Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RC Denton
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 00:48:00 -
[1]
So with this "Amarr" boost everyone gets a nerf. And in the blog zulupark notes that armor tanks are more popular than shield tanks in pvp. One could say that's because it's hard to get high omni resists on shields esp with t1 ships, or that most pvp modules are midslot modules. But with this "boost" shield tanked ships get a double nerf. Now not only do they get hammered by a shield resist nerf to explosive damage (how exactly does that boost amarr?) they get the armor nerf also which means that shield tanked ships will now tank even less dps overall.
Zulupark also mentions that just boosting amarr would leave EM drones and missiles out in the cold. Well the issue was not EM Drones and missiles need a boost, it was Amarr need a boost. And nerfing everyone so that the poor little missiles and drones feel the love is just really annoying.
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 00:50:00 -
[2]
I agree, this seems very poorly thought out. Maybe they should do their thinking at the office instead of at the pub. -- Guile can always trump hardware -- |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 00:53:00 -
[3]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 31/01/2008 00:53:24 oh boy more whining.
try the offical thread so a dev reads in attention *****.
|
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 00:55:00 -
[4]
I think a part of my brain just died. You're claiming that the resistance nerf impacts shields more than armor tankers because....?
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 01:00:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad I think a part of my brain just died. You're claiming that the resistance nerf impacts shields more than armor tankers because....?
LoL yes.
Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II |
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 01:08:00 -
[6]
Originally by: RC Denton And in the blog zulupark notes that armor tanks are more popular than shield tanks in pvp.
If the halfwit ever bothered to log in on Tranquility, he'd realize it has NOTHING to do with resists, and everything to do with slot allocation. Low slot armor tanks conflict less with the vital equipment of PvP than the mid slot dependent shield tanks. Ewar and tackling both require allocation in the mid slots, which pretty much eliminates vital PvP functionality from shield tanking starships.
This resist circle jerk is a complete farce.
In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device. |
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 01:23:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel I agree, this seems very poorly thought out. Maybe they should do their thinking at the office instead of at the pub.
The resist nerf is very poorly thought out as it helps Minmatar out more than Amarr..
Why not just raise the damage of energy weapons 10+% lower the rate of fire by 5+% therefore giving it a slight damage/cap usage boost...
And fix the Apoc so there is a point to use it over the Geddon..
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 02:29:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Rastigan
Originally by: Guillame Herschel I agree, this seems very poorly thought out. Maybe they should do their thinking at the office instead of at the pub.
The resist nerf is very poorly thought out as it helps Minmatar out more than Amarr..
Why not just raise the damage of energy weapons 10+% lower the rate of fire by 5+% therefore giving it a slight damage/cap usage boost...
And fix the Apoc so there is a point to use it over the Geddon..
Its a tiny % of the overall damage of the ammo, hardly a massive help to EMP. ---------------------------------
Oh noes! |
Cpt Fina
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 02:30:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Cpt Fina on 31/01/2008 02:30:59
Originally by: Rastigan
Originally by: Guillame Herschel I agree, this seems very poorly thought out. Maybe they should do their thinking at the office instead of at the pub.
The resist nerf is very poorly thought out as it helps Minmatar out more than Amarr..
Why not just raise the damage of energy weapons 10+% lower the rate of fire by 5+% therefore giving it a slight damage/cap usage boost...
And fix the Apoc so there is a point to use it over the Geddon..
Have you run the numbers and compared the increased damage of minmatar and amarr ammo on shield or armour?
I would really like to know, honestly.
|
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 03:14:00 -
[10]
Please stop with the EMP buff fallacy. The effective DPS of this ammo against a tank was hardly altered due to the damage type split the ammo possesses, and the resistance nerfs being on separate tank types.
|
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 03:24:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel this seems very poorly thought out.
Has there been a Zulupark dev blog so far that doesn't fit that description?
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 03:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Guillame Herschel this seems very poorly thought out.
Has there been a Zulupark dev blog so far that doesn't fit that description?
Mostly I find its the ill thought through, bandwagon style posts about those blogs..... ---------------------------------
Oh noes! |
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 03:32:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Please stop with the EMP buff fallacy. The effective DPS of this ammo against a tank was hardly altered due to the damage type split the ammo possesses, and the resistance nerfs being on separate tank types.
How is it a fallacy ? EMP does 3 damage types and the proposed resistance nerf is for the two highest damage types of EMP, explosive and EM.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:06:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Arana Tellen
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Guillame Herschel this seems very poorly thought out.
Has there been a Zulupark dev blog so far that doesn't fit that description?
Mostly I find its the ill thought through, bandwagon style posts about those blogs.....
Considering your post in the other thread showing clearly how you don't understand how resistances are applied and what stacking penalties actually are, I wouldn't call anyone else's posts "ill though through" if I were you.
|
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:08:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Rastigan
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Please stop with the EMP buff fallacy. The effective DPS of this ammo against a tank was hardly altered due to the damage type split the ammo possesses, and the resistance nerfs being on separate tank types.
How is it a fallacy ? EMP does 3 damage types and the proposed resistance nerf is for the two highest damage types of EMP, explosive and EM.
Because they're either shield tanked or armor tanked. Only one of those is applicable at one time, and the other two damage types mitigate the advantage that one now has. EMP benefits far less from this than everyone seems to think.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:13:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: Rastigan
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Please stop with the EMP buff fallacy. The effective DPS of this ammo against a tank was hardly altered due to the damage type split the ammo possesses, and the resistance nerfs being on separate tank types.
How is it a fallacy ? EMP does 3 damage types and the proposed resistance nerf is for the two highest damage types of EMP, explosive and EM.
Because they're either shield tanked or armor tanked. Only one of those is applicable at one time, and the other two damage types mitigate the advantage that one now has. EMP benefits far less from this than everyone seems to think.
Regardless of which one they tank, a person using emp is still going to be doing quite a bit more damage than before. He is not going to be doing as much more damage against armor tankers as a laser user will, but a laser user on the other hand will only be doing more damage than before against armor tankers, not both.
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:25:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Arana Tellen
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Guillame Herschel this seems very poorly thought out.
Has there been a Zulupark dev blog so far that doesn't fit that description?
Mostly I find its the ill thought through, bandwagon style posts about those blogs.....
Considering your post in the other thread showing clearly how you don't understand how resistances are applied and what stacking penalties actually are, I wouldn't call anyone else's posts "ill though through" if I were you.
Lets take a look shall we:
50% (now apply 2 hardners tech II so 55% each) (0.45x0.45x0.5)^((1/3)^0.25) = 82.45% 60% (now apply 2 hardners tech II so 55% each) (0.45x0.45x0.4)^((1/3)^0.25) = 85.1%
17.54/14.9 = 17.7% increase in damage of ONE TYPE in the mission.
Wow that would really rock my missioning world..... ---------------------------------
Oh noes! |
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:45:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild Regardless of which one they tank, a person using emp is still going to be doing quite a bit more damage than before. He is not going to be doing as much more damage against armor tankers as a laser user will, but a laser user on the other hand will only be doing more damage than before against armor tankers, not both.
Quite a bit more is quite a bit inaccurate. There will be an increase in actual DPS, but it's fairly minor for the reasons I've stated above. The buff is so useful to lasers because they already shred shields. The only issue was omni tanked armor, and now that's much less of a factor.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:46:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Arana Tellen
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Arana Tellen
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Guillame Herschel this seems very poorly thought out.
Has there been a Zulupark dev blog so far that doesn't fit that description?
Mostly I find its the ill thought through, bandwagon style posts about those blogs.....
Considering your post in the other thread showing clearly how you don't understand how resistances are applied and what stacking penalties actually are, I wouldn't call anyone else's posts "ill though through" if I were you.
Lets take a look shall we:
50% (now apply 2 hardners tech II so 55% each) (0.45x0.45x0.5)^((1/3)^0.25) = 82.45% 60% (now apply 2 hardners tech II so 55% each) (0.45x0.45x0.4)^((1/3)^0.25) = 85.1%
17.54/14.9 = 17.7% increase in damage of ONE TYPE in the mission.
Wow that would really rock my missioning world.....
Those numbers aren't correct. Applying 2 55% harderners to 50% base (with stacking penalties) is more like around 88% percent resists, and for 60% base resists it's like around 90%.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:50:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 31/01/2008 04:54:31 Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 31/01/2008 04:53:57
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: Reem Fairchild Regardless of which one they tank, a person using emp is still going to be doing quite a bit more damage than before. He is not going to be doing as much more damage against armor tankers as a laser user will, but a laser user on the other hand will only be doing more damage than before against armor tankers, not both.
Quite a bit more is quite a bit inaccurate. There will be an increase in actual DPS, but it's fairly minor for the reasons I've stated above. The buff is so useful to lasers because they already shred shields. The only issue was omni tanked armor, and now that's much less of a factor.
It's not all minor (unless you think the damage increase for lasers is minor as well). It's a bit less than for lasers against armor, but makes up for it by being more effective against both.
And the real problem for Amarr was never damage type. IT's avery small part of it. The real problem is with specific individual ships like the Omen, Maller, Prophecy, and Apocalypse that are simply underpowered (and will remain underpowered after this change) compared to equivalent ships of other races.
|
|
Lindsay Fox
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 04:58:00 -
[21]
The egos of some players are remarkable.
You seriously think that your 5 minute evaluation of this idea is going to yield a more accurate summary of it's effects than that of a dozen or more people who do this for eight hours every single day, and who have also spent hours on SiSi actually testing it?
And half of you clearly don't even understand how resistances work. gg y'all.
|
Sentient Six
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 05:55:00 -
[22]
Ok, lets say instead of reducing your explosive resist by a little bit, they buffed up the damage on lasers. So, Mr. caldari shieldtanker is happy, he still has his 10% extra explosive resist. BUT instead you would get BBQ'd by Amarr even worse, because he has more damage against your weakest resists.
Cmon, think before you post.
Also, you argue that shield tankers are hit TWICE as hard by this "nerf," since both their shield, AND their armor get reduced resists!
Honestly I cannot comprehend how you could seriously post something as poorly thought out as this. Unless you are deliberately trying to induce some type of forum flame thread.
You ask why shield explosive resist is reduced? How about balance? I suppose you think it would be fair to reduce armor EM resist down to nothing while leaving shield resists the same? In case it never occurred to you, shield, armor, and each race all have different resists, but they all add up to a similar amount overall!
Another point you make: Shield tanks are not as popular as armor tanks on T1 ships.
Let me run something past you, there are four playable races in the world of eve. The tech 1 ships of 3 of these races generally are fitted with armor tanks. One race (also the most popular overall) uses shield tanks on their tech 1 ships. Lets take a wild guess as to which method of tanking be more prominent?
So sorry to see CCP actually trying to help out Amarr, who, not that you give a damn, have been at the bottom of the barrel for longer than you have been playing this game. There are many players such as yourself who are against this change, and very few who are for it, simply because the laser PvPer has been a joke for so long they have become almost extinct.
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD Solidus Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 06:00:00 -
[23]
thank god there's speed tanks with shield extenders nowadays - putting the gist back into logistics |
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 06:06:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Sentient Six In case it never occurred to you, shield, armor, and each race all have different resists, but they all add up to a similar amount overall!
Um, no they don't. Armor always adds up to more resists than shields currently. About 16% more.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 07:05:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Arana Tellen 50% (now apply 2 hardners tech II so 55% each) (0.45x0.45x0.5)^((1/3)^0.25) = 82.45% 60% (now apply 2 hardners tech II so 55% each) (0.45x0.45x0.4)^((1/3)^0.25) = 85.1% 17.54/14.9 = 17.7% increase in damage of ONE TYPE in the mission.
The stacking-nerf is no longer in that form of *(1/n)^0.25, that was more than two years ago or even further back (if it was exactly like that, no idea, that's before "my time", but I do seem to remember something similar-looking).
Stacking-nerf today is a multiplier to individual effectiveness of resists boosts, aprox *0.87 to second bonus, *0.57 to third bonus and so on (look in my sig links, one of them has it in detail).
1|2|3|4|5. |
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 07:07:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Wet Ferret
Originally by: Sentient Six In case it never occurred to you, shield, armor, and each race all have different resists, but they all add up to a similar amount overall!
Um, no they don't. Armor always adds up to more resists than shields currently. About 16% more.
This is correct. Armor has higher base resists. Shields have Invuln field II which outclasses the EANM II considerably, which among a couple other fundamental differences helps balance shield and armor tanking.
|
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 07:12:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
It's not all minor (unless you think the damage increase for lasers is minor as well). It's a bit less than for lasers against armor, but makes up for it by being more effective against both.
And the real problem for Amarr was never damage type. It's a very small part of it. The real problem is with specific individual ships like the Omen, Maller, Prophecy, and Apocalypse that are simply underpowered (and will remain underpowered after this change) compared to equivalent ships of other races.
Much higher concentration of EM damage in lasers (for some crystals 100%) means a bigger buff to their actual damage output. And yeah, individual ship hulls always struck me as more fundamental a problem than lasers as a weapon system. But I'm not complaining.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 07:13:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Janu Hull
Originally by: RC Denton And in the blog zulupark notes that armor tanks are more popular than shield tanks in pvp.
If the halfwit ever bothered to log in on Tranquility, he'd realize it has NOTHING to do with resists, and everything to do with slot allocation. Low slot armor tanks conflict less with the vital equipment of PvP than the mid slot dependent shield tanks. Ewar and tackling both require allocation in the mid slots, which pretty much eliminates vital PvP functionality from shield tanking starships.
This resist circle jerk is a complete farce.
At least read the blog before commenting. There is nothing there about shield tanks being less used because of resists.
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:08:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Andrue on 31/01/2008 08:14:15
Originally by: Janu Hull
Originally by: RC Denton And in the blog zulupark notes that armor tanks are more popular than shield tanks in pvp.
If the halfwit ever bothered to log in on Tranquility, he'd realize it has NOTHING to do with resists, and everything to do with slot allocation.
And if you weren't such an arrogant halfwit you'd have read the blog before commenting on it. That would mean that:
a)You wouldn't make rude and irrelevant comments and look like an idiot. b)If by some rare chance you actually had anything useful to say you'd post it in the correct thread.
Zulupark doesn't actually say why armour tanking is more popular. He just notes that it is:
"By far the largest problem is that armor tanking is quite a lot more popular than shield tanking and EM by far is the highest resistance on armor for all races."
Two related but separate comments. I suggest you stop trading Arrogance to lvl 5 and try Reading Comprehension to lvl 1. -- (Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:24:00 -
[30]
/me buys more republic fleet EMP ammo |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |