Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Nyxus
Amarr GALAXIAN RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 15:49:00 -
[451]
Zulu - Have you considered that this will make omni tanking even more attractive than it is today?
Have you considered changing armor compensation skills to be like shield compensation skills? So that they only apply to active hardeners when "off"?
Before revelations everyone had to make a decision on what to harden. Mostly we ended up with tri-hardened tanks (expl, kin, them hardener). When omni tanking became available it became the default since you could now harden ALL your resists and your hull with only 3 mods (EAN+EAN+DC).
Any thoughts on reducing omni tanks directly?
Nyxus
PS- Plz fix racial resists. Currently for Minmatar its' 60EM+10EM= 70EM total. It should be 60EM+(40*10%EM)=64%EM total. It's a big difference.
The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships. |
emotua
Gallente Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 15:50:00 -
[452]
I kinda fail to see the logic behind all that.
So basically, since you can't really nerf the HUGE 0.00000% EM base resistance of the shields ( Shields are ALREADY the weakest when it comes to EM & THERM ), you nerf the base EXP resistance, all that originally for a boost to Amarr EM damage.
The side effects : Caldari EM and EXP missiles receives a boost. Minmatar ammo receives a boost and especially EMP L : double boost! Gallente gets nothing. Amarr gets a boost to EM damage.
Everybody gets a tanking nerf.
So basically, it's definitly a gallente nerf, and caldari/minmatar get a better boost out of this than amarr.
I doubt that it is really what you intended...
|
Jhagiti Tyran
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 15:55:00 -
[453]
Again the Issue of shield tanking ships being deficient because of the arrangement of slots makes some ships more effective in pvp and now Caldari are suffering a double nerf as not only do we loose Explosive resistance on shields we also loose the slight buffer against EM that the Armor provides.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:00:00 -
[454]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Mila Prestoc Edited by: Mila Prestoc on 31/01/2008 14:56:16 Zulupark, do you forsee more EANM tanks? Or do you think people will accept shields and armour both being low EM resistance when using tripple active hardeners? Or do you think people will add a 4th hardener specifically for EM?
I honestly can't predict it either way. That's why the changes are on SISI, to see what you, the players, do with it.
This is the whole problem!! This is much much more important than all the math ! Setups won't stay the same. Just ask a few players. You will notice no one on their right mind will stay with 50% EM. And if you check most ships setups people use, you will notice they are very hardly accepting to use more than 3 modules for resistance. That will result in almost all tri-hardener setups becoming EANM setups!
------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Takeshi Yamato
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:02:00 -
[455]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark One change at a time. We're already looking at EM resistances, ships and ewar this patch. We've stated there's a lot of other options we're willing to look into once these have been tested thoroughly.
After looking into it some more I have to say that the change to armor EM resistance isn't as bad as I thought. EMP did not need a boost but will benefit slightly less from this change than expected. Lasers will benefit decently.
Some people will probably want to lynch me for proposing this but EMP ammo can be brought back to where it was easily by decreasing the base damage it does by a few percent.
|
Lobster Man
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:10:00 -
[456]
I can honestly say as an armor tanker, a reduce to EM resists isn't a bad idea, and I would like to see shield EXP resists reduced too so that my explosive/em drone combo will become more useful
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe Elemental Fury
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:15:00 -
[457]
I like the changes, however I only hope you won't pass off the Amarr problem as solved after the resistance changes. We still have very heavy cap usage problems on certain ships (namely battleships) and I believe the changes to cap usage will be just as important for Amarr pilots.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:19:00 -
[458]
Originally by: Takeshi Yamato
Originally by: CCP Zulupark One change at a time. We're already looking at EM resistances, ships and ewar this patch. We've stated there's a lot of other options we're willing to look into once these have been tested thoroughly.
After looking into it some more I have to say that the change to armor EM resistance isn't as bad as I thought. EMP did not need a boost but will benefit slightly less from this change than expected. Lasers will benefit decently.
Some people will probably want to lynch me for proposing this but EMP ammo can be brought back to where it was easily by decreasing the base damage it does by a few percent.
EMP already does FAR FAR less damage than antimatter. Doing that would be ridiculous. EMP is already a crap ammo, Fusion and plasma are already far superior(focused damage type for either shield or armor and uses less space (so can carry more ammo).
------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Pat McCrotch
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:21:00 -
[459]
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
It appears to be a very sick and twisted joke.....
OK, you dang Amarr whiners are on our last nerves, so what we're going to do is use a bunch of arbitrary maths and bigtastic words to convince you that you are too stupid to really understand what we're doing and by default believe that we are boosting Amarr, when in fact, we are boosting everyone BUT! Ha Ha, take that you bunch of whiney n00bs.
|
Minji Harashua
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:22:00 -
[460]
I have to wonder what this will do to missioning, since there are several missions that are heavy on EM damage. But it does seem strange to call a nerf to everyone a boost to Amarr. Hope this stays on test long enough to work the bugs out. |
|
Winters Chill
Amarr Legio Victrix New Eden Federation.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:33:00 -
[461]
Are any of you really that surprised that CCP would turn a request to boost amarr into a universal excuse to nerf everyone?
Devs, you don't have to "think outside the box" to solve EVERY problem, those posters are propaganda, ignore them.
|
haq aan
Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:41:00 -
[462]
Reduce %10 EXP on Shield , and %10 EMP on armor is the best start for pointed problems. That was a wise act to be honest.
-Reducing PG and cap use on some/all Lasers needs tests and math. But that would be another good step in the name of fixing.
-Balancing Thermal/EM damage on some crystals, will definitely increase the efectiveness of Amarian Ships in PvP.
SO i like the change. And i feel its gonna be something good for pvp.
-Explosive Crystals..? aint that sounds weird to u too ? Need to be avoided with extreme caution.
Many thanks for constructive pilots/comments.
haq aan Omega
|
Aphrodite Whiterose
Amarr Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:45:00 -
[463]
use projectiles on certain Amarr ships and it works well.
I see the logic for lowering the shields explosive resist but is it needed or is it being done as its "logical"?
How does any of this affect PvE?
It in fact makes it harder to PvE as Amarr, armour tanking against Amarr racial enemies, who do EM damage with the new EM damage resist reduction........ so we get a Caldari nerf for pvp and a further Amarr NERF for PvE??????? Well done Zulupark your "buff" has now made pve even harder for Amarr.
Lets hope they look at doing some of the other changes like cap issues or something as this "buff" seriously sucks
There are several really good ideas through this (and many other threads) which i think would work a lot better with some proper research behind them.
----------------------------------------------- Amarr - Playing EVE in Hardcore Mode since 2007 |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:00:00 -
[464]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
One change at a time. We're already looking at EM resistances, ships and ewar this patch. We've stated there's a lot of other options we're willing to look into once these have been tested thoroughly.
Why is this biggest of changes being done first?
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Yazmina
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:03:00 -
[465]
I think the number of responses here should prove to CCP that they need to do more and they need to do it fast. (i dont really want to read all 17 pages of this so ill just say my observations)
First thing,i dont know if it was said or not but I did notice in game that grid requirements for the tachyon were lower. They were about 4250 and now they are 3750, which is quite nice. This is a step in the right direction.
The armor nerf was necessary and I feel that CCP could go even further in lower the base em resists on all ships. After all, its not just a few ships that their em resist is the highest, its practically all of them. If CCP really wants to help amarr against omni tanks the em resists need to be lowered across the board, not just on 3 or 4 ships. And another point, if your trying to help amarr perhaps you shouldnt nerf amarr resists as much or more than the other races, that almost defeats the purpose.
More fitting changes need to be made. It is still to hard to make a good fit on an amarr ship and more mid slots are a necessity to anything these days. When you take into acount that amarr need most or all of their mid slots for cap injectors or rechargers that makes it that much more difficult to fit ewar or propulsion mods.
CUT CAP USAGE OF GUNS AT LEAST 25%!!! Give the ships a real bonus to make up for this and then amarr ships wont have to use most or all of their mid slots on rechargers. This will go a long way towards bringing balance to the races. |
Wu Jiun
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:07:00 -
[466]
Originally by: Minerva Vulcan
Originally by: CCP Zulupark This change boosts EM damage, no matter what faction is using it. Some Gallente ships get damage bonuses to EM drones, some Caldari ships get bonuses to EM missiles etc.
Um... Are you an idiot?
Last I checked Gallente ships get bonuses to all drones... certainly not just EM drone damage...
And Caldari bonuses go towards Kinetic missile damage.
Please play the game before making any more changes.
kthx.
I wonder who is the idiot here. I mean obviously neither gallente nor caldari recieve specific em bonuses.
On the other hand the drone damage bonus will apply to all drones including the em ones. And a rof bonus like on the raven will apply to all missiles including the em ones. This is clearly what he meant and only someone with a whole lot of frustration would step so low to deliberately misunderstand him just to make a cheap shot. You really should go back to kindergarden, you know?
The point was that missile ships (with generic dmg or rof bonuses) and drone boats (with generic drone damage bonuses) can all profit from em dmg being more useful. If you didn't understand that than maybe you should learn what "context" means?
|
FinalFlash84
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:08:00 -
[467]
@Zulupark:
There has been numerous replies in this thread, and most of them are saying that you are adressing the wrong thing.
Why don't you just explain us, what you think about the "cap-problem". Now, it doesn't matter if you lower the base resists, if you can't shoot because you are out of cap. I personally hope, that you have played this game. Amarr isn't as bad as you think, they do suffer from the cap usage from their lasers (and ofc the fitting requirements), but nothing more. And to "nerf" the already bad shield tanks isn't fine
|
EliteSlave
Minmatar Tau Ceti Global Production SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:12:00 -
[468]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Cailais CCP Zulupark,
I think what people are after is a boost to Amarr: not an adjustment to every ship and race in the game. Applying a 'catch all' solution probably isnt going to work as there are far to many variables (as some have pointed out this solution actually improves some minmatar set ups aswell).
C.
You must have missed my post where I stated that we have another devblog coming out very soon that lists some boosts to specific Amarr ships and Ewar.
Zulu - This is where i ask what was the point of releasing this half-mule dev blog? This is obviously not Amarr love, why bother to title it that way? Makes no sense in doing this. I would thought you would have learned a little something of writing a Dev Blog that was well.. Thought out and didnt equate to a steaming pile of well censored*. I dont mean this as a flame but it seems that the Community just doesnt like any of your changes your thoughts that you decide to come up with. Its like if you make a post other then the Announcement of Fanfest for 2008 your going to be flamed due to your incompetence of actually understanding the problem at hand which is Amarr != PVP Viable
|
Telusar Bontan
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:20:00 -
[469]
Zealot base resistances - Before changes
Shields EM - 0%, Exp - 90%, Kin - 70%, Therm - 20% Armor EM - 60%, Exp - 80%, Kin - 62.5%, Therm - 35%
- After changes
Shields EM - 0%, Exp - 80%, Kin - 70%, Therm - 20% Armor EM - 50%, Exp - 80%, Kin - 62.5%, Therm - 35%
Yeah! their weapons are useless, lets go make their armor superiority worthless too!
In exchange their shuttles could go faster - maybe 3m/s or so.
|
Minerva Vulcan
Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:26:00 -
[470]
Originally by: Wu Jiun The point was that missile ships (with generic dmg or rof bonuses) and drone boats (with generic drone damage bonuses) can all profit from em dmg being more useful. If you didn't understand that than maybe you should learn what "context" means?
Well that's just aces there champ...
Except this change won't make anyone use EM Drones or missiles anymore than they already are. There's still going to be better to use all around... so him trying to spin this with that to make a point is just... well... pointless.
He made it sound like Gallente and Caldari has specific bonuses to EM damage directly. His words, not mine. _______________________________
Proof that Zulupark does in fact play EVE:
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Some Gallente ships get damage bonuses to EM drones, some Caldari ships get bonuses to EM missiles |
|
Inflexible
Shokei
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:28:00 -
[471]
Originally by: Yazmina After all, its not just a few ships that their em resist is the highest, its practically all of them.
It is not true for majority of T2 ships. EM damage can be very useful.
|
Wu Jiun
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:36:00 -
[472]
Edited by: Wu Jiun on 31/01/2008 17:36:12
Originally by: Minerva Vulcan
Except this change won't make anyone use EM Drones or missiles anymore than they already are. There's still going to be better to use all around... so him trying to spin this with that to make a point is just... well... pointless.
Em is best resistance to shoot at on a lot of t2 tanks just fyi. Yes, generally speaking on armor you'd still prefer exp and em on shields for both of which the performance won't change. However this is just for t1 resistances. All my t2 ships have lowest resistance em(well except the minnies ones ofc). If you are too stubborn to accept that this can be useful so be it.
Originally by: Minerva Vulcan He made it sound like Gallente and Caldari has specific bonuses to EM damage directly. His words, not mine.
Yeah, it sounded like that. But from the context it was clear that it wasn't what he meant. So, why make a big deal of it? Its just nitpicking to make yourself feel better. Way to go.
|
Aphrodite Whiterose
Amarr Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:45:00 -
[473]
Personally i dont have a problem using EM in PvP as i still find it is the lowest tanked damage type out of most omni tanks. A lot of people i know use the triple hardener with an EANM2 or DC2 set up which leaves EM the lowest resist.
----------------------------------------------- Amarr - Playing EVE in Hardcore Mode since 2007 |
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:45:00 -
[474]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Cailais CCP Zulupark,
I think what people are after is a boost to Amarr: not an adjustment to every ship and race in the game. Applying a 'catch all' solution probably isnt going to work as there are far to many variables (as some have pointed out this solution actually improves some minmatar set ups aswell).
C.
You must have missed my post where I stated that we have another devblog coming out very soon that lists some boosts to specific Amarr ships and Ewar.
Ok, I stand corrected: but you can appreciate how players can interpret dev blogs -the last one hailing an amarr 'boost' had a pretty unremarkable change to tracking on medium turrets iirc.
The Amarr 'problem' has been around for so long now that expectation levels are very very high - you're almost certain to disappoint many. There's probably a lesson to be learnt in there somewhere.
I think you should consider how you 'quantify' your blogs - perhaps more detail is needed, extrapolate out to the future. The infamous 'carrier nerf blog' is a case in point, I realise you were suggesting changes for open discussion there but it came across as a fait a compli. The same applies here to an extent.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
nihlanth
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:01:00 -
[475]
I think that reducing the EM resistances by 10% across the board is a very good first step (and one that I have been thinking about all along).
Proof of this exists in the fact that all Blood Raider and Amarr navy ships are so much easier to tank than Guristas or Angels.
The drawback - it will be MUCH harder to tank mercenary rats now since they do all damage types. The Damsel in distress mission was hard enough on Lvl3 even with an omni tank.
We dont need to change the number of midslots on any amarr ships except for the Retribution assault ship, it needs 2 mids.
Give the zealot and omen an extra turret slot. There is no point in it having a launcher hardpoint.
The true problems of Amarr:
1. Lasers simply take up too much cpu and grid. 2. They use too much cap. 3. not enough damage
Remove the cap bonus on all amarr ships and replace it with a Range or damage bonus. Some ships should have range bonus, others should have a damage bonus.
Reduce the base cap and grid cost of lasers accross the board.
Then it will be balanced.
|
Zubb Ionesco
Audentia et Artis
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:05:00 -
[476]
You are about to take away the differences and characteristics of the races. Amarr has some of the best tanks in the universe. Now they are going to have the best tanks und good damage, too, to be "competitive"? No, wait, then everybody wants to play Amarr and the players of other races will start to complain. So you will have to nerf the tanking abilities of the Amarr ships, in order to balance. You will have to put this process in recursion, until, after a while, all ships from all races will be the same, except for the appearance. I have a much better idea which takes less work: Create one big Ship production corp which produce ships for all races and delete all race-ships, then everybody has to fly the same ships, everybody is happy and the whiners shut the f*ck up! ----------------- Never knock on Death's door. Ring the bell and run! Death hates that. |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:05:00 -
[477]
Originally by: nihlanth I think that reducing the EM resistances by 10% across the board is a very good first step (and one that I have been thinking about all along).
Proof of this exists in the fact that all Blood Raider and Amarr navy ships are so much easier to tank than Guristas or Angels.
The drawback - it will be MUCH harder to tank mercenary rats now since they do all damage types. The Damsel in distress mission was hard enough on Lvl3 even with an omni tank.
We dont need to change the number of midslots on any amarr ships except for the Retribution assault ship, it needs 2 mids.
Give the zealot and omen an extra turret slot. There is no point in it having a launcher hardpoint.
The true problems of Amarr:
1. Lasers simply take up too much cpu and grid. 2. They use too much cap. 3. not enough damage
Remove the cap bonus on all amarr ships and replace it with a Range or damage bonus. Some ships should have range bonus, others should have a damage bonus.
Reduce the base cap and grid cost of lasers accross the board.
Then it will be balanced.
STOP!!
We are NOT talking about PVE. PVE do not need balance. Balance is somethign you need for PVP. All this changes were made into the PVP view. So how they reflect on PVE is irrelevant! Amarr already are great mission runners (I can make easily 40M isk per hour with my Scorch armed abaddon)
------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Jonny JoJo
Amarr The Imperial Guards
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:06:00 -
[478]
Originally by: nihlanth I think that reducing the EM resistances by 10% across the board is a very good first step (and one that I have been thinking about all along).
Proof of this exists in the fact that all Blood Raider and Amarr navy ships are so much easier to tank than Guristas or Angels.
The drawback - it will be MUCH harder to tank mercenary rats now since they do all damage types. The Damsel in distress mission was hard enough on Lvl3 even with an omni tank.
We dont need to change the number of midslots on any amarr ships except for the Retribution assault ship, it needs 2 mids.
Give the zealot and omen an extra turret slot. There is no point in it having a launcher hardpoint.
The true problems of Amarr:
1. Lasers simply take up too much cpu and grid. 2. They use too much cap. 3. not enough damage
Remove the cap bonus on all amarr ships and replace it with a Range or damage bonus. Some ships should have range bonus, others should have a damage bonus.
Reduce the base cap and grid cost of lasers accross the board.
Then it will be balanced.
i would get rid of cap use for lasers altogether. Seriously. There is no point anymore given that every other race has a pvp ship with 0 cap usage. For example, Gallente drone/sentry drone ships, Caldari Missiles Ships, or any minmatar combat ship. Sig locked, lack of Eve content |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:11:00 -
[479]
Originally by: Jonny JoJo
Originally by: nihlanth I think that reducing the EM resistances by 10% across the board is a very good first step (and one that I have been thinking about all along).
Proof of this exists in the fact that all Blood Raider and Amarr navy ships are so much easier to tank than Guristas or Angels.
The drawback - it will be MUCH harder to tank mercenary rats now since they do all damage types. The Damsel in distress mission was hard enough on Lvl3 even with an omni tank.
We dont need to change the number of midslots on any amarr ships except for the Retribution assault ship, it needs 2 mids.
Give the zealot and omen an extra turret slot. There is no point in it having a launcher hardpoint.
The true problems of Amarr:
1. Lasers simply take up too much cpu and grid. 2. They use too much cap. 3. not enough damage
Remove the cap bonus on all amarr ships and replace it with a Range or damage bonus. Some ships should have range bonus, others should have a damage bonus.
Reduce the base cap and grid cost of lasers accross the board.
Then it will be balanced.
i would get rid of cap use for lasers altogether. Seriously. There is no point anymore given that every other race has a pvp ship with 0 cap usage. For example, Gallente drone/sentry drone ships, Caldari Missiles Ships, or any minmatar combat ship.
and 99% of eve would get rid of you. How Interesting !
------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:11:00 -
[480]
Ok, I waited this long for people oppinions and some time to cool my head.
Now practicaly, I only use the Anathema from all Amarr ships (plan is a sacriledge). So don't take my oppinion on Amarr ships (as it won't be anyway).
1. You said one change at a time and that other changes are comming. That is GREAT !!! But why in Gods name are you doing the LARGEST (i.e. most wide reaching) change as the first ? I mean I understand that making an easy db adjust over selected resist numbers is easy and hard to mess up (at least I hope), but it is not the best to start with.
2. As many people pointed out, there are Amarr ships that are OK, and there are Amarr ships that are rubbish (or simply bad). So I would (but I am not you of course) first analyse all the BAD ships and see if I can find any issues that stand out. Then try to remedy those.
3. I seem to see a bit of misunderstanding (or misstatement) of some game mechanics by a DEV ? That makes me worry. Especialy when he proposes a change of such impact. I hope it's just misstatement.
Now for some specific issues I picked on the wau through this thread:
1. Armor vs Shield tanks in PvP. This IS an issue. It is very complicated to fix, but this is one of the deepest we have atm (aside from lag). Shields have less resists and less fitting space compared to an armor tank. yes they are more effective and efficient if done right, but the price is too high for any half-competent PvP setup. Most you see are small ship buffer setups (extenders) or passive setups. With missile ships, you need a gang or at least mwd/scram/injector setup. means 3 slots for tank. that is too low for any good tank.
2. range vs ship size. as the ship size goes down, engagement range (or weapon range) stops making much of a factor as it changes faster the smaller the ship. so a few km range avantage is not much (2-3 seconds ?). this makes the laser optimal advantage less of a factor.
One last thing is about omnitanks. The only reasonable solutions that I see are either removal of all omni hardeners except damage controls (this means shield and armor omni hardeners). Then we are back to 3 hardener setups and shield get screwed massively. Or the change of EANMs to active hardeners, so they are not affected by comp skills.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |