Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 04:18:00 -
[421] - Quote
Snapper Pumpkinpuss wrote:Snowflake reporting in and with that statement you just described yourself as anouther idiot....Because you dont get the math 560 lqr X 430 lky divided by 45 HNB and you would know that it matters to new players....Ftard ....look chuckles get a life if you dont understand that CCP only Nerfs and doesnt make it better for new players this site will die Strong bonuses that older players are more poised to be able to take advantage of do not help new players. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 04:23:00 -
[422] - Quote
Akturous wrote: 2nd.
Very uncreative nerf this. How about making remote repair effects stacking penalised, possibly with different stacking numbers for capital and sub-cap? Instantly fix slow cats.
This only affects the issues of remote reps. The other issues would remain unadressed. This includes the issue of local reps, specifically the similarity in performance with active rep bonused ships while providing superior buffer at the same time. |
Toshaheri Talvinen
Ultimate Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 04:39:00 -
[423] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:Askulf, you privately suggested to me that this nerf in combination with a 10% omni resist boost for all battleships might be a good combination. I would like to publicly offer support to this idea, because it's a good one. There is an imbalance between BS hulls, but BS hulls really need to be made tougher in comparison to smaller ship classes. There just isn't enough right now to differentiate them from Navy BC's at this point.
Edit: In fact, I'm might be a good idea to look at having a different base resist layout for each class size of ship. It would add some variety, and make balancing different classes of ship against each other easier and more granular. This idea. This is a good idea. Battleships are falling behind the curve ball. There will soon be no reason to fly them due to the tank of a battlecruiser and faction battlecruiser being so close.
Battleships should be able to tank more than any other subcap ship in my opinion, while not being able to hit smaller vessels particularly well. Hitting battlecruisers for nearly full damage is a reasonable idea in my book, because many have immense tanks. But once you fall below that, I would expect battleships to have difficulty killing anything below (frigs, dessies, and cruisers). Fix the EHP gap.
And as far as the resist nerf goes, I agree with the poster that says we need to fix remote reps, not nerf resistances. If you find a particular situation in which something is "overpowered" then adjust that specfic situation (remote reps in this case). Because if you mess with something as broad as native resistance bonuses, you are going to affect many more outcomes than you had in mind to change.
My two cents.
- - Tosh |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 04:42:00 -
[424] - Quote
Snapper Pumpkinpuss wrote:Snowflake reporting in and with that statement you just described yourself as anouther idiot....Because you dont get the math 560 lqr X 430 lky divided by 45 HNB and you would know that it matters to new players....Ftard ....look chuckles get a life if you dont understand that CCP only Nerfs and doesnt make it better for new players this site will die
10 years.
I've been on here, in one form or another, for at least eight of that.
Why is that important? Because this 'you guys don't know your business, I am a business owner and know more, this will ruin eve, yadda yadda yadda' spiel your on right now? Been done. Not fresh. Not even close to new. And unarguably, proven wrong.
Oh, I think you might be right on one account, that they are trying to push new players (under a few months) out of bs's and into smaller ships where they might actually be able to develop the in-game skills to fit them correctly.
The difference you and I have, though, is I personally have argued FOR that change, to make it better on new players. Cause an ignorant newb flying a battleship fitted with undersized guns and tier 1 modules is waiting for his day to be seriously ruined, and we all know it. You have to push them out of the larger ships, make them less useful. Not to make it harder, but to make it BETTER.
As much as I disagree at times about what CCP chooses to do, the proof is that EvE continues to grow and improve, year on and year off, even in one of the worst generations for computer gaming since before the Comadore.
I don't argue your math. I argue that you don't have perspective. And, your a flake.
Don't be ashamed. |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 04:46:00 -
[425] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Snapper Pumpkinpuss wrote:Snowflake reporting in and with that statement you just described yourself as anouther idiot....Because you dont get the math 560 lqr X 430 lky divided by 45 HNB and you would know that it matters to new players....Ftard ....look chuckles get a life if you dont understand that CCP only Nerfs and doesnt make it better for new players this site will die Strong bonuses that older players are more poised to be able to take advantage of do not help new players.
To be the herp-derp one here, EVERY bonus on EVERY ship is better for older players.
Not much of a bonus usually, but a bonus nonetheless. This, of course, is the way the progression of the game is designed.
I know it's obvious and point blank and sounds like I'm preaching to the choir, but I thought maybe some of the other posters here might need their memory refreshed on how silly it sounds to argue against that. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 05:49:00 -
[426] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: Actually, a friend of mine who is a Loki pilot that had matching skills with me (a Legion pilot) once sat down and figured out comparable fits between the two for PvP, and what we ended up with was the loki ended up with about 1/3 more tank but almost half the DPS. Then of course, we had to test them out and set to each other... I'll wait a few days to see what some people think the outcome should be before I reveal it :D
Yeah, I fly the legion, ham tengu (for shield fleets), and many in my corp fly loki's, and my toon is just starting to use them. The resistance profile is quite nice coupled with its low signature. My concern is that they're the only two truly viable defense subs. The sig radius subsystem? laughable. On a side note, this is also going to hit all the passive tanked ships out there. regen tanking c1-c3 wh's is very doable, but in most cases it's only through the use of a ship with a resistance bonus (loki, gila, tengu, drake). I've been against passive shield tanking more often than not, but this is a little niche that really only works in lower-class pve. |
Longdrinks
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 05:55:00 -
[427] - Quote
good change, keep strong against the crybabies fozzie |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 06:39:00 -
[428] - Quote
Just to give some perceptive on the matter, an Abaddon today with a DC2 and 2 T2 eanms with max skills has the following resists: 81.3 EM/75.7 Therm/71.9 Kin/70.1 Explosive. After the changes the abaddon gets 80 EM/74.1 Therm/70.1 Kin/68.1 Explosive.
So to all of you that are saying that "OMG we are losing 5-6-7% of our tank!" are flat out wrong. You forget that you are unlikely to change the tanking mods just cause of the bonus reduction so while you lose some % from the resist bonus the modules cover a portion of that due to how resist stacking works(if you start with 50% resist and add a 50% hardener you don't get 100% resist, you get 75%). |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 06:51:00 -
[429] - Quote
Yes, but at 50% resists, you have doubled your EHP, and at 75%, you have quadrupled it. Each additional point of resist is more powerful than the last. This gets really broken on subcaps above 80%.
To be honest, subcap resists should be capped at 85% at most, capitals at 90% and super resists at 95% (Although this would necessitate rebalancing several tanks). Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
LOL56
Galactic Express
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 06:56:00 -
[430] - Quote
You know, this change stings a little bit on my brand new triage Archon. It was certainly not the balance change I was hoping for. but what the hell, lets try it out. That said, ships like HICs, maulers, and really bad Caldari T2 2xoptimal hulls need to be watched so this nerf doesn't knock them out of usefulness or grind them down further. I mean it's hardly likely the eagle needs a nerf, but perhaps you have a magic fix in the wings for medium railguns. |
|
Chief Admiral Spacegoat
Q.Q.
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 07:42:00 -
[431] - Quote
Quote:Extending armor and shield repair bonuses to apply to remote reps would bring them much closer to balance with resist bonuses, but would also further empower the current remote rep tactics that are as strong as we feel we can allow them to be.
Given Fozzies statement that we cannot expect remote reps bonuses to be extended to non-resist bonus ships because it is too "strong" then at least trying to spread the resist bonuses more evenly among the races so any race can have a few ships that can fly fleet doctrines. Gallente, for example, has only one damn ship, the Proteus, that gets resist bonus that can get those remote reps.
That is one of the most glaring imbalances of the game.
If you aren't going to fix remote reps then at least balance the ships that have the bonus among the races.
The truth is this is not a big enough nerf to balance the strength of remote reps to bonused resistance based tanks. Also it's an indirect and blanket nerf and as a result will hit some weak ships too that didn't have great tanks to begin with like the loki. The eagle and nighthawk seems weird to be nerfing too. On the other hand it's not a strong enough nerf to stop the dominance of certain carriers.
Nerf is trying to address a real problem, however it's indirect (problem is really that only some ships benefit hugely from remote reps and those are concentrated in two races) and it's blanket (nerfing some ships that are already weak and not nerfing some of the strongest enough).
|
Bandalon Ominus
Occidendi Apocalypse Now.
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 07:50:00 -
[432] - Quote
If you're going to reduce the +5% shield bonus on the wyvern please give us a shield implant set like the armor capitals have? |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
278
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 08:19:00 -
[433] - Quote
Bandalon Ominus wrote:If you're going to reduce the +5% shield bonus on the wyvern please give us a shield implant set like the armor capitals have? better if ccp make it to be able to speed tank , cause thats what shield tanks are for arent they?:O |
Joan Greywind
I Moan ALOT We Moan ALOT
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 08:20:00 -
[434] - Quote
Well this is probably selfish (training perfect amarr/caldari capital and super takes really a long time, and we all did it for one reason only, for those resist bonuses), and since capitals are different from subcaps, and so few (1 each race) can't we buff the other carriers? The thanatos can get extra damage bonus, and the niddy can get a small hp buffer bonus (make it able to tank more alpha, fitting since it's minmatar). The problem with carriers and supers, is that you dont have any other option and skilling to them takes a really long time, so even the smallest nerf will hurt (for instance the nerf although 1% will be the difference of amarr carrier 5 and 4 which take months to train), whereas battleship 5 will be good for two other battleships, maurader, and blackops. |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
49
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 08:41:00 -
[435] - Quote
Well, it looks like most of the changes, that this goon is bringing are aimed at ships blowing up faster, then they used to be. Might be useful for blob-vs-skill and another blow on those trying to PVP solo in pimped ships. |
Bandalon Ominus
Occidendi Apocalypse Now.
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 09:32:00 -
[436] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Bandalon Ominus wrote:If you're going to reduce the +5% shield bonus on the wyvern please give us a shield implant set like the armor capitals have? better if ccp make it to be able to speed tank , cause thats what shield tanks are for arent they?:O
Speedtanking a supercapital? |
Serg Lemox
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 09:53:00 -
[437] - Quote
The archon and chimera are the only carriers that can do decent triage. Nerfing their resistance is nerfing triage.It's such a niche strategy, making it weaker would only make it harder to use.
Any plans to make triage popular or viable in the era of larger fleets? |
Jessica Danikov
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
79
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 10:13:00 -
[438] - Quote
I think the very obvious point here is that it's bone-headedly stupid to nerf a bonus you feel is overpowered, because all the ships with the 'overpowered' bonus will, or at least should have, been balanced with that overpowered stat in mind.
By nerfing this bonus, you are in essence blanket-nerfing 44 ships without any thought to the consequences for those ships. To some degree, the bonus is entirely irrelevant- you don't say 'the Rokh's resistance bonus is too strong', most of the time you're assuming all level V skills and just say 'the Rokh's resistances are too strong'. Like the cov-ops CPU change, you may say 'the progression of this bonus is wrong' and make the bonus weaker so that, at low skills, the ship is still usable, but you compensate the hull for the loss of bonus to give a smoother, less pronounced procession.
Each ship is balanced by itself. I don't understand why this is suddenly being thrown out the window. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 10:14:00 -
[439] - Quote
LOL56 wrote:You know, this change stings a little bit on my brand new triage Archon. It was certainly not the balance change I was hoping for. but what the hell, lets try it out. That said, ships like HICs, maulers, and really bad Caldari T2 2xoptimal hulls need to be watched so this nerf doesn't knock them out of usefulness or grind them down further. I mean it's hardly likely the eagle needs a nerf, but perhaps you have a magic fix in the wings for medium railguns.
ach.. i think HACS need to be taken away from sniping as they can't compete with ABC's in anyway really they should head in the direction of the deimos/vaga. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
280
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 11:11:00 -
[440] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
ach.. i think HACS need to be taken away from sniping as they can't compete with ABC's in anyway really they should head in the direction of the deimos/vaga.
so 8 ship should compete for the same role? that is impossible to balance , especially as that role are already favour by matar/gall here deimos/vaga, so what would they become a weaker version of those ships? |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 11:15:00 -
[441] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:
ach.. i think HACS need to be taken away from sniping as they can't compete with ABC's in anyway really they should head in the direction of the deimos/vaga.
so 8 ship should compete for the same role? that is impossible to balance , especially as that role are already favour by matar/gall here deimos/vaga, so what would they become a weaker version of those ships?
well you cerb and sacrilege for HAMS shield/armour tank Eagle and deimos for shield/armour tank vaga and muninn shield/armour tank zealot and ishtar are fairly unique 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
Bluemelon
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 11:17:00 -
[442] - Quote
Please leave the bonus on my Vangels. There are only 50 of them and they deserve to be a little OP
-Blue |
octahexx Charante
Morior Invictus. The Retirement Club
76
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 11:35:00 -
[443] - Quote
so you want less supers and titans ingame yet you nerf the HIC who has the only prupose in game to point and tank without assistance? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
221
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 13:03:00 -
[444] - Quote
Akturous wrote:
2nd.
Very uncreative nerf this. How about making remote repair effects stacking penalised, possibly with different stacking numbers for capital and sub-cap? Instantly fix slow cats.
Tell you what, you can have remote reps have stacking penalties if I can have incoming DPS have stacking penalties so the more ships that shoot at me, the less effective each one becomes. That should instantly fix blob warfare right?
Of course, if you find that a silly idea (as you should) then why should remote reps suffer stacking. To get more remote reps, you need more ships. Just the same as to get more DPS. |
Tilo Rhywald
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 13:12:00 -
[445] - Quote
Sad I can't like that post twice:
Liang Nuren wrote:First, let me say that resist bonuses are very powerful. I think we all know and agree with this. However, I was personally fond of your previous approach to balancing resist bonuses: by restricting the ships in other ways. The implication here is that ships with a resist bonus are frequently slower ships, or have less fittings, or less damage, or less range, etc. You specifically bring up nerfing the Nighthawk, despite neither the ship or it's tank being that big of a deal. Furthermore, you're talking of changing ships that already work as intended, and would need to be rebalanced again. I contend that nerfing resist bonuses is an untargeted solution that ignores actual ship balance.
Another thing I want to bring up is that you're concerned that buffing active tanking ships to benefit more directly from remote repair would be a buff to remote repair. I contend that's probably not true. Resist bonuses are still strongly favored due to the extra EHP and the active tanking ships in question would still be the weak link in the kind of logi blob we're talking about.
That said, I'm completely ok with active tanking ships not getting the RR bonus, because there should be ships that are better in certain metas than others. It's ok that certain ships are good in fleets and others aren't. It's ok that certain ships are good solo and others aren't. From my perspective, it's even ok that entire races are heavily biased towards one meta or another.
I don't think you need to nerf resist bonuses.
-Liang
Aside from the self-evident fact that indiscriminately nerfing a bonus across all kinds of ship classes and roles is generally a horrible idea, let me add my opinion specifically towards the Caldari line-up (some arguments might apply to Amarr ships aswell, but as I prefer shield tanking I hardly fly them at all):
When I first subscribed to EVE Online (3 years ago) I chose Caldari as my go-to race for asthetic reasons mostly, Merlin, Ferox and Rokh being the forfront incentives. I had actually read up on the race's advantages or disadvantages for PvP before, and even when I had entered the game as a toon concentrating on Caldari ships despite all arguments like the then so typical "Caldari, PvP, solo - choose two" nobody ever suggested to me to fly a Caldari ship for anything outside PVE except the Tengu. Always were there some better options - mostly of Minmatar origin. I aspired to fly a blaster-Rokh right from the beginning, and I accepted the fact that I'd probably pay a lot of Euros until I could actually pilot it with maxed skills. The classic PvP-video "Built like a Rokh" encouraged me evenmore. Not a single time have I ever been told by anyone that the blaster Rokh is a strong setup until people suddenly broadly became aware of the thing called "active shield tanking" with the introduction of the ASBs. Still, the Maelstrom dominated, but occasionally one saw a Rokh flying solo or in small gangs - a thing I had NEVER seen outside of my own ship or in some videos like XDMR's beautiful "Shields of Glory". What I had come across however almost every time I had logged on was: Slaved armor battleships, either "solo" or on small gangs with RR or spider-tanked... One of the (rightfully) most despised gang to use RR tactics in hi/lowsec was - and in sometimes still is - the Godsquad... I have never encountered a single one of them (and I've seen all, thanks to many wars) in a Rokh.
The reputation of the Rokh before the rebalancing of large railguns was so bad that not seldomly the first comments in local upon me showing up flashy in that hull was: "lol! A Rokh!" Often enough this is what happens from time to time even nowadays!! Sationary Tornados and Oracles trying to "snipe" me from less than 50 km away are a clear indication that people rarely encounter blaster Rokhs - otherwise they'd know how stupid such behaviour is. I have many killmails proving this. So, how again is the ship overpowered if its usage in small engagements can only be described as marginal?
As Liang pointed out, there are a lot of other drawbacks for ships with shield-resistance boni: They are slow, mostly have a huge sig relative to other hulls (so suffered DPS in actual game play is not as low as pure numbers suggest). AND: shield-resi bonused ships are pretty much one-trick-ponys in solo PvP... when was the last time you've seen one of them with more e-war than just tackle and the occasional target painter?! They are balanced by slot layout and other characteristics. That this would be disregarded is not only frustrating beyond belief, it's also completely unsuspected coming from guys like CCP Rise/kil2 who - at least formerly - advocated solo and small-scale combat.
If anything, the Rokh deserved a buff by at least adding 25 m^3 to its pathetic drone bay, now it's getting nerfed instead...
Some of the other 40+ ships with resi-boni actually performed well since the latest rounds of rebalancing also fall victim to this carpet-bombing approach. But obviously the huge Ferox-RR-blobs needed a downgrade and so did the T1frig solo pilot in a Merlin or Punisher who never flies w/o RR... oh wait! those don't exist! The obvious reason noone ever sees Vultures outside of of POS shields and Nighthaws anywhere near a battle must be that they are so completely overpowered that flying them makes no sense at all because every possible foe would run anway...
As I have stated in the T1 Caldari BS rebalancing/nerfing thread... I have seen many changes, and vainly waited for even more. I accepted it all... But this time you went too far, and I'm pissed off at this seemilingly small yet cataclysmic change in a way I never thought possible over a game. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
124
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 13:31:00 -
[446] - Quote
octahexx Charante wrote:so you want less supers and titans ingame yet you nerf the HIC who has the only prupose in game to point and tank without assistance?
obviously your hic was too op for its role....to whom I don't know but I'd like what they are smoking lol.
This balance.....is jsut stinking of laziness. CCP seems to have opened up a select * query, searched for all ships with 5% per level resit bonus and looked at the results and said.....too much work to properly rebalance, apply the sledgehammer.
YOur hics just part of of many that need any edge to get thier job done. If ccp wanted to hit the ships that abused this badly, by all means nerf them. But this kill em all let god sort em out crap is just bad. Some ships all they had was a resist base tank. Like rokh. Its main appeal to me is resists. Range was nice but you can't fully use it...unless getting on grid ass gaped your thing.
And the applicationt o the tourney ships....either they were earned in the trials of combat or someone coughed up lots of isk for em. Is it that hard to run the if-then-else to exclude them? I don't see these pilots going awww yeah, I have this op 5% bonus and blotting out the sun to terrorize the server.
Even wargaming.net who does lots of things I think are wrong does not touch its more rare commodity items. they have gold "op" tanks they let be op (or percieved to be so) for quite sometime. Presumably under the premise if they change their premium hard ot get tanks (type 59 for example) they kill off interest in those areas since who is going to shell out money for a tank bought for its nice stats...that then get nerfed later. |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force Caldari State Capturing
247
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 13:41:00 -
[447] - Quote
Bluemelon wrote:Please leave the bonus on my Vangels. There are only 50 of them and they deserve to be a little OP
-Blue
This is literally what I was thinking. I am disappointed with the idea of this change for Sub BS ships. I also do not like the fact that they feel a "Blanket Change" is a smart move.
Even funnier, alliance tourney ships like the Cambion and Vangel are getting nerfed too. I dont see the point in nerfing a limited edition frigate worth billions. |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
49
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 14:22:00 -
[448] - Quote
This change is another one of those changes, that bring small-to-mid scale pew-pew to a blob-usual 1 minute contests of "who calls primaries faster" instead of long and interesting battles where pilot skill actually matter.
Someone stop Fozzie plz, for the sake of the Game |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
126
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 14:56:00 -
[449] - Quote
Toshaheri Talvinen wrote:Van Mathias wrote:Askulf, you privately suggested to me that this nerf in combination with a 10% omni resist boost for all battleships might be a good combination. I would like to publicly offer support to this idea, because it's a good one. There is an imbalance between BS hulls, but BS hulls really need to be made tougher in comparison to smaller ship classes. There just isn't enough right now to differentiate them from Navy BC's at this point.
Edit: In fact, I'm might be a good idea to look at having a different base resist layout for each class size of ship. It would add some variety, and make balancing different classes of ship against each other easier and more granular. This idea. This is a good idea. Battleships are falling behind the curve ball. There will soon be no reason to fly them due to the tank of a battlecruiser and faction battlecruiser being so close. Battleships should be able to tank more than any other subcap ship in my opinion, while not being able to hit smaller vessels particularly well. Hitting battlecruisers for nearly full damage is a reasonable idea in my book, because many have immense tanks. But once you fall below that, I would expect battleships to have difficulty killing anything below (frigs, dessies, and cruisers). Fix the EHP gap. - - Tosh Yes, fix the gap. |
David Kir
Pixel Navigators Hostile Work Environment.
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 14:59:00 -
[450] - Quote
Please do not extend this changement to T3 cruisers, as it would only hit the Loki.
Tengu has the Suplemental Screening subsystem, that gives it an HP bonus, as well as the Amplification Node, that gives a local tank bonus.
Proteus and Legion both have Augmented Plating (HP bonus) and Nanobot Injector (local tank bonus) subsystems.
Thus, these 3 have resist, HP and local tank bonuses.
The Loki, meanwhile, only has resist bonuses (and a fairly unused sig radius bonus).
PvE Tengus use the Amplification Node, PVP ones either the Suplemental Screening or the Adaptive Shielding subsystems.
PvE Legions and Proteii use the Nanobot Injector, PVP ones almost always use the Augmented Plating subsystem.
Both PvE and PvP Lokis use resist bonuses.
The reduction of this bonuses would only hurt the Loki, which is already the weakest tanker and damage dealer of all the T3 ships.
The resist issue is a matter of internal ship class balance: Abddon>Hyperion Prophecy>Myrmidon Archon>Thanatos and so on and on.
The reduction of this bonus to 4% is meant to make Active Tanking ships usable once again.
But all the T3 ships, except for the Loki, have multiple tank bonuses.
What will happen once the resist bonus is lowered?
Legion and Proteus Augmented Plating tanks will still be infamous, the Proteus still being one of the best tanking ships there are, without relying on the resist bonused subsystem, and they will still be able to active tank via Nanobot Injectors.
The Tengu will be able to perform similarly with the HP and the active tanked bonused subsystems.
The Loki will be left with two gimped subsystems, and an even worse tank.
Both when active and buffer tanked, the Loki would be the only T3 to be hit.
The Loki has never been overpowered, and has no niche to fit in, unlike the Proteus.
Ok, the Legion is still terrible, but the main T3 issue has always been the Tengu.
The Loki is the only T3 performing exactly as intended, without being OP in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |