|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Julius Romanus
Amarr
   |
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:06:00 -
[1]
*starts trying to make sisi work*
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:17:00 -
[2]
 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.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:55:00 -
[3]
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.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:17:00 -
[4]
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.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:36:00 -
[5]
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. :)
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 06:29:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Xequecal
Seriously, 3x EANM and a DCU II? What orifice are you pulling these fittings from? I have never seen a PvP ship with that many resist mods on it. I'd almost always fit a plate before slapping on a third EANM, and if I'm running a dedicated active tank I don't have two low slots for reppers plus four more slots for resists. It's PvP, I need damage mods.
Thank you.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 06:55:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Temporusa
This announcement sounds more like hidden UBER booster to minnie. IN reality, EMP ammo ust gained flat 10% boost across shield AND armor, while amarr EM damage gained ONLY 10% boost over armor... NICE devs, VERY thought thru idea!
That would only be true if EMP did both 100% em and 100% explosive dammage. Which even my math skills says cant be. And my reading skills say isnt so.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 18:38:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gorefacer
Originally by: Katarlia Simov
Just in case people avoided reading the rest of the dev blog.
It was stated that this is just a test to see how things go. Also, it was stated that they are aware of the other issues. This is not the only change being planned.
But then again you'd lack something to whine about if you actually read what was being said. I mean you moan for months and months about getting your lasers fixed. And now CCP have the time to sort it out, you scream 'OMG ITS MADE THINGS WORSE' before the changes are live or even have been in testing for more than a day.
Personally, I cheer the changes. Now a standard omnitank takes 25% more damage to lasers. Well that seems pretty good to me.
In response to the people saying that they should just have boosted laser damage, I would imagine its down to CCP not wanting lasers to be even nastier against shields than they are at the moment.
People discussing the merit of a proposed change to game mechanics on aforementioned game's discussion board. What's the problem?
The problem is that most people arent discussing anything. They are reacting to the game world changing, and in response throwing their ***** at the forums like chimps.
|
|
|
| |
|