EVE Search - Some love for the Amarr, new Dev Blog by Zulupark

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Some love for the Amarr, new Dev Blog by Zulupark

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Kyle Haque Solstice Systems Development Concourse The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.02.01 02:36:00 - [571] Edited by: Kyle Haque on 01/02/2008 02:44:09 Originally by: Guillame Herschel If CCP insists on changing armor and shield resists to rebalance things so Amarr are more competitive, then do it logically. First of all, shield resists do not need to be changed to accomodate Amarr. Amarr already melt shield tankers like buttah. The two lowest sheild resists are EM/Thermal, but everyone knows this already (except, apparently, Zulupark). Caldari & Gallente - no change to base T1 armor resists. These two races are not part of the problem, and do not need to be part of any tank-resist solution. Amarr - Right now they get a bonus to Explosive at the expense of Kinetic. Change this to a Bonus to Explosive at the expense of EM, and a bonus to Kinetic at the expense of Thermal. New armor resists: 50 EM, 20 Exp, 45 Kin, 25 Therm Minmatar - Right now they get a bonus to EM at the expense of Kinetic. Change it to a bonus to Thermal at the expense of Kinetic. New armor resists: 60 EM, 10 Exp, 25 Kin, 45 Therm This change allows Amarr to do more EM damage to two races, their own and Minmatar. It also makes more roleplaying sense. I think it also actually accomplishes what Zulupark thinks he wants to do with this change. So what you have done here is made Minmatar vulerable to Amarr but by adding to the kinetic resist you are harding Amarr farther against Minmatar.... How is this even close to fair? If you are going to do that you need to move the extra 10% Amarr get on explosive on armor to kinetic. So Amarrs T1 resists are 60% EM / 10% Exp / 35% Kin / 35% Therm. Now everyone has Caldari/Gallente base resist and the game losses flavor.... Seems like you and Zulu are wanting to penlize minmatar for being the racially hardened enemy of amarr just cause they are needing of some love. I don't see one elses T2 resists being touched on their tank but you take allow 33% more damage to minmatar armor tankers from their racial enemies while we still have to shoot at an unchanged high resist on armor? Honestly playing the shift resistance game is opening up all sorts of problems and kills the diversity that different races ships bring to the game. Amarr just need to be tweaked slowly so you get it right, first start with fitting requirments for lasers they are stupidly hard to fit on ships no matter what you try to run. Then go onto cap usage and see where you stand. All this that I have said is just a repeat of what other people in this thread are telling you Zulu. Edit: Grammar
Guillame Herschel Gallente Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2008.02.01 03:08:00 - [572] Originally by: Kyle Haque So what you have done here is made Minmatar vulerable to Amarr I just changed which Amarr damage type got a resists boost at the expense of a non-Amarr damage type (relative to the Gallente/Caldari "standard" 60/10/35/35). Looking at my OP again, I'd say I should have proposed simply moving the -10% resist to EM and not moved any other values around: 50 EM, 20 Exp, 35 Kin, 35 Therm. But that's seems too Gallente/Caldari-ish. Maybe 50/10/45/35? Quote: I don't see one elses T2 resists being touched on their tank but you take allow 33% more damage to minmatar armor tankers from their racial enemies while we still have to shoot at an unchanged high resist on armor? EMP and Faction EMP. -- Guile can always trump hardware --
Tarron Sarek Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.02.01 03:09:00 - [573] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 01/02/2008 03:11:31 Oh the drama... It's probably not the best thing to start a post with, but seriously people, get a grip! EVE is a harsh world. Some of you make this look like yet another WoW forums thread. Ah well, I guess that's why I always proposed a mere -5% EM armor resistance change together with a change in energy consumption bonus, NPC EM shield resistance change (imho very important) and perhaps a slight energy need reduction or damage increase. And not to forget a small change to EANM's (yeah I know, people would go on the rampage). Overall I'm with DigitalCommunist on this one. It's a start, and it's not as game-breaking as some try to make it look. Most importantly, test it! Try it out and come with some arguments, instead of 'the heavens are falling' statements. I'd be interested in how many actually did some research and calculated base laser damage output? Very few here seem to really know the facts. Then some quotes: Quote: Amarr damage has always been fine, its always been the fitting and cap issues I guess that's why people were crying out for damage type changes on crystals? Quote: it makes the second highest damage mod drones û explosive drones even more viable vs. all enemies Explosive drones are the third highest, or second lowest, damage mod drones. However, I guess one thing that Zulupark really missed is to clearly differentiate between Amarr PvE and PvP issues. EM never was a bad choice for PvP. Well, except for the drones, but reason here is lowest damage mod, not the damage type. Concerning PvP it's more a fitting and energy consumption issue. People crying for other damage types or complaining about laser damage most likely came from the PvE camp, where too many NPC types sport high EM resistances, both shield and armor. The former of which being unnecessary and putting Amarr at a disadvantage due to limited options in choice of dmg type. So again I'd like to throw the following suggestions into the fray: * 18% bonus for EANM2 * -5% reduction for armor EM resistance * Reduced NPC EM shield resistances * -7,5% instead of -10% laser energy usage. Accordingly reduced base activation costs. This makes it much easier for non lvl5 pilots to not run out of cap. * Tweaked fitting costs or powergrid values, so that mid sized (focused, mega, etc) weapons plus a basic tank fit more easily * Perhaps a 5% damagge increase on lasers, although this might overpower Amarr ships with damage bonus. Alternatively a 5% reduction in laser cap usage. Probably much more viable. Small tweaks, but combined it would probably work wonders. Nevertheless, thumbs up for having the balls of comming up with a change after all. Just order some new T2 flamesuits. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.01 03:23:00 - [574] Originally by: Kon sama Originally by: ragewind Originally by: nihlanth 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. range with rockets/HAMS and now torps caldari have short range weapons but shield tank fails for any short range pvp, guess im not meant to pvp thats why caldari does less dps then other races. and now they need a weaker tank too? Caldari does NOT do less dps than other races. Cerb with Hams outdps all amarr hacs, raven's dps is 2nd only to the gallente blasterboats. Shield tanking is very viable in gang pvp, you just have to know how to fit. All I see in this thread is a lot of caldari mission runners whining because it might take them 2 extra minutes to complete a level 4 mission.
Crexa g guild Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.02.01 03:40:00 - [575] Edited by: Crexa on 01/02/2008 03:44:38 Edited by: Crexa on 01/02/2008 03:41:40 Fix Amarr by reducing resists to EM by 5 not 10% across the board shields, armor and structure, reduce laser cap usage by 5% (and/or) create new mid slot mod for laser energy usage, replace obsolete bonuses to Amarr ships. And perhaps a slightly larger drone bay and bandwidth About all i can suggest, as surely most has been said already.
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.01 03:42:00 - [576] Edited by: Ogul on 01/02/2008 03:43:27 Originally by: Gamesguy Caldari does NOT do less dps than other races. Cerb with Hams outdps all amarr hacs, raven's dps is 2nd only to the gallente blasterboats. Last time I checked the Sacrilege had the same number of launcher hardpoints and a more useful damage bonus for HAMs. Oh, and drones... --- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec.
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:02:00 - [577] Maybe this has been answered before, if it was, please point me to the relevant post... How exactly are the efficiencies of two different damage types on two different tanking philosophies related so that when increasing one the other has to be increased too? --- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec.
Becka Call	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:18:00 - [578] Zulupark; First the good news: Congratulations, You've actually tried something and put it out for test on the test server. Now for the bad news. This armor change is complete fail. Here is your assignement: Go back and read all of the the Amarr are broken threads from the past 6 months. Then read them again. Then come and explain in a dev blog how the game mechanics changes have been detrimental to Amarr. Your player base has made some very good analysis; however for some reason CCP has this weird idea that the only thing broken about Amarr is the armor resists. The EANM changes were because of this; Did that work? Why do you think that another armor change will? I've heard it said that insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. And here I am really ambivalent. I have some suggestions on boosting Amarr without blowing the balance out. But I find that suggesting fixes in any thread on this subject is not going to be taken seriously by CCP. You're going to do what you want. You don't care what the playerbase thinks about this. You just know that the problem is all armor resists. If I see some better discussion on this than the last time Zulupark "answered" one of my posts maybe I will post a suggestion. If anyone wants background: Post explaining
Shigawahhhhh Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:30:00 - [579] I still can't get past nerfing shield to help amarr...that doesn't even make sence...and if shield and armour were balanced to each other everyone would still fit armour but cuase all your utility stuff goes in mids. The two are not balanced to each other so please leave shield resists out of this if you go with this solution. But nerfing everyone's resists to make amarr right doesn't make sence to me anyway...
Cpt Abestos Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:44:00 - [580] There was no need to screw with every other race's ships to fix amarr. The biggest problems amarr have is that there a very few ships that are worthwhile, the cap use of lasers, the fitting reqs on beams, and to a lesser extent the effectiveness of em dmg. If you notice that the newer amarr ships(harb,abso etc) tend to be on fairly equal footing with their counterparts, that should show that you need to revamp the older amarr ships to update them. What I would do is. -Reduce Lasercap usage by %50-60 -Remove the cap usage bonus and replace it with something useful -Reduce the fitting of beams considerably. -Increase the amount of thermal dmg t2 longrange ammo does -Increase the amount of thermal dmg that t1 ammo does slightly Heres an example of how I would change the bonuses on a few amarr ships. -Punisher - %5 dmg %5 resists -Crusader - %10 dmg -Retribution - Drop 1 high for a mid, %5 resists same bonuses per af skill lvl -Omen - 5th turret, more pg/cpu - %5 rof %7.5 tracking -Maller - %5 dmg %5 resists slightly more pg -Zealot - 5th turret slightly more pg %5 rof %7.5 tracking per cruiser lvl same bonus per hac lvl -Devoter- 5th turret slightly more pg %5 dmg %5 resists pre cruiser lvl same bonus per hictor lvl -Prophecy - %5 dmg %5 resists -Harbringer - %5 rof %7.5 tracking -Absolution - %5 resists %5 dmg per bc lvl %5 rof %either a %10 range or %7.5tracking per cmd ship lvl -Armageddon - %5 rof %7.5 tracking -Apoc - %5 dmg %10 range -Abbadon - keep the same something like this would focus on the amarr problems without broad nerfs to everyone.

Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:48:00 - [581] Originally by: DigitalCommunist ... I'd also like to suggest the following ideas for making shield tanks more common in EVE: - introduce new HIGH SLOT warp disruptor that requires more powergrid and cap, but gives -2 at 25% more range - make one for frigate, one for cruiser and one for battleship - switch the medium and low slots of the Muninn around; atm both minnie HACs armor tank, and terribly - but at least the vaga has speed - consider giving shield modules the highest overloading bonuses - make low slot signal amps comparable to mid slot sensor booster - consider adding natural shield recharge to the boost amount and giving PDUs a lower HP bonus but higher recharge bonus Sensor booster and warp disruptor are pretty necessary for pvp ships, so if you can solve that its going a long way. Minmatar ships should be able to do both, but the majority are still armor tankers which I feel is wrong. Anyways, good changes. The Amarr specific stuff would have to do with reducing Medium Beam grid usage a lot. They should be an easy fit on Retribution and possible on Crusader with one MAPC fitted. Medium Pulse fittings are annoying too, but not as much. ... High Slot Warp Disruptor? Damn good idea now that I think about it actually. This would fix a lot of medslot issues with Amarr PvP ships, or some of the more "ganky" ships. (As well as some other races ships. For example, it would make a Retribution a viable choice to fly in combat! (Fitting likely requires you to downgrade your guns but hey...) WANT! Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:52:00 - [582] Originally by: Cpt Abestos There was no need to screw with every other race's ships to fix amarr. The biggest problems amarr have is that there a very few ships that are worthwhile, the cap use of lasers, the fitting reqs on beams, and to a lesser extent the effectiveness of em dmg. If you notice that the newer amarr ships(harb,abso etc) tend to be on fairly equal footing with their counterparts, that should show that you need to revamp the older amarr ships to update them. What I would do is. -Reduce Lasercap usage by %50-60 -Remove the cap usage bonus and replace it with something useful -Reduce the fitting of beams considerably. -Increase the amount of thermal dmg t2 longrange ammo does -Increase the amount of thermal dmg that t1 ammo does slightly Heres an example of how I would change the bonuses on a few amarr ships. -Punisher - %5 dmg %5 resists -Crusader - %10 dmg -Retribution - Drop 1 high for a mid, %5 resists same bonuses per af skill lvl -Omen - 5th turret, more pg/cpu - %5 rof %7.5 tracking -Maller - %5 dmg %5 resists slightly more pg -Zealot - 5th turret slightly more pg %5 rof %7.5 tracking per cruiser lvl same bonus per hac lvl -Devoter- 5th turret slightly more pg %5 dmg %5 resists pre cruiser lvl same bonus per hictor lvl -Prophecy - %5 dmg %5 resists -Harbringer - %5 rof %7.5 tracking -Absolution - %5 resists %5 dmg per bc lvl %5 rof %either a %10 range or %7.5tracking per cmd ship lvl -Armageddon - %5 rof %7.5 tracking -Apoc - %5 dmg %10 range -Abbadon - keep the same something like this would focus on the amarr problems without broad nerfs to everyone. If we're completely changing up Amarr from top to bottom, this is the exact way I'd do it.
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:53:00 - [583] Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the whole point, to make EM drones and EM missiles useful again. Ah, so it isn't an Amarr boost at all. Doh! Then why name the dev blog "Amarr oomph and other similar words". You are your own worst enemy, you know that don't you? Call the devblog something like "EM and EXP damage resist changes: boost for EM and EXP weapons" and you avoid the whole Amarr hot button. This affects everyone, even Galente. Then announce a separate "Amarr boost!!!!" devblog where you actually do address Amarr issues like ship design and fitting/Ewar. Also can you clarify how this is going to affect NPC resists and weapons? A lot of unnecessary aggro could be avoided by being more careful on how you present things!
Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:55:00 - [584] Originally by: Daan Sai Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the whole point, to make EM drones and EM missiles useful again. Ah, so it isn't an Amarr boost at all. Doh! Then why name the dev blog "Amarr oomph and other similar words". You are your own worst enemy, you know that don't you? Call the devblog something like "EM and EXP damage resist changes: boost for EM and EXP weapons" and you avoid the whole Amarr hot button. This affects everyone, even Galente. Then announce a separate "Amarr boost!!!!" devblog where you actually do address Amarr issues like ship design and fitting/Ewar. Also can you clarify how this is going to affect NPC resists and weapons? A lot of unnecessary aggro could be avoided by being more careful on how you present things! In this case, not really. Since it's you and your like choosing to read what's been said in your own reationary way.
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:58:00 - [585] Also, if you want to boost EM damage for EM drones and missiles (and presumably lasers and EMP/fusion etc) then boost them. Don't change Explosive resists it that isn't your stated aim - out of a 'sense of balance'. If the game is already out of balance, doing that just ensures that imbalance is preserved. Boost EM damage, fine. leave EXP exactly where it is and you will be a step closer to your stated aim.
Kuseka Adama Gallente Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2008.02.01 05:05:00 - [586] Here is my question On every other major ship i can look up the em resists on shields is near zero or at zero. While on the vagabond the suggested resists are OBSCENE Broken on the highest order when combined with the speed tanking methods employed by this particular ship. So tell me again why nerf all resists when its quite frankly just a few ships that need their resists brought in line with everyone else?
Kon sama	Posted - 2008.02.01 05:31:00 - [587] Originally by: Blutreiter Originally by: DigitalCommunist ... I'd also like to suggest the following ideas for making shield tanks more common in EVE: - introduce new HIGH SLOT warp disruptor that requires more powergrid and cap, but gives -2 at 25% more range - make one for frigate, one for cruiser and one for battleship - switch the medium and low slots of the Muninn around; atm both minnie HACs armor tank, and terribly - but at least the vaga has speed - consider giving shield modules the highest overloading bonuses - make low slot signal amps comparable to mid slot sensor booster - consider adding natural shield recharge to the boost amount and giving PDUs a lower HP bonus but higher recharge bonus Sensor booster and warp disruptor are pretty necessary for pvp ships, so if you can solve that its going a long way. Minmatar ships should be able to do both, but the majority are still armor tankers which I feel is wrong. Anyways, good changes. The Amarr specific stuff would have to do with reducing Medium Beam grid usage a lot. They should be an easy fit on Retribution and possible on Crusader with one MAPC fitted. Medium Pulse fittings are annoying too, but not as much. ... High Slot Warp Disruptor? Damn good idea now that I think about it actually. This would fix a lot of medslot issues with Amarr PvP ships, or some of the more "ganky" ships. (As well as some other races ships. For example, it would make a Retribution a viable choice to fly in combat! (Fitting likely requires you to downgrade your guns but hey...) WANT! in my opinion every "attacking" module should be highslot. this means missiles, turrets, damps, scram, web, ecm, nos/neut, tracking disruptors. think this would have reduced a lot of solowtfbbqpwn ships. instead lots of these mods have been nerfed boosted and nerfed again
Tarron Sarek Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.02.01 05:44:00 - [588] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 01/02/2008 05:46:40 Originally by: Kon sama how about just think logicly. if they want more damage give them more damage, or is that just silly? It is silly, because lasers don't generally do less damage. So instead of too little in some cases and ok in other cases, it would be ok in some cases and too much in others. The problem with lasers is the immensely varying performance, especially in PvE. Judging lasers based on the occasions where they are really crappy, like for example against Guristas, results in a false picture. I'm sure no Amarr pilot will complain if he goes up against Sansha or Bloodraiders, because in these cases lasers are very good. It's hard to find some kind of middle ground. The fact that only some Amarr ships have damage bonuses doesn't make things easier, as that's another 25-33% diffference. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
Tarron Sarek Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.02.01 05:52:00 - [589] Originally by: Cpt Abestos What I would do is. -Reduce Lasercap usage by %50-60 -Remove the cap usage bonus and replace it with something useful -Reduce the fitting of beams considerably. -Increase the amount of thermal dmg t2 longrange ammo does -Increase the amount of thermal dmg that t1 ammo does slightly So basically you want them to be overpowered like in the old days? Next to losing their racial trait. Well done. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.01 05:57:00 - [590] Originally by: Elmicker 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. Maybe you should try a hyperion, after all abaddon is a tier 3 battleship. Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II

Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:01:00 - [591] Originally by: Dristra Irony: People whined about the hp buff. Now that effective hp is lowered, they also whine. This thread is just a ****-fest. My thread that focused on the other changes promised to Amarr in the dev-blog got locked because of this thread, and you know what i think about this thread. Lets just post our ideas here instead, Zulu wanted ideas posted here anyways. But hard to ignore all the whining. Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Tarron Sarek Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:04:00 - [592] Originally by: Elmicker 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. This is a joke, right? It performed exactly the same against the Amarr ship. But at a tradeoff, which is worse resistances on the other resistances. Very one dimensional and short-sighted 'tests'. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:21:00 - [593] --------------- Amarr Ship Fix Ideas ---------------------- APOC Lets look at the apoc first. Please fix this ship, its horrible and has no real role. Let me kindly remind everyone that tanking-baitship is not a role. What is amarr missing? To some degree we miss a real T1 mission/ratting battleship. The geddon is not ideal and is very skill intense while the abaddon has serious cap problems in pve and is more of a pvp ship. Since ccp already scratched the khanid ship while making our T2 battleships (neither our black ops or marauder are khanid) I dont feel it would be odd to remake the apoc into a armor tanking missile platform just like sacrilege. This would always make sure that amarr atleast have a battleship being able to rat angels and doing angel extravaganza missions independantly of what you decide to do with problematic laser damage type behaviour. ZEALOT The Zealot is missing 1 turret hardpoint + pg to fit it. It doesnt need missile hp or drones because this is a sniper support ship that just needs a little more punch. We dont want to give it drones and a missile hardpoint because its not supposed to be an amarr-vagabond. Amarr cruisers Omen needs desperate help in dps department. More cpu, more grid, one more turret slot. This ship is one of the worst. Needs a desperate fix. Maller needs more damage to compete with other races ships in the same tier. Pilgrim Something needs to be done about pilgrims survivability. It is the ONLY recon that cant tank a battleship for example with its ew, range and/or speed. If you decide that it should stay short ranged (ie no range bonus to nos/neut) you should give it means to tank more then it does today. Amarr EW: Tracking disruptors These need a boost. Either give TDs scripts that somewhat affect missile OR drastically increase TD bonuses on TD bonused ships from 5% per level to 10% per level. A single tracking disruptor pointed at a ship should render its turrets basically useless. It should get TDs somewhat in line with the power of the other EW systems. Prophecy This ship needs more dps. And let me remind that tanking-baitship isnt a role. Thats all for now, thank you for listening and Im glad to see that changes are on the way. Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Semkhet Spartan Industries Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:28:00 - [594] Nah, personally I find the proposed change completely ridiculous. But what the hell, it's not more stupid than other recent changes. After all, as an enlightened pilot flying Amarr, I've cross-trained enough Matar stuff
Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:34:00 - [595] My ideal changes to the Omen/Zealot are as follows: Omen +cpu and powergrid, +dronebay and bandwidth. A 5 turret omen imo puts out too much dammage at 20km for a tier 2 cruiser. While the likely rax sized dronebay gives the omen its DPS buff in a form that can be destroyed. Keeping it in check. Zealot, 5th turret and room to fit it. Definitely agreed that a sniper hac does not need a drone boost or a missle slot.
Steve Clone Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:38:00 - [596] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer --------------- Amarr Ship Fix Ideas ---------------------- Amarr EW: Tracking disruptors These need a boost. Either give TDs scripts that somewhat affect missile OR drastically increase TD bonuses on TD bonused ships from 5% per level to 10% per level. A single tracking disruptor pointed at a ship should render its turrets basically useless. It should get TDs somewhat in line with the power of the other EW systems. Thats all for now, thank you for listening and Im glad to see that changes are on the way. TBH I want tracking disruptors to stay the way it is... Why would you want them boosted??? ironically which race does this EW affects MOST??? ITs A GOOD thing nobody uses them... leave it...
Jack Jombardo Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:49:00 - [597] Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 01/02/2008 06:54:03 Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 01/02/2008 06:50:50 please no change to resitences and if just try 5%. I'm an Amarr only pilote and 10% will kill all my fittings from Punisher, Veangance, Harbinger, etc as EM would be my lowest resitenc then and I need to compensate it. One way could be drobbing an NanoMembran and fitting a EM-only modul wich gimps my total tank. Same for Damage Control, drobbing it for a EM-only modul gimps again my total tank. Or drobbing one of my CCC rigs (where I use 2 on T2 and 3 on T1 ships to compensate my REAL problems) for a EM-rig. But then I'll get even more cap-problems. The nerv to EM-resitences doesn't help me to kill better but make it harder to survive as I had to fitt dual-repper where I don't have the cap for or let a resistenc hole open :/. As I live with the "Amarr are the best armor-tanks" I totaly build my char around "live longer as your oponent" and if you nerv my tank .... none of my problems is solved but I get a nother one or my old problems become heavier!
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:50:00 - [598] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 01/02/2008 06:50:55 Originally by: Steve Clone Originally by: Lyria Skydancer --------------- Amarr Ship Fix Ideas ---------------------- Amarr EW: Tracking disruptors These need a boost. Either give TDs scripts that somewhat affect missile OR drastically increase TD bonuses on TD bonused ships from 5% per level to 10% per level. A single tracking disruptor pointed at a ship should render its turrets basically useless. It should get TDs somewhat in line with the power of the other EW systems. Thats all for now, thank you for listening and Im glad to see that changes are on the way. TBH I want tracking disruptors to stay the way it is... Why would you want them boosted??? ironically which race does this EW affects MOST??? ITs A GOOD thing nobody uses them... leave it... Because this would not boost the unbonused TDs and there are only 3 ships (all amarr) that have bonused TDs. I want the TD to be so good and crippling that a pilgrim can use it to tank a turreted ship, just like other recons can disable their targets. Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:53:00 - [599] Originally by: Julius Romanus My ideal changes to the Omen/Zealot are as follows: Omen +cpu and powergrid, +dronebay and bandwidth. A 5 turret omen imo puts out too much dammage at 20km for a tier 2 cruiser. While the likely rax sized dronebay gives the omen its DPS buff in a form that can be destroyed. Keeping it in check. Zealot, 5th turret and room to fit it. Definitely agreed that a sniper hac does not need a drone boost or a missle slot. You might be right about omen. Id settle with +dronebay and bandwidth on omen too I guess, as long it does reasonable dps. Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Gane Green Gallente Dominus Imperium	Posted - 2008.02.01 07:16:00 - [600] How about this. Take three of the races. Delete the stats of their ships. Copy the last races ships and paste all the stats to all the equivilent ships. There you go perfect balance. Your job zulu will be complete. It will be as fun as getting a draw in tic tack toe every game. Listen to the people on this one. Ive seen verry constructive post on Amarr. You really need to read them. If God was a number he would be over 9,000!!!!!!!!!



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.