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)
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.31 22:20:00 - [91] 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. And we are just makign sure CCp knows we tested it and their test failed cataclismicaly! They need to throw away these stupid ideas and pay more itetion on the far more reasonable ideas that come from community. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2008.02.01 00:51:00 - [92] Increase to laser damage and the Amarr all complain. Minmatar still do no dps to my drake or cerb. Amarr still rip me a new one. If you simply boost laser damage, you'll need to boost shields EM resist to compensate.
Pans Exual	Posted - 2008.02.01 01:23:00 - [93] Originally by: Kagura Nikon And we are just makign sure CCp knows we tested it and their test failed cataclismicaly! They need to throw away these stupid ideas and pay more itetion on the far more reasonable ideas that come from community. I hope CCp is makign sure NOT to pay 'itetion' to this kind of ignorant criticism.
BlakMajiK	Posted - 2008.02.01 02:11:00 - [94] I'm not a PvPer, so I can't really comment on if this would be a positive change or not on the pvp side of things. As I understand it though, the problem they are trying to address is that of players using EANMIIs plus a damage control II on their ships to cover all resists. This increases the already high base EM resist on armor. Thus, laser users, who rely on large amounts of EM damage and have very few options in regards to changing damage types, feel their ships perform poorly in pvp situations (as most players armor tank, to keep mid slots free for EW and so forth). Ok, I think that's right... So, would someone explain to me why I'm getting nerfed when the same effect could be achieved by reducing the EM resist increase obtained from adaptive nanos? I run missions, I don't shoot at people. I use active hardeners, and if the ship setups in this forum are a proper indicator, most other mission runners do as well. Yet, CCP is contemplating a very sweeping swing of the nerf bat, and I may feel it's sting too. And to a PvEer like myself, there's no gain, no increased damage for my abaddon, only a nerf. It may mean another hardener on sansha/bloodraider missions, which would mean one less heatsink. I may have to get on SiSi and see how they go. I just don't see how a change affecting all ships is the best course of action, when the problem is a module, not ship, problem, as far as I can tell.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.01 02:30:00 - [95] It has traditionally been ok to run with tri-hards + DC/EANM... now I guess I'll be stuck using 3x EANM + DC again. Ah well, guess my EM resist is gonna skyrocket. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.01 03:10:00 - [96] Originally by: BlakMajiK I'm not a PvPer, so I can't really comment on if this would be a positive change or not on the pvp side of things. As I understand it though, the problem they are trying to address is that of players using EANMIIs plus a damage control II on their ships to cover all resists. This increases the already high base EM resist on armor. Thus, laser users, who rely on large amounts of EM damage and have very few options in regards to changing damage types, feel their ships perform poorly in pvp situations (as most players armor tank, to keep mid slots free for EW and so forth). Ok, I think that's right... So, would someone explain to me why I'm getting nerfed when the same effect could be achieved by reducing the EM resist increase obtained from adaptive nanos? I run missions, I don't shoot at people. I use active hardeners, and if the ship setups in this forum are a proper indicator, most other mission runners do as well. Yet, CCP is contemplating a very sweeping swing of the nerf bat, and I may feel it's sting too. And to a PvEer like myself, there's no gain, no increased damage for my abaddon, only a nerf. It may mean another hardener on sansha/bloodraider missions, which would mean one less heatsink. I may have to get on SiSi and see how they go. I just don't see how a change affecting all ships is the best course of action, when the problem is a module, not ship, problem, as far as I can tell. Yawn, PvE is stupidly easy anyways. God forbid you take 16 minutes instead of 15 to finish a L4.
Siddy Minmatar Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:02:00 - [97] Edited by: Siddy on 01/02/2008 04:05:07 /edit, after doublechekking, seems minmatar retain the bonus and is 60% by default. Looks like amarr is getting shaft :D
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.01 04:26:00 - [98] Originally by: Siddy Edited by: Siddy on 01/02/2008 04:05:07 /edit, after doublechekking, seems minmatar retain the bonus and is 60% by default. Looks like amarr is getting shaft :D Amarr were 70% before the change, their racial armor resist is em.
Siddy Minmatar Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.01 05:31:00 - [99] Edited by: Siddy on 01/02/2008 05:34:09 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Siddy Edited by: Siddy on 01/02/2008 04:05:07 /edit, after doublechekking, seems minmatar retain the bonus and is 60% by default. Looks like amarr is getting shaft :D Amarr were 70% before the change, their racial armor resist is em. quoting this just for your own embaresment. Please play 4 years as a minmatar and then come to tell me what is Tempest's base EM resistance. Also EFT is not EVE. /edit, and futuremore, Amarr racial resist is Explosive as primary, all t1 ships got it in t1 resistance and kinetik as secondary only for t2 ships.
Xequecal	Posted - 2008.02.01 05:42:00 - [100] Originally by: Liang Nuren It has traditionally been ok to run with tri-hards + DC/EANM... now I guess I'll be stuck using 3x EANM + DC again. Ah well, guess my EM resist is gonna skyrocket. -Liang .....five resist mods. In PvP. Seriously, can I see some of these fits please? Maybe if you're fitting a Devoter, Phobos, or Damnation, but otherwise I just don't see this.

Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.01 05:59:00 - [101] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 01/02/2008 06:00:29 Originally by: Xequecal Originally by: Liang Nuren It has traditionally been ok to run with tri-hards + DC/EANM... now I guess I'll be stuck using 3x EANM + DC again. Ah well, guess my EM resist is gonna skyrocket. -Liang .....five resist mods. In PvP. Seriously, can I see some of these fits please? Maybe if you're fitting a Devoter, Phobos, or Damnation, but otherwise I just don't see this. Traditionally, the / symbol has meant "or". -Liang. Ed: Which is to say that my FOUR slots are now mandatorily 3 EANMs and a DC. -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
marie claude Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.01 06:16:00 - [102] just more nerf pretending to be boost this patch gets my sig x4 trinity = EPIC FAIL
Jack Jombardo Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.01 11:19:00 - [103] Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 01/02/2008 11:21:08 -10% EM resitence to all ships => Amarr ships too => most tank-fittings will have a EM hole as Amarr tend to not use EM-Hardeners => Amarr need to find a slot for the new needed EM hardener/platings => cap problem still there, laser-fitting problems still there, NEW PROBLEM where to get EM resitences Drob DC or ENAM? => overall tank wors!! Drob CCU or CCC rigs? => more cap problems!! Drob HeatSink / TrackingUnit? => damage problem gets wors! lower resitence == FAIL !
Iva Soreass Personal Vendetta	Posted - 2008.02.01 11:40:00 - [104] And yet again we become one step closer to every one haveing the same resists, same ships, same damage. Roll on the next "boost"
Saietor Blackgreen	Posted - 2008.02.01 11:56:00 - [105] Edited by: Saietor Blackgreen on 01/02/2008 11:58:10 Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 01/02/2008 11:21:08 => most tank-fittings will have a EM hole as Amarr tend to not use EM-Hardeners lower resitence == FAIL ! Erm. "Amarr tend not to use EM hardeners"? I thought ALL armornatks tended not to use dedicated EM hardener. And they wont do it after the change either, believe me. 3hards+DC tank will just turn int 2hards+EANM+DC tank, a bit weaker overall, but still evened-out. Problem is, that PvP armortanks actually DO use EM hardeners - by slapping on 2-3 EANMS+DC. The resulting boost of EM damage is not really that needed, but it effectively gimps EM damage weapons in PvP into oblivion, as most of heavily tanked PvP ships are armortankers. Solution COULD be to reduce bonus of EANM to EM resist, but its somewhat inconsistent, and you wouldnt like to have your invu-field explosive resist nerfed for balance, right? :) Regarding cap issues of Amarr ships - they are looked into, you've been told.
Chrysalis D'lilth	Posted - 2008.02.01 12:46:00 - [106] The boost to Amarr (reduce EM resists on armour/shields) is a good proposal. The stealth nerf to Caldari & shield tanks explosive resist doesn't go unnoticed & i believe not necessary. The stealth boost to Minimatar is completely unwarranted.
Calexis Atredies Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.01 13:55:00 - [107] Originally by: Chrysalis D'lilth The boost to Amarr (reduce EM resists on armour/shields) is a good proposal. The stealth nerf to Caldari & shield tanks explosive resist doesn't go unnoticed & i believe not necessary. The stealth boost to Minimatar is completely unwarranted. Reduce EM on shields? like -10%... But I am in total agreement with the nerf to Caldari... OMG now my vulture which is supposed to have uber solid resists is going to recieve -10% base resist to explosive, do you know it takes a month to get explosive compensation to V??? It will lower it to the level of my EM resist. I'll just have to whine to CCP as it gets the job done. They nerf my Vultures shield regen and now they nerf my exp resist. Give me my fecking money or SP back!!
Monticore D'Muertos Caldari United Society Starfleet	Posted - 2008.02.01 14:00:00 - [108] Edited by: Monticore D''Muertos on 01/02/2008 14:03:37 this is a boost to dmg to everybody probly except amarr 1 expl+2x eanm+dmg ctrl leaves you with low kinetic/thermal on t1 boats so galletne win, kinetic bonused missiles win, barrage (kinetic/exp) win , amarr kinda win if they use heavy thermal dmg lazors. so everybody's tank got weaker meaning maybe fitting for gank will be viable now oh and can shields get 5% em base resists thanks
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.01 17:44:00 - [109] Originally by: Siddy Edited by: Siddy on 01/02/2008 05:34:09 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Siddy Edited by: Siddy on 01/02/2008 04:05:07 /edit, after doublechekking, seems minmatar retain the bonus and is 60% by default. Looks like amarr is getting shaft :D Amarr were 70% before the change, their racial armor resist is em. quoting this just for your own embaresment. Please play 4 years as a minmatar and then come to tell me what is Tempest's base EM resistance. Also EFT is not EVE. /edit, and futuremore, Amarr racial resist is Explosive as primary, all t1 ships got it in t1 resistance and kinetik as secondary only for t2 ships. A typo, "amarr" should have been "minmitar". Minmitar racial resist is EM, their EM resistance on armor is 70% currently. It drops to 60% after the change. If you dont believe me, log in and check, or check the item database. Or put radio into a laser and shoot at a tempest until you get to armor and record the damages.
Gorefacer Caldari Resurrection	Posted - 2008.02.01 18:35:00 - [110] 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? "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus

Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.01 18:38:00 - [111] 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.
Gorefacer Caldari Resurrection	Posted - 2008.02.01 18:49:00 - [112] Originally by: Julius Romanus 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. Not really, I've seen lots of discussion in this very thread. Some question the reasoning for increasing EXP dmg done to shields. Others postulate that use of omni-tanks will rise thereby removing the intended effect of the change. Others have suggested other ways to solve the EM damage problem. Many back and forth responses to all these issues after they are brought up. Seems to me the ones reacting like chimps are those that characterize people discussing potential game changes on the game forums as doing nothing more than "throwing ***". You might think one opinon or the other is wrong, but the fact that it's being brought up and talked about is the very purpose of these forums. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.02.01 19:58:00 - [113] Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 01/02/2008 19:59:43 Originally by: Liang Nuren It has traditionally been ok to run with tri-hards + DC/EANM... now I guess I'll be stuck using 3x EANM + DC again. Ah well, guess my EM resist is gonna skyrocket. -Liang Before changes: Basic resistances: EM: 60% Thermal: 35% Kin: 35% Explosive: 10% - 3 EANM2 + DC2 EM: 82.31% Thermal: 71.27% Kin: 71.27% Exp: 60.21% - 3 Active hardeners + DC2 EM: 66.00% Thermal: 75.13% Kin: 75.13% Exp: 65.57% After Changes: Basic resistances: EM: 50% Thermal: 35% Kin: 35% Explosive: 10% - 3 EANM2 + DC2 EM: 77.89% Thermal: 71.27% Kin: 71.27% Exp: 60.21% - 3 Active hardeners + DC2 EM: 57.50% Thermal: 75.13% Kin: 75.13% Exp: 65.57% So, if you want to take 15.57% more Explosive, Thermal AND kinetic damage, to take 47.98% less EM damage, please, be my guest. You will be awesome against amarr and a crap against everything else (especially explosive). I am sure you will find only amarr pilots in your pvp endeavours. And bad as it may be, notice that 3 EAMN II + DC II was much better before against amarr anyways. Also notice that with the sisi base EM resist of 50%, using 3 active hardeners 2 + DC2 you will take only 5.8% more EM damage than you would take Explosive damage using 3 EANM 2 + DC2. You will have to chose where you have your resit hole, because you will have either one or the other, which is a very good thing in my opinion. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Monticore D'Muertos Caldari United Society Starfleet	Posted - 2008.02.01 22:23:00 - [114] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 01/02/2008 19:59:43 Originally by: Liang Nuren It has traditionally been ok to run with tri-hards + DC/EANM... now I guess I'll be stuck using 3x EANM + DC again. Ah well, guess my EM resist is gonna skyrocket. -Liang Before changes: Basic resistances: EM: 60% Thermal: 35% Kin: 35% Explosive: 10% - 3 EANM2 + DC2 EM: 82.31% Thermal: 71.27% Kin: 71.27% Exp: 60.21% - 3 Active hardeners + DC2 EM: 66.00% Thermal: 75.13% Kin: 75.13% Exp: 65.57% After Changes: Basic resistances: EM: 50% Thermal: 35% Kin: 35% Explosive: 10% - 3 EANM2 + DC2 EM: 77.89% Thermal: 71.27% Kin: 71.27% Exp: 60.21% - 3 Active hardeners + DC2 EM: 57.50% Thermal: 75.13% Kin: 75.13% Exp: 65.57% So, if you want to take 15.57% more Explosive, Thermal AND kinetic damage, to take 47.98% less EM damage, please, be my guest. You will be awesome against amarr and a crap against everything else (especially explosive). I am sure you will find only amarr pilots in your pvp endeavours. And bad as it may be, notice that 3 EAMN II + DC II was much better before against amarr anyways. Also notice that with the sisi base EM resist of 50%, using 3 active hardeners 2 + DC2 you will take only 5.8% more EM damage than you would take Explosive damage using 3 EANM 2 + DC2. You will have to chose where you have your resit hole, because you will have either one or the other, which is a very good thing in my opinion. so what does 1 exp hard, 2x eanm and 1 dmg ctrl leave you better omni tank?
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.01 23:19:00 - [115] /me polishes up his Republic Fleet EMP M and loads it into his boomstick. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
marie claude Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.01 23:34:00 - [116] easy fix give amarr exp and kin crystals.dumb fix gimp everyones armor (even amarr so it yet another amarr nerf imho) jesus trinity = EPIC FAIL
KentuckyFriedJedi	Posted - 2008.02.02 00:05:00 - [117] Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon /me polishes up his Republic Fleet EMP M and loads it into his boomstick. nah, that EMP M is gimped... you "have to fight in falloff" with anything that uses it...
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.02.02 02:25:00 - [118] Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon /me polishes up his Republic Fleet EMP M and loads it into his boomstick. I wouldn't do that. In most cases, for damage Republic fleet Phased plasma, which is not affected by any of these changes, is still better than EMP against shield AND armor. That alone shows how bad EMP was and still is. There are veryfew cases where EMP is useful. In this cases it was boosted. But well, I wouldn't count on finding one of those cases more than once in a looong while if I were you... ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Tarron Sarek Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.02.02 03:19:00 - [119] Originally by: Trevor Warps 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 Ahh, some insight :) Could this be balance after all? Omg! ___________________________________ - 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
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.02.02 07:18:00 - [120] Originally by: Monticore D'Muertos Originally by: Etho Demerzel (snip) So, if you want to take 15.57% more Explosive, Thermal AND kinetic damage, to take 47.98% less EM damage, please, be my guest. You will be awesome against amarr and a crap against everything else (especially explosive). I am sure you will find only amarr pilots in your pvp endeavours. And bad as it may be, notice that 3 EAMN II + DC II was much better before against amarr anyways. Also notice that with the sisi base EM resist of 50%, using 3 active hardeners 2 + DC2 you will take only 5.8% more EM damage than you would take Explosive damage using 3 EANM 2 + DC2. You will have to chose where you have your resit hole, because you will have either one or the other, which is a very good thing in my opinion. so what does 1 exp hard, 2x eanm and 1 dmg ctrl leave you better omni tank? You get good EM and explosive resists and bad Thermal and Kinetic. As you know nobody in the game uses kinetic and Thermal and Gallente are very impopular in pvp. So you shouldn't have any problems, right? And nobody uses thermal drones or kinetic missiles anyways. You can risk having those resists low in your tank ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...



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.