EVE Search - EM-10% is stupid

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

EM-10% is stupid

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
DMF KingBob	Posted - 2008.03.13 11:11:00 - [1] the idea to boost amarr with an EM resistance nerf in armor is not good reason is amarr it self is armor tanker and an lesser EM resistance in Armor boosts the Shieldtankers >Caldarie with EM-Missiles(remember explo was the lesser resistance before mostly) >Minmatar with EMP-ammo so also shieldtanker races can deal more damage to armor tankers (Amarr,Gallente)but armor tankers cant deal more dmg to shield tankers
Jaketh Ivanes	Posted - 2008.03.13 11:35:00 - [2] Originally by: DMF KingBob the idea to boost amarr with an EM resistance nerf in armor is not good reason is amarr it self is armor tanker and an lesser EM resistance in Armor boosts the Shieldtankers >Caldarie with EM-Missiles(remember explo was the lesser resistance before mostly) >Minmatar with EMP-ammo >Every single crystal used by laser weapons. so also shieldtanker races can deal more damage to armor tankers (Amarr,Gallente)but armor tankers cant deal more dmg to shield tankers Fixed it for you. See the boost there??
Gliding	Posted - 2008.03.13 11:44:00 - [3] What do u want more DPS or more tank, i would chose DPS as amarr tank is crazy and u seem to think u need more DPS. Originally by: Pestachi0 CCP kicked my dog Signature created by me.
DMF KingBob	Posted - 2008.03.13 11:49:00 - [4] it does NOT boost crystal used by an laser against shieldtanker it only boost laser,EM-Missile and EMP-ammo against an other Armortanker(includes Amarr) first think and then whrite
Verite Rendition	Posted - 2008.03.13 12:05:00 - [5] Lasers have always had an advantage against shields. If you find that rare shield tanker (shield tanking is for morons anyhow), I assure you that you're going to be doing excellent damage anyhow. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.03.13 12:09:00 - [6] Edited by: Wu Jiun on 13/03/2008 12:10:21 How stupid can people get? They'll use exp biased ammunition like they always did unless maybe its a t2 ship(the minnies and caldaris that is). They do more damage with em now but it will still be worse than exp. So you gain damage on armortankers and lose nothing unless of course you are shot by a lasership. Thats how it should be, no?
DMF KingBob	Posted - 2008.03.13 12:13:00 - [7] shields have no problems to get over 70% EM resistance only 1 photon scattering,1 invu and 1 dmg control are required for it
Lyria Skydancer	Posted - 2008.03.13 12:34:00 - [8] I think its lol to think that tanking doesnt need a slight nerf. After all tanking has been boosted so many times now its annoying. We need more gank. The change is fine. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare
Kagura Nikon	Posted - 2008.03.13 12:59:00 - [9] teh change is nto fine because it nullifies the tripple hardener setup! No one will dare to fly with 50% em resist. So every ship that sued triple hard setup (ABSOLUTELY ALL CAPITAL and most well fitted battleships) will use EANM now. Result is EM resistance will be HIGHER than it was and explosive , kin e thermal will be lower. Final result.. its a nerf to amarr. CCP should have simply removed 5% of the EM resist on EANM!!! ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Eleana Tomelac	Posted - 2008.03.13 13:20:00 - [10] Originally by: DMF KingBob it does NOT boost crystal used by an laser against shieldtanker it only boost laser,EM-Missile and EMP-ammo against an other Armortanker(includes Amarr) first think and then whrite The fact is the balancing team said the issue is about lasers vs armor. Not lasers vs shields. What you are saying is like 'there is no issue for armor tankers with explosive damage, not even on T2 gallente armor tanks'. So, other than T2 minmatar ships, do you really have trouble on breaking shield tanks with EM? Even with an EM hardener, the T2 caldari shield tankers will have a big hole... Others still start at 0%. So, people fitting EM hardeners on shield tanks means that they ARE SCARED of lasers for their shield tanks and try to fix this vulnerability. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Zakanaa	Posted - 2008.03.13 13:23:00 - [11] Will the Wining Ever Stop. Personall i wish they just remove Ammar from eve so dont have to sift threw Boost Amarr threads anymore Originally by: DMF KingBob shields have no problems to get over 70% EM resistance only 1 photon scattering,1 invu and 1 dmg control are required for it Shields sucks for pvp, as mid slots are better used for scrams/webs/ab/mwd, Most people tank armour anyways in pvp.
Endless Subversion	Posted - 2008.03.13 13:37:00 - [12] I really think this should have been done differently. Yes it is a buff in some situations, but because there is now a notciable hole relative to other resists players are pushed into fitting 2x EANM II, 1x DCU II, which still leaves EM resists rather high. It's dumb how much better 2x EANM II + 1x DCU II is than the tri-hardener setup on anything tech I. Self Destruct & LogOffs
Lyria Skydancer	Posted - 2008.03.13 17:07:00 - [13] Originally by: Endless Subversion It's dumb how much better 2x EANM II + 1x DCU II is than the tri-hardener setup on anything tech I. And exactly those setups are going to have less EM resist now. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare
Andre Coeurl	Posted - 2008.03.13 17:22:00 - [14] I see this as quite a different thing: it's simply a 10% EM nerf to armor tank. CCP has found a smart way to market it, saying it's a boost to Amarr even though, funnily enough, the race that has the most benefit from this armor nerf may well be Caldari! They are the only ones who can fully switch to EM damage if they find an advantage in doing so, other races have less ability to do that. On the other hand Gallente may well be the ones to suffer most, since few Gallente ships have a large enough drone bay to carry spare drones (and carrying EM drones may be a very daring choice), while no hybrid charges do any EM (as well as Exp) damage, so we essentially get only the armor nerf. Thanks! --- --- --- Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Sky Marshal	Posted - 2008.03.13 18:55:00 - [15] To compensate the nerf of Armor EM resist, CCP nerfed Shield Explosive resist. In the two cases, it is stupid, specialy the balancing process, as Shield global resistance has been lowered by 8.3% (120 to 110), but armor only 7.1% (140 to 130). We have been more nerfed than armor. Second, well... I don't think that Caldari can take advantage of this situation, as some armor tankers will adapt their fit. We often see 3 specific hardeners in a good amount of setups (never EM), but I expect that some players will replace one of them by an EANM II. Only one is enough to have more than 60% on EM resist (from 50%), but this is also add some explosive/kinetic resistance. So a EM/Explo missile combo can not be really great, same an EM/Kinetic... In fact, this patch can reduce our damage. This will depend of players. Thank Zulupark......... ____ 14/20 Revelations : Desyncs... 11/20 Trinity : BBSOD, Bugs, Desyncs, F*** Nerfs 10/20 1.1 : [...] + EXP shield nerf 07/20 ½ Not a single nerf + : What ?!? CCP is the real problem of EVE.
Gliding	Posted - 2008.03.13 19:01:00 - [16] Originally by: DMF KingBob it does NOT boost crystal used by an laser against shieldtanker it only boost laser,EM-Missile and EMP-ammo against an other Armortanker(includes Amarr) first think and then whrite Well for Amarr it is and EMP ammo, you will do more damage to every ship in game. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Originally by: Pestachi0 CCP kicked my dog Signature created by me.
ShepherdBook	Posted - 2008.03.13 19:16:00 - [17] Pretty funny actually, with my gallante ships my lowest resist before the nerf on most of my ships (after hardeners applied) was EM...
ShepherdBook	Posted - 2008.03.13 19:22:00 - [18] I wonder if the original reason for setting em resist high for armor and explosive high for shield was to add variety? Shield tankers like caldari would be weak to amarr. Armor tankers like gallante would be weak to Minimtar? It used to be that a player would have to branch out to training different races to try something new... Now it seems like more and more its not really important to branch out because each race can do most things equally well. Anyway, yeah, don't like nerfed EM resists
James Lyrus	Posted - 2008.03.13 20:21:00 - [19] Edited by: James Lyrus on 13/03/2008 20:22:03 As a missile user, I can assure you you won't be using EM damage against your armour tankers. I also very much doubt that a minmatar pilot would be using EMP either. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?

CCP Casqade	Posted - 2008.03.13 20:39:00 - [20] If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing.

Buyerr	Posted - 2008.03.13 20:54:00 - [21] you are stupid... it is a NERF to caldari once more... expl res set down 10% too,... as caldari i much rather have the higher res (since you never use em anyway). besides why does amour have a higher basic "res" then shield. hmm ?? .. anyway all in all good change for the amarr race I declare war on stupidity
Buyerr	Posted - 2008.03.13 20:55:00 - [22] Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. WOOHUU a dev respond to a tread about balance and changes :D :D rock on, nice to see. and i do agree with you, and think the change is good since it creates balance I declare war on stupidity
Emperor D'Hoffryn	Posted - 2008.03.13 21:06:00 - [23] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer I think its lol to think that tanking doesnt need a slight nerf. After all tanking has been boosted so many times now its annoying. We need more gank. The change is fine. This, tbh. of course, the point that using tri-hardened setups will be even worse is valid...you did tri hardened by ignoring EM. now its EANM or bust. which is what everyone was doing anyway. so lets run through it. You can choose damage types freely (which technically makes your caldari, but well keep it general) you come across caldari T2, you do EM gallente T2, you do exp minnie T2, you do kinetic Amarr T2, you do therm and if you can change damage types freely, you did this before, and you do this now. people wont all be jumping on EM damage. 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
Danjira Ryuujin	Posted - 2008.03.13 21:47:00 - [24] Originally by: Andre Coeurl I see this as quite a different thing: it's simply a 10% EM nerf to armor tank. CCP has found a smart way to market it, saying it's a boost to Amarr even though, funnily enough, the race that has the most benefit from this armor nerf may well be Caldari! They are the only ones who can fully switch to EM damage if they find an advantage in doing so, other races have less ability to do that. On the other hand Gallente may well be the ones to suffer most, since few Gallente ships have a large enough drone bay to carry spare drones (and carrying EM drones may be a very daring choice), while no hybrid charges do any EM (as well as Exp) damage, so we essentially get only the armor nerf. Thanks! I cant tell if you're joking or not. List of caldari ships that can do EM only damage with out reducing their dps by 25%: raven - rof bonus cnr - rof bonus golem - rof bonus scorpion - no damage bonus. I suppose you could mention all the ships that have no damage bonus, but seriously, why bother. Lets not forget that Caldari ships across the board are more vulnerable to EM damage too. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Lalita Prestoc	Posted - 2008.03.13 22:00:00 - [25] Originally by: Kagura Nikon teh change is nto fine because it nullifies the tripple hardener setup! No one will dare to fly with 50% em resist. So every ship that sued triple hard setup (ABSOLUTELY ALL CAPITAL and most well fitted battleships) will use EANM now. Result is EM resistance will be HIGHER than it was and explosive , kin e thermal will be lower. Final result.. its a nerf to amarr. This. No one is going to fly with 0 to 12% EM on shields and <60% resistances to EM on armour. Tri hard is simply not an option now, which typically EM was lowest on except minmatar. While the number of EANM tanks will probably go up, the EM resistance of EANM tanks will come down, so overall the performance won't change for EM damage. But if EANM do become even more common and number of tri-hard setups go down it will boost EXP, Kin and Therm damage. Change was pointless.
Ferocious FeAr	Posted - 2008.03.13 22:02:00 - [26] Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. I do agree with that logic, however, now EMP is probably one of the most deadly ammo's because of the EM/EXP reduction. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Don't hate me, learn to love me
Ephemeron	Posted - 2008.03.13 22:18:00 - [27] Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. This particular change isn't JUST a balance change, it's a change in the idea of armor and shields. Armor is supposed to have strong EM resist while shields are supposed to have strong explosive resist. This principle is a core element of design. If you don't respect core design elements, you could completely reverse resists and claim it's just a balance change. You could make Explosive the strongest armor resist and EM the weakest armor resist. Then flip EM and Explosive resists on shields. Call it just a balance change. But you can see how that wouldn't be just another balance change, right? I hope you can.
Compendium	Posted - 2008.03.13 22:25:00 - [28] Edited by: Compendium on 13/03/2008 22:26:28 Strange that a "boost" to Amarr actually boosts Minmatar more than Amarr. What exactly did a "boost" the exp resist on shields do? Buff Minmatar. So, now my T2 Caldari ships have two weaknesses: EM and explosive damage types. I may as well self-destruct when Minmatar attack me. Attempting to raise those two resists will severely hurt my other resists.
Alex Shurk	Posted - 2008.03.13 22:28:00 - [29] Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. Isn't this a copy/paste from the other thread? Can you actually say anything else? Anyway, this post is horse ****. A universal resist reduction is a nerf. In terms of the number of people it adversely affects (that's everyone, amarr especially), to the number of people it helps (minmatar mostly, the smallest portion of players), it's a net nerf. Your talk of "sliding scales" and "mindsets" is just a stupid way of dodging the bullet on what is a change with no basis.
Lyria Skydancer	Posted - 2008.03.14 01:18:00 - [30] Originally by: Compendium Edited by: Compendium on 13/03/2008 22:26:57 Edited by: Compendium on 13/03/2008 22:26:28 Strange that a "boost" to Amarr actually boosts Minmatar more than Amarr. . Thats not how minmatar see it. They got all forum sections filled with whines now. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.03.14 02:54:00 - [31] Originally by: Compendium Strange that a "boost" to Amarr actually boosts Minmatar more than Amarr. EMP works better now but emp is in few cases the best choice. Against an armortanker you will use exp/kin ammunition because its much better even with the em changes against most armor tankers. Against a shieldtank you will not use exp/kin strong ammunition anyway so no gain here either. Anyway for my amarr ships its a welcome change. Admittedly i would've rather tweaked eanm vs. hardeners tbh but really its still an amarr boost largely.
Lalita Prestoc	Posted - 2008.03.14 04:13:00 - [32] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Compendium Edited by: Compendium on 13/03/2008 22:26:57 Edited by: Compendium on 13/03/2008 22:26:28 Strange that a "boost" to Amarr actually boosts Minmatar more than Amarr. . Thats not how minmatar see it. They got all forum sections filled with whines now. You just love sniping at anyone wanting improvements who isn't Amarr don't you. Most of the complaints have been around ages, Typhoon HP balance, Wolf/Jag bonuses, alphas reduced effect with the increases in HP (and ways to increase HP through rigs)... They just typically got out whined by amarrs constant crying about how they are worse off so deserve the attention first. p.s. I do think quite a few minmatar just want to be gallente/amarr really with some of the requests.
Dianeces	Posted - 2008.03.14 04:53:00 - [33] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Thats not how minmatar see it. They got all forum sections filled with whines now. Damn, that sounds familiar. Who was it that had an entire whine brigade dedicated to whining about everything possible regarding their race? I can't seem to remember, maybe you can help me? Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
FawKa	Posted - 2008.03.14 06:32:00 - [34] Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. That Sir, is the art of talking to a wall. We know what ballance is. Amarrian ships needed changes (apoc f.ex.) which is all fine, but in general giving them more dps by lowering the base EM resist is a mistake. The nerf - as I would call it - hits gallente active tankers bad as 'we' do not have the slotlayout to fill the last resist gap.. You HAVE to fit Th, Ki, Exp, EANM and a DC for active tanking together with the two reppers. This leaves Em lowest (whish it ALSO was BEFORE patch btw). So now theres just an even greater gap on the EM resist. CCP Encorages ppl to use passive tanks now as you dont want that gap if you meet an Abaddon. I actually thought gallente was the DPS-race and Amarr the TPS-race, but I guess the ***** amarrian whinebrigade hit the right buttons at CCP. It's just a shame that it has to hit setups that is already breaking down as armor buffer and spidertank seems to be the right way to gang-pvp these days. It's a fail from CCP's side to keep going down that road. Ahmen Originally by:** Danjira Ryuujin Not being able to adapt and not being able to use the search button seem to go hand in hand.
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.03.14 06:48:00 - [35] Originally by: FawKa I actually thought gallente was the DPS-race and Amarr the TPS-race, but I guess the ******* amarrian whinebrigade hit the right buttons at CCP. Ahmen Oh the irony. P.S. There is no h in amen.
FawKa	Posted - 2008.03.14 06:58:00 - [36] Originally by: Wu Jiun Originally by: FawKa I actually thought gallente was the DPS-race and Amarr the TPS-race, but I guess the ******* amarrian whinebrigade hit the right buttons at CCP. Ahmen Oh the irony. P.S. There is no h in amen. Oh well.. I fixed that for you mr. alt. Wont comment further as I just take you for being a punk kid
Kagura Nikon Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.	Posted - 2008.03.14 10:06:00 - [37] Stop with this crap of EMP ammo now is uber! EMP ammo was and stil is CRAP!! repaet after me CRAP!! Haveing separated half damage good to shield half good to armor, at same time ahvign a LOW total makeit CRAP ! You dont have enough anti armor effectiveness to break armor tanks and is worse than PP against MOST shiedl tankers around. EMP is the wrost ammo of all in eve, completely undecided and always outclassed by Fusion against armor and usually by PP against shields. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Lyria Skydancer Home 0f Bored Occultists	Posted - 2008.03.14 10:30:00 - [38] Originally by: Lalita Prestoc You just love sniping at anyone wanting improvements who isn't Amarr don't you. Most of the complaints have been around ages, Typhoon HP balance, Wolf/Jag bonuses, alphas reduced effect with the increases in HP (and ways to increase HP through rigs)... They just typically got out whined by amarrs constant crying about how they are worse off so deserve the attention first. p.s. I do think quite a few minmatar just want to be gallente/amarr really with some of the requests. I know alot of the complaints have been around for a while. AFs, well every AF needs a boost anyway. The other minmatar whines arent as called for as they used to be. Gallente has been smacked by the nerf bat to get inline with other races and tbh minmatar were just comparing themselves to gallente back then. Every race has ships that needs tweaks but the race as a whole doesnt suck now, contrary to what most whine thread titles would like you to belive. Lets not make a chicken out of feathers. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare
Xonja 2zero Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2008.03.14 10:48:00 - [39] Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. When applying a blanket change to every ship in the game, carefully designed balancing for ships which don't adhere to the norm (read: T2) could get broken. And that's got nothing to do with mindset. IMVHO.
Durzel State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.14 11:03:00 - [40] I'm curious as to why this Expl/EM -10% was applied to faction ships as well. I'm admittedly a pure mission runner at the moment so PvP semantics doesn't really concern me, a 10% drop in resist to two types is a flat-out nerf from my perspective. That said, I was under the impression that no one really flew faction ships in PvP because of the huge risk involved, so why was this change carried over to faction ships as well?
Jaketh Ivanes Do Or Die And Live Or Try The Kano Organisation	Posted - 2008.03.14 11:58:00 - [41] Originally by: DMF KingBob it does NOT boost crystal used by an laser against shieldtanker it only boost laser,EM-Missile and EMP-ammo against an other Armortanker(includes Amarr) first think and then whrite You are very unclear. You say that EMP and EM missiles get a boost, but when I add crystals, that is wrong? It's all ammo, they all deal EM damage, so how come crystals don't get a boost when EM missiles and EMP ammo does???? And I'm not talking about shields, only armor. Exp ammo and most projectile ammo got a boost against shields. Me be confused.
Eleana Tomelac Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.03.14 13:48:00 - [42] I talked about the resistance changes with a corpmate and he ended on this : The -10% on EM armor and explosive shield is a boost to... Minmatar EMP ammo! Because close to half is EM, other close to half is explosive and the last points are kinetic... Some kind of huge side effect for something supposed to boost amarr, nope? -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Liucinda Expiation n Damnation	Posted - 2008.03.14 19:27:00 - [43] Edited by: Liucinda on 14/03/2008 19:28:56 OMG that -10% EM on armor for armor tank REALLY SUX!! Now you have to add some EM resist to tank anything, like on a Phobos (hight resist ship) the EM is the lower now (when you have a explo hardener) so that REALLY SUXX for armor tank, you have to add some Explo resist, and now add another low slot for EM resist.... really, that suxx Ad then for gallente who shoot kin-therm, these 2 resist will be max tanked and can't shoot explo and em

CCP Casqade C C P	Posted - 2008.03.14 20:30:00 - [44] Originally by: Alex Shurk Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. Isn't this a copy/paste from the other thread? Can you actually say anything else? Anyway, this post is horse ****. A universal resist reduction is a nerf. In terms of the number of people it adversely affects (that's everyone, amarr especially), to the number of people it helps (minmatar mostly, the smallest portion of players), it's a net nerf. Your talk of "sliding scales" and "mindsets" is just a stupid way of dodging the bullet on what is a change with no basis. Actually it is the other way around. I posted it here first. Either way, please come with an example on what would be a "boost" in your opinion. And when you do this, make sure that there is no downside or "Nerf" to anyone with it. I believe that you will then come to the understanding that this is impossible and that it indeed a question about mindset.

Delphi Disra Dawn of Fire Ka-Tet	Posted - 2008.03.15 07:34:00 - [45] my question is how do you consider a nerf a boost?
Azirapheal The Bastards	Posted - 2008.03.15 09:41:00 - [46] Originally by: Buyerr it is a NERF to caldari once more... expl res set down 10% too,... as caldari i much rather have the higher res (since you never use em anyway). besides why does amour have a higher basic "res" then shield. hmm ?? .. anyway all in all good change for the amarr race where are my equivalent to invuln field 2's? and dont you dare say DCU :P
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.03.15 10:30:00 - [47] Originally by: Azirapheal Originally by: Buyerr it is a NERF to caldari once more... expl res set down 10% too,... as caldari i much rather have the higher res (since you never use em anyway). besides why does amour have a higher basic "res" then shield. hmm ?? .. anyway all in all good change for the amarr race where are my equivalent to invuln field 2's? and dont you dare say DCU :P EANM II, 'cept they don't even use much CPU or cap. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.03.15 10:33:00 - [48] Originally by: Eleana Tomelac I talked about the resistance changes with a corpmate and he ended on this : The -10% on EM armor and explosive shield is a boost to... Minmatar EMP ammo! Because close to half is EM, other close to half is explosive and the last points are kinetic... Some kind of huge side effect for something supposed to boost amarr, nope? Guess what. No one uses EMP. Why? Because it's guaranteed to be hitting a strong resist, every time you use it. It got better? Yes. It did. But for shooting down a shield tank, Phased Plasma is still better ammo to use. For shooting down an armour tank, fusion is still the best ammo to use. And if you ever get a missile spammer firing EM damage at your armour tanker, then you can go back to laughing at them for being a fool, as at very best it's unlikely to be your worst resist, and at worst they've thrown away a kinetic damage bonus to do it. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Kagura Nikon Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.	Posted - 2008.03.15 11:42:00 - [49] Originally by: Liucinda Edited by: Liucinda on 14/03/2008 19:28:56 OMG that -10% EM on armor for armor tank REALLY SUX!! Now you have to add some EM resist to tank anything, like on a Phobos (hight resist ship) the EM is the lower now (when you have a explo hardener) so that REALLY SUXX for armor tank, you have to add some Explo resist, and now add another low slot for EM resist.... really, that suxx Ad then for gallente who shoot kin-therm, these 2 resist will be max tanked and can't shoot explo and em and THAT is what i have been wrnign sicne day one this change hit sisi. Now what will happen? the Explosive hardener wil be droped for another EANM. Result? YAY!! HIGHER EM resist, HIGHWER thermal and Kin resist, LOWER explosiv resist. yeah great boost to amarr... ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
ghosttr ARK-CORP SATRAPY	Posted - 2008.03.15 13:23:00 - [50] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Liucinda Edited by: Liucinda on 14/03/2008 19:28:56 OMG that -10% EM on armor for armor tank REALLY SUX!! Now you have to add some EM resist to tank anything, like on a Phobos (hight resist ship) the EM is the lower now (when you have a explo hardener) so that REALLY SUXX for armor tank, you have to add some Explo resist, and now add another low slot for EM resist.... really, that suxx Ad then for gallente who shoot kin-therm, these 2 resist will be max tanked and can't shoot explo and em and THAT is what i have been wrnign sicne day one this change hit sisi. Now what will happen? the Explosive hardener wil be droped for another EANM. Result? YAY!! HIGHER EM resist, HIGHWER thermal and Kin resist, LOWER explosiv resist. yeah great boost to amarr... I rather like the changes, there is no longer a 'brick wall' when you get someone into armor Amarr is the least popular race, so you dont have to worry about that many people coming to melt you, which means that we wont see very many setups fitting em hardners. My Blog
Vanessa Vale Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.03.15 16:04:00 - [51] Edited by: Vanessa Vale on 15/03/2008 16:05:39 Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. The art of balancing should hint that removing 10% from 70% is quite worse than removing 10% from 60% So either you had something else in mind you aren't telling us or you all don't bother thinking things through anymore. I suspect the former.
Zanquis Universal Exports FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.03.15 16:18:00 - [52] This was not a specific neft to armor tankers. In fact it really is more of a nerf to shield tanks becuase they also reduced shield explosion resist by 10% too, and a hell of a lot more people used explosion damage then EM damage before. Furthermore, your crazy if you say that its a boost to missiles because almost all the Caldari missile ships have a 5% bonus to KINETIC damage per level. The only exception to this is the Raven which has a ROF bonus instead and can therefore choose its damage type without loosing any damage to do that. The only change you might see is more Minmitar guys using EMP ammo. ****************************************** CEO of CSS Ltd.**
Vanessa Vale Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.03.15 16:26:00 - [53] Originally by: Zanquis The only change you might see is more Minmitar guys using EMP ammo. No, no you won't. There's no reason for it.
Vorgx Universal Army INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.03.15 17:46:00 - [54] mmmm in what way caldari would be boosted? light, cruise and heavy missiles damage sucks as always and some ships only get stupid kinetic dmg bonus torpedoes range nerfed make them useless shield tanking nerfed again and sucks even more, u cant tank sh before the "boost" and now with 10 less is not gonna be better, so shield tanking is out of the game because really sucks now, bye bye to vulture and nightahwk tanking capabilities (who btw have sh damage ofc), so cpp why you dont fix that. i trained caldari for 3 years and is a usefull race now, well maybe for jamming that is boring so i must start to train for an armor tank now........thats fu***** great guys Thanks CCP good boost
Inflexible Shokei	Posted - 2008.03.15 22:18:00 - [55] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Thats not how minmatar see it. They got all forum sections filled with whines now. Minmatar got damage boost and shieldtank was nerfed less than caldari. Their armor tank was nerfed from absurd to high resist (probably main cause of this mess), which is ofc unfortunate for them but not critical. All in all I'd call this patch hefty minnie boost. Most nerfed race is gallente, followed by caldari (races with uneven resists in their main tanking style).
Inflexible Shokei	Posted - 2008.03.15 22:23:00 - [56] Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. Sorry I have to diagree. For example lowering EM resist is not Amarr boost, it is tanking nerf. Tanks now works worse against sentries, NPCs... Fact that players lasers do more damage is only small part of change's impact.
haq aan Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.03.16 14:46:00 - [57] Originally by: Vanessa Vale The art of balancing should hint that removing 10% from 70% is quite worse than removing 10% from 60% So either you had something else in mind you aren't telling us or you all don't bother thinking things through anymore. I suspect the former. This. The base armor resistance on Minmatar ships should be %62.5 not %60. haq
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.16 16:08:00 - [58] faction EMP ammo is currently as commonly used as Barrage - for short range combat. I don't know what snipers or carebears use. But as Minmatar battleship PvP pilot I can say with certainty that Republic Fleet EMP L is extremely useful. That's all I carry, that and Barrage. That's what my enemies carry when I loot them. Check the killboards.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.16 16:52:00 - [59] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 16/03/2008 16:54:50 Originally by: Vorgx torpedoes range nerfed make them useless Ermm..... what? Torps are a scarily effective <20km weapon system. A lot of combat happens in said range. Originally by: Zanquis The only change you might see is more Minmitar guys using EMP ammo. Fusion is still way way better vs armour tanks, and PP is better versus most EM-hardened shieldtanks. Hardening your 0% resist is popular. Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Eleana Tomelac I talked about the resistance changes with a corpmate and he ended on this : The -10% on EM armor and explosive shield is a boost to... Minmatar EMP ammo! Because close to half is EM, other close to half is explosive and the last points are kinetic... Some kind of huge side effect for something supposed to boost amarr, nope? Guess what. No one uses EMP. Why? Because it's guaranteed to be hitting a strong resist, every time you use it. It got better? Yes. It did. But for shooting down a shield tank, Phased Plasma is still better ammo to use. For shooting down an armour tank, fusion is still the best ammo to use. And if you ever get a missile spammer firing EM damage at your armour tanker, then you can go back to laughing at them for being a fool, as at very best it's unlikely to be your worst resist, and at worst they've thrown away a kinetic damage bonus to do it. This. On a side-note, I had a Cerb lob EM missiles at my (true, 2x EANM+DC II)Hurricane. 120-ish damage... kinetic? 240 damage. But, yeah, he'll use EM because it got boosted vs armour. To the guy saying battleships often carry EMP L + Barrage. Yeah. Because they're lazy or want to cram more cap boosters. Carrying Fusion L would mean they do better vs armour tanks. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
DMF KingBob Passive Resistance Final Retribution Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.16 19:07:00 - [60] i use on my Maelstrom/Tempest only Republic fleet EMP L and on my Raven i use mostly Bane rage/javelin with Mjo Rage/javelin or Inferno Bane/javelin and now are my abilitys boosted against Armor and Shield through an Amarr-Boost rofl But Amarr Boost is in reality a lie in reality it is an general Tank-nerf with the most negativ effects on Armor (Amarr,Gallente) and my interests to skill an Armor Race like Gallente or Low-DMG-Amarr are currently very small thanks to ccp for bad work! i on my part is voting for give us our resitances back unnerf-patch
1Evildude We Come In Peace	Posted - 2008.03.16 21:28:00 - [61] Edited by: 1Evildude on 16/03/2008 21:29:00 Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. Can Gallente for once please be on the other side of that scale? and thank you. * Of all the things I've lost, I miss my boot.ini file the most *
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.17 12:26:00 - [62] As the above poster suggests, the reduction of EM armour resists and explosive shield resists tend to hurt Gallente a lot more than other races. This is because we dont deal any EM or Explosive damage, so offensively this change is no help (discounting drones too since Gallente drones do Thermal). Defensively, primarily being armour tankers makes us more vulnerable to EM than before and now Explosive damage cuts that bit deeper too since the shield buffer is so much thinner on Explosive. You say no NERFs, and I can see where you're coming from, but hopefully you at CCP can also see you've "disadvantaged" Gallente more than perhaps other races with this change - Something that seems to be happening with every change recently. If this makes people stop training Gallente to "Win" eve, then great, however if this keeps happening you'll have made the Amarr type problem of one race being left behind recurr for the Gallente race. ABVSS are recruiting...... Veeeeery Slowly!! Hehe!!
Oakheart X-51 Ouroboros Cross Combine	Posted - 2008.03.28 01:17:00 - [63] Originally by: Vyktor Abyss As the above poster suggests, the reduction of EM armour resists and explosive shield resists tend to hurt Gallente a lot more than other races. This is because we dont deal any EM or Explosive damage, so offensively this change is no help (discounting drones too since Gallente drones do Thermal). Defensively, primarily being armour tankers makes us more vulnerable to EM than before and now Explosive damage cuts that bit deeper too since the shield buffer is so much thinner on Explosive. You say no NERFs, and I can see where you're coming from, but hopefully you at CCP can also see you've "disadvantaged" Gallente more than perhaps other races with this change - Something that seems to be happening with every change recently. If this makes people stop training Gallente to "Win" eve, then great, however if this keeps happening you'll have made the Amarr type problem of one race being left behind recurr for the Gallente race. 100% aggree also thankyou ccp for not killing my deimos like you did my eos
NeoTheo Dark Materials	Posted - 2008.03.28 14:42:00 - [64] Originally by: CCP Casqade If this balancing is positive or negative is a question about mindset. If you change the balance anywhere in the game it will have a negative effect on something and a positive effect on something else. Think about a scale, to have one side of the scale go up the other side has to go down. This is the art of balancing. its none of the above, its about the OP having a clue and unfoturnatly he is missing one. the reason this change is decent is prevelence of armor tanks in pvp, this left ammar people shooting the chips due to resists (and no real way to change damage type), consiquently as well, for the people that use explosive ammo to pearce armor tanks you will now be more effective against shield than you used to be due to the shield exp resist nerf. its a good change, learn to look outside your pond, yes amarr can kill other amarr quicker now, but they can also kill everyone else that bit quicker. in short you didnt need a win button, a balance change was needed, and balance changes effect most people, no matter what stat is nerfed. Neotheo Dark Materials Linkage

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.