Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 23:46:00 -
[1]
I think the player feedback regarding the T2 EANM change has been quite detailed and precise with respect to all the reasons why it's a bad change, why it won't help Amarr, and why it will only cripple a few critical setups on a very select few ship types.
The Caldari pilots are fine with it. They don't care, they fly shield ships. The Minmatar pilots are fine with it, the ships that *do* armor tank have plenty of CPU to spare.
The Gallente pilots hate it, because it really screws our favorite ship: the Blasterthron. Everything else generally has some wiggle room, at least if you fit the most expensive named mods. Making faction mods a *requirement* for a decent fitting on a ship just to compete with everyone else is totally unacceptable.
The Amarr pilots hate the change as well. Isn't this the group that needs the most help? They have even more CPU issues than Gallente pilots do. Not to mention that they armor tank as well.
This change will solve nothing. The ultra-hardened armor tanks like the Dominix will still have huge EM resists. Battlecruisers like the Myrm and Harbinger and Brutix and Prophecy will still use EANMs just the same, not changing a thing.
Basically every other ship in the game other than Gallente and Amarr BS arn't affected by the change. So if you want to nerf Gallente/Amarr BS pilots, then why not just come out and say it?
Frankly, this change won't accomplish anything as I'll simply buy some faction EANMs or resort to faction magstabs in order to maintain my fit. All it's accomplishing is antagonizing myself and the rest of the Gallente and Amarr PVP playerbase.
If that's you're goal, good job on that one. It's working.
Because I said so...
|
IHurricane
Sniggerdly
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 23:53:00 -
[2]
/signed ---------------------------------------------
There was never a genius, without a tincture of madness - Aristotle |
doctorstupid2
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:17:00 -
[3]
What he said.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:32:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Icome4u on 06/06/2007 00:30:37 Well Caldari keeps getting nerf b/c of whiners, about time gallente gets nerf... sorry but what goes around, comes around. ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
doctorstupid2
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Icome4u Edited by: Icome4u on 06/06/2007 00:30:37 Well Caldari keeps getting nerf b/c of whiners, about time gallente gets nerf... sorry but what goes around, comes around.
When the last time anyone whined that those pesky EANM's just didn't use enough cpu? Please, quote it.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:39:00 -
[6]
People where whining about armor tankers being to good. Well CCP apparently listen and decided to nerf T2 EANM. ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
doctorstupid2
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Icome4u People where whining about armor tankers being to good. Well CCP apparently listen and decided to nerf T2 EANM.
No, people were whining that amarr's natural damage tyypes were ineffective on armor tanks, which is true. The problem is unlike the other 3 races Amarr is limited to only two damage type for primary damage dealing, exception being the arbitrator hull ships.
PROBLEM: Projectiles' explosive damage sucks on shields SOLUTION: Use different ammo
PROBLEM: Lasers suck on armor SOLUTION: Make a module that Amarr ships, being very fitting constrained, rely on harder to fit. WTF? Wrong.
My minmatar alts can't break shield tanks quickly with barrage, make invul fields hard to fit? Of course not, they can just switch ammo, where in stark contrast amarr is still limited to EM as the primary damage type. More thermal damage from cyrstals would be a considerable step in the right direction, making amarr ships even harder to fit is just counterintuitive.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:51:00 -
[8]
Errr people were whining about armor tankers being to good. You can go in details, dual reps, dominix uber tanking, and a couple other 'problems'.
CCP decided to nerf T2 EANM, while they could have also nerf dual repping or something like that.
Yes theirs other reasons just like for nerfing the Drake. But heh overall CCP > us. Can't do **** about it. Caldari needs more CPU, Amarr need more 'ooomff', Minmatar need better bonuses/slots, gallente need... err iono
Caldari keeps taking the nerf-stick, now armor tankers got hit also... Un-nerf t2 eanm, ok, give Caldari ships more cpu. Neither will happen so... ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
doctorstupid2
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 01:07:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Icome4u Errr people were whining about armor tankers being to good. You can go in details, dual reps, dominix uber tanking, and a couple other 'problems'.
What exactly ARE you smoking?
You are aware that 2x LAR II < X-L Booster + ampII, right? Armor tanks were never "too good," I highly suggest you read up a bit more. I really can't imagine where you're getting this crap from.
I am however quite sure that you're entirely out of your league here, I fly Amarr and Gallente on this character, and my alts are mostly Minmatar. I shield and armor tank and am under no delusions of the effects of such a fitting increase. The same cannot be said for you, just another embittered missile spammer with a false sense of entitlement.
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 01:13:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Icome4u Errr people were whining about armor tankers being to good. You can go in details, dual reps, dominix uber tanking, and a couple other 'problems'.
CCP decided to nerf T2 EANM, while they could have also nerf dual repping or something like that.
Yes theirs other reasons just like for nerfing the Drake. But heh overall CCP > us. Can't do **** about it. Caldari needs more CPU, Amarr need more 'ooomff', Minmatar need better bonuses/slots, gallente need... err iono
Caldari keeps taking the nerf-stick, now armor tankers got hit also... Un-nerf t2 eanm, ok, give Caldari ships more cpu. Neither will happen so...
Your post illustrates perfectly why nerfing EANMS won't solve the problem. Dominixs have plenty of CPU and won't be affected in any way by the nerf.
If you wern't some ***** ass whining Caldari, you'd know that. STFU.
Because I said so...
|
|
Dixon
Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 01:49:00 -
[11]
Not all amarr pilots hate this change. It's a step in the right direction. All we need now is less cpu usage on specific hardeners. EANMs were not fine, they needed a nerf. And this does solve a huge problem, namely the crappieness of EM damage.
And stop bringing up shield tanks, how many of those do you see in pvp?
|
SN3263827
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 02:05:00 -
[12]
The first thing I thought when I saw the changes to EANMs was "Oh God my Deimos is even more screwed".
Seriously, the deimos is already a massive pain to fit, requiring best named T1 and factiion to squeeze a decent fiting out of it, and now I have to find something else to replace the EANM that represents its meagre tank.
Won't hurt any of my other ships though, myrm, domi, eos, astarte, none of them care about 20-30 cpu. _____________________________________________
Free the Oimmo One! |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 02:17:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Icome4u on 06/06/2007 02:20:03 WHINE WHINE WHINE
I never said it was good that it was nerf so get your facts straight ******s
All i'm saying is what goes around comes around.
Adapt
Edit: Oh yeah b4 a smartass tries something, yeah i'm adapting, Caldari have been adapting ever since we realize that we can't tank +ewar. Heck we can't even fit a capital ship (or most of the other ships) decently w/o spending millions of isk on faction modules to get that extra 5 cpu
While you guys are happy with high resistance + dual large repairers, that one can run almost all the time, we have to stick a big fat CPU and cap eating x-large shield booster + a shield ampli that uses even more CPU... yeah...
Armor tanking > Shield tanking
Now you guys took a nerf, adapt
P.S: If you guys didn't see that nerf comming then say hello to the NERF STICK ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 02:28:00 -
[14]
Oh and yes i feel your pain, i have a gallente alt that i use for pvp... but heh it truly needed a nerf. Butttt to be fair, the other hardeners should be brought in-line.
______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
doctorstupid2
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 02:46:00 -
[15]
Oh I've more than adapted, if you could see the faction grab bag that is my hangar...
Point is it's not solving the problem with amarr, and is in many ways damaging to amarr. Remember I fly amarr too (actually I can, I just haven't in quite some time, something about it sucking.... but i digress), and I really really want amarr to be worth flying again, too many *almost* good ships. Making a module that was never the problem in the first place harder to fit is not the solution to amarr.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 02:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: doctorstupid2 Oh I've more than adapted, if you could see the faction grab bag that is my hangar...
Point is it's not solving the problem with amarr, and is in many ways damaging to amarr. Remember I fly amarr too (actually I can, I just haven't in quite some time, something about it sucking.... but i digress), and I really really want amarr to be worth flying again, too many *almost* good ships. Making a module that was never the problem in the first place harder to fit is not the solution to amarr.
I also fly ammar... i haven't used him in 3 month b/c frankly... they suck...
I know what you are talking about, but the truth is Caldari keeps getting nerf and now CCP turned their attention to the other guys (aka armor tankers).
I'm running a full faction Chimera b/c its the only way i can fit what i need to tank properly and play support... if i stick with t2 (like the other carriers) i can etheir tank or support but not even a bit of both...
Boost Caldari ships CPU Reduce armor resistance modules to bring them to lign with their shield counter-partners.
Voila, fixed. ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
doctorstupid2
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 02:57:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Icome4u I know what you are talking about, but the truth is Caldari keeps getting nerf and now CCP turned their attention to the other guys (aka armor tankers).
But again, the armor tankers that are really powerful are totally unaffected. It's the ones that barely have a tank at all that suffer. Increasing EANM cpu usage doesn't fix a damn thing, it just screws up the faction market.
Start with more laser thermal damage, then go from there. Boost caldari cpu, fine whatever, I don't really care. Just don't try to fix one problem by creating countless more.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 02:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: doctorstupid2 Just don't try to fix one problem by creating countless more.
But.... thats what CCP is good for... ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
Tunajuice
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 04:09:00 -
[19]
Why do most pvp ships armor tank? Hint - because it's better.
It has huge advantages over shield tanking. EANM nerf helps a little with the balance between the two tanking styles, but IMHO shield tanking is still far far worse in PVP, but fine for PVE.
|
Azirapheal
Amarr kleptomaniacs
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 05:23:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Azirapheal on 06/06/2007 05:21:58 shield tanking is only inferior to armor tanking in pvp due to the fact that shield tanking is very predictable - everyone knows that the normal 00 ratter in a ravenis equipped with, and knows what he is packing in terms of tank (booster boost amp + rat specific hardener and extenders) and therefore they come paking em ammo and nos to suck the bugger dry
i do infact support this nerf of eanm2 because to be quite frank - it doesnt matter WHAT dmg type you use if all resists are as high as they are yes i want to be able to, with maxed comp skills and upgrade skills like i have, to be able to have an all round tank with very good resists which amarr do really well
i do not want to see gallente ships having the ability to tank the same way amarr do, believing instead that gallente ships should favour active hardeners over passive eanm's
this is speaking as someone bothe amarr and gallente specced, with over 800 ship kills to date
Originally by: CCP Wrangler you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for.
|
|
Sc0rpion
Archer Daniels Midland
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 05:36:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Tunajuice Why do most pvp ships armor tank? Hint - because it's better.
Wrong. Most pvp ships armor tank because they need the mid slots for EW. That doesn't mean it's "better".
-True passive recharge -Instant boosting -Faster boosting cycle -Boost amplifiers -HP buffer between tank and structure
Before skills are even taken into account, 1x T2 XL booster + T2 amp repairs 163/sec for 80 cap, while 2x T2 LAR's will repair 106.67/sec for 53 cap. Not only are the armor repairers 65% as effective in terms of HP/sec, it uses more than 8 times the grid while still using 61% less CPU.
Some comparisons:
hp/sec Shield = 163.2 Armor = 106.67
hp per cap Shield = 2.04 Armor = 2
hp per grid Shield = 1.48 Armor = 0.35
hp per CPU Shield = 2.86 Armor = 14.5
So the only metric by which shields are worse than armor is hp/CPU, and that's completely irrelevant, because shield tanking ships have so much more CPU than armor tanking ships.
The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Killmails are for pooftas. |
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 06:21:00 -
[22]
This change is not what would ballance the races. See the problems: EANM nerf would not real affect ubertanks like the Myrm or the Domi, but would hit the mega which needs to go close to do the job(Blaster) and the amarrs hit really, because force them to use active hardeners on a race ship which have alredy cap problems. Now if they meat a nosdomi, not that they would not able to shoot and rep, but even they resist would go down. But there are plenty such problems between races: Amarr have crappy damage type VS armor tanks and have cap issues - add other damage type and take a bit down the cap usage of the energy weapons. Caldari have problem with bonuses, CPU - the kinetic damage is ***. Is if like u give the domi +10 damage and res to exp for drones, or dont give +5% damage to hybrids, but just for Kinetic damage. IS USELESS. Or to give range bonus to a race wich is the slowest and need the offer the tank if want adjust the tragetting range to the weapon range. I know range bonus is not bad, but not on ships which have not the targetting range for(need offer tank), if u use this ability of the ship u are extreme vulnerable by small ships. Other races can go away because they faster, or simply web, paint and kill the enemy ship if they come close, but caldari if drop tank for targetting range, for web, etc. than have no tank :( and still doo crappy damage. The CPU i would not list, but u need faction and officer stuff on lot of they ships to fit without CPU mod.
|
Deious Troeyd
Minmatar Kalear Fleet Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 06:37:00 -
[23]
Armor tanking = EWAR + lots of tanking slots. Shield tanking = speed or lots of ganking slots, few tanking slots.
Armor tanking also tends to be more sustainable cap wise, whereas shield tanking is stronger for high burst damage. Its a shame that after compulsary PVP gear (mwd/cap injector) the most tanking slots a shield tanker will have is 4 (excepting the scorpion, but thats an ewar machine anyway) and thats if the fit completely disregards webs/scrams, the web being especially essential as a defensive aswell as offensive tool.
Even basic armor tankers have 5+ tanking slots, even after fitting a few damage mods in the case of battleships.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 06:58:00 -
[24]
Oh, don't worry. He'll carefully consider each and every argument being made, consider the consequences of a number of possible changes and carefully balance the proposed changes with every other part of the game, then throw it all out the window and go with whatever stupid idea he was going to in the first place.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Jurgen Cartis
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 11:25:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Sc0rpion
So the only metric by which shields are worse than armor is hp/CPU, and that's completely irrelevant, because shield tanking ships have so much more CPU than armor tanking ships.
Pull up Quickfit and try fitting a full rack of T2 Heavy Launchers, a 5 slot T2 shield tank (Large Booster, Boost Amp and 3 active hardeners) and 2 BCU IIs on a Drake without a Co-Proc. The other slots can be fitted as you desire. Have fun.
Regarding your comparisons, your dual LAR IIs get 133.3 hp/sec with Repair IV (minimum skills), or 142 hp/sec with Repair V, whereas shield gets no similar duration reducing skill to boost its hp/sec. It does get a skill to lower cap requirements though, which helps boost hp/cap. Without boost amps, shield tanks are far less efficient than armor tanks at converting cap to hp (1.5 hp/sec vs. T2 reps at 2 cap/sec).
I do agree with you that most pvpers armor tank due to the need for free midslots for ewar though, not due to a natural superiority of one tank or the other.
|
4rc4ng3L
Gallente C R Y O FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 11:35:00 -
[26]
I really dont see why you need to nerf them. I mean its then going to affect the setups of the smaller ships af's, inties who have to have a tight balance with setups due to low cpu, pwg.
Maybe you need to take the nerf stick out, then slap yourselfs and put in away in a safe somewhere, then go get the BUFF stick, and use that instead. Not all problems are resolved with a god dam nerf, i mean jesus!!
Death is the only true freedom, brought on by our own ignorance.... Welcome to the "free" world in which we live... |
Callthetruth
Caldari Logical Logtistics
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 11:39:00 -
[27]
follow thro with the nerf and watch mroe pilots switch out of amarr. CCP want us all as missile spammers anyway good move folks
|
Sc0rpion
Archer Daniels Midland
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 14:04:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis
Originally by: Sc0rpion
So the only metric by which shields are worse than armor is hp/CPU, and that's completely irrelevant, because shield tanking ships have so much more CPU than armor tanking ships.
Pull up Quickfit and try fitting a full rack of T2 Heavy Launchers, a 5 slot T2 shield tank (Large Booster, Boost Amp and 3 active hardeners) and 2 BCU IIs on a Drake without a Co-Proc. The other slots can be fitted as you desire. Have fun.
Who fits an active tank on a Drake though?
The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Killmails are for pooftas. |
Jacque Phare
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 14:26:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Nyphur Oh, don't worry. He'll carefully consider each and every argument being made, consider the consequences of a number of possible changes and carefully balance the proposed changes with every other part of the game, then throw it all out the window and go with whatever stupid idea he was going to in the first place.
It does seem that way often, eh? Increasing cpu use of Eanm appears to be one solution that doesn't affect the stats of the Eanm itself, maybe with the buff to active hardeners increasing the eanm cpu use is not necessary. Murder one, consider this for a moment, what did you do before eanm(and damage control) were boosted to current TQ stats? Perhaps it's time to take a look at old fits and adapt?
|
William Alex
Viscosity Dark Synergy
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 14:27:00 -
[30]
Edited by: William Alex on 06/06/2007 14:26:29
Originally by: doctorstupid2
Originally by: Icome4u People where whining about armor tankers being to good. Well CCP apparently listen and decided to nerf T2 EANM.
No, people were whining that amarr's natural damage tyypes were ineffective on armor tanks, which is true. The problem is unlike the other 3 races Amarr is limited to only two damage type for primary damage dealing, exception being the arbitrator hull ships.
PROBLEM: Projectiles' explosive damage sucks on shields SOLUTION: Use different ammo
PROBLEM: Lasers suck on armor SOLUTION: Make a module that Amarr ships, being very fitting constrained, rely on harder to fit. WTF? Wrong.
My minmatar alts can't break shield tanks quickly with barrage, make invul fields hard to fit? Of course not, they can just switch ammo, where in stark contrast amarr is still limited to EM as the primary damage type. More thermal damage from cyrstals would be a considerable step in the right direction, making amarr ships even harder to fit is just counterintuitive.
I'd like to point out that Invul Fields also need a lot of CPU. Did you realise that too?
EDIT: I'm also of the belief that the dev's know what they're doing.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |