| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
lee corwood
Knights Of Ender
Galactic Skyfleet Empire
800
   |
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
HAVs and Dropships are completely separate entities under the vehicle classification and by tying together the static bonuses, modules, and damages you are forever creating an unbalanced situation where every tweak causes advantages/disadvantages for one side over the other. They serve two very different but crucial roles on the battlefield and shouldn't be treated as simply a large lumped 'vehicle' class.
Minmatar Logisis | Heavy lover. Ping for video services.
|
The-Errorist
658
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
lee corwood wrote:HAVs and Dropships are completely separate entities under the vehicle classification and by tying together the static bonuses, modules, and damages you are forever creating an unbalanced situation where every tweak causes advantages/disadvantages for one side over the other. They serve two very different but crucial roles on the battlefield and shouldn't be treated as simply a large lumped 'vehicle' class.
I don't see a problem here. If you truly believe what you stated above, then you must also believe that scouts and commandos are completely separate entities under the infantry classification and by tying together the static bonuses, modules, and damages you are forever creating an unbalanced situation where every tweak causes advantages/disadvantages for one side over the other; they serve two very different but crucial roles on the battlefield and shouldn't be treated as simply a large lumped 'infantry' class. |
lee corwood
Knights Of Ender
Galactic Skyfleet Empire
800
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:lee corwood wrote:HAVs and Dropships are completely separate entities under the vehicle classification and by tying together the static bonuses, modules, and damages you are forever creating an unbalanced situation where every tweak causes advantages/disadvantages for one side over the other. They serve two very different but crucial roles on the battlefield and shouldn't be treated as simply a large lumped 'vehicle' class. I don't see a problem here. If you truly believe what you stated above, then you must also believe that scouts and commandos are completely separate entities under the infantry classification and by tying together the static bonuses, modules, and damages you are forever creating an unbalanced situation where every tweak causes advantages/disadvantages for one side over the other; they serve two very different but crucial roles on the battlefield and shouldn't be treated as simply a large lumped 'infantry' class.
I don't see them as similar as each of our classes and races get specially aligned bonuses that are not shared and thus does not lump us together in that format. However in the case of vehicles, tweaks to how shield repping or other modules getting tweaked tend to either cripple Dropship pilots to AV while leaving tanks in a 'good place' or vice versa. It affects it bigger than just 'oh it screwed over this one specific type of dropship/tank' but it screwed ALL dropships/tanks via their shared values.
That is not a similar thing to dropsuits today as something that harshly affects shields really only impacts the caldari race who are mostly shield dependent. That's the type of difference distinction that I feel needs to happen.
I say all this as a passive non-vehicle user who has squadded with many different types of vehicle players and have heard many different sides of their ideas/complaints/rages and comparisons from trying out different things. The sway seems too big across some a big pool.
Minmatar Logisis | Heavy lover. Ping for video services.
|
Talos Alomar
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2229
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Scouts and heavies take such different roles on the battlefield, and lumping them under one "dropsuit" class doesn't really make any sense.
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
|
KalOfTheRathi
Nec Tributis
1267
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 19:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Seriously? You want a totally separate and additional Skill Tree for each vehicle type?
Which would maximize the cost for Skill Books, getting to ADS requires millions in ISK now. What a joy it will be to duplicate the very basis of 1.7 with a nearly identical yet separate Skill Tree. Each book would be doubled, each skill would be tripled (think HAV Shields, LAV Shields, Drop Ship Shields, Assault Drop Ship Shields). Look at how wonderful it would be to have all the Mercs commit to grinding that much more ISK to buy multiple sets of Skill Books and to grind SP for years to fill the Skill Trees with SP.
It is totally insane currently to spend the exactly amount of ISK and SP to allow the fitting of Small and Large turrets of the same type. It would be a stroke of genius to require every single item in the Skill Tree to be replicated, although tweaked just a teeny, tiny bit so they would be different. Because SP Sink!
Even if you limit this to two types it is a huge cost to the players. Why would you even think of this? Trying to keep others out because you have 30M SP laying about doing nothing? Nah, that cannot be it. Maybe you truly believe that Dust isn't enough of a grinder as yet.
Whatever, No!
A Large Shield Extender is a Large Shield Extender and it requires one Skill to use. 
And so it goes.
|
lee corwood
Knights Of Ender
Galactic Skyfleet Empire
800
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 20:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
I never said I wanted a separate skill tree for anything. I want the values of how modules affect the different vehicle types to BEHAVE differently. IE: I want EQ that is skilled into to not produce the same base bonuses to BOTH vehicle classes equally. Stop blanket fixing two things that in ANY other game would be seen as different entities. Tanks vs Planes. They are NOT the same thing. That's what I'm trying to clarify. i'm tired of the "nerf tanks, but DS are ok now. Oh wait, now tanks are fixed but my DS sucks." threads.
Minmatar Logisis | Heavy lover. Ping for video services.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |