| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Chloe Andrews
   |
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:48:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Chloe Andrews on 13/03/2008 15:50:29
Has anyone else noticed the the Mega hes suddenly lost 10% of it's base EM armor resist bringing it from 60% down the 50% and also 10% if it's max shield (and this is what i have noticed in the last 10 mins). It was my understanding that CCP was not going the Nerf anything yet conterary to that there are 2 already and who knows how many more are out there that we have not been told about, if you want proof check the ships (new) ingame stats with EFT 2.4.1 stats and you shall see.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:49:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Chloe Andrews
Has anyone else noticed the the Mega hes suddenly lost 10% of it's base EM armor resist bringing it from 60% down the 50% and also 10% if it's max shields, and the Domi has gained 10% on it's EM armor resist and has rose from 60% to 70% (and this is what i have noticed in the last 10 mins). It was my understanding that CCP was not going the Nerf anything yet conterary to that there are 2 already and who knows how many more are out there that we have not been told about, if you want proof check the ships (new) ingame stats with EFT 2.4.1 stats and you shall see.
Have you confirmed this IN GAME or just in EFT?
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:50:00 -
[3]
ehm... all the ships not just mega/gall
it was made to boost a bit lasers vs armor and explo vs shields
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Chloe Andrews
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:51:00 -
[4]
i have confirmed this ingame as well, as this is where i found out about it
|
benzss
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:57:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
i have confirmed this ingame as well, as this is where i found out about it
http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/patchnotes.asp
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:57:00 -
[6]
Then I'd say that you failed to read the patch post. One of the boosts to Amarr ships comes in the form of a NERF to other ships EM resists. I would have been surprised to find it wasn't in place, but I have not yet gotten to log in since the patch has posted thanks to RL schedule conflicts.
|
Lithel
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:58:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
Edited by: Chloe Andrews on 13/03/2008 15:50:29
Has anyone else noticed the the Mega hes suddenly lost 10% of it's base EM armor resist bringing it from 60% down the 50% and also 10% if it's max shield (and this is what i have noticed in the last 10 mins). It was my understanding that CCP was not going the Nerf anything yet conterary to that there are 2 already and who knows how many more are out there that we have not been told about, if you want proof check the ships (new) ingame stats with EFT 2.4.1 stats and you shall see.
NOOB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
YapYup
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:59:00 -
[8]
All ships have had a 10% reduction on EM resistance for armor a 10% Explosive resistance for shields so in effect all ships got nerfed but the Gallente turret ships got hit hardest as they use Hybrids which only do Kinetic & Themal damage.
Seems like the Gallente race has lost favor with the devs these last few patches. 
|
Chloe Andrews
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:59:00 -
[9]
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
|
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:59:00 -
[10]
Ahahahaha... oh that was good..
_______________________________
http://epicwords.net/ |
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:02:00 -
[11]
Originally by: YapYup
All ships have had a 10% reduction on EM resistance for armor a 10% Explosive resistance for shields so in effect all ships got nerfed but the Gallente turret ships got hit hardest as they use Hybrids which only do Kinetic & Themal damage.
Seems like the Gallente race has lost favor with the devs these last few patches.
cept for the ones using drones.
but whats the problem? lasers pretty much needed to be more effective vs armorr... you want gall/caldari to be the uber race while other stay gimp? 
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Riho
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:08:00 -
[12]
all the ships in the game lost 10% em off theyr armor and 10% explosive off the shields
----------------------------------
This is Me, fighting stupidity one post at a time.
PS: There are no computer BUGs, there is stuff called "Random Features"
|
Ogul
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:08:00 -
[13]
Yes, CCP nerfed explosive shield resists to boost Amarr damage on armor.
Perfectly logical.
---
Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes. |
Zara Torbe
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
The changes affect
EVERYONE
Thats not a nerf, thats an alteration to the game.
PS: Train up
Community Watch lvl 2 (at least)
Patch note Understanding lvl 4
Reading Comprehension lvl 4
|
Bronson Hughes
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
Eh, try telling that to Raptor pilots. CCP calls a third turret hardpoint at the expense of over 10% of it's base powergrid a boost.
--------------------
"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 |
Ogul
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:14:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Ogul on 13/03/2008 16:14:35
Originally by: Bronson Hughes
Eh, try telling that to Raptor pilots. CCP calls a third turret hardpoint at the expense of over 10% of it's base powergrid a boost.
Tbh, that reminds me of the Deimos-"boost".
---
Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes. |
Sionide
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:17:00 -
[17]
L2read patch notes after a patch has been applied.
|
Lyria Skydancer
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:24:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
But its not a nerf. Its a boost to EM damage and lasers. Its a boost.
--------------------------------------
[Video]Skirmish Warfare |
Pater Peccavi
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:29:00 -
[19]
Wow.
I might be a noob ingame, but at least I know how to read irl.
I literally laughed out loud when I read this post.
|
Rialtor
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:31:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Rialtor on 13/03/2008 16:31:03
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
Have you ever heard of marketting and managing player perception? The whole idea of a "boost only" patch does not exist.
Boosts and Nerfs are one in the same. It's only logical to assume if you boost one aspect of a single ship, it inheritently changes the field, meaning there is some degree of nerfing going on to everything that opposes that boost. And if you nerf one thing you're boosting everything else. It's the same device that's being applied whether it's a boost or nerf. The end result is a balance change.
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
Cogswin Iannyen
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:55:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
Oh hai. I can haz ur stuf?
|
Alowishus
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:59:00 -
[22]
This is not a nerf. It's a boost to my EMP ammo 
/makes fart noise
|
Zaqar
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 17:07:00 -
[23]
TBH, it was a pretty stupid claim for CCP to make.
Doesn't excuse the OP's folly though :P
|
Snubb Fighter
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 17:40:00 -
[24]
everyone just dies faster the end... *example* so you have 2 tanks you strip down armor and everyone appears to have better guns *end example* Yes nothing really changed, instead its all an illusion of numbers. Enjoy the numbers...
|
Bellum Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 17:46:00 -
[25]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Ahahahaha... oh that was good..
This. 
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Kusha'an
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 19:44:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Rialtor
Edited by: Rialtor on 13/03/2008 16:31:03
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
Have you ever heard of marketting and managing player perception? The whole idea of a "boost only" patch does not exist.
This is known as lying.
Quote:
Boosts and Nerfs are one in the same. It's only logical to assume if you boost one aspect of a single ship, it inheritently changes the field, meaning there is some degree of nerfing going on to everything that opposes that boost. And if you nerf one thing you're boosting everything else. It's the same device that's being applied whether it's a boost or nerf. The end result is a balance change.
Wrong. If you boost Amarr, but I don't fight Amarr, then it's not a nerf to me. But if you nerf my EM damage, then EVERY SHIP that hits me with EM damage hits me harder. That's a nerf. Stop treating intelligent people like we're stupid. You're just a sucker, falling for the propaganda fed to you by CCP. Don't feed it to us; we're not falling for it.
|
Trevor Warps
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 19:56:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Trevor Warps on 13/03/2008 19:56:46
Oh noes !
Boost been stack nerfd,
Nerf been stealth boostd,
Changes been hitd and
Balance been pwntd !
Rejoice ! Whine Material !
...
|
Rialtor
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 20:06:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Rialtor on 13/03/2008 20:07:42
Originally by: Kusha'an
Wrong. If you boost Amarr, but I don't fight Amarr, then it's not a nerf to me. But if you nerf my EM damage, then EVERY SHIP that hits me with EM damage hits me harder. That's a nerf. Stop treating intelligent people like we're stupid. You're just a sucker, falling for the propaganda fed to you by CCP. Don't feed it to us; we're not falling for it.
Eh? I think you missed the point. But just because there's some subset to which you can restrict something to where the boost doesn't effect your ship doesn't mean that boosts and nerfs are not the same technique used for ship balance. They balance the combat as a whole, not in little subsets, and it's silly to try to manage subsets.
The Boost was to EM dmg for Armor & Explosive dmg for Shields, now that EM dmg is better than it was it stands to reason that the other dmg types are lessened in some way, even if the nerf didn't make EM&Explosive Uber. But other dmg types are less effective with regards to the relationship among the damage types before the change.
But anyway the change was directed at damage types. Obviously the EM one was focused at Amarr since they generally have a hard time selecting alternative damage types, but it's not only for Amarr. If they wanted to just boost Amarr they would have pumped up laser damage, and if they did that you'd all be screwed. This change is more a correction to damage types since they have been rather b0rked for a while now.
Also, the EM change effects amarr negatively in some areas as well. We don't get as much resists with the 1xEM hardener in missions anymore. Hopefully that gives you some comfort.
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
Caligulus
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 20:39:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
That was their opinion. Historically speaking, CCP is rather unprofessional and their developers make outrageous claims that never happen. Never ever believe a developer when they say they didn't nerf something in a "balance" patch. That's total BS no matter how they try to spin it.
That line at the top of the patch notes is BS propaganda from lazy development.
-------------------------------------------------
**** You're out of your mind!
**** Well that's between me and my mind. |
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 20:44:00 -
[30]
Perhaps at some point when a nerf reaches such a massive size as this, you call it a boost? No nerfs? CCP has taken a lesson from the Bush administration in the US. i.e. If you don't like the conotation a name brings to mind, call it something else. It's not an "invasion", it's a "liberation" and "anti terrorist" activity. It's not an attack on civil rights flying in the face of the US constitution, it's a bit of legislation called the "Patriot Act". It's not excercising your freedom of speech and denouncing the presidents acts, it's "denigrating the troops". Etc., etc., etc........ In the same light, this latest patch is not a nerf "not a single one". It's a boost.
All is not equal in this "boost". Amarr fighting Amarr, it's a wash. Both have the same EM nerf on their armor and both are dishing the EM damage with their lasers and probably drones. Amarr fighting any other races ships, it's a nerf for the other race. Amarr still tanks extremely well on all other damage types same as before, but all races now do not tank the Amarr EM like they did before.
Amarr have always been the ships that sacrificed some fire power for their formidable armor tanking. This done with the thought of lasting longer than your opponent while gnawing on his ship till he dies. I've seen incredible feats of tanking by Amarr ships. Now, they have a bit more relative fire power than they did before without sacrificing any of the tank.
Result = A boost for Amarr and a nerf for everyone else who armor tanks.
At the same time via the expolsion resist shield nerf the result = a boost for Minmitar ships and a nerf for everyone else who shield tanks. Let's see......that would be the Caldari. But so what? Everyone knows the Caldari ships are way overpowered in PvP anyway. Right? 
Gallente have always been the ships that sacrifice a bit of armor tanking for more fire power. Until recently, starting primarily with Trinity, this model held true. More or less. Now the Gallente tank is reduced to EM and we've been enjoying a steady campaign of fire power reduction. Most notably in the form of the Eos, Myrmidon and Ishkur drone bandwidth nerfs. However, the slow and steady nerfing of drones effects the majority of Gallente ships.
Regards,
Windjammer
|
Merak Thrawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 21:12:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Merak Thrawn on 13/03/2008 21:14:05
Yeah Amarr ships got the 10% EM nerf on armor too, everyone did... Yes, but now they will also deal more dmg, same as Minnies with EMP now, whereas Gallente will do the same dmg types on the same resists on armor/shield as always, while receiving more.
|
Danjira Ryuujin
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 21:20:00 -
[32]
These posts always cheer me up. Oh noes, only the ships I fly have been nerfed
Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005 |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 21:57:00 -
[33]
A game wide balance change isn't a nerf. Nerfs are aimed at specific ships.
Anyway, read the patch notes!!
|
Lord Zoran
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 22:04:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Lord Zoran on 13/03/2008 22:04:46
remember this is boost patch there are no nerfs....
(sorry someone had to say it)
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Ezekiel Sulastin
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 23:53:00 -
[35]
PROTIP: the devs don't like Gallente anymore, get used to it.
Expect a blaster damage nerf and further drone nerfs in the next 6 months - they already got our ewar and are getting to work on our survivability, all that's left is DPS so they can have a new Amarr :D
----
WTB Armor Nerf Hardener II, 10^100 isk OBO |
Ivan Kinsikor
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 00:18:00 -
[36]
Good thing I'm Amarr/Gallente trained \o/
Just need to buff up my Amarr skills in case Gallente turns into the new redheaded step child.
Killing is business and business is good. |
Tital
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 01:47:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
This is not a nerf but further encouragement to go nano |
Knoetje
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 02:20:00 -
[38]
I am of the opinion CCP should boost all ships by increasing kinetic and thermal armour resistances by 10 to 20% and increasing the capacitor usage of hybrid ammo by 50 to 100%. That will boost all ship classes and it will not be a nerf.
FAIL patch by CCP, thank you very much.
I'm a Goon Titan alt, don't tell anyone. |
Msobe
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 05:53:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Windjammer
All is not equal in this "boost". Amarr fighting Amarr, it's a wash. Both have the same EM nerf on their armor and both are dishing the EM damage with their lasers and probably drones. Amarr fighting any other races ships, it's a nerf for the other race. Amarr still tanks extremely well on all other damage types same as before, but all races now do not tank the Amarr EM like they did before.
Amarr have always been the ships that sacrificed some fire power for their formidable armor tanking. This done with the thought of lasting longer than your opponent while gnawing on his ship till he dies. I've seen incredible feats of tanking by Amarr ships. Now, they have a bit more relative fire power than they did before without sacrificing any of the tank.
Result = A boost for Amarr and a nerf for everyone else who armor tanks.
Summary - You take more damage from EM than you did before. Amarr deal EM damage, so obviously they are gonna hit you harder now! However, on an omni tank, EM is not the lowest resist. No, far from it. Even after the EM armor resist nerf, EM is still the highest resist, by quite a bit, in an omnitank. (My skills with 2 eanm2+DC2 gives me 70/55/52/61.) So your complaint is that now they are only hitting a 70% and 61% resist on your tank (the two highest) - while at the same time, you are hitting a 55% and 61%. The difference between 70% and 55% is damn big. So . . . how legitimate of a whine is this, really?
Your idea of amarr ships is that they sacrifice gank for tank. CCP says they sacrifice versatility for tank AND gank. This is part of the effort to put some gank back in the ships. (Not that it helped our tank any more than it helped yours.)
|
Uncle Mo
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 06:04:00 -
[40]
I hope people switch to EM drones and missiles when PVPing my Mega
|
FawKa
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 06:14:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Msobe
Originally by: Windjammer
All is not equal in this "boost". Amarr fighting Amarr, it's a wash. Both have the same EM nerf on their armor and both are dishing the EM damage with their lasers and probably drones. Amarr fighting any other races ships, it's a nerf for the other race. Amarr still tanks extremely well on all other damage types same as before, but all races now do not tank the Amarr EM like they did before.
Amarr have always been the ships that sacrificed some fire power for their formidable armor tanking. This done with the thought of lasting longer than your opponent while gnawing on his ship till he dies. I've seen incredible feats of tanking by Amarr ships. Now, they have a bit more relative fire power than they did before without sacrificing any of the tank.
Result = A boost for Amarr and a nerf for everyone else who armor tanks.
Summary - You take more damage from EM than you did before. Amarr deal EM damage, so obviously they are gonna hit you harder now! However, on an omni tank, EM is not the lowest resist. No, far from it. Even after the EM armor resist nerf, EM is still the highest resist, by quite a bit, in an omnitank. (My skills with 2 eanm2+DC2 gives me 70/55/52/61.) So your complaint is that now they are only hitting a 70% and 61% resist on your tank (the two highest) - while at the same time, you are hitting a 55% and 61%. The difference between 70% and 55% is damn big. So . . . how legitimate of a whine is this, really?
Your idea of amarr ships is that they sacrifice gank for tank. CCP says they sacrifice versatility for tank AND gank. This is part of the effort to put some gank back in the ships. (Not that it helped our tank any more than it helped yours.)
(first to say, yes I am flying amarr quite a lot)
You might be right on passive omni tanks Msobe, but think active for a sec.
An active 5 resist based setup (plus two reppers) is kinda standard for gallente so:
1x th, 1x ki, 1x exp, 1x eanm, 1z dc - which actually leaves EM lowest. That 10% now gives a hole where amarr (that already has fine DPS) can gank the active tanker. The amarr race themselves can fit another EANM as they have the slot layout for it - so basicly - buff for amarr, nerf for gallente as 'we' simply dont have the slots for pushing the resist up when active. (dont say fit an EM hardener instead of the other 3 hardeners, theres nothing to do but fit that if you really want to be active imo).
I stand by the qft.. Amarr ships needed a boost, but changing the resist is a mistake. Amarr players suck, not the race.
Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin
Not being able to adapt and not being able to use the search button seem to go hand in hand.
|
Azirapheal
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 07:03:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Bronson Hughes
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
Eh, try telling that to Raptor pilots. CCP calls a third turret hardpoint at the expense of over 10% of it's base powergrid a boost.
who the hell flies a raptor anyway? unless it sa cheap bait//scout ship.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Thorek Ironbrow
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 07:23:00 -
[43]
I confirmed it by reading the patch notes.
"All ships have had their shield explosive resistance lowered by 10% and armour EM resistance lowered by 10%
It was mainly to give Amarr a boost, because now they will hit 10% more damage on your shipz.
_____________________________
"So what do you need, besides a miracle?"
"Guns... Lots of guns" |
Brzhk
Legion Tau
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 09:20:00 -
[44]
I love theses South Parks Scenes where teh crowd goes rable rable rable
RABLE RABLE RABLE!
|
deadmeet
Star Blossom
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 11:35:00 -
[45]
Quote:
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
It's not a tank nerf of all races, it's a DPS boost of all races ^^
|
Msobe
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: FawKa
Originally by: Msobe
Summary - You take more damage from EM than you did before. Amarr deal EM damage, so obviously they are gonna hit you harder now! However, on an omni tank, EM is not the lowest resist. No, far from it. Even after the EM armor resist nerf, EM is still the highest resist, by quite a bit, in an omnitank. (My skills with 2 eanm2+DC2 gives me 70/55/52/61.) So your complaint is that now they are only hitting a 70% and 61% resist on your tank (the two highest) - while at the same time, you are hitting a 55% and 61%. The difference between 70% and 55% is damn big. So . . . how legitimate of a whine is this, really?
Your idea of amarr ships is that they sacrifice gank for tank. CCP says they sacrifice versatility for tank AND gank. This is part of the effort to put some gank back in the ships. (Not that it helped our tank any more than it helped yours.)
(first to say, yes I am flying amarr quite a lot)
You might be right on passive omni tanks Msobe, but think active for a sec.
An active 5 resist based setup (plus two reppers) is kinda standard for gallente so:
1x th, 1x ki, 1x exp, 1x eanm, 1z dc - which actually leaves EM lowest. That 10% now gives a hole where amarr (that already has fine DPS) can gank the active tanker. The amarr race themselves can fit another EANM as they have the slot layout for it - so basicly - buff for amarr, nerf for gallente as 'we' simply dont have the slots for pushing the resist up when active. (dont say fit an EM hardener instead of the other 3 hardeners, theres nothing to do but fit that if you really want to be active imo).
I stand by the qft.. Amarr ships needed a boost, but changing the resist is a mistake. Amarr players suck, not the race.
Yes, active tanking is a different issue - and more closely fits CCP's vision of how it should work. That's my beef with the EM resist change - I think it *was* needed, but in response, just expect people to tank EM more.
The thing is, with active resists, its ok if they do. When you fit specific hardeners, you are choosing what to tank against. EM resist sucked, but having it go stupid high just as a side benefit to fitting a smaller tank was just . . . stupid.
I didn't say anything about active tanking because that is versatile, so you can't talk about it as a general thing. Omni tanking is pretty well always the same set up. I say CCP wanted us to have to make choices about what and how we tank, and this change will force us to do that more.
I dont' fly gallente, so no idea what kind of tanks people commonly do fly there. But I'm positive we aren't gonna now see amarr choosing to with a dual repped full active tank with a full omni set on top. (2 rep + 3 hardeners + 2 eanm + DC - you say we'll be fitting the same tank as gallente, plus an extra eanm.) That won't even fit on a lot of our ships, and even if it did, doesn't seem amazing. Time will tell how popular that becomes.
EM damage did need help. Did you ever fit yourself to do it? How useful was it, really, if you had the option of dealing some other damage type? Using Khanid ships, I know I did sometimes use EM, but essentially only to shoot at amarr rats. There was no other reason to use it. Now, if you think dropping the resist was a bad idea - what was the good idea that would have addressed the fact that EM damage was lackluster compared to each of the other damage types?
|
Wu Jiun
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:30:00 -
[47]
As a sidenote: Before the changes fitting an exp/kin/therm hardener, a dcu 2 and an eanm would still leave exp as the lowest resistance on a t1 ship unless its an amarr one.
That being said of course it would have been more reasonable to actually encourage the use of more active hardeners rather than encouraging using eanms even more. But whining about it is a bit silly really. Its not like you do not have the option to switch to eanms and fit another damage mod in the new free slot. While many fittings that use eanms are so short on cpu that using active hardeners is just not a possibility.
As for an em "hole" - well. dcu2 + eanm will still give you resistances like 65%+ so thats not a hole really. And guess what the chances of getting shot by lasers aren't that high to begin with.
|
Viryana
Genco
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:38:00 -
[48]
- Yes they are saying... wait... oh lord YES our sources on TQ are now confirming that the EM resistance HAS IN FACT BEEN LOWERED!!! Over to our CNN correspondant, Jim, what are people in washington saying?..... Sorry what? *holds hand to earpiece* It's 2 months old news? Oh dang diddly doh!
GG on missing the whole point of the patch (although the warp scramble icon is nice too)
|
FawKa
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:46:00 -
[49]
Originally by: MSobe
Yes, active tanking is a different issue - and more closely fits CCP's vision of how it should work. That's my beef with the EM resist change - I think it *was* needed, but in response, just expect people to tank EM more.
The thing is, with active resists, its ok if they do. When you fit specific hardeners, you are choosing what to tank against. EM resist sucked, but having it go stupid high just as a side benefit to fitting a smaller tank was just . . . stupid.
I didn't say anything about active tanking because that is versatile, so you can't talk about it as a general thing. Omni tanking is pretty well always the same set up. I say CCP wanted us to have to make choices about what and how we tank, and this change will force us to do that more.
I dont' fly gallente, so no idea what kind of tanks people commonly do fly there. But I'm positive we aren't gonna now see amarr choosing to with a dual repped full active tank with a full omni set on top. (2 rep + 3 hardeners + 2 eanm + DC - you say we'll be fitting the same tank as gallente, plus an extra eanm.) That won't even fit on a lot of our ships, and even if it did, doesn't seem amazing. Time will tell how popular that becomes.
EM damage did need help. Did you ever fit yourself to do it? How useful was it, really, if you had the option of dealing some other damage type? Using Khanid ships, I know I did sometimes use EM, but essentially only to shoot at amarr rats. There was no other reason to use it. Now, if you think dropping the resist was a bad idea - what was the good idea that would have addressed the fact that EM damage was lackluster compared to each of the other damage types?
I really disagree - Active tanking is not versatile what so ever. You have to fit 3 hardeners for thermal, kinetic and explosive - you simply have to or the resist gap is too great. With the rest of the slots - well you wont fint an Em hardener over a EANM but dont say this is the versatility (if there is such a word :D) with active tanking. If I fit that EM hardener my EM is great but my explosive sure aint. Nomatter what you do you will be screwd over by this change unless you have the slots to fit dual ECM anyways.
As for flying amarr - I have never ever had any problems flying amarr. I loved the em dmg such as I love the thermal on gallente ships. I see most ravens using em torpedoes aswell? How the heck can all these ravens actually CHOSE to use em when it sucks as much as you amarrian players says. The issue with EM resist has only ever been with the amarr ships themselves as they actually have the slots to fit more EANM's that 'we' gallenteans can (take the abaddon and the geddon).
Anyways CCP shows us that buffer-spidertank is the way of EVE. I really think its a shame - but its just the way of making the most out of your ship now.
|
Miru Juraiya
Pilipino Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:48:00 -
[50]
I thought there would be no nerfs in this boost patch?
|
FawKa
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:56:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Miru Juraiya
I thought there would be no nerfs in this boost patch?
I thought the DT would take 12 hours?
Betrayed by CCP huh
|
Vanessa Vale
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:57:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Windjammer
At the same time via the expolsion resist shield nerf the result = a boost for Minmitar ships and a nerf for everyone else who shield tanks. Let's see......that would be the Caldari. But so what? Everyone knows the Caldari ships are
Oh yeah? Really? What race can fit 100% explosive damage? Hint: It's not minmatar. Prohint: Its Caldari.
Now you may start arguing that emp ammo is emp+explosive. And I'll say that first of all it has no falloff. Second it does less damage than caldari. And third, you'll be either doing emp ammo when you should be doing explosive, or explosive when you should be doing emp. So there.
You may continue by arguing that caldari are shield tankers while minmatar are armor tankers, go count the minmatar ships.
Thanks for trying, play again.
Originally by: Windjammer
way overpowered in PvP anyway. Right?
Noob.
|
Jarvin Kell
Kingdom of Kador
Kingdom of Redemption
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 15:13:00 -
[53]
A+ thread 10/10 would read again
|
Rach NiKunni
Royal Enterprise
Infinite Innovation
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 16:33:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Chloe Andrews
at the top of the patch notes CCP stated there would be NO nerfs, not a one
The patch notes were written by the Amarr high priests and approved by the surpreme Shaman.
To the Amarr this is a watershed event. Don't you guys see what's gonig on? CCP is changing the whole PVP dynamic to freshen up the game and give another race the inside track for a while.
The Gallente have had their day and now the Amarr are going to have theirs. So buckle up boys because we're coming to get you. You've just been nerfed to hell.
R..
|
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 18:01:00 -
[55]
From the eve trinity site:
Quote:
We've listed the features of Trinity. Now, behold the might of Trinity 1.1: Boost Patch. Nothing was ônerfedö in this patch, not a single element. The Boost Patch is exclusively about new improvements, deadlier ships and interface renovations.
This really makes me lol very hard!!!
_______________________________________________________
CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
|
Vanessa Vale
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 18:26:00 -
[56]
Originally by: 000Hunter000
From the eve trinity site:
Quote:
We've listed the features of Trinity. Now, behold the might of Trinity 1.1: Boost Patch. Nothing was ônerfedö in this patch, not a single element. The Boost Patch is exclusively about new improvements, deadlier ships and interface renovations.
This really makes me lol very hard!!!
I predict that in next patch there wont be any nerfs either. They will increase the damage of the shuttle 25% and decrease the damage of other ships by the same amount.
And yes, I know.
|
Windjammer
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 19:07:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Vanessa Vale
Originally by: Windjammer
At the same time via the expolsion resist shield nerf the result = a boost for Minmitar ships and a nerf for everyone else who shield tanks. Let's see......that would be the Caldari. But so what? Everyone knows the Caldari ships are
Oh yeah? Really? What race can fit 100% explosive damage? Hint: It's not minmatar. Prohint: Its Caldari.
Now you may start arguing that emp ammo is emp+explosive. And I'll say that first of all it has no falloff. Second it does less damage than caldari. And third, you'll be either doing emp ammo when you should be doing explosive, or explosive when you should be doing emp. So there.
You may continue by arguing that caldari are shield tankers while minmatar are armor tankers, go count the minmatar ships.
Thanks for trying, play again.
Originally by: Windjammer
way overpowered in PvP anyway. Right?
Noob.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Surely you don't think the Caldari ships are good for PvP. They are generally considered the least capable PvP ships in the game..........and that was pre "boost patch". Now they're even worse off.
Even before the patch you saw Minmitar, Amarr and Gallente ships used in the hands of very experienced players and used well for PvP. You did not see them using Caldari. Torp changes may have changed that a little, but overall the Caldari are not the first choice for PvP ships and, as stated above, are less likely to be used in such a way now.
Regards,
Windjammer
|
Windjammer
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 19:55:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Msobe
Originally by: Windjammer
All is not equal in this "boost". Amarr fighting Amarr, it's a wash. Both have the same EM nerf on their armor and both are dishing the EM damage with their lasers and probably drones. Amarr fighting any other races ships, it's a nerf for the other race. Amarr still tanks extremely well on all other damage types same as before, but all races now do not tank the Amarr EM like they did before.
Amarr have always been the ships that sacrificed some fire power for their formidable armor tanking. This done with the thought of lasting longer than your opponent while gnawing on his ship till he dies. I've seen incredible feats of tanking by Amarr ships. Now, they have a bit more relative fire power than they did before without sacrificing any of the tank.
Result = A boost for Amarr and a nerf for everyone else who armor tanks.
Summary - You take more damage from EM than you did before. Amarr deal EM damage, so obviously they are gonna hit you harder now! However, on an omni tank, EM is not the lowest resist. No, far from it. Even after the EM armor resist nerf, EM is still the highest resist, by quite a bit, in an omnitank. (My skills with 2 eanm2+DC2 gives me 70/55/52/61.) So your complaint is that now they are only hitting a 70% and 61% resist on your tank (the two highest) - while at the same time, you are hitting a 55% and 61%. The difference between 70% and 55% is damn big. So . . . how legitimate of a whine is this, really?
Your idea of amarr ships is that they sacrifice gank for tank. CCP says they sacrifice versatility for tank AND gank. This is part of the effort to put some gank back in the ships. (Not that it helped our tank any more than it helped yours.)
If all we protected ourselves with was armor, your comments might hold some water. However, we don't. We also use shields. Even as armor tankers we depend upon shields for a time barrier before getting to the armor. That time can be put to good use. EM damage is the ONLY type of damage that has zero resist on shields. Look at the balance between shield resist and armor resist. You see a rough correllation between the two. When shield resist is high, the armor resist is low. When shield resist is low, armor resist is high. So when you have the base shield resist set at zero, it's natural for the armor resist to be higher.
As far as people tanking against EM? Gosh........I don't know about others, but that zero resist in my shield makes me feel a little naked and so, yeah, I compensate with the armor on the tank.
As far as your comments on the relative tank of Amarr compared to others.....well you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Amarr are the armor tank kings. You can whine all you want about how Amarr suck and I've no doubt you'll continue to do so even after this ridiculous "boost patch".
The bottom line is that a lot of pirates and mercs used Amarr and Minmitar ships before the nerf patch, used them well and used them for good reason. Since these two groups are among the most dedicated to PvP, I think that fact speaks for itself. Now they have even more reason to use Amarr as well as Minmitar ships.
Personally, I've never noticed a problem with Amarr ships putting the hurt on. Those lasers were effective before the nerf patch. Their lasers against my ship weren't any less effective than my hybrids against their ships. Now, we have an imbalance.
Regards,
Windjammer
|
Derrios
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 20:27:00 -
[59]
More Gallente Nerfs more Stealth Minmatar buffs
|
Msobe
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 13:11:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Windjammer
If all we protected ourselves with was armor, your comments might hold some water. However, we don't. We also use shields. Even as armor tankers we depend upon shields for a time barrier before getting to the armor. That time can be put to good use. EM damage is the ONLY type of damage that has zero resist on shields. Look at the balance between shield resist and armor resist. You see a rough correllation between the two. When shield resist is high, the armor resist is low. When shield resist is low, armor resist is high. So when you have the base shield resist set at zero, it's natural for the armor resist to be higher.
As far as people tanking against EM? Gosh........I don't know about others, but that zero resist in my shield makes me feel a little naked and so, yeah, I compensate with the armor on the tank.
As far as your comments on the relative tank of Amarr compared to others.....well you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Amarr are the armor tank kings. You can whine all you want about how Amarr suck and I've no doubt you'll continue to do so even after this ridiculous "boost patch".
The bottom line is that a lot of pirates and mercs used Amarr and Minmitar ships before the nerf patch, used them well and used them for good reason. Since these two groups are among the most dedicated to PvP, I think that fact speaks for itself. Now they have even more reason to use Amarr as well as Minmitar ships.
Personally, I've never noticed a problem with Amarr ships putting the hurt on. Those lasers were effective before the nerf patch. Their lasers against my ship weren't any less effective than my hybrids against their ships. Now, we have an imbalance.
Regards,
Windjammer
You come close to hitting the key issue with lasers for pvp, then miss it completely.
The problem is that lasers really are great against shields. However, shield tanking is very uncommon in pvp. Perhaps a bit more common now than it was, but not even close to being on even footing. The change was made because lasers have very poor performance on armor tanks. Read the dev blogs - laser performance on ARMOR was the issue they wanted to address.
As long as armor tanking rules pvp, lasers do need to be usable there. You may say they already were, but you are wrong. A key difference between lasers and projectile, drones, and missiles is that you can never change damage type. So the damage type you are using must be, if not amazing, at least usable for pvp. The key difference between hybrids and lasers is the damage types - hybrids are inflexible as well, but on more average resists. Unless the other player has intentionally tanked those resists higher, in which case they've left holes elsewhere, and deserve the lessened damage.
When you think about what it would take to make shield tanking effective for pvp, be glad CCP has instead decided to tacitly admit there's an imbalance, and lowered armor resists instead. Shield tanking is a poor choice for pvp because of slot considerations - mids are really needed for modules you need. They could always move some of those slots out of mids, but that would make nearly every pvp'er very unhappy - say they put web and scram into highs, that would help shield tanking immensely, but ruin nearly every solo and many small gang/tackler set ups. They could also just make low slot versions of certain modules - which would probably cause even more problems, when people suddenly had 2-3x as many slots to fit them in (mid+low instead of just mid). The balance of slot lay out would be destroyed, and a lot of silly set ups would ensue.
Lasers were made to hit shields, shield tanking don't get along well with pvp. Lasers needed better performance on armor, for pvp.
|
Msobe
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 13:29:00 -
[61]
OK, specific things you do address.
If you think it helps a lot to cut through an untanked shield buffer faster, go fit lasers. You'll save about 2 seconds on the shields, and take 30 seconds longer on the armor. Amazingly useful. You'd have a great point here if shield tanking was used as much as armor tanking for pvp. As it is, its not even close.
Amarr as armor tank kings . . . well, tanking is 50% of CCP's vision of amarr. Not that gallente can complain their tanks are poor. But dropping em resit didn't hurt amarr tanking any less than it did gallente, despite what gallente whiners are cranking out. Please be specific about how the boost patch was ridiculous . . . TP boost helps people with mid slots (not 90% of amarr ships), EM resist drop helps anyone who can deal EM damage (every single race), and the core of the Amarr boost boosted 3 ships. All of which needed it, and none of which have become overpowered (in the absence of unrelated bugs). Please be specific too when calling me an amarr whiner. As it turns out, my feeling is that CCP is 100% right about the problems, and 80% right about how they are fixing them. I am just as much of an amarr whiner as CCP is . . . I feel the ships (some of them) lack "ooomph," that lasers were a bit lacking in their sizzle factor (for the cap use, they need more benefit than just less cargo use for ammo), and that there are some specific ships/lasers that have problems fitting guns they ought to be able to, while having problems firing those lasers due to cap considerations. You haven't seen me agree with any silly ideas like letting lasers deal other damage types, upping laser damage output, or boosting ships like sac, abaddon, geddon, absolution, maller, punisher . . . On the whole, I feel like there was a combination of minor issues, that taken together, resulted in a race that was limited on the fun factor. Fixing those minor issues, and making some little tweaks to those ships that needed it, will make the race fun again.
Mercs and pirates, as far as I've seen, have a habit of using those ships that are cheap and effective in coordinated groups. They also pick their targets to what they know their gang can handle. The fact they pick a ship doesn't mean its best - it means its cheap enough to not mind losing it, and good enough to get the job done. As a rule, unpopular ships are cheap.
Show me that lasers were as effective on armor as hybrids, and CCP will have to reconsider their decision. The problem was that they weren't. There is a reason people call gal the gank race, and amarr the tank race. However, this change is aimed at making lasers work on armor enough to put the fear of God and Emperor back in the rest of interstellar society. ;-)
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 20:23:00 -
[62]
First, my apologies for the tardiness of this reply. There was a death in my family which put me off extended arguments in the forums.
Msobe's stance is that lasers were "made to hit shields" and that "shield tanking don't get along well with PvP" and therefore "lasers needed better performance on armor for PvP". I disagree. Lasers were made to do two damage types, just the same as every other weapon in EVE. Primarily they do EM damage and to a slightly lesser degree they do thermal damage. While this makes them deadly against the zero resist shields of an armor tanking opponent, it in no way means that's the only thing they are good for. They were and continue to be a viable weapon in PvP against armor tanking ships.......only now they've been given an imbalanced advantage.
Why? Part of the reason is statistics. Let's compare Gallente and Amarr. There are fewer Amarr ships flown than Gallente. Gallente use hybrids, Amarr use lasers. Hybrids do Kinetic/Thermal damage, Amarr do EM/Thermal damage. No tank has equal resists in every damage type. Since a pilot is more likely to encounter a Gallente then an Amarr ship, the armor tank reflects the damage resist the pilot is most likely to encounter, Kinetic/Thermal. You'll see this in a fully tanked ship and it is true whether the pilot is Amarr or Gallente. Until Amarr ships are in equal numbers to Gallente, you will not see tanking which sacrifices Kinetic resist to gain EM resist unless the pilot knows they're going to be facing an Amarr ship and only an Amarr ship.
In an earlier post Msobe made much of the fact that his ship had 70% EM and 61% Thermal armor resists when using two EANM's (energized adaptive nano membrane) and a DCS (damage control system). Since these were significantly higher resists than the other damage types, he suggests this is evidence of the need for an EM nerf. This is absurd and he should be embarrassed. He intentionally ignores the end result when the tank he started is completed. The end tank leaves EM one of the two lowest resists and that was before the EM resist nerf. Now, it is THE lowest. So now you have a ship with EM as its lowest armor resist and zero EM resist in its shields. Yeah.......that sounds balanced to all other pilots not using lasers.
Msobe says, "the key difference between lasers and projectile, drones and missiles is that you can never change damage type". While true, his statement is misleading. Lets look at drones and missiles. Missiles can be chosen to do any of the four damage types and do them with equal effect. The problem is missiles are not considered a viable PvP weapon. Guns and, to a lesser degree, drones rule in PvP. Part of the reason missiles are not popular for PvP is the ships that are designed to carry them. Caldari ships. These ships are designed to carry missiles, yes, but are also designed to shield tank. As Msobe himself states, shield tanking is not a good PvP tactic.
Drones.......yeah drones. The drone using kings of EVE are the Gallente, true. However, Amarr also have drone boats and most of their ships use drones It is also true that you can get drones to do damage in each of the four damage types. However, Msobe conveniently ignores three important details. One; EM drones do significantly less damage than Thermal drones. Compare a Praetor II (EM damage,damage modifier 1.38) with an Ogre II (Thermal damage, damage modifier 1.92) Two; training needed. Each of the four damage type drones requires a racial specialization training to use and to optimize the damage type. That's a rank 5 skill and would take a month or more to fully train. Three; people tend to stick with their racial damage type. There's so much to train in EVE that most people stick with their races drones and put training for other racial drones on the back burner. So if you're facing a Gallente pilot, you're far more likely to face thermal damage drones than EM damage drones
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 20:30:00 -
[63]
Summary: Lasers pump out the same damage as hybrids. Lasers track better and therefore hit more often than hybrids of comparable size. EM resists on a fully tanked ship more often than not left and still leave EM resist as one of the lowest and now the lowest.
The reason you saw and see so many pirates and mercs using Amarr ships is not because the ships are cheap, but because they work. Now they work even better.
It's been said that in EVE you adapt or leave. The only adaption I can see to this EM resist nerf is to start training Amarr ships and lasers. There go years of skill training? With years more to train the Amarr skills?
Regards,
Windjammer
|
Dearest Wish
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 20:34:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kusha'an
Wrong. If you boost Amarr, but I don't fight Amarr, then it's not a nerf to me. But if you nerf my EM damage, then EVERY SHIP that hits me with EM damage hits me harder. That's a nerf. Stop treating intelligent people like we're stupid. You're just a sucker, falling for the propaganda fed to you by CCP. Don't feed it to us; we're not falling for it.
PROPAGANDA. Have you lost your mind son. DONT TREAD ON ME CCP, I WILL RIOT IN THE STREETS.
CCP DID 9/11
|
Zaerlorth Maelkor
The Maverick Navy
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 20:46:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Windjammer
Blob of text I didn't read.
as amusing as this thread was 2 months ago. Necroing is bad, m'kay?
==================================================
I should really get a sig. |
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:02:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Zaerlorth Maelkor
as amusing as this thread was 2 months ago. Necroing is bad, m'kay?
It is recent enough that it is not necroing. M'kay?
It's amusing to have you comment on something you haven't read and therefore can't possibly understand and at the same time you bump the thread. What could you possibly have been thinking?
Windjammer
|
Staggerr
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:14:00 -
[67]
So i was expecting a fairly new thread by some idiot who only just noticed the nerf and got 3 pages of flaming.
All i got was a necro wall of text.
|
Kano Sekor
Amarr
modro
CORPVS DELICTI
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:31:00 -
[68]
OMG i just noticed they have nerfed the armageddon they have some kind of stacking penalty on my heat sinks i cant insta pwn other BS:es anymore.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Zaerlorth Maelkor
The Maverick Navy
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:37:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Kano Sekor
OMG i just noticed they have nerfed the armageddon they have some kind of stacking penalty on my heat sinks i cant insta pwn other BS:es anymore.
It has begun... I have created a monster! MUAHAHA
==================================================
I should really get a sig. |
Frits McDonal
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:39:00 -
[70]
As a quick note to Msobe's last post I would like to point out that lasers take more cap not only because of less cargo usage, but also for higher range. Gallente vs Amarr it wouldn't be surprising at all if the Amarr would never have to repair its armor since at lasers optimal range hybrids would hit quite rarely.
|
Uncle Smokey
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:47:00 -
[71]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Ahahahaha... oh that was good..
qft
signed & stamped
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
\o/ EVERYBODY SAY HELL YEAH! \o/ |
Angelonico
Series of Tubes
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 22:02:00 -
[72]
This is a pretty good troll thread.
8/10
|
Ivan Kinsikor
Amarr
Void Engineers
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 22:26:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Ivan Kinsikor on 16/05/2008 22:26:39
New topic: Why is Amp so tastey?
----------------------------------------
*****es don't know 'bout my nano'd Titan
---------------------------------------- |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |