the game. The only reason they are popular is because they are so easy. Needing to make tradoffs is good. So give me an all encompassing four resist active hardener for armor like the Invuln II does for shields, or nerf Invuln IIs so that they're not used as often, just like EANM2s. Because I said so...
Kodiak31415 An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.05.31 05:22:00 - [11] Dev 1: I know lets nerf the EANMII to get rid of omni tanks! Dev 2: Great idea, Blaster ships were too easy to fit before! Dev 1: And without the passive resists NOS is going to be even more powerful because it turns off everyone resists! Dev 2: Yeah NOS really needs a boost Dev 1: And since NOS is mostly a small gang/anti cap ship tool more people are going to start blobbing up to counteract it! Dev 2: Sweet more blobbage, man this EANM nerf is a great idea! Someone needs to go check the medicine cabinet at ccp, I think someone broke in and ate all the stupid pills. _______________________________ Pleese exucse any seplling erorr's in tihs psot
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.05.31 05:39:00 - [12] Originally by: murder one So give me an all encompassing four resist active hardener for armor like the Invuln II does for shields, or nerf Invuln IIs so that they're not used as often, just like EANM2s. Well, I would quite like a passive all-resist shield mod. Having all your resists vanish because some punk brought a nos just sucks. If you don't like your armour tank, train up shield tanks, or do something different with your module selection.
Valandril Caldari Leela's Lamas	Posted - 2007.05.31 05:59:00 - [13] Originally by: Kodiak31415 Dev 1: I know lets nerf the EANMII to get rid of omni tanks! Dev 2: Great idea, Blaster ships were too easy to fit before! Dev 1: And without the passive resists NOS is going to be even more powerful because it turns off everyone resists! Dev 2: Yeah NOS really needs a boost Dev 1: And since NOS is mostly a small gang/anti cap ship tool more people are going to start blobbing up to counteract it! Dev 2: Sweet more blobbage, man this EANM nerf is a great idea! Someone needs to go check the medicine cabinet at ccp, I think someone broke in and ate all the stupid pills. Winner :D --- Cheap paint ftw
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.05.31 06:07:00 - [14] Originally by: Battlecheese Originally by: murder one So give me an all encompassing four resist active hardener for armor like the Invuln II does for shields, or nerf Invuln IIs so that they're not used as often, just like EANM2s. Well, I would quite like a passive all-resist shield mod. Having all your resists vanish because some punk brought a nos just sucks. If you don't like your armour tank, train up shield tanks, or do something different with your module selection. What type of shield tank would you suggest for my Blasterthron? Because I said so...
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.05.31 06:17:00 - [15] Originally by: murder one What type of shield tank would you suggest for my Blasterthron? A small one? Seriously - not every fantasy ship-layout fits. Just possibly you'll need to devote one of your lowslots to _shudder_ a cpu upgrade.
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.05.31 06:23:00 - [16] Originally by: Battlecheese Originally by: murder one What type of shield tank would you suggest for my Blasterthron? A small one? Seriously - not every fantasy ship-layout fits. Just possibly you'll need to devote one of your lowslots to _shudder_ a cpu upgrade. A CPU upgrade? If I have to compromise my current setup at all with any sort of downgrade or use a fitting module, then it is quite literally useless as a blaster ship. Blasterthrons are so knife-edge with their performance anyway that any little reduction in their performance makes them completely worthless. 5% damage difference on a pure damage based ship can make or break a fight. I've won fights because I've had a 3% structure implant fit. It's that close. Simply put: anyone who thinks this is a fair and just change is a complete idiot. Because I said so...
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.05.31 06:32:00 - [17] Originally by: murder one A CPU upgrade? If I have to compromise my current setup at all with any sort of downgrade or use a fitting module, then it is quite literally useless as a blaster ship. Blasterthrons are so knife-edge with their performance anyway that any little reduction in their performance makes them completely worthless. 5% damage difference on a pure damage based ship can make or break a fight. I've won fights because I've had a 3% structure implant fit. It's that close. This is all very dramatic, but blasterthrons hardly have a monopoly on being a hard fit. Quote: Simply put: anyone who thinks this is a fair and just change is a complete idiot. Who said fair? It's about game balance. Everyone has their time to cry. You guys have had a good run.
Kodiak31415 An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.05.31 06:52:00 - [18] Originally by: Battlecheese This is all very dramatic, but blasterthrons hardly have a monopoly on being a hard fit. Blasterthron and other blaster ships are right where they should be right now, its very difficult to fit well (pre EANM nerf). The EANM nerf is going to seriously gimp blaster setups due to their very high cpu need. If anything needs nerfing it would be the nos boats (myrm domi ect ect) _______________________________ Pleese exucse any seplling erorr's in tihs psot
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.05.31 06:54:00 - [19] Originally by: Battlecheese Originally by: murder one A CPU upgrade? If I have to compromise my current setup at all with any sort of downgrade or use a fitting module, then it is quite literally useless as a blaster ship. Blasterthrons are so knife-edge with their performance anyway that any little reduction in their performance makes them completely worthless. 5% damage difference on a pure damage based ship can make or break a fight. I've won fights because I've had a 3% structure implant fit. It's that close. This is all very dramatic, but blasterthrons hardly have a monopoly on being a hard fit. Quote: Simply put: anyone who thinks this is a fair and just change is a complete idiot. Who said fair? It's about game balance. Everyone has their time to cry. You guys have had a good run. I put it in terms of a Blasterthron because that's something that I can relate to. I know that Amarr have it just as bad. Had a good run? Why change something like this to completely ruin a whole class of ships, for no good reason? There are plenty of ways to balance out the issues of Amarr without ruining every other armor tank in the game. I say just give Amarr more EM damage and leave everything else the same. It would work out just fine. Because I said so...
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.05.31 07:19:00 - [20] Originally by: murder one Had a good run? Why change something like this to completely ruin a whole class of ships, for no good reason? There are plenty of ways to balance out the issues of Amarr without ruining every other armor tank in the game. Precisely: almost every armor-tanking suggestion in the ships forum includes "...and slap two eanm's on it". What is the point of having all the other modules if noone ever uses them?
Rigsta Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.31 12:14:00 - [21] Edited by: Rigsta on 31/05/2007 12:18:00 Originally by: Battlecheese What is the point of having all the other modules if noone ever uses them? Other modules are used all the time on tank setups. EANMs are a nice all-rounder for when you need some more resists but you're short on low-slots. DCU II + EANM II = a good choice. They're popular because they're effective and can be easily fit into a wide variety of setups. Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
theDVZ	Posted - 2007.05.31 12:18:00 - [22] bte, just downloaded the new test patch when try to play. and gig big foobar error of STATUS: INCOMPATABLE (RELEASE) DOH!!
Rigsta Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.31 12:20:00 - [23] They've probably only just updated Sisi and not yet got the new patch on the website yet. Downtime wasn't long ago :) Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
FawKa Gallente Old Farts Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.05.31 12:45:00 - [24] Originally by: Rigsta Edited by: Rigsta on 31/05/2007 12:18:00 Originally by: Battlecheese What is the point of having all the other modules if noone ever uses them? Other modules are used all the time on tank setups. EANMs are a nice all-rounder for when you need some more resists but you're short on low-slots. DCU II + EANM II = a good choice. They're popular because they're effective and can be easily fit into a wide variety of setups. ... including T2 frigs which you cant after the nerf. You simply cant fit **** on those frigs after this nerf - at least not for tank.
Sc0rpion Minmatar MetaForge Ekliptika	Posted - 2007.05.31 15:05:00 - [25] As bad as this is for Amarr pilots, I think I really feel sorry for Blasterthron pilots. Every time I've faced one in my Abaddon, the fight has come down to who uses their booster charges more efficiently. The EANM nerf hurts a lot of Amarr ships, but it COMPLETELY DESTROYS Blasterthrons. And we all know what that means...hundreds of Megathron pilots buying Dominixes. YAY! More nos boats! And don't even get me started on heat. It's so bad right now, I don't even know where to begin describing it's lameness. The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously. -Friedrich Nietzsche Killmails are for pooftas.
Ragnor Dayton Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2007.05.31 15:36:00 - [26] Edited by: Ragnor Dayton on 31/05/2007 15:38:24 T2 EANM nerf - great for laser users, oh wait there's ANP2 that requires 1MW and 0tf. Half as effective but a perfectly good replacement for one of them to free up loads of cpu without much of a reduction in tank. For max skills it's 50% with 2 EANM2+DC2 to 45% with EANM2, ANP2 & DC2, while freeing up 1MW and 20cpu. On typical Thermal/Kinetic for a Gallente ship thats 67% down to 64% resists. Not so great - still too easy to get a good passive omni tank. ------------------------------------------------ Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.