Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 09:38:00 -
[1]
I was runnign some numbers etc, and noticed the following. If the Armor resist rigs were affected by the compensation skills, then would be better to fit a 3 HArdener +2 Resist Rigs than its now to fit 2 EANM + DC + 2 armor pumps.
That simple change would be no nerf ( so would create no exasperation from comunity) and would promote Tri hardener tanks over the now dominant omni tanks!
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Seishomaru
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 18:58:00 -
[2]
At least no one would start a thread " Undo the nerf or I will quit!"
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 19:25:00 -
[3]
I like it, +1... boosts ftw.
Liang
-- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr? |
Illyrinia
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 21:15:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Liang Nuren I like it, +1... boosts ftw.
Liang
Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr?
STFU!
|
Samurai XII
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 21:31:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Illyrinia
Originally by: Liang Nuren I like it, +1... boosts ftw.
Liang
Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr?
STFU!
+1 ______________________ Just another cool alt. |
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr Do Or Die And Live Or Try
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 23:00:00 -
[6]
Number would be good. Because it might make tanks even more powerfull. But a good idea.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 23:18:00 -
[7]
Easier to just change the cpu fitting costs. A hardener would take say 25 cpu, and eanm would take 44 like hardeners do now.
Now only people with excessive amounts of cpu would fit eanm tanks.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 23:19:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gamesguy Easier to just change the cpu fitting costs. A hardener would take say 25 cpu, and eanm would take 44 like hardeners do now.
Now only people with excessive amounts of cpu would fit eanm tanks.
problem is that would generate whining and revolt. My proposal is based on the psicological effect that it would create.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Peter Powers
Master Miners Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 23:26:00 -
[9]
you notice that three hardeners + 2 resist riggs results in an omni-tank aswell?
I love CCP Morpheus<3 xXx CCP Morpheus xXx <3
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 23:36:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon I was runnign some numbers etc, and noticed the following. If the Armor resist rigs were affected by the compensation skills, then would be better to fit a 3 HArdener +2 Resist Rigs than its now to fit 2 EANM + DC + 2 armor pumps.
That simple change would be no nerf ( so would create no exasperation from comunity) and would promote Tri hardener tanks over the now dominant omni tanks!
If the tank hasnt changed then what is the point?
|
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 04:01:00 -
[11]
Goum, I ran the numbers on this, and I think that it would still tank worse against every ammo type.
I ran with a Myrm sporting:
2x MAR II, Kin, Thm, Exp, DCU EM, Exp Resist, Nano Pump
vs
2x MAR II, 3x EANM, DCU 2x Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accel
The "new" way (even accounting for the comp skill) returned between 50-100 DPS less tanked for every single damage config I looked at.
I looked at Neutron Ferox, Barrage Cyclone, and a Plate/Gank Harby. Even if this got implemented, I'd probably stick with my current myrm setup.
If anyone else runs the numbers and sees where I screwed up, feel free to post it.
Liang
-- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr? |
Solokar
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 05:24:00 -
[12]
I always wondered what it would be like if EANM's only covered 3 resists instead of 4.
Having 4 different flavors of them would make fitting more interesting and partially reduce omni tanking.
Just a random thought.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 08:26:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Goum, I ran the numbers on this, and I think that it would still tank worse against every ammo type.
I ran with a Myrm sporting:
2x MAR II, Kin, Thm, Exp, DCU EM, Exp Resist, Nano Pump
vs
2x MAR II, 3x EANM, DCU 2x Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accel
The "new" way (even accounting for the comp skill) returned between 50-100 DPS less tanked for every single damage config I looked at.
I looked at Neutron Ferox, Barrage Cyclone, and a Plate/Gank Harby. Even if this got implemented, I'd probably stick with my current myrm setup.
If anyone else runs the numbers and sees where I screwed up, feel free to post it.
Liang
on the point that you are using normalized dmage as reference, when EM damage is only at best 10% of damage you face usually. USe quick fit and put amore realistic damage setup. where most damage is Kin and Explosive ( most people that know what they are doing use Explosive drones) or thermal and explosive. I also ran my numbers only on 2 EANM+DC vs 3 hardeners. Didnt tried the 3 ENAM + DC vs hardeners + DC
The point (go Goum) is that the new mode woudl give a "better"(as in better balanced) solution than EANM II. So quite some people would change for this option. At leat those with brains that know that Tank agaisnt normalized damage is irrelevant when EM damage is so uncommon.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 09:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Liang Nuren Goum, I ran the numbers on this, and I think that it would still tank worse against every ammo type.
I ran with a Myrm sporting:
2x MAR II, Kin, Thm, Exp, DCU EM, Exp Resist, Nano Pump
vs
2x MAR II, 3x EANM, DCU 2x Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accel
The "new" way (even accounting for the comp skill) returned between 50-100 DPS less tanked for every single damage config I looked at.
I looked at Neutron Ferox, Barrage Cyclone, and a Plate/Gank Harby. Even if this got implemented, I'd probably stick with my current myrm setup.
If anyone else runs the numbers and sees where I screwed up, feel free to post it.
Liang
on the point that you are using normalized dmage as reference, when EM damage is only at best 10% of damage you face usually. USe quick fit and put amore realistic damage setup. where most damage is Kin and Explosive ( most people that know what they are doing use Explosive drones) or thermal and explosive. I also ran my numbers only on 2 EANM+DC vs 3 hardeners. Didnt tried the 3 ENAM + DC vs hardeners + DC
The point (go Goum) is that the new mode woudl give a "better"(as in better balanced) solution than EANM II. So quite some people would change for this option. At leat those with brains that know that Tank agaisnt normalized damage is irrelevant when EM damage is so uncommon.
You'll notice she said she looked at damage from a Neutron Ferox (kin/therm), Barrage Cyclone (kin/exp) and Plate/Gank Harby (EM/Therm) -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Futher Bezluden
Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 10:08:00 -
[15]
why not just go hog-wild.
Dump all the ENAM's and Energized that are solely EM. Tweak the other energized so you have for example 30EXP/20KIN/10THERM, 30KIN/10EXP/20THERM, 30THERM/20KIN/10EXP, just so only 3 resists are covered -unevenly. DCU's stay as is providing small bit of universal improvement. Why not just dump the EM active hardeners too.
Since CCP doesn't seem to give a toss for amarr and don't have any real plan to fix them, why not just remove ENAM, Energized EM stuff, and active EM hardeners from EVE. Problem solved. Now CCP just has to figure out a fix so that amarr excel with combat lasers and not just mining lasers. THUKKER -Be Paranoid
Skeet Skeet L33t |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 11:33:00 -
[16]
Omni-tanks are not the problem, the excessive EM resistance that is a side-effect of fitting an armor omni-tank is a problem.
Flying around with a major resist hole would drastically reduce my enjoyment of EVE. No longer are my skills and set-up relevant, all that matters is that the other guy brought the right or wrong damage types. May as well roll dice.
-------- EVE Trinity: THE SKY IS FALLING! |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 11:44:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Omni-tanks are not the problem, the excessive EM resistance that is a side-effect of fitting an armor omni-tank is a problem.
Flying around with a major resist hole would drastically reduce my enjoyment of EVE. No longer are my skills and set-up relevant, all that matters is that the other guy brought the right or wrong damage types. May as well roll dice.
The poitn is this way you would not fly with a huge hole! The resists would be more uniform even, less on EM, more on explosive.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 11:51:00 -
[18]
Simple example of my test. Using EFT.
Set 2 armageddons
1 with the "old way setup" 2 LAR ii 2 EANM II 1 DC II 2 Auxiliar Pump normalized tank is 570 dps
Now secodn armageddon 2 LAR 3 Hardeners II and 1 Auxiliar PUmp and 2 True Sansha Plating (magnetic and reactive). Those true sansha plates have same base resist as Armor resit rigs (30%), but are affected by the compensation skills. The result would be same as using the armor rigs if they were affected by the skills.
Tank on normalized damage 563 dps
That is virtually same DPS tanked but much better balanced. Weaker on EM, but much stronger on Kin and Explosive. A lot of people would migrate to such tank. Ammar would be happier. No nerf needed
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 14:18:00 -
[19]
So long as almost every Minmatar t2 ship has around 90% base resist vs EM I doubt Amarr will be happy.
The problems are the base resists and the t2 resistance bonuses (not all t2 resists are created equal) solving these problems would be far more effective than toying with modules.
-------- EVE Trinity: THE SKY IS FALLING! |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 15:01:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf So long as almost every Minmatar t2 ship has around 90% base resist vs EM I doubt Amarr will be happy.
The problems are the base resists and the t2 resistance bonuses (not all t2 resists are created equal) solving these problems would be far more effective than toying with modules.
I have an Ammar sniper character, and The thing that less concern me are Minmatar T2 armor resists! Because none of them armor tank! After you reach armor you are hiting a non tanked ship. Do you think minmatar likes Ammar T2 ships Shield resists to explosive?
The problem is NOT base resists. If you diminish EM base resist, the NO ONE will even use tri hardeners again and the explosive damage advantage over EM wil lnever be solved
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.23 01:43:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon The thing that less concern me are Minmatar T2 armor resists! Because none of them armor tank! After you reach armor you are hiting a non tanked ship.
None of them? Interesting. I guess I should refit my Wolf and Muninn because I'm evidently doing it wrong.
Originally by: Kagura Nikon The problem is NOT base resists. If you diminish EM base resist, the NO ONE will even use tri hardeners again and the explosive damage advantage over EM wil lnever be solved
Can you go over that statement for me. I'm not seeing how the explosive advantage over EM will never be solved if we rebalanced the resists. If they were so inclined they could give armor a base 90% resist against explosive and 0% resist against EM. I'd say that would solve the problem for Amarr.
Seriously though, a re-balancing of the base resists and t2 resist bonuses seems to be in order. The game has come a long way since the days of t1 ships with t1 hardeners and the resists lead to more than just issues with laser damage.
-------- EVE Trinity: THE SKY IS FALLING! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |