| 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) |
Inflexible
Shokei
   |
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:13:00 -
[481]
 Originally by: Jonny JoJo
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.
Yep, shooting truckloads of explosive crystals at anything that moves... 
|
Captain Campion
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:14:00 -
[482]
PLZPLZPLZ can amarr have a sensor booster bonus?
|
nihlanth
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:15:00 -
[483]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
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)
As I said, blood raiders and angels and mercenaries would be HARDER to tank, which means that the rat's base resistances remain the SAME. (If we assume that the 10% em armor reduction only applies to Player ships).
This means PVE would be MORE balanced since Blood Raiders would actually be a force to be reckoned with. (And that is the faction npc that Amarr mission runners are up against anyway).
Dont just focus on PVE, missions need lovin' too. PVE has been neglected for too long.
|
Xanduz
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:18:00 -
[484]
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Amarr supose to be the no 1 dps or tanking race in eve depending on the config in ones lowslots?
Amarr have least mid slot of any race but highest number of low slots, they have huge cap size and don't use ammo in the normal sence. All this spells Tank/Gank and not much EW to me.
As Amarr "can't" use EW in any real sence they should have some other advantage over the other races. This advantage used to be tank/gank.
In the past a few nerfs to Amarr was a tad to much, for those that don't remember here's a short history lesson.
Amarr used to be able to choose between all out tank, all out gank or balanced mix. And when I say all out gank I realy do meen ALL OUT. Geddon could melt ANY ship in mere seconds so there was a gigantic outcry from the general playerbase to nerf Amarr hard and so the nerfing started.
1. Introdusing stacking penalty on weapon upgrades. Well this one had it comming, a fair nerf. This idea was good in it's sence but hit Amarr harder than the other races as Amarr have most room for these type of modules and the option of "OMFG DPS" or "OMFG TANK" is down to "OMFG TANK"...
2. Decreasing the range of pulse lasers. Well this one had it comming too, a fair nerf.
3. Increasing the cap usage on laser weapons. Ohh, there went the option of "OMFG TANK" down the drain... No cap to run it when firing.
4. Increasing the powergrid usage on laser weapons. K, realy don't know where this stupid idea came from (Blasters got nerfed to in powergrid usage here).
All of these changes have taken away the Amarr race distinctive gank/tank like no tomorrow speciality.
Now to the issue at hand. CCP has after ALOT of nerfing Amarr and even more whining combined with more or less valid remarks got around to look at the Amarr race.
Make Amarr shine as a race again pls  |
Jezala
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:21:00 -
[485]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
To maintain a correct ratio between shield tanking and armor tanking we'd also remove 10% from the explosive resistances on shields.
What worries me is that this is perhaps one of the worst reasons you could use to justify changing the shield resistance attributes (or any item's attribute).
In the dev blog, there's nothing to suggest that the shield's EXP resistance is too high or that it is a major pvp obstacle. Also, I can't recall anyone complaining that the shields resistance distribution was an issue and detrimental to the gameplay.
So what if the original design document written 10 years ago called for a certain resistance ratio between shields and armor. Nothing suggests that the ratio was correct to begin with nor does anything suggest that original ratio should be adhered to after the game has evolved so much.
Basically at this stage in the game development cycle, you should be modifying resistances for balancing reasons and not worry so much about maintaining the original design implementation. By modifying the shield's resistances, you're are modifying a variable that probably should be kept constant when you implement all your Amarr related changes. It'll be much more difficult for you to identify balancing issues when you start your post-Amarr fix tweaks cause you've added a variable with unpredictable consequences.
|
Ort Lofthus
Wildlands Heavy Technologies
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:22:00 -
[486]
Repost from SHC:
I said it when they increased EANM cpu use and I will say it again: Omni tanks are a problem, encouraging tri-hardener tanks is the solution, and adjusting fitting is probably the most fair way of 'nerfing' EANMs. However, you really need to make hardeners superior to EANMs fitting wise to get pilots to change their tank around. If EANM is the problem, then fix EANM. Reduce the CPU need for hardeners to what EANM were are before the nerf, and reduce the CPU need of the rest of the ENMs enough to make them legitimate fitting choices on CPU starved ships.
I think the bigger problem with amarr lies with some poor ship designs and borked laser tiering and effectiveness under BS sizes. Geddon and baddon are both awesome ships, mostly due to the fact that the range on their guns is pretty much optimal for most confrontations at gates (sub-30km) and can engage in that envelope without manuvering.
Since this is kind of an 'amarr problem' thread, I'd like to post my ideas for a general change:
1) Increase laser cap use reduction to -15%/level, so lasers use half the cap that they do now. The ships with this bonus and the RoF bonus are now the 'endurance' gunboats. The improved cap efficiency means a geddon is cap-stable with scorch loaded with three heatsinks and no cap mods.
2) Change the second bonus of all ships with a 5% resist/lvl bonus to 5% damage bonus, a la abaddon. These boats are now the short-term gunboats, with a resist bonus to assist in plate tanking. It has been stated before that laser boats, and really gun boats in general, need to have a damage bonus. If lasers didn't need a damage bonus to be good, then ships with the damage bonus would be insanely powerful. This change also incentivizes the use of lasers on ships traditionally better fit with autos.
3) General modification of ship fittings. 5th turret for omen? With change #2, the maller does far more dps so another turret on the omen may be a good idea, but I would need to let an amarr specialist answer these sorts of questions.
4) Fix laser tiering. Amarr have trouble 'downgrading' weapons becuase lower tier lasers pale in performace to higher tier weapons. While the fittings are much better on smaller lasers, the other gun races have an intermidiate option where they can sacrifice some DPS for some fitting, rather than a lot of dps for a lot of fitting. Consider increasing the DPS and fittings for smaller lasers to the jump between tiers is smaller and thus opening up more fitting options. Case in point megapulse vs DHP.
5) Possible apoc solution? Make it the tachyon boat. Change the cap size bonus to a traking bonus and modify its fittings so tachyons fit without mods, or at least less. In normal gang combat it has about 20% less dps and about half the tracking, but it has twice the range. In sniperfests it has more alpha than the geddon and more endurance than the baddon while having its own useful unique bonus and probably a better tank as well, due to reduced fitting constraints.
|
Anwylyd Al'Vos
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:22:00 -
[487]
Originally by: Miyamoto Shigesuke
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
By far the largest problem is that armor tanking is quite a lot more popular than shield tanking.
You say this then nerf shield tanking more. Simply brilliant! 
Yeah, I fail to see the... logic? ... here.
_
. - Justice, Mercy, and Faith
My soul has horizons further away than those of early mornings, deeper darkness than the night |
Zerode
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:30:00 -
[488]
Fidling with the resists in order to boost EM dominant weapons without boosting the ships raw dps is good, but far from enough.
Amarr need a clearly defined role.
Give Amarr a new role or fix the old role. Either way is fine but just fix it and give Amarr a role to shine in.
Maybee a uber tank and drone master role is better than the old one (make them realy slow as nano anything is not good)?[:idea:] |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:31:00 -
[489]
Originally by: nihlanth
Edited by: nihlanth on 31/01/2008 18:16:40
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
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)
As I said, blood raiders and angels and mercenaries would be HARDER to tank, which means that the rat's base resistances remain the SAME. (If we assume that the 10% em armor reduction only applies to Player ships).
This means PVE would be MORE balanced since Blood Raiders would actually be a force to be reckoned with. (And that is the faction npc that Amarr mission runners are up against anyway).
Dont just focus on PVE, missions need lovin' too. PVE has been neglected for too long.
Currently, missions against Blood raiders and Sansha are cakewalks compared to any other pirate faction.
But PVE alance"may never cause any negative result on PVP balance. Because in PVP balance is essential, on PVE is negligible.
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
nihlanth
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:36:00 -
[490]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: nihlanth
Edited by: nihlanth on 31/01/2008 18:16:40
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
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)
As I said, blood raiders and angels and mercenaries would be HARDER to tank, which means that the rat's base resistances remain the SAME. (If we assume that the 10% em armor reduction only applies to Player ships).
This means PVE would be MORE balanced since Blood Raiders would actually be a force to be reckoned with. (And that is the faction npc that Amarr mission runners are up against anyway).
Dont just focus on PVE, missions need lovin' too. PVE has been neglected for too long.
Currently, missions against Blood raiders and Sansha are cakewalks compared to any other pirate faction.
But PVE alance"may never cause any negative result on PVP balance. Because in PVP balance is essential, on PVE is negligible.
Not it isn't negligible because missions are one of the greatest sources of income for many players. This affects the economy in EVE greatly. Currently, it is too easy to make lots of money in empire by doing this. (Ironically, I'm a mission runner and am welcoming this change)
|
Phyridean
Lionsgate Ionic Dispersion
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:41:00 -
[491]
Originally by: Rastigan
Edited by: Rastigan on 31/01/2008 13:37:41
Originally by: DDemon
CCP Zulupark, play this game before changing it please.....
He does, he obviously has alot of SP in Minmatar and Projectile weapons 
I've never seen so much negative response so quickly to a proposed change, thats a pretty good indicator that you should rethink your decision...
Its also a bad assumption to assume everyone armor tanks... the popular setup for nano-Hacs and Recons are LSEII's with a mix of hardeners, its also fallacious to assume that EVERY ship has midslots allocated to web,scrambling and E-war...
Does anyone else remember the 56 or so pages thrown down for the Khanid Mk II blog?
|
Ranger 1
Amarr
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:42:00 -
[492]
Originally by: Minerva Vulcan
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.
Sure he did, if you are mildly ********.
Here is a thought...
Try the changes out before getting your panties in a bunch.
Keep in mind more changes are on the way to address specific ships.
Further keep in mind this fix may very well be tweaked before it is done.
Try to keep a civil tongue in your head, people might actually listen to what you have to say.
Keep reminding yourself you don't do game design for a living, and frankly, are not qualified to do so. Your opinion is nothing more than that, an opinion... and it is not necessarily shared by wiser heads than yours.
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
Elemental Fury
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:48:00 -
[493]
After reading the blog again:
Minmatar ships only recieving a reduction of EM resists by 2.5%???!!!
How about 5% or more. Their EM resists should be like 85% stock, or at least 87.5%, 90% is still FAR to high. Especially considering thats no-hardeners.
|
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:48:00 -
[494]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: PeacefullNub
CCP Zulupark
So what do you think about laser jamming bug? Is it realy hard to fix it?
I'm not a programmer so I really wouldn't have any idea.
Zulu, your answer speaks volumes. Why is it that the job of balancing/nerfing goes to someone who doesn't know how to code? Why is it you (and Tuxford before you) feel that changing ship/module/ammo stats is the best way to deal with a problem? I'm not saying it isn't sometimes the most effective way to make a change, but it also seems to me too easy, and thus too easily abused. At least with code changes, there has to be a lot of good reasons to do it, with a full understanding of what the side-effects could be.
|
Ranger 1
Amarr
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:53:00 -
[495]
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: PeacefullNub
CCP Zulupark
So what do you think about laser jamming bug? Is it realy hard to fix it?
I'm not a programmer so I really wouldn't have any idea.
Zulu, your answer speaks volumes. Why is it that the job of balancing/nerfing goes to someone who doesn't know how to code? Why is it you (and Tuxford before you) feel that changing ship/module/ammo stats is the best way to deal with a problem? I'm not saying it isn't sometimes the most effective way to make a change, but it also seems to me too easy, and thus too easily abused. At least with code changes, there has to be a lot of good reasons to do it, with a full understanding of what the side-effects could be.
The balancing and coding have nothing to do with each other, and require different skill sets.
|
Jezala
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:54:00 -
[496]
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: PeacefullNub
CCP Zulupark
So what do you think about laser jamming bug? Is it realy hard to fix it?
I'm not a programmer so I really wouldn't have any idea.
Zulu, your answer speaks volumes. Why is it that the job of balancing/nerfing goes to someone who doesn't know how to code? Why is it you (and Tuxford before you) feel that changing ship/module/ammo stats is the best way to deal with a problem? I'm not saying it isn't sometimes the most effective way to make a change, but it also seems to me too easy, and thus too easily abused. At least with code changes, there has to be a lot of good reasons to do it, with a full understanding of what the side-effects could be.
You don't want coders doing this type of analysis and decision making. What you want are system engineers who can do the trade studies, analysis, and risk assessments. Coders aren't trained to handle this kind of multi-disciplinary work.
|
ragewind
Caldari
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:55:00 -
[497]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Ok, back up. Now to answer some questions:
Quote:
Here's something I've never understood. Why does armor have 20% extra resists on baseline T1 compared to shields?
Shields compensate for armor extra resistances by always having a natural recharge rate.
ok quick eft check natural recharge for a megathron is 15DPS, natural recharge for a ravan is 18dps so at base that is 3dps and yes that will get affected by modules for a slightly higher effect when fitted but 3dps recharge is the same as 20% bases resistance?
with your raven omni tank that means you can tank 41 dps!!
explain how that 41 dps tank is the same as 20% resistance when another BS will be doing 500-1K DPS on you?
so for the damage types that shield loses 5% on that the resistance loss is greater than the recharge can make up for and on the 10% resistance the recharge is always less affective
recharge means jack all in pvp unless its on a specific passive set up which have very limited uses.
add in that there is no nano pump type rig for shields to make them more cap efficient and that you cant run duel reapers makes them so much riskier than arrmor tanking.
yes they can rep more by a fair bit.
but they drain cap faster.
when the shields go on a raven then your toast.
there fitting makes then incredibly hard to fit with damage controls and damage mods.
when a mega loses armour it hits a damage controlled structure can uses that as a buffer to carry on reaping armour back in chunks, by the same point on shields you either loses the remaining HP so fast it doesnÆt matter or your out of cap and have nothing to try and pull back.
mega v raven
natural cap recharge on mega is better
EANM uses no cap
active armour hardeners uses less cap
armour hardeners uses less CPU
turret damage mods uses less CPU that BCUÆs
dule LAR uses less than half of the CPU of XL + AMP a lot more grid but if i need grid there is a grid rig there isnÆt a CPU rig
mid slots for well PVP mods
now why should anyone uses shields as a tank and PVP?
and again lowering all bases resistances to fix armarrs dps problem and the stupidly high mini T2 em resistance isnt the way it just means everone dies faster and armarr wont be killing any quicker
|
nihlanth
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:05:00 -
[498]
Originally by: ragewind
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Ok, back up. Now to answer some questions:
Quote:
Here's something I've never understood. Why does armor have 20% extra resists on baseline T1 compared to shields?
Shields compensate for armor extra resistances by always having a natural recharge rate.
ok quick eft check natural recharge for a megathron is 15DPS, natural recharge for a ravan is 18dps so at base that is 3dps and yes that will get affected by modules for a slightly higher effect when fitted but 3dps recharge is the same as 20% bases resistance?
with your raven omni tank that means you can tank 41 dps!!
explain how that 41 dps tank is the same as 20% resistance when another BS will be doing 500-1K DPS on you?
so for the damage types that shield loses 5% on that the resistance loss is greater than the recharge can make up for and on the 10% resistance the recharge is always less affective
recharge means jack all in pvp unless its on a specific passive set up which have very limited uses.
add in that there is no nano pump type rig for shields to make them more cap efficient and that you cant run duel reapers makes them so much riskier than arrmor tanking.
yes they can rep more by a fair bit.
but they drain cap faster.
when the shields go on a raven then your toast.
there fitting makes then incredibly hard to fit with damage controls and damage mods.
when a mega loses armour it hits a damage controlled structure can uses that as a buffer to carry on reaping armour back in chunks, by the same point on shields you either loses the remaining HP so fast it doesnÆt matter or your out of cap and have nothing to try and pull back.
mega v raven
natural cap recharge on mega is better
EANM uses no cap
active armour hardeners uses less cap
armour hardeners uses less CPU
turret damage mods uses less CPU that BCUÆs
dule LAR uses less than half of the CPU of XL + AMP a lot more grid but if i need grid there is a grid rig there isnÆt a CPU rig
mid slots for well PVP mods
now why should anyone uses shields as a tank and PVP?
and again lowering all bases resistances to fix armarrs dps problem and the stupidly high mini T2 em resistance isnt the way it just means everone dies faster and armarr wont be killing any quicker
Caldari's role is RANGE... they are not meant to be up close and personal like gallente or amarr or some mimnatar. It makes sense that to compensate for increased range, they should have less sturdy ships.
Mimnatar partly relies off of shield tanking OR armor tanking, but their ships are a little sturdier than Caldari because they rely off of close range combat sometimes.
Gallente have the highest rate of repair while amarr have the highest armor buffer... This makes sense.
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
Elemental Fury
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:09:00 -
[499]
Edited by: Veng3ance on 31/01/2008 19:10:09
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
That's the whole point, to make EM drones and EM missiles useful again.
Also..... I thought the point was to boost amarr....
Im pretty sure we don't use EITHER of these weapons. Wow.
|
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:13:00 -
[500]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: PeacefullNub
CCP Zulupark
So what do you think about laser jamming bug? Is it realy hard to fix it?
I'm not a programmer so I really wouldn't have any idea.
Zulu, your answer speaks volumes. Why is it that the job of balancing/nerfing goes to someone who doesn't know how to code? Why is it you (and Tuxford before you) feel that changing ship/module/ammo stats is the best way to deal with a problem? I'm not saying it isn't sometimes the most effective way to make a change, but it also seems to me too easy, and thus too easily abused. At least with code changes, there has to be a lot of good reasons to do it, with a full understanding of what the side-effects could be.
The balancing and coding have nothing to do with each other, and require different skill sets.
They have plenty to do with each other. I'm not saying a programmer should be in charge of balance, but I do think the person in charge of balance should have a broader skill set and be able to consider all aspects of the game when it comes to balance. I would think this akin to being a producer (in the game or entertainment fields). You need people with a broad view to make decisions with input from multiple areas. Often it looks like the last couple holders of the nerf bat focus too much on stat tweaks and don't look at broader possibilities.
That's not to say Zulu and Tuxford DON'T have those skill sets and broad view, but it generally appears that way from what we see in dev blogs.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:35:00 -
[501]
Edited by: Goumindong on 31/01/2008 19:37:06
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
We don't want to change too much, we understand people also want cap use reduction and less powergrid requirements and we're not saying that won't happen. Just that we don't want to do everything at the same time.
Here is the thing. This change is larger than about any ship changes you could have done.
Now, i am not saying it isnt warranted, because really i dont know, i havent run the numbers. But if you want to come out in a dev blog and boost EM and EX damage, then step right up and explain why you want to boost EM and EX damage. Then after doing so, give us some numbers as to why Em and EX damage need boosting.
For instance you could have brought up the 10% damage drop between spike and aurora and tremor. Where aurora and tremor do about 10% less dps on average against different snipers. And how this skews sniper balance away from intended. But you havent given us numbers and have just said its an amarr boost.
As an amarr boost its not a great idea, because really, its not known if many of the ships that will be recieving the boost need it. Abaddons and Geddons are great ships, and while they do less dps against armor, they ought to as a function of their range[otherwise they will just *****other similarly quality ships]. As well, the racial armor resistance bonus which was the majority of the problem was not fixed.
The reason you are getting a lot of resistance here is that we are really wondering what the "small changes are" because to us, a change that affects the entirety of eves tanking isnt a small change, its a large change. Its a larger change than dropping the cap use bonus and halving the cap use of all lasers. Its a larger change than fixing the powergrid use on some beam lasers. Its a larger change than rebalancing low teir weapons. Its a larger change than changing individual ships to be good.
I.E. its a really really large change.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
EM is the highest natural armor resistance on all ships. That means that you don't have to fit any resistance modules to harden specifically against it in pretty much any scenario and by fitting the omni-tank modules you can bring that resistance up to a quite ridiculous level while still hardening the other resistance types decently.
Yes, but was it a bad thing? And if so, why was it a bad thing?
And now that EM has been lowered to 50%, if you tri-harden you now have a huge EM hole in addition to being overall less strong of a tank.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
That's the whole point, to make EM drones and EM missiles useful again.
EM missiles are usefull. They are usefull because ships that shield tank optimally have very low EM resistance, this makes their armor resistance of 60% less important. So they load EM ammo and just keep on going. Has explosive damage been useless because of the 60% ex resist base on shields? No it has not, its still great.
think about why that is.
As for em drones
EM Drones are not used because they do less damage against shields than thermal drones. They are not used because they are terrible. It has nothing to do with EM damage resistance on armor and everything to do with the drones doing so little damage that other drones which will always be better than them against armor due to resistances, are also better than them against shields
The change actually increases the usefullness of EX drones more than EM drones. This is because the primary deterrent to using EX drones was a targets shields. But now, since that has been reduced, that deterrent has been reduced. Making EX drones more valuable. Not EM drones, which will always suck so long as they do less damage against shields than thermal drones.
------------------
TL:DR
This is the largest change, that is why we are worried.
|
Viro Melchior
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:37:00 -
[502]
Biggest problem is that you're ignoring some balance issues while making this change:
1) Armor tanking > Shield tanking.
--If they had looked at this a bit and adjusted things (like making a crappy low-slot warp scrambler [12km 1 point anyone?]), you could have helped moved the pvp tank focus off of armor tanking slightly. This would be a buff for non-ECM Caldari ships in pvp as well as Amarr ships (who love fighting shield tankers and hate armor tankers).
2) A generic drop in resists just makes ships more killable in general. A static -10% shouldn't be applied without something else done if you want to keep ships at their current survival levels. This is a drop from 130% total base t1 resists to 120%, so a 5% bonus to all shield and armor hitpoints could have been warranted. Or just raising the "crap" resistance by 10%. Resists of 10/50/35/35 on shields don't seem too "homogenous" to me.
3) High cap ammo isn't properly balanced. I'm talking about the super-short range stuff here. With max cap skills in a Rokh with 3 PDS II and a Cap Recharger II, running 8 railguns with antimatter ammo is still more than my cap can handle (nothing else but a Damage Control II turned on). Heaven forbid actually using Electron Blaster Cannons. And Amarr are worse off. Even with a maxed out capacitor bonus on their ships, they have to plan around their gun's energy consumption. My suggestion would be drop drop all weapon cap usage by something small, say 10%, and rebalance the range/cap/damage formula (hopefully leaving damage values in place, which would mean either cap usage goes down or range goes up some). As a Caldari pilot, I can say that cap-free guns (or launchers) are a huge boon in PvP, especially for fleet ops where you may not want to run a cap injector and focus on having strong hitpoints instead.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:38:00 -
[503]
Hey guys, "making ships more killable in general" is an amarr boost. The more you reduce EHP the better off amarr are.
|
Xreed 238
Strife Mercenaries Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:40:00 -
[504]
oddly, i find myself strangely apathetic over this change. Frankly, i've come to the conclude lately that Amarr is not nerfed. It requires more patience to fit certain ships, and you'll simply have to deal with the fact that grinding your way through an enemy's armor is going to take longer. But there is nothing, but nothing that will annihilate a shield tank like Amarr (barring t2 minnie tanks, of course) the guns all have good dps, excellent dps for their relative size, and the range on the short range guns cannot be matched by anything except missiles which do much less dps. The tanks are ridiculous, and lets face it, ewar is simply not in the Amarr paradigm. No, Amarr overlap my paradigm; shut up, lock up, and shoot until one of us is dead.
Woe to the Megathron pilot who underestimates me due to race
Raven pilots will scatter at my advance
Pest pilots hope they can kill me before i kill them
Thus it is, that i have come to peace with what i am, a gunner and a tanker. If they've got 80% em resists, it will just take a bit longer. But by building more efficient builds, i can outlast.
And when they look down, and panic to see that the Cap Booster has only 1 or 2 charges after reloading, they will know the truth of it.
Amarr, and proud of it.
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:43:00 -
[505]
Originally by: Phyridean
Originally by: Rastigan
Edited by: Rastigan on 31/01/2008 13:37:41
Originally by: DDemon
CCP Zulupark, play this game before changing it please.....
He does, he obviously has alot of SP in Minmatar and Projectile weapons
I've never seen so much negative response so quickly to a proposed change, thats a pretty good indicator that you should rethink your decision...
Its also a bad assumption to assume everyone armor tanks... the popular setup for nano-Hacs and Recons are LSEII's with a mix of hardeners, its also fallacious to assume that EVERY ship has midslots allocated to web,scrambling and E-war...
Does anyone else remember the 56 or so pages thrown down for the Khanid Mk II blog?
Just that that was 90% positive feedback with the exception of a few boneheads...
This is more like the avalanche CCP caused when they wanted to close the trade forums (though trolls notwithstanding that was 100% unanimous while this is more like 90% again it seems)
There is no 'n' in turret
There is no 'r' in faction
There is no 'a' in Scorpion
There is no 'e' in Caldari
There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Aidonis Heideran
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:56:00 -
[506]
Really, two points to make here:
1) Aside from a few very good arguements, all I have seen is whinage from one camp saying they didn't get Amarr to become the uber-race, and the other camp who are *****ing due to feeling threatened due to a "I play so and so race, my race, my ships and I am awesome, you are not allowed to nerf me or change me, only buff me" mentality (conciously or unconciously). You people, please, STFU.
2) As stated before, I totally agree that cap and PG for lasers (and some others) need to be looked at and then revamped. Now I'm not saying that the resistence changes are bad, nor am I saying they're good, but rather I'm indifferent to them. However, what I am saying is that it would basically be UNNECESSARY if you (CCP) would just do the cap/PG changes.
P.S. I'm a bit against changing resistences, just because I'm a traditionalist, and those stats have been there forever and ever and ever.
|
Dlardrageth
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 20:00:00 -
[507]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Mila Prestoc
Could you please answer this Zulupark, in your issues you say EM is to high on armour, when is EM to high with current real setups?
EM is the highest natural armor resistance on all ships. That means that you don't have to fit any resistance modules to harden specifically against it in pretty much any scenario and by fitting the omni-tank modules you can bring that resistance up to a quite ridiculous level while still hardening the other resistance types decently.
Say what?
Sorry, but WRONG!
Guardian: 60% EM / 80% EXP / 62.5% KIN / 35% THE base armor resist
Zealot: See above
Absolution: 60% EM/ 70% EXP / 53.12% KIN / 35% THE base armor resist
Enyo: 60% EM / 10% EXP / 83.75% KIN / 67,5% THE base armor resist
Keres: 60% EM / 10% EXP / 67.5% KIN / 51.25% THE base armor resist
Cerberus: 60% EM / 10% EXP / 62.5% KIN / 86.25% THE base armor resist
Want me to look for more?
So, please, tell us again, CCP Zulupark, what was that game's name you were writing about? So much for step one in buffing Amarr... I'm sure especially the Zealot needed a resist nerf real badly...
|
Aidonis Heideran
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 20:10:00 -
[508]
I'm fairly sure he said he'd address the res's on T2 separately/in more detail.
So try the T1 stats geez.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising
FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 20:10:00 -
[509]
I've had a chance to play with this on sisi now.
Pulled out a tri-hardened megathron and hype a couple of times each.
Raped by an abaddon.
Stuck EANMs on and it was performing exactly the same as the tri-hardened setup does on TQ.
Congratulations zulupark, you've made tri-hardeners obsolete.
|
Inflexible
Shokei
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 20:14:00 -
[510]
Originally by: Viro Melchior
A generic drop in resists just makes ships more killable in general. A static -10% shouldn't be applied without something else done if you want to keep ships at their current survival levels. This is a drop from 130% total base t1 resists to 120%, so a 5% bonus to all shield and armor hitpoints could have been warranted. Or just raising the "crap" resistance by 10%. Resists of 10/50/35/35 on shields don't seem too "homogenous" to me.
I'd like to point out that difference between 50% and 60% resist is twice as valuable as difference between 0% and 10%. There is nothing like "static 10%" in this case.
|
| |
|
| 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 |