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) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:33:00 -
[91]
No, it does have a direct impact on the effectiveness of lasers, it just doesnt necessarily have the right impact on the effectiveness of lasers.
There is no way you could lower EM resists on ships and not have an impact on the effectiveness of lasers.
|
smoogie
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:34:00 -
[92]
Edited by: smoogie on 30/01/2008 19:34:41 What about the Apoc?
|
BlackHorizon
Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:36:00 -
[93]
Please don't forget to fix the cap usage on Mega Beams, since correctly, Tachyons are more damage/cap efficient, even though they're a higher tier weapon.
|
Poister
Amarr THEM. Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:40:00 -
[94]
This is what you call Dev Loving?
Amarr R.I.P.
|
Hun Jakuza
Imperium Galactica Omega Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:42:00 -
[95]
Explosive Laser ? :D Lol, what a ridiculous idea. I think this development idiotic again.
|
Rells
Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:42:00 -
[96]
Originally by: LordVodka Changing the amarr again... hmm. Well I have ben 100% amarr PvP for 2 years now, and I'd say I know the race pretty inside and out from the capital Revelation to the favorite little frigate the punisher.
What I've noticed in my time Pvp'ing is that Amarr is hardly as bad as people have made it out to be, Although I would never say it was as easy to fight with as the Gallante ships were, but after the latest nerfs, I'm not complaining.
If there are any changes to the race I'd love to see a cap use change on amarr guns more then anything, Amarr ships are known for there great capacitors, issue being we strap some lasers on and that caps gonna run dry faster then any race hehe. So imo, number one change should be cap use, number two I'd say lower the powergrid usage on the battleship class beam lasers, and the third priority I'd say would be a increse to the thermal damage on crystals.
Despite my amarr ships lacking 4 mids on most occasions, I'd hate to give up a low or high tbh, I like the unique layout of the amarr ships over the other races, and truely feel this should not be changed.
More then anything here I don't want to see amarr boosted to a point where everyone screams for a amarr nerf so, when you think amarr boost just think cap reduction in energy turrets =-).
-LordVodka
If we didnt have to fit solid cap gear in the mids to run just our guns, it would be a lot easier to reclaim that slot for something else.
Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken! |
Faye Valerii
Caldari Exeunt Omnes
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:46:00 -
[97]
Fixing Amarr by nerfing shields ?!
Shield tanking in pvp is horrible enough as is, the only saving grace is good explosive resists.
Taking 10% resists off shields and claiming it's in line with the armor loss is quite daft. They are effectively removing 1/12th of total shield resists while only removing 1/14th armor resists.
Not to mention the insulting irony of shieldtankers losing yet again to fix the EM problem, while shields get 0% EM resist.
Sigh.
|
Crazy Renegade
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:48:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Crazy Renegade on 30/01/2008 19:50:08 Good to see that the amarr wont remain the red headed step child of eve. Now how about some info about what is going on regarding the graphics glitches and other equally if not more important bug issues. Like the ones with the graphics cards. I just shelled out $200.00 on a card that I was told through the eve website under requirements would work. Yet when I ask Why I cant run 2 accounts at the same time like before I updated the client and graphics card. I seem to get the cold shoulder treatment. I know Im not the only person having this problem and I know it isnt my comp. Some kind of reply on this subject from the bug team or who ever deals with this stuff would be nice. Respecfully, Crazy Renegade.
|
Auron Shadowbane
Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:52:00 -
[99]
dont like the change. and thats for I fly minmatar and it will increase my damage by at least 20% (emp rounds ftw ^^). it just makes everything too homogene. why not simple cut em and explosive damage and turn them into thermal/kinetic only. and if we are at that we might as well skip damage types compeltely and use a more wow-ish systhem oh health, mana and armor classing... prolly introduce levels too isntead of sp? and what about feats? dont forget them!
|
Bane Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:55:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Bane Glorious
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.
please don't forget about this :'(((((((((( |
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:56:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Auron Shadowbane dont like the change. and thats for I fly minmatar and it will increase my damage by at least 20% (emp rounds ftw ^^). it just makes everything too homogene. why not simple cut em and explosive damage and turn them into thermal/kinetic only. and if we are at that we might as well skip damage types compeltely and use a more wow-ish systhem oh health, mana and armor classing... prolly introduce levels too isntead of sp? and what about feats? dont forget them!
Go run around with the cuddly rabbits on WoW and stop polluting eve.
|
Haradgrim
The Wild Bunch INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:57:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Faye Valerii Fixing Amarr by nerfing shields ?!
Shield tanking in pvp is horrible enough as is, the only saving grace is good explosive resists.
Taking 10% resists off shields and claiming it's in line with the armor loss is quite daft. They are effectively removing 1/12th of total shield resists while only removing 1/14th armor resists.
Not to mention the insulting irony of shieldtankers losing yet again to fix the EM problem, while shields get 0% EM resist.
Sigh.
QFT, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that thinks reducing shield resists in any way is absolutely INSANE!!!!
Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP RONA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:10:00 -
[103]
What about the missing amarr frigate? Will we ever be seeing that?
A bigger eve Annndd..Player Factions |
Reto
The Last Resort
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:10:00 -
[104]
CCP while u look at amarr ships take a GOOD look into reconships. i dont cry nerf here but only request that u guys check whether giving recons and eas imunity vs EW while benefit em with various uncounterable weapon combinations is a good approach.
Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
|
xHalcyonx
Amarr Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:11:00 -
[105]
Edited by: xHalcyonx on 30/01/2008 20:11:14
Wow, CCP actually looked at my idea to introduce the Balze crystal (expl damage). So apparently, the devs do read the ships and mods forum.
I still want Blaze to be introduced though.
Dropping resistances on all ships should be a good change for amarr, though many lower end amarr ships need to be looked into fitting wise.
Now, I just want 5 turrets (plus grid, cpu, and cap to match) on the Zealot or a +25m3 dronebay with 25 bandwidth. Also, a 4th mid on the Absolution + more grid/cpu to fit the 4 PvP essentials. ------------------- ნỊs uʍop əpỊsdn Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr! |
MITSUK0
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:18:00 -
[106]
Are ccp incapable of balancing the game via any means except nerfing?
Lasers needed help, EM missiles and drones? EMP/Barrage/hail and explosive missiles/drones? not so much.
Overall not happy at the latest trend of balancing with nukes rather than scalpels. Hopefully the ship based changes are an improvement...
|
Emperor D'Hoffryn
No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:19:00 -
[107]
This change is a nice first step...
But I do fear that it boosts minmitar more than Amarr, what with EMP doing EM and EXP damage.
Also, minnie t2 ships going from 92.5% EM on armor to 90% EM on armor? big flipping deal. T2 minnie ships will still be invulnerable to Amarr ships, while Amarr ships are completely vulnerable to Minnie ships. (phased plasma)
For the whole med slot stuff, Im fine with Amarr ships being solid Rods of Gold if we could actually fill that role, tanking and ganking with good damage. Our weapons suck cap, so we cannot tank, we cannot just fire our weapons either.
Hopefully This will finally give us the advantage all our disadvantages are supposed to balance: Good Damage.
Originally by: Meridius Dex I could actually fit a Thorax WITH LASERS and get better DPS, better speed, better tank and - wait for it - better cap stability
|
HatfulOfHollow
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:27:00 -
[108]
Edited by: HatfulOfHollow on 30/01/2008 20:27:57 Little to no mention of difficult to fit modules, outrageous cap use, or the absolute uselessnes of the Amarr recons. Once again, I feel the need to ask, "Do CCP even play their own game outside of the test server?" You've completely avoided the heart of the actual issues and instead pinpointed some sort of illusory cause that seems to be screwing everything up. Using this sort of logic, I can only assume that your "logical" solution in dealing with the next game balance problem that presents itself would be to nerf the crap out of everything except the one thing that was causing the problem.
How does "fixing laser damage" equal "screw up EM resists for every other race?" Also I'm glad you chose to use an Assault Frigate in your example, which just goes to show how truly out of touch you are. Assault Frigates, if you weren't aware, are terrible and there is absolutely no reason to fly one over a T1 cruiser.
The absolute heart of some of the main issues with Amarr can be seen by looking at cap usage and fittings issues. Alleviating both of these issues frees up mids and lows for tanking, thus fixing issues with midslots and the ability to tank. Fix those things before you start chasing ghosts.
I'd really like to provide constructive feedback but all you do is prove time and time again that you have no clue when it comes to game balance issues.
I really look forward to seeing how you screw things up even more.
|
Tareen Kashaar
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:29:00 -
[109]
Some random thoughts that might be worth considering:
- What about a cap reduction to armor repairers instead of one to Lasers? It's a boost to active tanking, but not to the extreme.
- 4th mid on the Absolution, hell yes. Just take the Harbingers 4th mid and give it to the Absolution, it's much more deserving :P
- Pilgrim does need serious looking at. As does the Apoc. But you guys said you are aware of individual ships needing love, so I'll just leave this entrusted to your skillful hands.
--- WTS: Forum Signatures, price negotiable. Evemail me!
|
TigerWoman
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:29:00 -
[110]
Quote: The more midslots argument doesn't have any one answer. The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of gold
ORLY? tanking and ganking? haha shure
|
|
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:31:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Goumindong If you did that, Ishina, then you would probably make them do too much dps against shields.
I see nothing wrong with that, if they suck vs. armor at the same time. More diversity! Besides, I was just giving arbitrary numbers there.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! |
Tareen Kashaar
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:31:00 -
[112]
And of course I totally forgot to say: I love the proposed change. It makes all ships, everywhere, more likely to explode faster than before. It's the ultimate boost to my invention business! :D --- WTS: Forum Signatures, price negotiable. Evemail me!
|
Hie Loe
Gallente Intergalactic Science LLC
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:35:00 -
[113]
I guess I just don't understand the philosophy of making something better by making something else worse. Although you call this a boost to Amarr, what it really is a reduction in the capabilities of all ships. Maybe I'm dense, but to me in a game that is supposed to be fun and that we all pay for, the only direction you should move is up when it comes to balancing.
HL
I want a better signature. |
Corrupt Panda
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:44:00 -
[114]
So ... in this Amarr fix:
Caldari get a 10% boost to EM and Exp damage with missiles. Gallente get a 10% boost to EM and Exp damage with drones. Minmatar get a 10% boost to EM and Exp damage with ... everything. 20% if you count EMP ammo. Amarr get a 10% boost to EM damage with lasers.
This is not an Amarr fix. This is a stealth Minmatar boost.
|
Gypsio III
Darkness Inc. Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:45:00 -
[115]
Quote: The blog on ship changes will come soon.
While you're looking at ships, have a quick look at the powergrid of the Nighthawk please Specifically, should a standard PVP fit including Gang Mod, T2 HAMs, T2 MWD, T2 Large Shield Booster and Medium Electrochemical Cap Booster really require 3x RCU IIs and a PDS II?
Requiring 1 or 2 fitting mods is reasonable. Requiring 4 is just crazy.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:47:00 -
[116]
(In case people wonder: We fight a war with PIE Inc. and Vigilia Valeria, amarrian loyalist groups that exclusively uses amarrian ships. So I do happen to think I have some experience fighting amarrian ships flown by competent pilots, and I also claim to be a somewhat competent PvP pilot myself. But I only fly Minmatar ships up to BC myself, so I won't comment on other races or BS.)
Great change, thanks! The extreme resists of armor vs. EM and shield vs. Exp was a good thing to fix for various reasons, not just because of the Amarrian reliance on EM damage. Streamlining the resistances a bit is very nice.
This is also a well-needed boost to EMP ammo. It was somewhat weird that usually, Phased Plasma was preferable vs. shield tankers due to the high explosive damage done by EMP.
As for your upcoming blog on ships: The Amarrian missile and drone boats are good as they are now. They fulfill a role, they are good at that role. It was the laser boats that were the problem for Amarr, and this change will boost laser boats quite a bit. I'm not sure which laser boats exactly will require more tweaking to make them competetive, or what tweaking they need, but I want to mention a few things.
1) Harbinger. This is right now a very competetive tier 2 battlecruiser. If fitted right (that is, dual web, ganky, useful tank; yes, such fits exist), for example, the only option I have with a Hurricane is to leave. Luckily, I do have that option, which is the main reason I do not cry "nerf!" The slot layout (exactly the same as a Hurricane) makes it a very versatile and useful battlecruiser (even nano-harbi works and is quite competetive).
2) Crusader. With beams, this is already among the best intercepters out there, as it is one of the fastest. (Also, Claw needs love :-/)
3) Capitals. Amarrian capitals are currently the best. Period. Tankiness is just the most deceiding factor for capital ships, and the Archon even gets very, very useful logistics bonuses in addition to being the best tanker. Try not to boost them.
4) Pulses vs. Autocannons. (Note I'm mainly talking about the Harbinger in the following, possibly also Crusader, Coercer and Zealot; most laser boats need some loving)
The big advantage of autocannons is the range, which ACs get at a huge loss of dps (close to 50% at normal combat distances). Due to range and speed, Minmatar ships can leave an unfavorable fight. Against pulse lasers after the tracking boost, that advantage is gone, as pulse lasers do more dps at better ranges than ACs, and have comparable tracking (Barrage reduces tracking). Equivalent Minmatar ships (tech 2 guns on both etc.) can not do the "orbit at distance" trick anymore, as the Amarr ship will out-range, out-dps and out-tank them. The new trick is to get close in to use the enormous drop in dps due to tracking at very close ranges, which will affect pulses much more than ACs. If the Amarrian ship can get more webs on the target than that can get on the amarrian ship, the minnie ship will usually just die. Tech 2 ships are off slightly better here, tech 1 ships suffer greatly.
Summary.
There have been quite a few changes recently that affect amarrian ships. While some of them clearly need love (Omen, Maller and Apoc are the most obvious ones; Prophecy, too, but at least it's in line with the other tier 1 BCs except maybe for the Brutix in the fact that it's a bad ship ;-)), others (as mentioned above) are already very competetive, and will be even better after this change. It's quite normal for the player base to adjust slowly to changes, so you will hear cries for Amarr boost for a while even after they have been made competetive, and it will be very easy to overcompensate and make Amarr too powerful. It's a difficult balance.
But thank you for this change. I'm looking forward to test it
|
Andreask14
Alterum - Infinitus - Fabula Dragons Of Oceans
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:50:00 -
[117]
I am glad most, if not all, of the major issues with Amarr are at least looked at. The proposed change is a step in the right direction, tackling an issue that became apparent only after the demise of 8x HS nber-pulse geddon a few years ago. If the topic is given enough attention amarr players might finally have no more reason to write dozens of pages about lasers in general or certain ships in particular.
|
MacQueen
Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:51:00 -
[118]
Edited by: MacQueen on 30/01/2008 20:51:40 Thanks for taking a look at some of the issues and attempting to balance it up a bit :)
Any plans on making large BS size guns easier to fit and less cap intensive as well fixing up the pilgrim and giving it a neut cap use reduction bonus instead of tracking disruptor bonus?
|
J Valkor
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:53:00 -
[119]
Edited by: J Valkor on 30/01/2008 20:55:43
Originally by: Gypsio III
Quote: The blog on ship changes will come soon.
While you're looking at ships, have a quick look at the powergrid of the Nighthawk please Specifically, should a standard PVP fit including Gang Mod, T2 HAMs, T2 MWD, T2 Large Shield Booster and Medium Electrochemical Cap Booster really require 3x RCU IIs and a PDS II?
Requiring 1 or 2 fitting mods is reasonable. Requiring 4 is just crazy.
Why would Tech 2 HAM's be a standard pvp fit? What ******* standard?
As for these changes - Most users here have no ability with math. More so than anything else, the vast majority of you cannot do even the simplest calculations in your head.
92.5%->90% increases damage against Tech 2 Minnie by how much? If you do 100 points of damage base it goes from 7.5 to 10. Please, with a cherry on top, figure out how big of a boost that is. I'll give you a hint - it isn't 10%.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:54:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Goumindong on 30/01/2008 20:55:28
Originally by: Gypsio III
Quote: The blog on ship changes will come soon.
While you're looking at ships, have a quick look at the powergrid of the Nighthawk please Specifically, should a standard PVP fit including Gang Mod, T2 HAMs, T2 MWD, T2 Large Shield Booster and Medium Electrochemical Cap Booster really require 3x RCU IIs and a PDS II?
Requiring 1 or 2 fitting mods is reasonable. Requiring 4 is just crazy.
This can easily be fixed by fixing the power grid of HAMs. Co-incidentally when i asked regarding this issue in the last live dev blog on module balance the devs clearly thought i was talking about torps[not that that wasnt the change torps needed all a long instead a damage boost, but hey what can you do besides getting hired].
Fixing HAM PG also fixes up a lot of other problems with other ships which have problems fitting HAMs or HAMs as supplimentary dps.
Originally by: J Valkor
Why would Tech 2 HAM's be a standard pvp fit? What ******* standard?
Because tech 2 short range weapons can be a standard pvp fit for every other field command ship.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |