EVE Search - Base resi change is on sisi

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Base resi change is on sisi

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
gfldex Kabelkopp	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:57:00 - [1] All ships got their base armor EM and base shield exp resi changed to 50%. EANM II fitting requirements are still at 36tf. We got told it will happen, now it will and I still don't like it. Another nerf that is supposed to be a boost for amarr ships. -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
Madla Mafia The Dead Man's Hand	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:05:00 - [2] If that change gets implemented on Tranq, I can finally remove my signature. ------------------------------------------ Amarr - getting screwed since 2005.
Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:06:00 - [3] starts trying to make sisi work
Trevor Warps	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:11:00 - [4] I dont like the idea. Makes omni tanks almost mandatory.
Ruciza Minmatar The Feminists	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:11:00 - [5] Major changes. Soon to be construed as an actual Amarr nerf. Look at the new Amarr t2 resists.
Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:17:00 - [6] Originally by: Trevor Warps I dont like the idea. Makes omni tanks almost mandatory. Omnitanking is already mandatory in pvp. Unless you know you'll only be seeing blasters and hammerheads. Now, its less of a direct pain in amarr's ass.
Tharsgaard Caldari Delta Technologies	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:18:00 - [7] Seem's the Minmatar ships have 60% armour EM resist's. --------------- Originally by: Tarminic Just so you know, I hope you all die in an extensive electrical fire.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:19:00 - [8] Quote: EANM II fitting requirements are still at 36tf Couldn't you use the adaptive nano plating? Not as good, but it is a lot better than it used to be.
Terianna Eri Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:44:00 - [9] That's... interesting. Not exciting; I'm not looking forward to seeing it go through. I hope this isn't the Amarr buff they're talking about... Still, it is a 20% increase for EM damage on armor (previously of 100 damage 40 went through, now 50 goes through, so moar damage yarr) __________________________________
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:53:00 - [10] Does this mean they removed the way armor had more overall resistances than shields? I can't find any sort of 'patch notes' on this yet :p

Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:55:00 - [11] Originally by: Ulstan Does this mean they removed the way armor had more overall resistances than shields? I can't find any sort of 'patch notes' on this yet :p They removed 10% from EM on armor, and 10% explosive from shields.
Kruel Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:59:00 - [12] It's a start, but cap use still needs a drastic reduction if Amarr are to ever active tank again without opting for Minmatar guns.
Trevor Warps	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:03:00 - [13] Originally by: Julius Romanus Originally by: Trevor Warps I dont like the idea. Makes omni tanks almost mandatory. Omnitanking is already mandatory in pvp. Unless you know you'll only be seeing blasters and hammerheads. Now, its less of a direct pain in amarr's ass. Not so true. As it is atm, on armor battleships with 4 slots for resists you can choose to go with dc + 3 hardners for worse resist on EM but better on the rest. That kind of setup would have such a low EM resist with that change that its hardly viable.
Trevor Warps	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:04:00 - [14] Originally by: Tharsgaard Seem's the Minmatar ships have 60% armour EM resist's. Thats because they have a base 70% EM on TQ.
Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:17:00 - [15] Originally by: Trevor Warps Originally by: Julius Romanus Originally by: Trevor Warps I dont like the idea. Makes omni tanks almost mandatory. Omnitanking is already mandatory in pvp. Unless you know you'll only be seeing blasters and hammerheads. Now, its less of a direct pain in amarr's ass. Not so true. As it is atm, on armor battleships with 4 slots for resists you can choose to go with dc + 3 hardners for worse resist on EM but better on the rest. That kind of setup would have such a low EM resist with that change that its hardly viable. Good, you should have to choose to harden EM or have a resist hole.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:34:00 - [16] Quote: They removed 10% from EM on armor, and 10% explosive from shields. Pfft. They should take 20% off of EM for armor. ;p
Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:36:00 - [17] Originally by: Ulstan Quote: They removed 10% from EM on armor, and 10% explosive from shields. Pfft. They should take 20% off of EM for armor. ;p Nah, the harb would get called overpowered. :)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:39:00 - [18] Originally by: Trevor Warps Originally by: Julius Romanus Originally by: Trevor Warps I dont like the idea. Makes omni tanks almost mandatory. Omnitanking is already mandatory in pvp. Unless you know you'll only be seeing blasters and hammerheads. Now, its less of a direct pain in amarr's ass. Not so true. As it is atm, on armor battleships with 4 slots for resists you can choose to go with dc + 3 hardners for worse resist on EM but better on the rest. That kind of setup would have such a low EM resist with that change that its hardly viable. eanm, eanm, eanm, dc > 3x hard + dc eanm, eanm, plate, dc > both. The change isnt a good idea though.
Kery Nysell Caldari Nysell Incorporated	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:45:00 - [19] sisi = in testing, right ? If so, I'll keep a nice slice of cheese in the fridge, to go with the inevitable whine IF those changes go live ... <~ sig starts here My Skills
Trevor Warps	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:56:00 - [20] Edited by: Trevor Warps on 30/01/2008 20:06:49 Originally by: Julius Romanus Good, you should have to choose to harden EM or have a resist hole. We already have that. It's EM on active fits and explo on passive. (Actually not true, on active explo and EM = 65%) With that change it would be either a 60% explo on passive and a 55% EM for active. lol, what the heck, lets go passive. Maybe minmatar BS will keep using active hardners, but i would nt be surprised to see them fit EANM II as well and get 80% EM. This nerfs the omni tanks but will also bring more in your way.

Trevor Warps	Posted - 2008.01.30 19:59:00 - [21] Edited by: Trevor Warps on 30/01/2008 20:00:50 Originally by: Goumindong eanm, eanm, eanm, dc > 3x hard + dc EFT much ? I know, i know ... EFT numbers makes your ... statement true. K, i ll translate what you quoted from me in your langage. VS EM : eanm, eanm, eanm, dc > 3x hard + dc VS rest : 3x hard + dc > eanm, eanm, eanm, dc Originally by: Goumindong eanm, eanm, plate, dc > both This statement is ... a waste of time.
Msobe	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:05:00 - [22] I fly amarr exclusively. While its gratifying to see recognition of the problems amarr face, and I'm glad to see that CCP has a good grasp of real problems faced by amarr players ... I can't say Im thrilled to see those problems addressed by nerfing every one's tank. I do understand why they see it as needed, but it hardly makes the rest of the player base sympathetic to changes. I do see a bit of irony in the fact that amarr boosting now consists of two separate needs to tanking - the eanm nerf (which didn't hurt as badly as many feared) and now a nerf to everyone's tank. The dev blog states that some ships might need specific changes, and this change isn't meant to fix everything. Its good they are looking at things this way ... As much as some people would like to pretend every amarr ship is horrible, it just ain't so. This change is focused just on damage concerns, and it could be that there is no alternative solution. As they point out, the problem is with the damage vs resists, and nearly all the suggestions are to fix lasers, not the damage type itself. If you fix lasers by upping damage so more gets through resist, you ignore the underlying problem with EM damage, and EM missiles, drones, and smartbombs are no better off. Put another way, amarr have a legitimate complaint not as much because that can't change damage type, but because their damage typeie one no one would ever choose. The damage type is what's broken, and its broken because of the dominance of armor tanking, taken together with high armor EM reaists and the utility of omni-tanks. If they manage to make EM damage appealing, the problem with inflexible damage types vanishes. Still, as much as I like the reasoning, I'm skeptical. The eanm nerf was meant to reduce the omni tanking, but really it had little effect. Nerfs never thrill players, no matter what the reason. More than anything I worry about unintended consequences. The shield EXP resist was dropped to balance armor's EM reduction ... But what effect does that have on that damage type on shields? Was there already a similar problem with EXP? Or could this change inadvertently cause a boost where its not needed? That I'd why they pit these changes up first on sisi ... But only time will tell if it has the intended result, without amy nasty surprises. CCP I am really glad you guys are looking at the real problems in context, and not just implementing suggestions that address the symptom instead of the root of the problem. I just really hope a drastic change like this can really do what you want of to, without going to far. I'll choose to be cautiously optimistic. :-)
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:13:00 - [23] You can't please all the people all the time, and today all those people are posting in S&M. I think it's a good change, that not only will bost Amarr, but help counter-balance the massive tank buff of Rev1 that has devastated solo- and small-gang PvP. I think I may train for T2 med lasers, I've already got T2 hybrids to large and t2 projectiles to medium and I love cruisers and BCs. --
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:15:00 - [24] Then give the resistances somewhere else, really. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:24:00 - [25] Originally by: Cpt Branko Then give the resistances somewhere else, really. No, its good that they nerfed tanking a bit. Shields dont need even more redicilously high passive tanks. This is a good change. Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:28:00 - [26] /me starts training large pulse spec V.
Msobe	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:29:00 - [27] Originally by: Cpt Branko Then give the resistances somewhere else, really. like the blog said, that was the original idea, but resists ended up too much the same across races. Making everyone the same is a boring but safe approach to balance. Also think about it for one second. Taking the resist away nerfs you once, on your tank. Redistributing it nerfs you again (if you are not amarr) when you start shooting at people who now have higher resists to your favored damage.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:32:00 - [28] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko Then give the resistances somewhere else, really. No, its good that they nerfed tanking a bit. Shields dont need even more redicilously high passive tanks. This is a good change. Actually, since this is probably a shot at the Drake, I'd like to point out that all 3 of my drake losses in PvP have been to Amarr boats. Since you can't give up too many slots to hardners, Invulnerability Fields are the order of the day, and with 2 invul II's and BC 5 I have less than 60% EM resists. Besides, my drake at max tank isn't going to do much but float around and fail to explode in a reasonable span of time. Still, I am glad that they are doing something for the EM damage type as a whole. It seems like lasers were just begging to be gimped from the start with a primary damage type that is the lowest resist on shields but highest on armor in a game that favors the armor tank for most ships. 10% may not be much, but Amarr boats do enough damage that it may be the edge they need to be truly competative again.
Carth Reynolds	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:33:00 - [29] Originally by: Derek Sigres Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko Then give the resistances somewhere else, really. No, its good that they nerfed tanking a bit. Shields dont need even more redicilously high passive tanks. This is a good change. Actually, since this is probably a shot at the Drake, I'd like to point out that all 3 of my drake losses in PvP have been to Amarr boats. Since you can't give up too many slots to hardners, Invulnerability Fields are the order of the day, and with 2 invul II's and BC 5 I have less than 60% EM resists. Besides, my drake at max tank isn't going to do much but float around and fail to explode in a reasonable span of time. And apparently I picked a good time to start flying Amarr. Caldari was getting dull so I wanted to change it up. Still, I am glad that they are doing something for the EM damage type as a whole. It seems like lasers were just begging to be gimped from the start with a primary damage type that is the lowest resist on shields but highest on armor in a game that favors the armor tank for most ships. 10% may not be much, but Amarr boats do enough damage that it may be the edge they need to be truly competative again.
Emperor D'Hoffryn No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:36:00 - [30] A generally nerf to tanking is not at all bad, what with all the tanking buffs we recently recieved. I just worry this change boosts minmitar more than it boosts amarr. 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



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: 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.