|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ryme Intrinseca
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
936
   |
Posted - 2014.03.28 15:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Pre 1.7, I had what, about 5900 or 6100 shield and 37% passive resists at all times.
Now I'll have 5300 shield and 40% active resists 6/13 of the time at most with 0% resists more than 7/13 of the time.
Even though missiles and shield tanks sucked in 1.6, we only needed the changes in 1.7 done to shield boosters, missiles, and shield tank acceleration to make shield tanks and missiles competitive.
Give AV back its 1.6 stats and then we'll talk. |
Ryme Intrinseca
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
942
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 09:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Harpyja wrote:Pre 1.7, I had what, about 5900 or 6100 shield and 37% passive resists at all times.
Now I'll have 5300 shield and 40% active resists 6/13 of the time at most with 0% resists more than 7/13 of the time.
Even though missiles and shield tanks sucked in 1.6, we only needed the changes in 1.7 done to shield boosters, missiles, and shield tank acceleration to make shield tanks and missiles competitive. Give AV back its 1.6 stats and then we'll talk. The context of this post is in 1.6.... I did mention that the only changes we needed were the current missile, shield booster, and shield tank acceleration.
Yes, but you also put the 1.6 and 1.8 HP/resist stats next to each other in a thread called 'I hate to say it, but 1.6 may have been better', which implied that you thought that 1.6 was better. Since you seem to be a vehicle user, people assumed you meant 'better for vehicles'. Hence the responses you received.
I think what you meant was something like 'I favour 1.6 vehicle/AV balance but with current missile, shield booster, and shield tank acceleration'. But that isn't what you said, and it's only from your subsequent posts that I've been able to work that out. |
Ryme Intrinseca
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
943
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 21:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Harpyja wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Harpyja wrote:Pre 1.7, I had what, about 5900 or 6100 shield and 37% passive resists at all times.
Now I'll have 5300 shield and 40% active resists 6/13 of the time at most with 0% resists more than 7/13 of the time.
Even though missiles and shield tanks sucked in 1.6, we only needed the changes in 1.7 done to shield boosters, missiles, and shield tank acceleration to make shield tanks and missiles competitive. Give AV back its 1.6 stats and then we'll talk. The context of this post is in 1.6.... I did mention that the only changes we needed were the current missile, shield booster, and shield tank acceleration. Yes, but you also put the 1.6 and 1.8 HP/resist stats next to each other in a thread called 'I hate to say it, but 1.6 may have been better', which implied that you thought that 1.6 was better. Since you seem to be a vehicle user, people assumed you meant 'better for vehicles'. You also did NOT say that under your plan AV would stay as it was in 1.6. So people assumed you meant that AV would stay in its nerfed state. Hence the responses you received. I think what you meant was something like 'I favour 1.6 vehicle/AV balance but with current missile, shield booster, and shield tank acceleration'. But that isn't what you said, and it's only from your subsequent posts that I've been able to work that out. Then how come I understood right away exactly what he meant?
Maybe infantry read it one way, tankers another? I wasnt the only one that read it like that.
Anyway, it doesnt matter now we're all on the same page. I actually think the idea of 1.6 but with buffs to shield and missile tanks isnt a bad one. Will never happen tho. |
|
|
| |
|