| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jaabaa Prime
   |
Posted - 2004.06.03 13:07:00 -
[1]
When can we expect counter measures for shield/armour hardeners ?
Something like "EM Shield Destabilizer I" - Reduces shield EM resistance by 50%.
--
Intergalactic Teeth Pullers
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein |
Demangel
|
Posted - 2004.06.03 13:44:00 -
[2]
Hmm while I suppose this may possibly be something the devs would think of doing, I think your looking the in the wrong direction... most people would probably say that the hardners are the countermeasure to specialized damage type weapons, and it works well that way or so it seems to me.
Though it is interesting to note that the two most used hardners are EM and thermal for shields, and I think thermal and Explosive for armor (I never really armor tank so I don't know for sure, more of a shield tanker myself, IE when it comes to armor I don't know what I'm talking about heheh).
Though in a roudabout kind of way I guess you could consider a nosferatu style system to be a kind of counter measure to harnders, suck all the cap away, and the hardners (as well as most everything else) goes away too.
You can bet I will be contemplating fitting these soon now that they will be working without draining my own cap as well.
Galaxion > If you drove a car shaped like a thorax women would call you
Demangel > Dude... I would call..
Demangel > wait that sounded g@y I bet.
Galaxion > Just a bit.
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.06.03 14:57:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Hellek on 03/06/2004 15:00:25
I think hardeners should get a bit nerfed as currently, it does not make any difference if somebody armor tanks or shield tanks as with 3 hardeners, the resistances are almost equal.
I mean going from 0 to 50% with one single hardener is a bit too much, 40% would be more appropriate.
On the other side, I think that multi-hardeners (invulnerability field) should get their cap use reduced, currently the invulnerability field is totally useless.
I am against harder-countermeasures though, using 2 or 3 slots for hardeners mean that you sacrifice a lot and it should be worth it.
|
Rodge
|
Posted - 2004.06.03 15:58:00 -
[4]
I also think that there should be different size modules. I don't agree that I should be able to take my Heat Dissapation module off my cruiser, then fit it to my battleship and have exactly the same benefit.
Perhaps this module would give a 50% benefit to cruiser size, but only 20% to battleships. You would need a battleship size hardener to get the 50% benefit which could not be fitted on smaller ships. And the BS hardener would obviously have higher fitting requirements.
[ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
|
Jaabaa Prime
|
Posted - 2004.06.03 16:22:00 -
[5]
I agree that a 50% jump in resistance is too much, I think they should go further than you suggested, 25% should be enough IMHO.
The multi-hardeners were "cap useage" nerfed because that was all that was being fitted at one point.
I also agree on the size issue, a battleship has a surface area many times that of a cruiser. There should be class based hardeners.
 Quote:
I am against harder-countermeasures though, using 2 or 3 slots for hardeners mean that you sacrifice a lot and it should be worth it.
But I really think there should be a way to soften up some one that is hardened.
Think of it this way, there are counter measures to almost everything in the game:
ECCM <-> ECM
MWDs <-> Webifiers
Warp Core Stabs <-> Warp Scamblers
Tracking Computers <-> Tracking Disruptors
Sensor Boosters <-> Sensor Dampeners
Shield/Armour Extenders <-> Damage Mods
Armour/Shield Hardeners <-> ?
Just as a player decides to fit hardeners to make their ship tougher, an aggressor would have to decide to sacrifice slots for "softeners", you never know what you're going to come up against in game. But everyone knows that being "tanked" is always a safe bet, I'd like to see some more variety 
--
Intergalactic Teeth Pullers
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein |
Altai Saker
|
Posted - 2004.06.03 22:58:00 -
[6]
your logic is backwards.
ECM <-> ECCM
MWDs <-> Webifiers
Warp Scamblers <-> Warp Core Stabs
Tracking Disruptors <-> Tracking Computers
Sensor Dampeners <-> Sensor Boosters
Damage Mods <-> Shield/Armour Extenders
Turrets/missiles <-> Armour/Shield Hardeners
|
Darkwolf
|
Posted - 2004.06.03 23:45:00 -
[7]
Aren't fights short enough as it is? Sheesh.
Anyway, you wanna know how to defeat hardeners quick and easy?
Change damage types! Use something different! Use energy neutralizers!
For all those that have forgotten, shield hardeners already got nerfed. They used to be 75%, remember? Then they were changed on Chaos to 25%, and they were crap and nobody used them. 50% is a good medium, and frankly, I can't believe people are *****ing about it. Even at 50%, it's arguable that it's better to just fit a shield amp instead of a hardener.
|
Shauna
|
Posted - 2004.06.04 05:22:00 -
[8]
There are countermeasures for them.... tanking up a ship with shield/armor hardners uses power...
cap neuts and/or nosferatus can help drain their cap faster.
Anyways, someone who's heavily tanked has to give up something to do it... finding that weakness and exploiting it is handy.
|
Mitchman
|
Posted - 2004.06.04 08:11:00 -
[9]
Shield Hardeners used to be 70%. Multi-resistance hardeners were not cap-nerfed, they were reduced from 40% to 25%. A sensor booster is not a viable countermeasure to a sensor dampener.
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.06.04 08:13:00 -
[10]
Watching the first 4 guys demand a nerf on hardeners, without any other argument apart from it can take your resistance from 0-50%, is hilarious.
The direct counter to hardeners is to switch damage type if possible. Another way is to Cap Drain. Yet another way is to outank your target.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.06.04 08:50:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hellek
Edited by: Hellek on 03/06/2004 15:00:25
I think hardeners should get a bit nerfed as currently, it does not make any difference if somebody armor tanks or shield tanks as with 3 hardeners, the resistances are almost equal.
I mean going from 0 to 50% with one single hardener is a bit too much, 40% would be more appropriate.
On the other side, I think that multi-hardeners (invulnerability field) should get their cap use reduced, currently the invulnerability field is totally useless.
I am against harder-countermeasures though, using 2 or 3 slots for hardeners mean that you sacrifice a lot and it should be worth it.
Your argument for changing hardeners is based on "sghield-tanking and armour-tanking are equally effective"?
Jesus H. Christ.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.06.04 10:20:00 -
[12]
nope, they of course should do it with armor hardeners as well.
|
Masiah
|
Posted - 2004.06.04 17:54:00 -
[13]
thats retarded... battleships go down fast enough.. if u make hardners crappy people are gonna die so fast no one is gonna fight in battleships.. think about it m8. U can only harden your armor or Shields.. Thats your main defence it better damn well be tough. but once u get through it its all butter.. Plus its not like u cant use em too.. The hardners are fine and definatly need to be strong because of just how fast battleships die.
-----------------------------------------------
The World Would Not Be What It Is, Had I Not Become What I Am... |
Nightfang
|
Posted - 2004.06.05 10:33:00 -
[14]
There already are countermeasures for hardeners and shieldboosters. It's called ammo.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |