|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
775
   |
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
As a form like that, it looks bad. And it really is. That doesn't mean that Prototype tanks are bad, just that using that formula to create them is bad.
The current enforcers could have been built very differently from how they were implemented, but CCP chose to half ass it. Doesn't make the idea of enforcers bad, just their current iteration.
I personally would have loved to have seen an enforcer with a skill bonus to fitting the specified turrets, along with the damage and range bonuses, then lower the PG and bump the health up to around 5 k. Make it so that the vehicle can run resists and such, but not carry around the HP of a standard fit. Then you have the glass cannon without breaking the standard tank.
More coming, editing. |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cody Sietz wrote:
I'd say because it probably wouldn't be worth to use and probably cost a tonnnnnnn more.
Increased speed, increased CPU or PG, higher turning speeds, better acceleration or even a base 10% resist to damage would make prototype chassis worth looking into. People will pay a lot of ISK for small gains in effectiveness. |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
Cept we now have 4 tanks with the same 5 and 5 slot layout.
How do you expect to squeeze enough variety out of that without cross stepping toes?
Once again, you don't need to increase module layouts to grant benefits to a vehicle. There are numerous other statistics where there is room for improvement that sane vehicle drivers would pay for.
How about a proto Vayu that takes only half the movement penalty of the standard? Falchion would be nice in that vein as well.
How about a DS that gains enough CPU and PG to actually fill its slots with quality.
What if the scout LAV gained a built in Active scanner at proto.
|
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
HAV gaping with prototype model in place would nearly be over 100%+ of a power gap between itself and standard. Infantry is no where near this bad.
Giving an ADV hull a +2% to movement speed, acceleration, turning and turret traverse would not be the end of the world. Giving a +5 to a proto hull would not break the game either. CCP could easily maintain a specific ISK to Power ratio while ensuring things didn't get crazy.
Going to a prototype chassis doesn't have to mean more slots, or vastly increased CPU and PG. For example, an addition of only 3 CPU from basic to proto would allow me to make multiple changes to my current proto rail fit, which would not increase my power, but greatly improve the adaptability of the vehicle.
There are small changes that could be made, creating slight changes between classes, that would not greatly unbalance the entire class, either versus itself, or versus infantry. |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
778
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
Prove to me that 4 tanks that are well thought out balanced and design are worse than 58 poorly thought out tanks, then I will consider your idea has merit. This is afterall a debate, I am still waiting for an good or impressive argument from the other side.
No, you are trolling, because you are cherry picking and responding only to emotional posts, ignoring any other suggestions.
Frankly, if you wanted legitimate debate you wouldn't take the tone you have. You seem convinced that your way is the only way forward, so at this point we all might as well go along for the ride.
Sept 17 bitches. Sept 17. |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
780
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
:P You know, I was convinced enough to do the math and paperwork.
Doing the math behind a poor concept is throwing good money after bad.
That you did not explore alternate methods of power other than module slots shows how simplistic vehicles are to you.
Given that most tankers are running at least one fitting mod, there is obviously a case for a small PG bump per level to effectively add as a module slot increase without adding anything. Not that I would go this route, but it is a possibility.
The far more reasonable method of adding power without creating an insurmountable power gap are through ancillary boosts, that either compliment the role, or add a new capability not found in lesser models.
For example, a Gunloggi could graduate from 24 - 30 - 33 on shield recharge per second up the tier. While also gaining +5 then +2 on acceleration.
Proto tanks could come with larger ammo reserves, reduced profiles, or more.
There are plenty of ways to balance a set of proto vehicles while still using the same role and model. |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
780
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
Funny because you guys haven't come up with anything concrete as to why its a good idea. There isn't too much tangibility in pro prototype argument outside of making an extraordinary broken tank.
Design me an Prototype HAV on the current environment, prove people wrong.
I DARE YOU.
Take the current Madrugar as standard.
Advanced version:
Same slot layout
Add 2 CPU, 60 PG.
Top Speed + 2%
Acceleration + 5%
Ammo Capacity +10%
Prototype version:
Advanced hull
Add 1 CPU, 20 PG
Turret Traverse +5%
Profile -10%
Ammo Capacity +5%
None of those bonuses will break the lower tier tanks. A standard Madrugar would not be better off staying home, but a proto would be superiour in every way.
Took me five minutes, while smoking a joint. What is the hold up in Shanghai?
|
|
|
| |
|