| 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
|
|
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 21:43:00 -
[31]
Republic Fleet EMP ftw! 
---
CEO
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 21:43:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Trevor Warps
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.
2-3% vs all is not worth 50% against EM.
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 21:45:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Jin Entres
Republic Fleet EMP ftw!
This was my thought really.
Decent damage boost on both shields *and* armor.
I'm reserving judgement until the ship and module changes get announced though, because unlike a lot of people, I don't actually think EM damage was that bad to begin with. 
__________________________________
|
Trevor Warps
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 21:58:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Goumindong
2-3% vs all is not worth 50% against EM.
Well, lets take a gallente BS as example. For active, its a gain of 4% therm and kin, 5% of explo and 16% loss on EM.
On a BS dual rep setup it can make a difference of over 100 dps tanked of explosive damage. So yes, it can be worth it, especially if you dont get hit by em dmg at all.
But if you are a goon and can't think outside EFT flat stats and blobs, i can understand your failure.
|
Trevor Warps
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:01:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Trevor Warps on 30/01/2008 22:02:14
Originally by: Jin Entres
Republic Fleet EMP ftw!
Aye, agreed.
Originally by: Terianna Eri
I'm reserving judgement until the ship and module changes get announced though, because unlike a lot of people, I don't actually think EM damage was that bad to begin with.
Yep, as well.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:01:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Jin Entres
Republic Fleet EMP ftw!
This was my thought really.
Decent damage boost on both shields *and* armor.
I'm reserving judgement until the ship and module changes get announced though, because unlike a lot of people, I don't actually think EM damage was that bad to begin with.
I don't think it was bad to begin with, it's just that most pvp ships omni tank these days and EM is your primary damage type on lasers. Lasers as such tend to put out inordinately low amounts of damage in exchange for exorbinant amounts of cap that reduces your overall endurance. In extreme cases, Amarr ships can actually drain their cap off of guns alone (even with high skills), and thus they require several cap mods in order to keep firing much less tanking. So the basic problem comes down to the fact that Amarr ships on average are lacking the endurance they need to win on sheer tank and they lack the firepower to win on sheer gank, and they lack the speed to use that as any sort of advantage.
That being said, I've still enjoyed Amarr more than Caldari.
|
Trevor Warps
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:22:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
I don't think it was bad to begin with, it's just that most pvp ships omni tank these days and EM is your primary damage type on lasers. Lasers as such tend to put out inordinately low amounts of damage in exchange for exorbinant amounts of cap that reduces your overall endurance. In extreme cases, Amarr ships can actually drain their cap off of guns alone (even with high skills), and thus they require several cap mods in order to keep firing much less tanking. So the basic problem comes down to the fact that Amarr ships on average are lacking the endurance they need to win on sheer tank and they lack the firepower to win on sheer gank, and they lack the speed to use that as any sort of advantage.
Damage fitted Abaddon are quite the hurt tho. I am no amarr pilot but i have received some laser lovin and it was quite hot. If this change goes through I think we will see alot of passive armor and damage fitted abaddons and geddons.
I have no problem with amarr being good, i just dont like the idea of 3x eanm II + DC being the only valid 'resist hvy' fitting, maybe except for minmatars, who will still be at 60% base em. With 10% less EM on armor, i doubt it will still be worth the gamble of fitting active hards vs passive.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:25:00 -
[38]
BAD BAD move CCP! Try to use your bBRAINS!!
What will happen now?
Everyone that was using tripple hardeners will drop in favor of EANM because 50% is not enough resist to be left untouched.
As result the overal EM resist wil raise!!
BAD MOVE!
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Trevor Warps
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:30:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Trevor Warps on 30/01/2008 22:32:39
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
BAD BAD move CCP! Try to use your bBRAINS!!
What will happen now?
Everyone that was using tripple hardeners will drop in favor of EANM because 50% is not enough resist to be left untouched.
As result the overal EM resist wil raise!!
BAD MOVE!
lol
This
Edit : Tbh, i'd up the ROF on lasers that needs it (small-meds maybe). More dmg, more cap drain drawback.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:36:00 -
[40]
The guys doign game balance must start thinking on how people wil react and less on raw numbers!! What they need to do is make somethign so that peopel wil not want to fit EANM all the time. How you do that?
How about boostign the Active hardeners a bit?
How about creatign a dual resit passive hardeners. (1 that increases EM/Kin other for Thermal /Expl. And make them give 27% resist bonus. Peopel will likely use 1 EANM II and one Explosive/Thermal one (the damages most seen in PVP) Overall EM resist diminishes. Nto because CCP force soemthing. But because they make people happy of havign a new better option!!
1/10 for game balance dept in CCP . Go back to user psicology 101.
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
|
|
Zhulik
Abyss Restless
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:40:00 -
[41]
How come it says "amarr"? Sounds more like a minnie boost to me, reducing their "racial" resist on the shield and giving emp, their most damaging ammo type, more oomph when firing into armor. Not that I'm complaining though.
|
Shevar
Minmatar
A.W.M
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:43:00 -
[42]
Trying to fix resists without taking into account the tech2 resists makes me cry.
Not to mention cap use will still be horrid.
A better option would be to just lower cap use on lasers and redesign the ship bonuses. But ohwell it is a slight boost for amarr/minmatar so I won't complain if this does go live, although I do hope for a bit more then just slight resist adjustments.
---
-The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
Shardrael
Caldari
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:46:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Shardrael on 30/01/2008 22:47:16
yay do the happy dance 
amarr and minmatar my two favs both getting a boost in the same patch 
edit: well technically minny only getting a boost against shield tanking but ill take what I can get
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 22:57:00 -
[44]
that is NERF to amarr. A NERF!!! Everyone without exception wll use 3 EANM and DC II. Average EM resist will RAise and others will lower.
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Atsuko Ratu
Caldari
VSP Corp.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:51:00 -
[45]
Sigh, now Amarr will do the same damage they did to me before. 
|
Sniggerdly Hater
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 05:16:00 -
[46]
Remove EANMs from the game.
|
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 05:33:00 -
[47]
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.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 06:29:00 -
[48]
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.
|
Temporusa
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 06:49:00 -
[49]
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!
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 06:55:00 -
[50]
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.
|
|
|
Tsu'ko
Valley Forge
STELLAR LEGION
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 07:12:00 -
[51]
Nice change, just make active hardeners easier to fit.
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 07:16:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 31/01/2008 07:15:54
Originally by: Julius Romanus
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.
lasers do some therm dmg too -.- and the em resis on shields are already low thats why its more a boost to minmatar close combat than to amarr lasers because they will do high dmg to armor and shields if this goes on tranqu
|
Saietor Blackgreen
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 07:51:00 -
[53]
Those who suggest the theory of "people will just boost the EM resist" dont think much, it seems.
Dont put "uniform damage" in your EFT and quote numbers. Try to analyse REAL damage proportions of each weapon, and how damage dealt by them will change if EM resists on your armor are dropped and your tankk gets reconfigured.
You say "slap on more EM resists"? Well, then gimp your thermal-kinetic resists significantly and die horribly to Gallente blasters and Caldari kinetic missiles.
As for Minmatar EMP - true, this thing gets even more versatile than ever, but the uberpower of this ammo myth comes again from EFT. This ammo always work in falloff, so its effective DPS is never as extreme as it looks in EFT. I dont expect it to become THAT powerful.
CCP, you are good guys.
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:17:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 31/01/2008 08:17:24
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
You say "slap on more EM resists"? Well, then gimp your thermal-kinetic resists significantly and die horribly to Gallente blasters and Caldari kinetic missiles.
epic fail
you are a troll nothing more, did I said"OMG BIG ORACLE EFT TELLS IT!" using EFT as an argument in your opinions shows us that you have no clue.
and you forget the resistance on gallente and caldari got reduced too that means you either fit for all 4 dmg types and can resist 4 races decently or you fit for 3 dmg types like before where EM was still the lowest and you got shred by 1-2 races of ships.
|
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:21:00 -
[55]
This does not change the main problem that many amarr ships are still better off equipping projectiles. You need to find something that will make lasers BETTER than projectiles when equipped on an amarr ship, with out making lasers better than they currently are when equipped on 'non amarr' ships.
|
Saietor Blackgreen
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:23:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 31/01/2008 08:17:24
and you forget the resistance on gallente and caldari got reduced too that means you either fit for all 4 dmg types and can resist 4 races decently or you fit for 3 dmg types like before where EM was still the lowest and you got shred by 1-2 races of ships.
Exactly. How that is NOT boost to laser weapons? Armor omnitanks got their EM resists lowered (25% more damage from EM now), and non-omnitanks that dont tank EM have their EM hole even bigger.
Isnt that the goal?
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:28:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 31/01/2008 08:34:36
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
stuff
this change is an epic fail if it goes on tranqu, I mean reduced EM resis on armor and EXP resis on shields on all ships results in:
1. Minmatar do more dmg with.... everything on anyone
2. Amarr do more dmg to armor. tackling abilities and dmg still (omni tankts ftw, therm heavier lasers lol) will be the same like before.
3. Gallente stays the same
4. Caldari shield tanks got a nerf which are already useless in pvp. tackling abilities and dmg still will be the same like before.
that results in:
1. since tanks on all ships are weaker and minmatar got the biggest boost with this, they will got much better then any other race, its not like no one uses them right?
2. amarr will be inline with gallente except in ewar capabilities which still puts gallente over amarr.
3. amarr will still have some problems with cap and fittings
4. caldari are the biggest loosers now because they cant tackle and tank at the same time and they dont have the speed of minmatar ships to avoid the others running away. their tanks will be even reduced now and their use kinetic/therm like gallente most of the time which means the reduced resis wont change a thing. only thing they can do now is ecm.
that means:
1. every one will use minmatar for dmg and mobility
2. caldari will be only an ecm biatch
3. gallente stays like it is now, high dps, versatile
4. amarr will be still behind everything
5. this does not fix the problem that many amarr ships are still better off equipping projectiles or the fact the the rax do more dmg with lasers then every other amarr cruiser.
6. nothing got changed except caldari looks even worse now for pvp. Its just one reason more to fit 2 eanm and a dc.
and btw l2dothemathright because your forget that lasers do therm dmg too and the dev blog says "Adjust the ratio of EM/Thermal in crystals to be Thermal heavier or at least 50/50 split" now try again.
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:42:00 -
[58]
This change was predicted by quite a few players after the EANM changes. Glad to see it's finally getting implemented.
Quote:
Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
Veryez
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 10:03:00 -
[59]
While I understand the reduction in armor EM resist, what possible reason is there for reducing shield EXP resist? When did shield tanking become powerful in PvP? Shield tanking is already an inferior type of tanking and this will only make it worse. And while I do carry EMP ammo in my ships, the number of times I load it is far less than most would think, spreading your damage across 3 resists isn't all that useful.
|
Mrski Okupator
Amarr
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 10:33:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
cosmic fail
1. Stealth minmatar boost? They got the lowest overall dps. So I'm quite OK with this.
2.OK. Amarr do more dmg to armor. Repeat after me; Amarr do more dmg to armor.
3. Gallente stays the same. On top of its game. Fine. I never whined I needed the best stuff, just to be competitive.
4. Caldari shield tanks lost nothing. Em is still their largest hole and Kin/Therm their second largest concern (yes, Frenchies). And no, they do not fear minmatar.
This results in:
1. Amarr gets boosted a little. Minmatar a bit too. Good.
2. Gallente still top dog, Amarr gettin there. But mid slot gimpage is always gonn bring us down.
3. Amarr will still have some problems with cap and fittings. True. Note that I have AWU5 and stuff and still have fitting issues. Mainly beams/tachs, and with any fit on any cruiser/frigate. Note also that fixing fitting is on the to do list. Zealot!
4. Caldari are the same. Torp boosted recently same. And as for tackling goes, let me use the phrase oh so many times used to discredit amarr midslot whinage; get a tackler.
Overall, this is a step in the right direction. What pains me tho, I fear after this half-boost its gonna stop there. Never again shall we see an atempt to boost Amarr. And them issues are many with nerf after nerf over the years.
___
|
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 10:41:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Mrski Okupator
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
cosmic fail
1. Stealth minmatar boost? They got the lowest overall dps. So I'm quite OK with this.
2.OK. Amarr do more dmg to armor. Repeat after me; Amarr do more dmg to armor.
3. Gallente stays the same. On top of its game. Fine. I never whined I needed the best stuff, just to be competitive.
4. Caldari shield tanks lost nothing. Em is still their largest hole and Kin/Therm their second largest concern (yes, Frenchies). And no, they do not fear minmatar.
This results in:
1. Amarr gets boosted a little. Minmatar a bit too. Good.
2. Gallente still top dog, Amarr gettin there. But mid slot gimpage is always gonn bring us down.
3. Amarr will still have some problems with cap and fittings. True. Note that I have AWU5 and stuff and still have fitting issues. Mainly beams/tachs, and with any fit on any cruiser/frigate. Note also that fixing fitting is on the to do list. Zealot!
4. Caldari are the same. Torp boosted recently same. And as for tackling goes, let me use the phrase oh so many times used to discredit amarr midslot whinage; get a tackler.
Overall, this is a step in the right direction. What pains me tho, I fear after this half-boost its gonna stop there. Never again shall we see an atempt to boost Amarr. And them issues are many with nerf after nerf over the years.
your annalysis wil ony be true if no one changes their setups. This will not happen. For smaller ships that used to have only 1 EANM + DC tank you are right. But for bigger shisp that used to have 3 HArdeners + EANM (for a very very balanced resist overall, but with EM as lowest) this wont be true. Won 't be true because no one in their sane mind will fly with EM resist under 60%. So they will all use Omni Tanks. That will nullify the "amarr boost " and will help gallente and minmatar.
Again, when next time you see a typhoon in batle and he is using 3 EANMII + DC II. Don 't complain of stupid Em resists. In past he would be using only 1 DC to boost his EM Resists.
Simply changing EANM to give 15% EM resist and 20% resist to others. Would have solved all this OmniTank problem.
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Aki Corrino
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 10:53:00 -
[62]
I dont understand why they dont just give energy weapons a damage modifier boost.
Changing something fundamental like all races base armor/shieldresists is asking for unwanted side effects.
|
Jonny JoJo
Amarr
The Imperial Guards
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 11:10:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Jonny JoJo on 31/01/2008 11:11:07
Originally by: Aki Corrino
I dont understand why they dont just give energy weapons a damage modifier boost.
Changing something fundamental like all races base armor/shieldresists is asking for unwanted side effects.
That is exactly what they have done, except they did it in a rather strange way.
Reducing Em resist by 10%, is exactly the same as increasing the em damage portion. However, insted of increasing the damage output of lasers or fixing Armour Compensation SKills (thus removing EANM issues overnight), they are changing ships basic resists.
So yeah, while your Amarr ship fires for a couple of minutes then does 0dps after it runs out of cap, while Minmatar gain massivly as republic L is very viable.
In the end, the Laser Thorax will still beat the Laser omen so nothing has changed - Amarr are still broken
Sig locked, lack of Eve content |
Durao
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 11:11:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Aki Corrino
I dont understand why they dont just give energy weapons a damage modifier boost.
Changing something fundamental like all races base armor/shieldresists is asking for unwanted side effects.
But EM damage was gimped against armor as a whole. Not just lasers. Yes, the patch boosts Amarr, but it also helps anyone who happens to use EM Missiles, yes - some Minmatar ammo, maybe even Amarr drones etc. |
Saietor Blackgreen
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 11:15:00 -
[65]
Ok, lets set it once again.
Problem to solve - increase efficiency of lasers (EMP damage) against popular PvP omnitanks in comparance to other weapons, thus increasing popularity of laser platforms.
Source of problem was that EANM omnitanking - one of the most popular PvP tanking schemes - leads to unbelievably high EM resists as a side effect (as in example with typhoon with 3eanms+dc above). Also, inherent resists of armor to EM are so high, that 3hardeners+DC setup has no major hole in EM.
AFTER change in resists we have:
EM resists lowered on EANM omnitanks - check! - 25% more DPS from EM here.
EM hole in 3hardeners+DC setup increased in size - check! - 25% more DPS from EM here.
Explosive resists reduction decrease leads to minmatar primary weapon systems more effective against shieldtanks. Is that a problem? As far as I remember, PvP shieldtankers have never been concerned about explosive damage, and they STILL wont be - its their highest resist anyway. Tanking Angels will get harder in PvE - thats for sure :)
|
Saietor Blackgreen
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 11:19:00 -
[66]
Increasing damage mod on lasers will increase their effectiveness against armor, but also incredibly boost their efficiency against shields, so solution of "increase damagemod on lasers" is not as obvious as it seems.
Though I still think its better option, that can be done in a balanced way.
I still say that this resists change, if implemented, will not "OMG ruin everything". It has drawbacks - so does any other change.
|
Kykio
Caldari
Megadodo Publications
The Sphere Confederation
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 11:48:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 31/01/2008 08:34:36
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
stuff
this change is an epic fail if it goes on tranqu, I mean reduced EM resis on armor and EXP resis on shields on all ships results in:
1. Minmatar do more dmg with.... everything on anyone
2. Amarr do more dmg to armor. tackling abilities and dmg still (omni tankts ftw, therm heavier lasers lol) will be the same like before.
3. Gallente stays the same
4. Caldari shield tanks got a nerf which are already useless in pvp. tackling abilities and dmg still will be the same like before.
that results in:
1. since tanks on all ships are weaker and minmatar got the biggest boost with this, they will got much better then any other race, its not like no one uses them right?
2. amarr will be inline with gallente except in ewar capabilities which still puts gallente over amarr.
3. amarr will still have some problems with cap and fittings
4. caldari are the biggest loosers now because they cant tackle and tank at the same time and they dont have the speed of minmatar ships to avoid the others running away. their tanks will be even reduced now and their use kinetic/therm like gallente most of the time which means the reduced resis wont change a thing. only thing they can do now is ecm.
that means:
1. every one will use minmatar for dmg and mobility
2. caldari will be only an ecm biatch
3. gallente stays like it is now, high dps, versatile
4. amarr will be still behind everything
5. this does not fix the problem that many amarr ships are still better off equipping projectiles or the fact the the rax do more dmg with lasers then every other amarr cruiser.
6. nothing got changed except caldari looks even worse now for pvp. Its just one reason more to fit 2 eanm and a dc.
and btw l2dothemathright because your forget that lasers do therm dmg too and the dev blog says "Adjust the ratio of EM/Thermal in crystals to be Thermal heavier or at least 50/50 split" now try again.
This!
|
Discombulator
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 12:09:00 -
[68]
What about this is not only boost to matar, but nice nerf too?
Matar armor resists are 70% em, 10% exp, 25% kin, 35% therm
Gallente armor resists are 60% em, 10% exp, 35% kin, 35% therm
So matars have 10% more in em, then in kin (over gallente).
Now they take 10% em from gallente, but 20% from matar.
I'm not sure if i'll like it...
|
kessah
Blood Corsair's
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 12:14:00 -
[69]
Gah, i dont care about this tbh, even as An Amarr player. All i want is the Apoc boosted. I hate not having all three ships usable.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 12:16:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Discombulator
What about this is not only boost to matar, but nice nerf too?
Matar armor resists are 70% em, 10% exp, 25% kin, 35% therm
Gallente armor resists are 60% em, 10% exp, 35% kin, 35% therm
So matars have 10% more in em, then in kin (over gallente).
Now they take 10% em from gallente, but 20% from matar.
I'm not sure if i'll like it...
If they don't give Minmatar ships their 10% more EM resist, then we quite definitely need it given somewhere else, because having 10% less resists then everyone else (even if they're stupid EM resists, give me kinetic any day) is idiotic.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
Kykio
Caldari
Megadodo Publications
The Sphere Confederation
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 12:24:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Discombulator
What about this is not only boost to matar, but nice nerf too?
Matar armor resists are 70% em, 10% exp, 25% kin, 35% therm
Gallente armor resists are 60% em, 10% exp, 35% kin, 35% therm
So matars have 10% more in em, then in kin (over gallente).
Now they take 10% em from gallente, but 20% from matar.
I'm not sure if i'll like it...
If they don't give Minmatar ships their 10% more EM resist, then we quite definitely need it given somewhere else, because having 10% less resists then everyone else (even if they're stupid EM resists, give me kinetic any day) is idiotic.
Not realy ,because matar ships have the smallest signature radiuses. So if you count that they are harder to hit by guns and take less damage from missiles, their resist even higher than the other 3 races ships.
I would give matar much less resist.
|
AFTRUNX
Human Liberty Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 12:26:00 -
[72]
hmm.. i dont know if change resists is really the solution..
for me as a Caldari shield Tanker AMARR is the hardest enemy in the Game.. also on T2 ships.. And Matar also with EMP Ammo.. Best i can deal is Angel (only in Missions) and Hybrid on PVP...
For me the best solution is to give more crystals (Explo or Kin) and really to reduce the cap need for the guns!
I have really good Engineering skills, but it's difficult for me to keep alive a good tank and deal damage.. and due lack of mid slots in some ships you have to choise between a AB or a Cap booster.. :/
AFT
PS: sorry for my bad English 
--------------------------------------------
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 12:34:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Mrski Okupator
I have not points in my arguments
haha you ever heard of people changing their setups?
|
6Bagheera9
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 12:52:00 -
[74]
Just flip the EM/Thermal damage ratio for lasers ffs!
|
Kaileen Starsong
Amarr
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 13:08:00 -
[75]
Originally by: 6Bagheera9
Just flip the EM/Thermal damage ratio for lasers ffs!
That'll be much more ******** than this current... change can ever hope to be tbh.
|
Captain Dralisz
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 13:09:00 -
[76]
I start calculating in excel the resistances and damage taken.
so the jaguar and the zealot:
if the damage is 100 on armor: matar take 7,5 (before 92,5%) 10 after(after 90%) its 125% of growing
if the damage is 100 on shield: matar take 40 (before 60%) 50 (after 50%) its 133% of growing
if the damage is 100 on armor: amarr take 40 (before 60%) 50 (after 50%) its same as the matar shield 133%
if the damage is 100 on shield: amarr take 10 (before 90%) 20 (after 80%) its 200% of growing WTF?!
omg 200% it mean the avarga stats: matar vurable against exp and em with: 129,1666667% and amarr is 162,5%?
amarr boost? or matar? :D so i know its more complex but you can see something is very wrong.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 13:18:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Kykio
Not realy ,because matar ships have the smallest signature radiuses. So if you count that they are harder to hit by guns and take less damage from missiles, their resist even higher than the other 3 races ships.
I would give matar much less resist.
When fighting Minmatar short-range frigs/cruisers/BCs/BS/capital ships, tracking is only a issue if you are a total noob, and in case you didn't know, sig size differences are only applied (mutliplied) into tracking.
Missile explosion radius is only a issue if you are firing T1 heavies on a frig or T1 cruises/torps on a cruiser really.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Mrski Okupator
Amarr
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 13:44:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
/cut
1 eanm2 on 50% em base gives 62.5% rezist. About the same as hardened exp.
2 eanm2s equal 70%. High enough?
Add a third and a DC?
Of course, minnie ships will now have 60% base em rezists.
No, I don't think this will have an impact on most setups. My BS will still be dual hardened at best (exp+kin), sacri will have an eanm+plate, cruiser are still crap and rest arent really tanked anyway.
Besides; according to statistics, only 16% ships in eve are Amarr.
___
|
Kykio
Caldari
Megadodo Publications
The Sphere Confederation
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 13:54:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Kykio on 31/01/2008 13:55:31
Edited by: Kykio on 31/01/2008 13:55:14
Originally by: Cpt Branko
When fighting Minmatar short-range frigs/cruisers/BCs/BS/capital ships, tracking is only a issue if you are a total noob, and in case you didn't know, sig size differences are only applied (mutliplied) into tracking.
Missile explosion radius is only a issue if you are firing T1 heavies on a frig or T1 cruises/torps on a cruiser really.
It is the matar player, who should uses his ship to avoid damage. Thats why it has high speed to choose fight distance.
And still matar ships take less dmg than others.
It is a resist.
|
Captain Dralisz
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 14:00:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Captain Dralisz on 31/01/2008 14:04:29
total points -armor%- shield%
astarte392,49 -46,875-51,2475
slepinir 395,6 -53,125-45,775
absolution 385,62 -41,875-54,53
caldari394,99 -48,125-50,6225
matar have the most resistances
|
|
|
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 16:26:00 -
[81]
Just when I thought things were looking too good to be true for Minmatar - the buffed us. . .this is a huge boost to EMP ammo.
In all honesty, I think this is a bad idea not because of the changes in general but because the changes are meant to boost Amarr - and in that regard - they end up boosting Minmatar more then they do Amarr.
-----------
|
KD.Fluffy
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 18:43:00 -
[82]
CCP bad idea! Ever since I started playing this game, the ships I train have received nerf after nerf Rolling Eyes This game is supposed to be about diversity, and with changes like this, your moving the game towards homogeneity. Sure CERTAIN amarr ships need a buff, but is it really necessary to nerf, all other races? I suggest you look at the fitting requirements for tachyons in certain cases, and buff a select few ships that are in actual need of a buff.
|
xxxak
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:09:00 -
[83]
This is actually a big Caldari nerf! Our strong explosive resists on shield is one of the few things Caldari have going for them. You need to change Caldari shield resists so that Caldari explosive resist is higher than the armor tanking races.
|
Seeing EyeDog
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:49:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Madla Mafia
If that change gets implemented on Tranq, I can finally remove my signature.
orrrr u can change it to...
Minmatar - OMGWTFBBQing your ships since 2008
_____________________
Originally by: Locus Bey
Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
|
The Djego
Minmatar
FORTES FORTUNA ADIUVAT CORP.
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 20:07:00 -
[85]
Edited by: The Djego on 31/01/2008 20:13:00
It is quite funny how many People scream "Omg they nerfed my Tank." I still bett all my ISK to never see a Explosive Hardner on a Shild Tank or a EM Hardner on a Armor Tank in PVP. Nobody that got a other Choice would use Explosive against Shilds or EM against Armor. Setups won¦t change after this, like they don¦t realy changed after the EANM Nerf.
Will it increase EANM Omni Tanking, mayby but this is allready the Nr 1 Armortanking Form of Eve. Hardnertanks get a bigger EM Hole right, but if you fit Hardner you don¦t fear EM in PVP anyway(it is by far the Damagetype that you will face at least if you don¦t face a Amarr).
To all the People that complaint EMP Anmo will be overpowert, a little Hint, Phased Plasma is in 90% of all real PVP Situations better against both Schild and Armor atm, because of the Damage Spread between Explosive and EM...
Also if CCP realy put her hands on the Thermal/EM Ratio of Crystalls(what i realy would support in a smaller extend) this Change will be mostly something nobody talks about in 6 Month. Like People don¦t complain about the EANM CPU nerf now... 
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Jonny JoJo
425 II In PVE? Surely hybrid users use Blaster in PvE.
|
Kruel
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 20:07:00 -
[86]
Nerfing explosive resists on shield tanks is a "consistency nerf"... kind of like how tracking disruptors got nerfed recently when they were near useless to begin with.
From a consistency standpoint it makes sense. Which means something else needs to be done to make shield tanking ships in pvp more desirable. Making the shield boost amp a lowslot instead of midslot mod might help.
|
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 20:13:00 -
[87]
The problem with shield tanking ships is the crappy 5/6 slot configuration, which restricts them to a 3-slot tank. Guess what? The Tempest with a 6/5 slot config has a crappy armor tank too. To fix shield tanks, the Raven and Maelstrom should get a 4/7 slot config.
|
Skeiron
Wretched Industries
New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 20:58:00 -
[88]
Minmatar didn't get "a huge boost to EM ammo", increase in dps is like 5-7% tops while Amarr get a 11-13% boost. Also, Minmatar only gets a boost to EMP ammo (while everyone with a brain would use T2 ammo in most cases anyways), whereas all layz0rs are boosted for Amarr.
-------------------------
No more alt-posts!!!
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Minmatar ships look like someone built a racecar with parts out of a junkyard. |
Katarlia Simov
Minmatar
Cowboys From Hell
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 21:29:00 -
[89]
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.
|
Bronson Hughes
Knights of the Wild
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 22:06:00 -
[90]
If this change goes live, the ships it will impact the least are the ones with ship bonuses to shield or armor resists. Which, oddly enough, translates to a boost (in the form of a reduced nerf) for Amarr and Caldari.
Now, how long until we get a 'ZOMG Nerf the Maller, it can sitll omni-tank without a huge EM hole!!!!11!!!one!!1one!!eleventyone!' thread....
Welcome to EvE.
--------------------
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
|
|
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] |