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) |
Rob Erachar
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:05:00 -
[31]
How about also stacking penalizing the racial resists? I.E. minmatar receive a 10% bonus to EM damage on armor. With your current suggestion of reducing the base em resistance on armor to 50% that 10% bonus is actually a 20% reduction in damage (50% -> 60% reduces damage by 20%) With a stacking penalty a 10% racial bonus on a 50% base would only raise overall resistance to 55%. As your example a Jaguar would go from 90% EM base armor resistance to 88.75% base EM armor resistance. A zealot would go from 80% to 79.75% base EXP armor resistance.
P.S. There is an error in the Blog. Currently a Zealot has a base EXP resistance of 80% and not 87.5%.
Originally by: AceonfireAlso, "do not expect to make any money from killing GOONS. When I tried to tractor beam one of their wrecks, a message box popped up and asked me if I was serious." |
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:06:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Zaphroid Eulthran So Amarr arnt doing enough damage.. so make everything else weaker?
This only affects Amarr vs Player ships unless you plan on reducing npc resistances as well.
Also this "solution" hurts those people who do shield tank (like me) when lasers never had much of a problem vs shields. Not only does it make shields more vulnerable to lasers it makes them more vulnerable to everything else as well.
You had the problem nailed, so why this off the wall solution?
Agreed, to me that blog started off perfectly, listed exactly the changes people have been crying out for for ages, and then took off in the twisted direction of nerfing everyone else, the Amarr problem is not limited to PVP only, the overall design has some gapeing flaws that need fixing.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
I can hardly agree with that. It's quite easy to PVP fit a mean Amarr ship. I suggest you check out the changes on SISI.
Its quite easy to fit a lot of Amarr ships yes, however Amarr also have the highest number of ships that DO have fitting issues.
Originally by: devblog Remove the energy turret capacitor need bonus and replace it with more damage bonuses
This to me personally is one of the biggest issues with Amarr, EVERY ship in Eve is defined by its roles, if you look at any other ship you can clearly see the advantages of using it above another based on its roles, "ability to use your own races weapons systems without capping-out and dieing" is not a role.
Have you guys considered just making laser cap usage reduction a separate skill? or even just give every Amarr ship an extra bonus?
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment Establishment
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:08:00 -
[33]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Elmicker
The problem with EM damage being useless lies not in the racial armour resists, but in the fact 90% of pvp fits are armour tankers. You SHOULD be looking at the spread of utility modules across low/med slots. You should be encouraging people towards shield tanks, not just beating the entire game with a nerf bat as you have in your last couple of pathetic attempts at "fixing" what you see as broken.
Thank you. We'll take that into consideration.
Actually leaving his ranting aside this is a very good point.
As a Caldari/Shield specialist every single one of my pvp chars has now trained armour tanking. Hell I was looking at a phoenix fitting the other day and decided it was marginal whether to armour or shield tank it, but armour tanking required a month less training.
All sorts of ideas have floated around but fundamentally a mid slot is more valuable than a low slot simply because all you can put in low slots are speed, armor tank or damage mods while all the stuff like MWDs, tackling gear, ewar, etc are mid slots.
Rather than nerfing armour EM resists (or as well as) give people a reason to take shield tanks into PvP - and then we might see things change.
High slot warp scramblers (currently only available for hactors), low slot ewar. etc. I am not suggesting removing the difference between mid and low slots as the new modules should be different in some way to the mid slot ones but there should be some dilemma over fitting an armour tank in the same way shield tanks struggle.
For example low slot sensor amps could be boosted to be closer to the mid slot version in effect, the same for ECCM. How about a high slot 'projector' module and then low slots that generate effects like warp scrambling and webbifying. For example on a pvp raven you could have warp disruption generator, 2 webification generators and then a high slot effect projector. Use the projector on someone and it warp scrambles and dual-webs. (Only one projector per ship? Or allow multiple but increase the cap drain?) There are all sorts of options and ideas that would help the situation.
Zarch AlDain
|
R0ot
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:08:00 -
[34]
Wtf, please explain how you come about with the thought of lasers doing explosive damage, HOW?! ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:10:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Zarch AlDain Actually leaving his ranting aside this is a very good point.
This isn't me ranting. I talk like this all the time.
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:10:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Rob Erachar
P.S. There is an error in the Blog. Currently a Zealot has a base EXP resistance of 80% and not 87.5%.
Woops, fixed. Thanks.
As to the other things you said: we're changing one thing at a time here, so I won't rule anything out.
|
|
Mastin Dragonfly
Absolutely No Retreat Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:11:00 -
[37]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Elmicker
Hahaha, joke, right? Unless you have (contrary to the dev blog) changed fitting costs, it's still going to take 2-3x PG mods to get a decent fleet fit out of any one of the BSes. The tier 2 BS is still utter kack due to it only really having 1 bonus and no tank OR gank bonus. I could go on, but i'm not qualified to talk on amarr ships, i don't fly them often. I'll leave it to goumindong. He'll be along shortly.
You're talking about a very limited way of fitting a ship. Also, I said in the blog we were looking at some Amarr ships. There will be a blog shortly about how/what ships we've balanced.
Putting beams on a ship is a very limited way of fitting? Have you ever looked at the powergrid reqs of heavy beams, mega beams and tachyons?
|
redCube
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:12:00 -
[38]
Edited by: redCube on 30/01/2008 18:16:23 In my humble opinion the "amarr boost" will lead to even more armor tanking.
Armor tankers will benefit even more over the shield tankers: its because of the fixed -10% change.
t1 shield tanks currently have a accumulated value of 120% t1 armor tanks currently have a accumulated value of 130%
this is generally fine, as there is a "free" recharge for the shields.
now some math
if you remove a fixed 10% from 120% shield tank this leads to 110% which is in fact ~91.67% of the original value. if you remove a fixed 10% from 130% armor tank this leads to 120% which is in fact ~92.31% of the original value.
Although this is just a slight benefit for the armor tankers, it exists.
In my opinion -9% for shield tanks will do better: 120% -> 111% leads to 92.5% of the original value.
Best regards, redCube (a shield tanker ;))
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:12:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Goumindong on 30/01/2008 18:16:42
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Elmicker
Won't help amarr much, though. They still can't fit ships worth a damn or fire for longer than a minute or two.
I can hardly agree with that. It's quite easy to PVP fit a mean Amarr ship. I suggest you check out the changes on SISI.
It was quite easy to pvp fit a mean Amarr before this change. The change doesnt change the fact that you can pvp fit a mean amarr ship. It doesnt change the ships that are bad. It doesnt make the ships more forgiving at low skillpoints[which its a twofold problem i can explain to you if you want, one deals with cap, and the second deals with the way damage and range contribute to each other]. It doesnt change the fact that laser ships are conductive to being laser bricks or bigger laser bricks. It doesnt change anything about Amarr except boost the relative damage of Amarr and Minmitar against everyone else.
edit: Also, you got the new shield resists of the new Zealot wrong, someone mentioned the armor already.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:12:00 -
[40]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark As to the other things you said: we're changing one thing at a time here, so I won't rule anything out.
You said this last time with the carrier blog. Why do you do this - Post half-finished solutions when you (should) know they're just going to be lambasted for being half-finished.
|
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:15:00 -
[41]
Originally by: R0ot Wtf, please explain how you come about with the thought of lasers doing explosive damage, HOW?!
A Laser hitting a solid material will vaporise the material into gas, the laser then has to pass through the gas to hit its target, in the process creating more gas and energizing the gas into a plasma, the plasma becomes superheated and rapidly expands causing an explosion. </geek>
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:15:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Elmicker
Won't help amarr much, though. They still can't fit ships worth a damn or fire for longer than a minute or two.
I can hardly agree with that. It's quite easy to PVP fit a mean Amarr ship. I suggest you check out the changes on SISI.
It was quite easy to pvp fit a mean Amarr before this change. The change doesnt change the fact that you can pvp fit a mean amarr ship. It doesnt change the ships that are bad. It doesnt make the ships more forgiving at low skillpoints[which its a twofold problem i can explain to you if you want, one deals with cap, and the second deals with the way damage and range contribute to each other]. It doesnt change the fact that laser ships are conductive to being laser bricks or bigger laser bricks. It doesnt change anything about Amarr except boost the relative damage of Amarr and Minmitar against everyone else.
I said in my blog we were looking at balancing some Amarr ships. There will be a separate blog about that soon so you should perhaps reserve judgment until then ;)
|
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:19:00 -
[43]
Zulupark, i dont care what u nerf next. Just keep away from capitals plz! geez ...
|
ExcellciuM
Exair Holding Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:20:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: CCP Zulupark As to the other things you said: we're changing one thing at a time here, so I won't rule anything out.
You said this last time with the carrier blog. Why do you do this - Post half-finished solutions when you (should) know they're just going to be lambasted for being half-finished.
This is to cover their arse when they make crap decisions. Don't think this is the last time it will come up. With that sentence they can eventually say we were just putting forward ideas and none of it was set in stone.
|
Drykor
Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:20:00 -
[45]
I think it's not too bad of an idea.. though I don't see people with some skills have any issues with Amarr ships. CVA seems to do fine with them, Amarrians in my corp are quite happy with them, they have their strengths and weaknesses like every other race. We have people training up for Amarr now because they like alot of their ships. Factoring in that nanoships are quite popular among every race and that they generally have a shield buffer tank with 0% EM resists on shields, Amarr ships aren't that bad off combined with their huge range on their 'low range' weapons. The whole "90% of eve armor tanks" idea is nonsense. It's simply not true in 0.0.
But I don't have big issues with this change either. I am losing some explosive resists on my shields but meh.. only important vs minmatar ships and I don't care as it will equalize with the damage I'm doing on other people's shields.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:20:00 -
[46]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
I said in my blog we were looking at balancing some Amarr ships. There will be a separate blog about that soon so you should perhaps reserve judgment until then ;)
If you were going to take the time to rebalance the Amarr ships, why change the em/ex ratios on shield and armor which changes even more things that are harder to control?
I mean, you were going to go look at the ships anyway right? Why make a big sweeping change that has repurcissions all accross eves balance if you didnt have to? And i know you didnt have to because you just told me you were going to go and look at the ships and modules that are causing the problem that arent going to be fixed by this change.
|
Yggdrassil
Amarrian Missionaires
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:21:00 -
[47]
Unless I am mistaken, this cooks down to:
Boosting Amarr damage with around 6-6.5% for fleet snipers. Boosting Amarr damage with around 4-4.5% for close range.
Boosting Minnie damage with around 2-3% for fleet snipers. Boosting Minnie damage with around 3%(?) for close range.
Leaving Hybrid damage unchanged
Boosting Missile damage with 5% vs em/expl.
This only applies to the hardened part of the hostile ships, wether that is shield or armor.
Not quite sure if it will balance everything out - but Hybrid users sure don't have any reason to shout "hoo-ray" :)
Yggdrassil |
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:25:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
I said in my blog we were looking at balancing some Amarr ships. There will be a separate blog about that soon so you should perhaps reserve judgment until then ;)
If you were going to take the time to rebalance the Amarr ships, why change the em/ex ratios on shield and armor which changes even more things that are harder to control?
I mean, you were going to go look at the ships anyway right? Why make a big sweeping change that has repurcissions all accross eves balance if you didnt have to? And i know you didnt have to because you just told me you were going to go and look at the ships and modules that are causing the problem that arent going to be fixed by this change.
What we're talking about here is fixing the EM problem. Fixing ships for a specific race (in this case Amarr) is also being done. These two things are not mutually exclusive. If we just fixed the Amarr ships EM damage would still be a problem. If we just fixed EM damage, some Amarr ships would still be a problem.
The blog on ship changes will come soon.
|
|
Marn Prestoc
Minmatar Spartan Industries Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:28:00 -
[49]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark I said in my blog we were looking at balancing some Amarr ships. There will be a separate blog about that soon so you should perhaps reserve judgment until then ;)
Problem is your conclusion from your issues is flawed.
"Base EM resistances on armor are very high" is not the cause of problems. Its that when fitting a armour tank typically when using 3 or less resistance modules DC and X number of EANM are best. 4 or more and active specifics out perform EANM and except on minmatar make EM the lowest resistance.
Lets not forget t2 armour tankers, gallente and indeed amarr themselves. After filling the biggest holes EM is typically the lowest resistance. Even on none minmatar shield tanks EM is typically lowest, even after a specific hardener.
I think you need to reasses that issue and the cause you've drawn from it, hence reverse the solution. -
|
Haradgrim
The Wild Bunch INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:29:00 -
[50]
This, in its current form, is such a bad idea its not even funny.
The reason I say this:
1) CCP is correct to believe that it would be unfair to change EM resist on armor without changing EXP resist on shield.
However; Caldari vs Minmatar is currently reasonably balanced, however, one *could argue* that minmatar currently have more "oomph" when it comes to PVP. If you nerf the base EXP resistance on shields you force every pvp caldari player as well as every other shield tank setup to either fit against exp damage or leave it open as a hole. This change assumes everyone fits omni-tanks, and with shield tankers, its simply untrue. I also fail to see how given minmatar more damage potential against shield tanks is in any way in Amarr's interest.
2) Clearly CCP is of the opinion that the "problem" with Amarr is that they do not do enough damage. Given the proposed change, they feel that the margin by which the damage is too little is somewhere between 3-10% (given then effect that the Armor change would have.
Here is what I would do to fix the issue rather then Nerf shield tanks:
Remove Laser Cap bonus from all Amarr ships that have it, remove a similar amount of cap usage from the weapons base usage. At this point, nothing has changed, the damage output and cap usage of lasers is the same as it currently is, the only difference is that a bonus on all the affected ships has not been used.
Here is where there is room for discussion as one of three things needs to happen to that free bonus slot:
1) A damage bonus - However this won't work for ships with a current damage bonus
2) a ROF bonus - this will increase DPS but it will make the capacitor issues even more pronounced. If a rate of fire bonus were introduced, the cap usage of Lasers would have to be reduced in general as well.
3) A range bonus/tracking bonus, this is probably the least palatable for Amarr players, but the truth is given amarr ships a bonus to tracking or range would help define their roles a little more specically.
__________________________________________________
If it were up to me; I would drop the cap bonus that currently exists, I would decrease the cap usage of lasers below what it is with lvl 5 of the relevant ship skill by about 20-25%. I would then give all ships that have a damage bonus a RoF bonus that would result in an overall DPS increase of about 7% (some ships closer to 10%, some closer to 3%). Barring that, I would only change crystals to create balance, you are going to have alot of unhappy people if you nerf their resists.
REMEMBER THE CARDINAL RULE OF MMO DEVELOPMENT: IT IS BETTER BOOST THAN NERF!
If the blogged change goes through then Caldari should get a damage bonus instead of the stupid Kinetic bonus.......
Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
|
|
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:30:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
I said in my blog we were looking at balancing some Amarr ships. There will be a separate blog about that soon so you should perhaps reserve judgment until then ;)
If you were going to take the time to rebalance the Amarr ships, why change the em/ex ratios on shield and armor which changes even more things that are harder to control?
I mean, you were going to go look at the ships anyway right? Why make a big sweeping change that has repurcissions all accross eves balance if you didnt have to? And i know you didnt have to because you just told me you were going to go and look at the ships and modules that are causing the problem that arent going to be fixed by this change.
He did it because tweaking ships and guns doesn't bring about long term balance. It perpetuates FOTM. If there are any actual issues with Amarr ships and weapons, they are comparable in severity to, or inferior in severity to the issues present with ships and weapons from all other races.
The only reason to look at them now and make minor adjustments, is because you're looking at it anyways.
People who are expecting wide sweeping changes to one single race now are just as wrong as the people who would give it to them. What we need more of, is changes that affect all races at once.
Like an overhaul of the broken tracking formula ;) _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/ |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:30:00 -
[52]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark What we're talking about here is fixing the EM problem.
You mean the broken EM resists on minmatar T2 ships, right?
|
Rick Thwaites
Black Podding
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:30:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Rick Thwaites on 30/01/2008 18:33:00 re reading blog. --
|
Louis DelaBlanche
Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:31:00 -
[54]
Not a bad idea imo. That said, if this + a boost to amarr damage output was implemented, it might skew the balance too far in Amarr favor. Better to test both than pick the best/find middleground when it comes to actually implementing it on tranquility.
As for the Shield change, I guess it is a stealth boost for MInmatar fighting other shield tankers (though since Minmatar are pretty crap (with some exceptions) at both shield & armor tanking they perhaps need a damage advantage against both). But then again if 10% is universally taken off armor resis I guess the same should apply to shield.
As for giving Amarr more damage types, I personally would rather see them get kinetic rather than exp damage if they need a new type at all, otherwise u may just end up with Gallente complaining that they now have too little variation in racial damage types for hybrids (being the only race left that doesnt have a [drones excluded] weapon platform that does damage against EM/EXP/Both).
|
Hehulk
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:34:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Rick Thwaites No!
You are gimping Caldari pilots again - already EM resistances are poor, we can't fight Sansha or Amarr
Come again? I've used drakes, feroxes, ravens, etc against sansha and blood raiders, and I manage fine. ---------- It's great being minmatar, ain't it |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:37:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Goumindong on 30/01/2008 18:44:20
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
I said in my blog we were looking at balancing some Amarr ships. There will be a separate blog about that soon so you should perhaps reserve judgment until then ;)
If you were going to take the time to rebalance the Amarr ships, why change the em/ex ratios on shield and armor which changes even more things that are harder to control?
I mean, you were going to go look at the ships anyway right? Why make a big sweeping change that has repurcissions all accross eves balance if you didnt have to? And i know you didnt have to because you just told me you were going to go and look at the ships and modules that are causing the problem that arent going to be fixed by this change.
What we're talking about here is fixing the EM problem. Fixing ships for a specific race (in this case Amarr) is also being done. These two things are not mutually exclusive. If we just fixed the Amarr ships EM damage would still be a problem. If we just fixed EM damage, some Amarr ships would still be a problem.
The blog on ship changes will come soon.
Yes, but what I am saying is that largly it wasnt a problem. We know it wasnt a problem because we have 3 amarr ships that are fine or close enough to fine to not matter. These three ships are 1: a ship balanced specificially by nerfs in the past, and 2: the two newly designed ships taking into account the quality of current ships. If these ships were fairly balanced excepting a few problems with fitting that can be easily tweaked, then why in the world would the ships you went back and fixed not be balanced after you rebalanced them? Clearly its possible, we have 3 nice examples. And to top it off, the main resistance imbalance you didnt even fix[hint, it has to do with the flat 10% racial increase in resistances on armor].
Look, you have 3 ships that are good despite the em/ex change right?
So changing this makes them better? Where they at the right level before? If they were at the right level before, wouldnt a damage increase make them too good?[possibly, as there are ranges to this].
Oh, and the EM/Ex change also makes Ravens, Tempests, Typhoons, Malestroms, Hurricanes and Ruptures[to a lesser extent] much better.
So if you wanted to fix the ships that were a problem, but didnt want to change the ships that wern't a problem then why change the em/ex resistances if you were just going to go fix the ships that were a problem anyway?
if you fix the ships that were a problem you would have a line up of ships without problems and wouldnt have to worry about all the other changes to the game balance you just made.
Individual ship balance changes are MUCH MUCH more minor than sweeping resistance changes. I know it may not look like that because ships are so integral to the game. But it is. Changing one ship changes one combat variable[I.E. that ships performance]. Changing the resistances of all ships changes all combat variables. Do the small changes first, do the big changes last. If you cant fix amarr by fixing the problem ships, the fitting issues, then racial attributes that dont affect other ships. Then look at sweeping changes. The only time this doesnt hold true is if there are other changes you need to make to affect the game balance. Are there? Was minnmitar DPS a problem?
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:40:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn I just don't understand : You remove 10% to EM AND remove 10% to Exp. It's not an Amarr boost, it's an Amarr/Minnie boost, no ?
It's a nerf to everyone as EHP falls across the board, however this affects amarr the most significantly, as they're the most reliant on passive EHP tanks.
|
Bane Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:40:00 -
[58]
Would it be possible to consider reducing EM and maybe EXP resistances on NPC pirates as well? Nearly 3/4 of EVE has rats that have high EM resistances, which makes making money as a new Amarr player difficult and drives people to cross-train for a Dominix or Raven.
EVE would be more interesting if there were more options for NPCer, and more variety of targets for pirates that hunt NPCers. |
Treelox
Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:42:00 -
[59]
/me sighs
Seriously Zulu, I have to agree with all the rest of the naysayers in this thread. Useless for me to just reiterate the same points that everyone else has made, since as usual you will ignore them.
I have a much better idea for game improvements, how about we nerf your dev blog posting abilities. Since they always seem halfc()cked.
The amarr problem is far more complex than your little proposed fix. How about instead of mucking about with everyones resist, you instead sit in the*****pit of every Amarrian ship. Then try fitting each one for pulse, beam, mega beam, tach(as appicable). Try doing this in a high SP and an average SP character. I think at this point you will start to see where the real amarrian problems stem from.
Yes Amarrian ships have damage dealling issues, but for most of those ships if they could be "properly" fitted a lot of the issue would be negated. --
|
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:45:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Haradgrim This, in its current form, is such a bad idea its not even funny.
The reason I say this:
1) CCP is correct to believe that it would be unfair to change EM resist on armor without changing EXP resist on shield.
However; Caldari vs Minmatar is currently reasonably balanced, however, one *could argue* that minmatar currently have more "oomph" when it comes to PVP. If you nerf the base EXP resistance on shields you force every pvp caldari player as well as every other shield tank setup to either fit against exp damage or leave it open as a hole. This change assumes everyone fits omni-tanks, and with shield tankers, its simply untrue. I also fail to see how given minmatar more damage potential against shield tanks is in any way in Amarr's interest.
You say they're "correct to believe this" but you don't offer any counter point. I don't see, from anything that you've written, a reason why they should not reduce shield explosive damage.
There is nothing in EVE that states shield explosive and armor em are two resistances which you don't have to tank. The RP only states they're the highest, and CCP hasn't changed that. You're just used to having that hole plugged completely.
Originally by: Haradgrim 2) Clearly CCP is of the opinion that the "problem" with Amarr is that they do not do enough damage. Given the proposed change, they feel that the margin by which the damage is too little is somewhere between 3-10% (given then effect that the Armor change would have.
Here is what I would do to fix the issue rather then Nerf shield tanks:
Wait, what? Please don't spin with propaganda. They said:
A little backstory
There have been a lot of requests (to put it mildly) and petitions to do "something" about the so called Amarr problem. Most of those are about Amarr not being competitive when it comes to damage output and therefore not a viable race to fly in PVP.
They are claiming this is what YOU the players think, and obviously they don't agree so the rest of your proposal is probably never going to happen.
Originally by: Haradgrim REMEMBER THE CARDINAL RULE OF MMO DEVELOPMENT: IT IS BETTER BOOST THAN NERF!
If the blogged change goes through then Caldari should get a damage bonus instead of the stupid Kinetic bonus.......
Wow. Not even close.
The general rule of MMO development that speaks about making changes (in particular), is that people will ask for changes which benefit them. If there's an issue with something and is acknowledged as being broken; players affected by it will demand a boost and players not affected by it will demand their stuff be left alone.
So you have both sides asking for a boost, when the better solution is to nerf. Nerfing itself is harder to do, because then you have both sides being unhappy. Any devs that take this path have balls, because they trust their judgment more than the biased drivel of players.
Usually, boosting creates short term satisfaction with long term damage and problems. All changes should be made with the long term in mind. If you think for even one second, that any race needs a blanket damage increase, you have no clue and should refrain from posting. _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/ |
|
|
|
|
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 |