| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Kel Dario
Amarr
Blue Sky Inc
   |
Posted - 2008.01.31 14:11:00 -
[1]
I read the blog twice and all the player comments about this change. I must say I agree with most of them even if a big chunk is just whining. Your changes will push everyone into omni tanks, fitting hardeners on t1 hulls will be idiotic, or if people still do they will compensate the em-resistance loss with a rig when there is no low-slot left. So in the end this change really doesn't change anything.
Many people have already stated what needs to be done with the amarr ships, adjust grid, cap-usage, more capacitor etc.
If these changes is to mend the broken em-drones then this is just wrong, they need their base damage increased. As for em-missiles most caldari ships never uses them anyway because their bonus is linked to kinetic.
Maybe the solution would be to give a higher stacking penalty on resistances when fitting omni-tanks instead? But then you would probably need to remake the forumula. Just a thought...
/Kel
|
Kel Dario
Amarr
Blue Sky Inc
|
Posted - 2008.02.02 13:29:00 -
[2]
I been pondering over this EM-resistance change a bit further and I was asking myself: Isn't a reduction of -10% EM on armor on all ships in EVE going a bit to far?
Shouldn't it be just the tech 1 ships that get the reduction and leave the tech 2 alone?
Reason for that is because I dunno if everyone fit 2 EAMS II + DCU II when hitting power is more useful. Why should you othervise fly expensive uninsurable tech 2 ships in the first place when you want the damage potential?
I fear that this EM-resistance change will screw up many already good setups and make omnitanks and EM-rigs mandatory, so the problem with amarr won't be solved it will just be shuffled around.
I am really doubtfull if this is the right way to go but we have to see I guess.
|
Kel Dario
Amarr
Blue Sky Inc
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 13:48:00 -
[3]
After I done some experimenting with tanking setups on amarr, gallente and minnie ships I'm starting to believe that the -10% EM-nerf is a good idea, as long as it only affect tech 1 ships.
EM are already the lowest or the next lowest resistance on tech 2 armor tanking ships, after you plugged their inherent racial weakness. Adding more resistance after that point would not make much sense for a player unless he wants to give up damage for only a few percentage more.
Since tech 2 armor tanked ships are already more or less pefectly balanced nerfing their EM-resistance would give Amarr laserships (or other EM-weapons) an unfair edge over them.
Overall this change have been a bit to swallow and digest but it starting to look good, zulupark. Now you just have to reduce fitting requirements and cap-usage on the lasers.
PS. tell Fendahl to give the harbinger a bit more CPU plz.
|
| |
|