| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2937
   |
Posted - 2014.04.22 09:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
There's been a lot of QQ about triple repping vehicles lately and something needs to be done.
Now don't get me wrong - it's not half as big a problem as many people make out but it is at least a little imbalanced.
How to adjust this balance just the right amount - make the current triple rep rate the possible rep rate of stacking active reppers; reduce the passive rep rate significantly (maybe by 50% - open to discussion on this).
This will allow vehicles to still have fantastic survivability but only in the waves of opportunity that CCP talked about them being intended to have but would also allow people to have viable passive reps if they choose to go down a more brick tanky route.
I'm not a tanker, so please HAV/ADS users let me know how you'd feel about this change and what you feel would be a reasonable reduction to passive reps. Would you prefer a different change? Remember - you may well advocate for no change but I think we all know that CCP doesn't work like that ;) so it's best to all work together to try to form some sort of consensus on this.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2937
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Really? Nothing? Thought this would have at least one of the tank forum warriors up in arms...
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
ResistanceGTA
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
762
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hmmm, I only use light reps on my Incubus, knocking a Proto Light Rep down to (base level) 38hp/s.. I think light passive reps would become pretty much duds. Of course, giving both an Active Ability to Rep and and still having the ability to Passive Rep would be nice.
xSivartx is my Heavy. There are many like him, but he is my own...
So, other Logi's back off, those are my Warpoints!
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
1662
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
The real problem is the lack of noticable if any stacking penalty with the passive armour reps . Now my iafg or rail/missile tanks have no problem taking down triple rep maddys but weapons like blaster or swarms have a bit more trouble.
Personally I like to run with a complex 120 plate and 2 enhanced heavy reps on my maddy and that's actually quite a formidable beast.
Proud Gunlogi pilot and forge gunner since August 2012.
I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2937
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:The real problem is the lack of noticable if any stacking penalty with the passive armour reps . Now my iafg or rail/missile tanks have no problem taking down triple rep maddys but weapons like blaster or swarms have a bit more trouble.
Personally I like to run with a complex 120 plate and 2 enhanced heavy reps on my maddy and that's actually quite a formidable beast.
I don't think armor reps get stacking penalties because they're not % based mods.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
1662
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:pegasis prime wrote:The real problem is the lack of noticable if any stacking penalty with the passive armour reps . Now my iafg or rail/missile tanks have no problem taking down triple rep maddys but weapons like blaster or swarms have a bit more trouble.
Personally I like to run with a complex 120 plate and 2 enhanced heavy reps on my maddy and that's actually quite a formidable beast. I don't think armor reps get stacking penalties because they're not % based mods.
Well that's the problem right there then I didn't want to call it as I am a bit unsure. If they had stacking penalties then they wouldn't be a indestructible.
Proud Gunlogi pilot and forge gunner since August 2012.
I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
|
Echo 1991
WarRavens
League of Infamy
221
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
just make it so pilots have to think rather than spoon feeding them passive reps. Active reps should come back
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2030
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
LOL You wanted CCP to make the changes! You FORCED them to make changes! They put vehicles in a place where they like them, and that's not good enough for you, now you want 1.6 back.
Guess what... YOU CAN'T NERF OUR INTELLIGENCE!
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2937
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:LOL You wanted CCP to make the changes! You FORCED them to make changes! They put vehicles in a place where they like them, and that's not good enough for you, now you want 1.6 back.
Guess what... YOU CAN'T NERF OUR INTELLIGENCE!
Don't know who you're talking about but I never asked for active reps to be swapped with passive ones and I don't recall ANYONE EVER asking for that change.
And I never said anything about wanting 1.6 back - don't put words in my mouth - I'm happy for vehicles to stay as they are if they get this really rather small change. If anything, I'd want hardeners buffed back to what they used to be but with a large rep penalty attached.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2030
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:LOL You wanted CCP to make the changes! You FORCED them to make changes! They put vehicles in a place where they like them, and that's not good enough for you, now you want 1.6 back.
Guess what... YOU CAN'T NERF OUR INTELLIGENCE! Don't know who you're talking about but I never asked for active reps to be swapped with passive ones and I don't recall ANYONE EVER asking for that change. And I never said anything about wanting 1.6 back - don't put words in my mouth - I'm happy for vehicles to stay as they are if they get this really rather small change. If anything, I'd want hardeners buffed back to what they used to be but with a large rep penalty attached.
We don't tell you how to fit your dropsuit, you have no place to tell us how to fit our tank.
Stop with this BS. With infantry, regarding tanks, it's all take, and no give.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Lt Royal
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2925
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
I run tanks often and I agree with this, it makes no sense that armor reps are passive.... +1
Gÿ£GÿàGÿP Templar Code Giveway - Propaganda Competition Gÿ£GÿàGÿP
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2938
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Django Quik wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:LOL You wanted CCP to make the changes! You FORCED them to make changes! They put vehicles in a place where they like them, and that's not good enough for you, now you want 1.6 back.
Guess what... YOU CAN'T NERF OUR INTELLIGENCE! Don't know who you're talking about but I never asked for active reps to be swapped with passive ones and I don't recall ANYONE EVER asking for that change. And I never said anything about wanting 1.6 back - don't put words in my mouth - I'm happy for vehicles to stay as they are if they get this really rather small change. If anything, I'd want hardeners buffed back to what they used to be but with a large rep penalty attached. We don't tell you how to fit your dropsuit, you have no place to tell us how to fit our tank. Stop with this BS. With infantry, regarding tanks, it's all take, and no give.
Excuse me - GIVING active reps; reducing but NOT TAKING passive reps.
I'm not telling anyone how to fit their tanks - stop putting the words you want to hear into other people's mouths to try to back up your non-existent point.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2030
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Also, we're the kings of the Clunky Wheel.
If we're getting back active reps and hardeners, then we're getting our old slot layout back.
This will work both ways.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
3451
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
This needs to happen
Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors
Part 2: Armor & Shield
Part 3: Modules & Skills
Part 4: Vehicles
Part 5: Overview
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2938
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:46:00 -
[15] - Quote
@Spkr4theDead - you'll also note that I clearly asked for vehicle users opinions in the OP, so definitely not telling you what to do.
Furthermore, about the wheel, yes it's horrible; I don't doubt it's a royal pain for vehicle users but keep in mind that I'm not talking about getting rid of passive reps altogether - the intention being that running plates and reps would still be a viable use for passive reps.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2033
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:@Spkr4theDead - you'll also note that I clearly asked for vehicle users opinions in the OP, so definitely not telling you what to do.
Furthermore, about the wheel, yes it's horrible; I don't doubt it's a royal pain for vehicle users but keep in mind that I'm not talking about getting rid of passive reps altogether - the intention being that running plates and reps would still be a viable use for passive reps.
And would we get huge active numbers?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2938
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:48:00 -
[17] - Quote
I'll confess to not having taken the time to read the entirety of all those threads but I like a lot of what I hear there. Unfortunately, that's a hell of a lot of work and we're probably looking at another year of development to get all of that done. Changing reps in this way however, is plausibly possible in the very near future (~months not years), especially since we already have had active reps before and passive reps currently.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2938
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:50:00 -
[18] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Django Quik wrote:@Spkr4theDead - you'll also note that I clearly asked for vehicle users opinions in the OP, so definitely not telling you what to do.
Furthermore, about the wheel, yes it's horrible; I don't doubt it's a royal pain for vehicle users but keep in mind that I'm not talking about getting rid of passive reps altogether - the intention being that running plates and reps would still be a viable use for passive reps. And would we get huge active numbers?
The idea is that you'd be able to active rep as fast as you can currently passive rep; would you ever really need more than that? If it's active and has appropriate cooldown vs active time, I see no reason why it couldn't be more than that if really necessary.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Mobius Wyvern
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Dirt Nap Squad.
5040
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:There's been a lot of QQ about triple repping vehicles lately and something needs to be done.
Now don't get me wrong - it's not half as big a problem as many people make out but it is at least a little imbalanced.
How to adjust this balance just the right amount - make the current triple rep rate the possible rep rate of stacking active reppers; reduce the passive rep rate significantly (maybe by 50% - open to discussion on this).
This will allow vehicles to still have fantastic survivability but only in the waves of opportunity that CCP talked about them being intended to have but would also allow people to have viable passive reps if they choose to go down a more brick tanky route.
I'm not a tanker, so please HAV/ADS users let me know how you'd feel about this change and what you feel would be a reasonable reduction to passive reps. Would you prefer a different change? Remember - you may well advocate for no change but I think we all know that CCP doesn't work like that ;) so it's best to all work together to try to form some sort of consensus on this.
As a long-time ADS user and an occasional Tanker, I am completely okay with this.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
3455
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:I'll confess to not having taken the time to read the entirety of all those threads but I like a lot of what I hear there. Unfortunately, that's a hell of a lot of work and we're probably looking at another year of development to get all of that done. Changing reps in this way however, is plausibly possible in the very near future (~months not years), especially since we already have had active reps before and passive reps currently.
TBH CCP have already wasted 2 years and 2 complete vehicle overhauls and got it wrong twice tbh
Whenever we felt we had balance it never lasted long before CCP changed it all or just flat out nerfed it
The system works, its been tested in EVE for 10years now and it is easily adaptable to DUST plus everything is useful with more choice/mods/vehicles/weapons/skills/playstyles |
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2034
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Django Quik wrote:@Spkr4theDead - you'll also note that I clearly asked for vehicle users opinions in the OP, so definitely not telling you what to do.
Furthermore, about the wheel, yes it's horrible; I don't doubt it's a royal pain for vehicle users but keep in mind that I'm not talking about getting rid of passive reps altogether - the intention being that running plates and reps would still be a viable use for passive reps. And would we get huge active numbers? The idea is that you'd be able to active rep as fast as you can currently passive rep; would you ever really need more than that? If it's active and has appropriate cooldown vs active time, I see no reason why it couldn't be more than that if really necessary.
So there's literally no point to having active reppers back, you just want it to be one more module we have to worry about.
Your thread is invalidated by that.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2034
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Django Quik wrote:I'll confess to not having taken the time to read the entirety of all those threads but I like a lot of what I hear there. Unfortunately, that's a hell of a lot of work and we're probably looking at another year of development to get all of that done. Changing reps in this way however, is plausibly possible in the very near future (~months not years), especially since we already have had active reps before and passive reps currently. TBH CCP have already wasted 2 years and 2 complete vehicle overhauls and got it wrong twice tbh Whenever we felt we had balance it never lasted long before CCP changed it all or just flat out nerfed it The system works, its been tested in EVE for 10years now and it is easily adaptable to DUST plus everything is useful with more choice/mods/vehicles/weapons/skills/playstyles
But how many times have I told that for infantry, that's not fair. They're allowed to have many choices in how to fit their suits, but we can only have vanilla fits. I want coffee flavored, and mint chocolate chip too. Infantry has the Baskin Robbins of choices, while we have the local deli selection.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
NAV HIV
The Generals
General Tso's Alliance
1530
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:There's been a lot of QQ about triple repping vehicles lately and something needs to be done.
Now don't get me wrong - it's not half as big a problem as many people make out but it is at least a little imbalanced.
How to adjust this balance just the right amount - make the current triple rep rate the possible rep rate of stacking active reppers; reduce the passive rep rate significantly (maybe by 50% - open to discussion on this).
This will allow vehicles to still have fantastic survivability but only in the waves of opportunity that CCP talked about them being intended to have but would also allow people to have viable passive reps if they choose to go down a more brick tanky route.
I'm not a tanker, so please HAV/ADS users let me know how you'd feel about this change and what you feel would be a reasonable reduction to passive reps. Would you prefer a different change? Remember - you may well advocate for no change but I think we all know that CCP doesn't work like that ;) so it's best to all work together to try to form some sort of consensus on this.
Please leave the Vehicles alone.... At this rate CCP would end up nerfing tanks beyond useless.... They already received 2 nerfs, hardener and Rail Distance... Tripple rep is not an issue if AV was working properly... If CCP fixes the AVs a bit then there would be some proper fights.... Now every scrubba dub brings out 4-5 tanks as soon as they are about to lose a game...
P.S. Passive modules for tanking is a bit too easy tbh... |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2034
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:11:00 -
[24] - Quote
NAV HIV wrote:Django Quik wrote:There's been a lot of QQ about triple repping vehicles lately and something needs to be done.
Now don't get me wrong - it's not half as big a problem as many people make out but it is at least a little imbalanced.
How to adjust this balance just the right amount - make the current triple rep rate the possible rep rate of stacking active reppers; reduce the passive rep rate significantly (maybe by 50% - open to discussion on this).
This will allow vehicles to still have fantastic survivability but only in the waves of opportunity that CCP talked about them being intended to have but would also allow people to have viable passive reps if they choose to go down a more brick tanky route.
I'm not a tanker, so please HAV/ADS users let me know how you'd feel about this change and what you feel would be a reasonable reduction to passive reps. Would you prefer a different change? Remember - you may well advocate for no change but I think we all know that CCP doesn't work like that ;) so it's best to all work together to try to form some sort of consensus on this. Please leave the Vehicles alone.... At this rate CCP would end up nerfing tanks beyond useless.... They already received 2 nerfs, hardener and Rail Distance... Tripple rep is not an issue if AV was working properly... If CCP fixes the AVs a bit then there would be some proper fights.... Now every scrubba dub brings out 4-5 tanks as soon as they are about to lose a game... P.S. Passive modules for tanking is a bit too easy tbh...
Only 2 nerfs? Not only did you quit tanking because it was too hard for you, but you've forgotten all the builds tanks have been nerfed through, nevermind how many vehicles have been lost due to "rebalancing" that we're never going to have back because infantry can't destroy them with rifles.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
NAV HIV
The Generals
General Tso's Alliance
1530
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:NAV HIV wrote:Django Quik wrote:There's been a lot of QQ about triple repping vehicles lately and something needs to be done.
Now don't get me wrong - it's not half as big a problem as many people make out but it is at least a little imbalanced.
How to adjust this balance just the right amount - make the current triple rep rate the possible rep rate of stacking active reppers; reduce the passive rep rate significantly (maybe by 50% - open to discussion on this).
This will allow vehicles to still have fantastic survivability but only in the waves of opportunity that CCP talked about them being intended to have but would also allow people to have viable passive reps if they choose to go down a more brick tanky route.
I'm not a tanker, so please HAV/ADS users let me know how you'd feel about this change and what you feel would be a reasonable reduction to passive reps. Would you prefer a different change? Remember - you may well advocate for no change but I think we all know that CCP doesn't work like that ;) so it's best to all work together to try to form some sort of consensus on this. Please leave the Vehicles alone.... At this rate CCP would end up nerfing tanks beyond useless.... They already received 2 nerfs, hardener and Rail Distance... Tripple rep is not an issue if AV was working properly... If CCP fixes the AVs a bit then there would be some proper fights.... Now every scrubba dub brings out 4-5 tanks as soon as they are about to lose a game... P.S. Passive modules for tanking is a bit too easy tbh... Only 2 nerfs? Not only did you quit tanking because it was too hard for you, but you've forgotten all the builds tanks have been nerfed through, nevermind how many vehicles have been lost due to "rebalancing" that we're never going to have back because infantry can't destroy them with rifles.
You are a Scrub, more so a redlining Scrub, therefore your points are irrelevant.... I always had a tank even before you downloaded Dust... We had 3-4 sometimes 5 Active modules to play with while tanking... Cry baby Scrublords like yourself wont understand that... Just cause you don't understand Jack about Balance, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.... Tripple Rep maddy (Passive Reps) and Rails from Redline ?! LOL You are L33T tanker lol |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2034
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
NAV HIV wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:NAV HIV wrote:Django Quik wrote:There's been a lot of QQ about triple repping vehicles lately and something needs to be done.
Now don't get me wrong - it's not half as big a problem as many people make out but it is at least a little imbalanced.
How to adjust this balance just the right amount - make the current triple rep rate the possible rep rate of stacking active reppers; reduce the passive rep rate significantly (maybe by 50% - open to discussion on this).
This will allow vehicles to still have fantastic survivability but only in the waves of opportunity that CCP talked about them being intended to have but would also allow people to have viable passive reps if they choose to go down a more brick tanky route.
I'm not a tanker, so please HAV/ADS users let me know how you'd feel about this change and what you feel would be a reasonable reduction to passive reps. Would you prefer a different change? Remember - you may well advocate for no change but I think we all know that CCP doesn't work like that ;) so it's best to all work together to try to form some sort of consensus on this. Please leave the Vehicles alone.... At this rate CCP would end up nerfing tanks beyond useless.... They already received 2 nerfs, hardener and Rail Distance... Tripple rep is not an issue if AV was working properly... If CCP fixes the AVs a bit then there would be some proper fights.... Now every scrubba dub brings out 4-5 tanks as soon as they are about to lose a game... P.S. Passive modules for tanking is a bit too easy tbh... Only 2 nerfs? Not only did you quit tanking because it was too hard for you, but you've forgotten all the builds tanks have been nerfed through, nevermind how many vehicles have been lost due to "rebalancing" that we're never going to have back because infantry can't destroy them with rifles. You are a Scrub, more so a redlining Scrub, therefore your points are irrelevant.... I always had a tank even before you downloaded Dust... We had 3-4 sometimes 5 Active modules to play with while tanking... Cry baby Scrublords like yourself wont understand that... Just cause you don't understand Jack about Balance, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.... Tripple Rep maddy (Passive Reps) and Rails from Redline ?! LOL You are L33T tanker lol
You have a disgusting hard on for calling me a redline tanker. I go to the ENEMY'S redline and destroy their stuff. I don't hide behind mine. I go back to grab ammo and wait for modules to cool down. That does not count as hiding behind the redline.
I'm also not one of those tankers that uses a glass fit. I find that those people destroy tanking as a playstyle. They're too bad to rumble outside of the redline for a whole match, so they go the weakling route, and only show themselves close to their redline, when an enemy vehicle goes there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I bet you were one of those tankers.
I prefer to stay rolling around in my Maddy.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2034
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:19:00 -
[27] - Quote
And oh boy, I know nothing about active modules. LOL
Best heavy rep, PG expansion, best plate, and 2 of the 15% armor hardeners. I forget their names because it's been a long time.
I love how you fully believe you know everything about me, when we've never even played together. I would annihilate you.
Oh, and LOL at your corp being so bad that they need to use Jihad Jeeps because they're too bad with vehicles.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2941
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Django Quik wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Django Quik wrote:@Spkr4theDead - you'll also note that I clearly asked for vehicle users opinions in the OP, so definitely not telling you what to do.
Furthermore, about the wheel, yes it's horrible; I don't doubt it's a royal pain for vehicle users but keep in mind that I'm not talking about getting rid of passive reps altogether - the intention being that running plates and reps would still be a viable use for passive reps. And would we get huge active numbers? The idea is that you'd be able to active rep as fast as you can currently passive rep; would you ever really need more than that? If it's active and has appropriate cooldown vs active time, I see no reason why it couldn't be more than that if really necessary. So there's literally no point to having active reppers back, you just want it to be one more module we have to worry about. Your thread is invalidated by that.
I don't understand why what I've said makes active reppers pointless... if passive reps are reduced but active reps take their place, where's the problem?
This doesn't reduce vehicle users to less diversity - it actually does the exact opposite by giving armor tankers options between passive repping and active repping. There's some of your coffee mocha latte right there.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1625
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:27:00 -
[29] - Quote
I think we only need active reps, no passive. Bump up their rates to about 200 or 300 armor per second for basic heavy reps, but also bump up their fitting costs so only one is reasonable to be fitted.
Give them an active time something like 10 seconds with a 60 second cooldown on basic down to 40 on proto.
Numbers only used as examples.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2034
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:35:00 -
[30] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Django Quik wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Django Quik wrote:@Spkr4theDead - you'll also note that I clearly asked for vehicle users opinions in the OP, so definitely not telling you what to do.
Furthermore, about the wheel, yes it's horrible; I don't doubt it's a royal pain for vehicle users but keep in mind that I'm not talking about getting rid of passive reps altogether - the intention being that running plates and reps would still be a viable use for passive reps. And would we get huge active numbers? The idea is that you'd be able to active rep as fast as you can currently passive rep; would you ever really need more than that? If it's active and has appropriate cooldown vs active time, I see no reason why it couldn't be more than that if really necessary. So there's literally no point to having active reppers back, you just want it to be one more module we have to worry about. Your thread is invalidated by that. I don't understand why what I've said makes active reppers pointless... if passive reps are reduced but active reps take their place, where's the problem? This doesn't reduce vehicle users to less diversity - it actually does the exact opposite by giving armor tankers options between passive repping and active repping. There's some of your coffee mocha latte right there.
You said there'd be no difference in the numbers between passive and active reppers. That would make active useless, and you trying to shaft pilots by giving us another active module back.
It's not an "option," it's a burden.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |