Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dieuw Lee
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 10:38:00 -
[1]
It might be my client, or it might be a nerf? I didnt read something like it in patch notes.
Did CCP lower de resistances of passive modules for shield/armor? Because they are all missing a decent amount of % to their resistances.
|
Lux Exterior
Critical Analysis R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 11:04:00 -
[2]
They lowered the explosive shield resist on all ships, dunno what you're talking about otherwise.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 11:48:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lux Exterior They lowered the explosive shield resist on all ships, dunno what you're talking about otherwise.
Faction+ passive shield hardeners got worse. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
the thorn
Tres Viri Guard Tres Viri
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 11:56:00 -
[4]
before anyone asks this: no there was no need for this, ccps just loves nerfs and armor tanks
|
Docteur Xentav
Varietas Acquisition
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 12:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Lux Exterior They lowered the explosive shield resist on all ships, dunno what you're talking about otherwise.
Faction+ passive shield hardeners got worse.
When did they change them? ( I can't find anything beyond the stacking penalty text in 1.1 notes) Also how much were they adjusted by?
|
the thorn
Tres Viri Guard Tres Viri
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 12:17:00 -
[6]
this isnt in the patch notes. caldari navy and dread gurista amps got nerfed to t2 resists and the dread gurista amps now got the same low cpu needs as caldari navy amps.
|
achoura
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 13:01:00 -
[7]
Dread and cn amps, boosters, resist amps and hardners have always had the same stats as each other, that was the whole point. Amps always had the same boost as tii, again that was the point, far easier fitting for the same stats. Only the invul fields had better than tii resists. ***The EVE servers and their patches*** |
Dieuw Lee
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 13:18:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Dieuw Lee on 15/03/2008 13:20:08 Example: Pithum A-Type Kinetic Deflection Resistance Amplifier was 44(,5)%, now it's 42,1% Estamel's Modified Kinetic Deflection Resistance Amplifier was 49,6%, now it's 43,6%
For armor tanks, energized are the passive modules. Corpum A-Type Energized Reactive Membrane = 44,5% = unchanged Chelm's Modified Energized Reactive Membrane = 46% = unchanged.
This wasn't mentioned on the patch notes, and sure doesn't seem fair to shield/armor "tanking balancing"? The difference in a 2x of the same modules end up 4-7% less res per mod? just a rough estimate with lv4 skills.
|
Kaathar Rielspar
Universal Exports FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 13:29:00 -
[9]
not only these, dread guristas co-processors were nerfed from 15.5% cpu bonus to 14% ____________________
|
the thorn
Tres Viri Guard Tres Viri
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 14:17:00 -
[10]
Originally by: the thorn this isnt in the patch notes. caldari navy and dread gurista amps got nerfed to t2 resists and the dread gurista amps now got the same low cpu needs as caldari navy amps.
no, cn and dread used to have different cpu requirements (20tf vs 30tf)
|
|
Cordus
Advanced Combat Machines and Equipment Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 15:20:00 -
[11]
I especially like how they nerfed passive shield tanking in the patch that was promised to be a "boost" patch with no nerfings.
|
Malaia
Sanair Industries Inc
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 16:39:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Malaia on 15/03/2008 16:41:43 Well i would be interested to hear a comment from a GM about this.
The active shield tanking was always better then passive ...you could tank around twice as much as a passive tank ,only advantage of the passive tank was that it doesnt need cap. But for the sacrifice of tanking only halfe the dps of an active tank i dont understand why this needs to be nerfed?
And its only the passive shield amplifiers that got nerfed ,the active hardeners remained untouched.
Mal
|
Dieuw Lee
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 19:37:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Malaia Edited by: Malaia on 15/03/2008 16:41:43 Well i would be interested to hear a comment from a GM about this.
The active shield tanking was always better then passive ...you could tank around twice as much as a passive tank ,only advantage of the passive tank was that it doesnt need cap. But for the sacrifice of tanking only halfe the dps of an active tank i dont understand why this needs to be nerfed?
And its only the passive shield amplifiers that got nerfed ,the active hardeners remained untouched.
Mal
Actually, with resistance amps it's easier to have perma tank with a Gist X-Large booster. I use a combo of estamels/pithum. It was +59% for estamel and +54% pithum.
|
Windjammer
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 20:04:00 -
[14]
Perhaps they didn't put it in the notes because they're getting a lot of heat for the huge nerfs they did put in the notes. "We don't need any more grief. Let's just sneak it in."
Regards, Windjammer
|
Caligulus
Legion of Lost Souls
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 20:43:00 -
[15]
Aye, CCP lies some more and fails to update the patch notes properly. How hard is it to get your **** in order. I mean honestly. CCP's developers suck. ------------------------------------------------- **** You're out of your mind!
**** Well that's between me and my mind. |
Cordus
Advanced Combat Machines and Equipment Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 20:47:00 -
[16]
I always thought that the whole point of having faction loot is that it's a bit better than T2 loot in addition to being a bit easier fit.
Maybe I misunderstood something.
|
Grimpak
Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 21:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Cordus I always thought that the whole point of having faction loot is that it's a bit better than T2 loot in addition to being a bit easier fit.
Maybe I misunderstood something.
ever seen domination launchers compared to T2?
but still, if they nerfed such thing than it's bad. ---
Trinity Nova Mercenary Services Web Site - Nominated for the 2008 E-ON Magazine Awards |
sov68n
True Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 22:51:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Grimpak but still, if they nerfed such thing than it's bad.
oh so now because CCP decides that something needs nerfing, it must be correct? Once we all start thinking that, EVE will be nothing more than fluffy furballs flying around launching nerfballs at each other.
|
FawKa
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 23:10:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Dieuw Lee Edited by: Dieuw Lee on 15/03/2008 13:20:08 Example: Pithum A-Type Kinetic Deflection Resistance Amplifier was 44(,5)%, now it's 42,1% Estamel's Modified Kinetic Deflection Resistance Amplifier was 49,6%, now it's 43,6%
For armor tanks, energized are the passive modules. Corpum A-Type Energized Reactive Membrane = 44,5% = unchanged Chelm's Modified Energized Reactive Membrane = 46% = unchanged.
This wasn't mentioned on the patch notes, and sure doesn't seem fair to shield/armor "tanking balancing"? The difference in a 2x of the same modules end up 4-7% less res per mod? just a rough estimate with lv4 skills.
Please stop.. Shield tank and armor tank is not the same. Not the same active and not the same passive. Start comparing the two when armor regenerates, when theres an armor invul-field, when shield tanks can fit EW in the lows.
You cannot compare shield and armor tank that easy, period. I think this was a minor nerf to shield regen setups, as they got even more used with the heavy dictors.
|
Perfect Diamond
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 23:17:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Caligulus Aye, CCP lies some more and fails to update the patch notes properly. How hard is it to get your **** in order. I mean honestly. CCP's developers suck.
I wouldn't complain to much. You are playing their game. And they could always stop allowing you to play.
Amarr is the tank OR gank race. Not the tank and gank race. |
|
Grimpak
Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 23:51:00 -
[21]
Originally by: sov68n
Originally by: Grimpak but still, if they nerfed such thing than it's bad.
oh so now because CCP decides that something needs nerfing, it must be correct? Once we all start thinking that, EVE will be nothing more than fluffy furballs flying around launching nerfballs at each other.
oh? I think you misunderstood me, but let me rephrase it:
If ccp nerfed shield resistance amps, and forgot to tell about it, then the blame is all on them, and such, an explanation is necessary on why nerfing a module that didn't need a nerf in the beginning.
unless they wanted to nerf the "OMFG PASSIVE TANK DRAKES WTF!" thing, and they decided to axe the resistances amps.
that is still wrong however. ---
Trinity Nova Mercenary Services Web Site - Nominated for the 2008 E-ON Magazine Awards |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 23:54:00 -
[22]
All I know is that somehow this is a minmatar nerf.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Cordus
Advanced Combat Machines and Equipment Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 00:00:00 -
[23]
Yeah, I am going to agree with the guy who said that passive shield tanking was never all that uber. With the 40% resistance amplifier, you could get to 50% resistance if you had that particular resistance skill maxed. That seems good, but it took half a million skillpoints of dedicated training to max a -single- one of the four shield compensation skills. Also that 50% would be subject to the resistance stacknerf which they'd -already- imposed upon us. Plus... think about how expensive and inconvenient faction modules are to acquire.
So the super expensive faction resistance amplifier and maxed shield compensation skill to match it is -just- enough to reach the level of protection offered by a simple tech 1 shield hardener with very minimal skills required to fit it. Meanwhile, those faction resistance amplifiers would never have offered as much protection as a tech 2 hardener.
|
Dieuw Lee
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 01:24:00 -
[24]
Originally by: FawKa
Please stop.. Shield tank and armor tank is not the same. Not the same active and not the same passive. Start comparing the two when armor regenerates, when theres an armor invul-field, when shield tanks can fit EW in the lows.
You cannot compare shield and armor tank that easy, period. I think this was a minor nerf to shield regen setups, as they got even more used with the heavy dictors.
I disagree, PvE'ers still use passive armor mods, as it might effect their perma tank or what ever setup they might use. It's just a way to lower cap usage to an acceptabe level. If you ask me, it's still passive modules vs passive modules.
btw, about the "armor invul" heard about an no-cap using EANM or crappy Adaptive Nano Plating?
I stills tand by that fact armor/shield tanking mods had similar stats. like T2 armor hardeners give 55% and same goes for shields. The same "balance" rules should apply for passive modules imo.
|
Polly Prissypantz
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 01:46:00 -
[25]
Quote: I stills tand by that fact armor/shield tanking mods had similar stats. like T2 armor hardeners give 55% and same goes for shields. The same "balance" rules should apply for passive modules imo.
Yes. Now where's my friggin Energized Adaptive Shield Amp and my Invulnerability Armour Hardener?
|
Ephemeron
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 03:06:00 -
[26]
Most reasonable people are upset not so much because of the nerf, but because it was completely unnecessary, undocumented, and not discussed prior to implementation.
It gets worse with the false promise of "no nerf" patch. We know CCP lied, CCP know they are lying, yet them keep denying it. Why? why is it so hard to admit that they made a mistake? This whole thing wouldn't be such a big issue if they could just admit that they were wrong.
Honestly, I don't think this nerf impacts gameplay much. It's not nearly as bad as the flat 10% em and explosive resistence nerfs
|
Ulstan
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 05:01:00 -
[27]
I am going to keep bumping this thread and all others dealing on this topic until some kind of CCP response is made.
Not only was this nerf completely unnecessary and wholly undocumented, they blatantly lied to us and said this was a nerf free patch - then they shaft shield tanking some more.
I mean, passive shield tanking with passive hardeners is about as gimp as you can get anyway.
|
Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 05:59:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ephemeron CCP know they are lying, yet them keep denying it.
[parrot] it's not a nerf, it's a balance change. And as with all balance changes somethings must go up while others go down. Therefore, it wasn't a nerf. So, you see?!?! no nerf! [/parrot] -- Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes ^^ Woo hoo! Yellow Text!... wait... :( |
Karyuudo Tydraad
Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 06:16:00 -
[29]
My only issue is that it was sprung on us with no patch notes, comments by CCP, explanation, etc. If they decide something's an issue and nerf it, alright, sure. We don't know what the case is here. Just one day BAM! Weaker faction gear out of nowhere for no apparent reason. A little communication is all I ask.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 10:14:00 -
[30]
As its not in the patch notes you should bug report it. Passive shield tanking guide click here |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |