Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 17:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
So the reason everyone hated/hates the cal logo is because it can dual tank itself into a monster, right? So the problem isn't with the suit. The problem lies with the nature of dual tanking.
So what if they made an inherent penalty for tanking on top of the current penalties? For instance, let's look at shield extenders. Let's have every shield extender make the shield recharge 20% less, so 5 extenders removes all shield regen. Harsh sounding, butiI'm only doing it to illustrate my idea. Now for armor, every armor plate reduces turning speed by 20%, down to being unable to turn with 5 plates. This is on top of the movement speed penalty for plates and whatever penalty shields will get, if any.
Sounds ********, right? That screws over single tanking too! So here's the kicker. Each race has a focus on one type of tanking. Caldari focus on shields, Gallente focus on armor. So the caldari would invest their time into reducing that shield penalty, and not care about the armor penalty. Gallente would work on servomotors or what have you in order to remove that turning penalty. Amarr and Minmatar would fall somewhere in the middle, both of them able to reduce both penalties, but not remove them entirely. Caldari would have no shield penalty, but take the full armor penalty. Gallente would have no armor penalty, but take the full shield penalty.
Now we have a dual tanked cal logo that turns slower than a rail gun. A dual tanked gallente would never recharge their shields until they died. This would make dual tanking completely unfeasible, and still allow amarr, obstenitely the dual tanking suits, still retain that functionality. The penalties and numbers are placeholders, just want to demonstrate my idea.
In summary, add in a penalty for tanking your suit, and have each race reduce their specific style of tanking (shield for caldari) penalty at the expense of having the other penalty in full.
Hope I said this is a clear manner. Typing on my phone sucks. Cracked screen. |
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
857
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 17:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sigh no . Just no. Stop. The cal logis go down just as easy as everyone else especially now with the better hit detectuon and auto aim. Funny no o e has seen how op a dual tanked ammar logi can be . Off you should see how fast their armour can regenerate and combind with a large shield buffer they are quite efective. |
Quil Evrything
DUST University Ivy League
95
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Agree with pegasis, with a side comment:
I kinda like who a player has to choose between "super-tank suit but regular weapons", vs "Heavy Weapons!... but somewhat less super-tank".
And after all, if someone wants super weapons, plus super tanking abilities.. Get An Actual Tank!!
|
Mossellia Delt
Militaires Sans Jeux
195
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Quil Evrything wrote:Agree with pegasis, with a side comment:
I kinda like who a player has to choose between "super-tank suit but regular weapons", vs "Heavy Weapons!... but somewhat less super-tank".
And after all, if someone wants super weapons, plus super tanking abilities.. Get An Actual Tank!!
Sorry but tanks are underpowered right now |
RedZer0 MK1
Opus Arcana
40
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
All logis can do it, kinda of silly. The problem is without equipment, you have so much pg/CPU. I suggested Logi get a reduction in equipment cost, and then balance pg/CPU accordingly. |
Quil Evrything
DUST University Ivy League
96
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
RedZer0 MK1 wrote:All logis can do it, kinda of silly. The problem is without equipment, you have so much pg/CPU. I suggested Logi get a reduction in equipment cost, and then balance pg/CPU accordingly.
I counter-suggest that logis simply get a reduction in high slots. and low slots, for that matter. Make it be a total of 2.
2 high, OR 2 low, OR 1 and 1.
"Problem" solved.
It makes sense, too. After all, where is all this equipment going to be stored?? in the space where regular modules normally go, obviously.
|
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
618
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
Quil Evrything wrote:RedZer0 MK1 wrote:All logis can do it, kinda of silly. The problem is without equipment, you have so much pg/CPU. I suggested Logi get a reduction in equipment cost, and then balance pg/CPU accordingly. I counter-suggest that logis simply get a reduction in high slots. and low slots, for that matter. Make it be a total of 2. 2 high, OR 2 low, OR 1 and 1. "Problem" solved. It makes sense, too. After all, where is all this equipment going to be stored?? in the space where regular modules normally go, obviously.
They need tank to do logi well, so no. |
Krom Ganesh
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
243
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 21:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
RedZer0 MK1 wrote:All logis can do it, kinda of silly. The problem is without equipment, you have so much pg/CPU. I suggested Logi get a reduction in equipment cost, and then balance pg/CPU accordingly.
Which I believe CCP said somewhere they intend to do but can't at the moment due to limitations of their current code implementation. |
RedZer0 MK1
Opus Arcana
40
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 22:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
Krom Ganesh wrote:RedZer0 MK1 wrote:All logis can do it, kinda of silly. The problem is without equipment, you have so much pg/CPU. I suggested Logi get a reduction in equipment cost, and then balance pg/CPU accordingly. Which I believe CCP said somewhere they intend to do but can't at the moment due to limitations of their current code implementation.
Their plan/hope is to have equipment specific bonuses, i.e. longer rep range or more nanos per hive. My idea was to move the current gallente bonus to logis as a whole. They deal with equipment, why not make it easier to do so. |
KING CHECKMATE
TEAM SATISFACTION
967
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 22:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Sigh no . Just no. Stop. The cal logis go down just as easy as everyone else especially now with the better hit detectuon and auto aim. Funny no o e has seen how op a dual tanked ammar logi can be . Off you should see how fast their armour can regenerate and combind with a large shield buffer they are quite efective.
MAN JUST SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH do not touch my amarr suits XD
|
|
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
371
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 23:53:00 -
[11] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:So the reason everyone hated/hates the cal logo is because it can dual tank itself into a monster, right? So the problem isn't with the suit. The problem lies with the nature of dual tanking.
So what if they made an inherent penalty for tanking on top of the current penalties? For instance, let's look at shield extenders. Let's have every shield extender make the shield recharge 20% less, so 5 extenders removes all shield regen. Harsh sounding, butiI'm only doing it to illustrate my idea. Now for armor, every armor plate reduces turning speed by 20%, down to being unable to turn with 5 plates. This is on top of the movement speed penalty for plates and whatever penalty shields will get, if any.
Sounds ********, right? That screws over single tanking too! So here's the kicker. Each race has a focus on one type of tanking. Caldari focus on shields, Gallente focus on armor. So the caldari would invest their time into reducing that shield penalty, and not care about the armor penalty. Gallente would work on servomotors or what have you in order to remove that turning penalty. Amarr and Minmatar would fall somewhere in the middle, both of them able to reduce both penalties, but not remove them entirely. Caldari would have no shield penalty, but take the full armor penalty. Gallente would have no armor penalty, but take the full shield penalty.
Now we have a dual tanked cal logo that turns slower than a rail gun. A dual tanked gallente would never recharge their shields until they died. This would make dual tanking completely unfeasible, and still allow amarr, obstenitely the dual tanking suits, still retain that functionality. The penalties and numbers are placeholders, just want to demonstrate my idea.
In summary, add in a penalty for tanking your suit, and have each race reduce their specific style of tanking (shield for caldari) penalty at the expense of having the other penalty in full.
Hope I said this is a clear manner. Typing on my phone sucks. Cracked screen.
There are already penalties to dual tanking, you dont get the benifits of a single tank, if I dual tank, I dont get many slots for damage mods or prescion enhancers, like armour.
I dont get sheilds that repair so fast, sonic looks like he has asthma, dual tankers, usually get the fact that no weapon is a hard counter, and a little extra health!! Thers is no problem with dual tanking, its in your head!! |
Kazeno Rannaa
BIG BAD W0LVES
223
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Sigh no . Just no. Stop. The cal logis go down just as easy as everyone else especially now with the better hit detectuon and auto aim. Funny no o e has seen how op a dual tanked ammar logi can be . Off you should see how fast their armour can regenerate and combind with a large shield buffer they are quite efective.
Yes, yes we are. Cheers Pegasus. |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:There are already penalties to dual tanking, you dont get the benifits of a single tank, if I dual tank, I dont get many slots for damage mods or prescion enhancers, like armour.
I dont get sheilds that repair so fast, sonic looks like he has asthma, dual tankers, usually get the fact that no weapon is a hard counter, and a little extra health!! Thers is no problem with dual tanking, its in your head!! Quoted for truth. All fittings are about tradeoffs and making choices. If it gets to the point where the only modules worth fitting are only ever tank mods, then CCP should considering balancing mods so other options are also appealing, but there shouldn't be the kinds of penalties the OP is suggesting. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |