Joseph Ridgeson
warravens
Final Resolution.
1979
   |
Posted - 2014.06.09 09:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am a full time tanker. I have over 17 million in tanks, have driven them from over a year, from the Triple Staggered Hardener all the way to our current generation. I generally favor the "Holy Trinity" of Booster/Repairer-Hardener-Plate/Extender rather than the other builds. I don't say this as a "you have to listen to me" but I just want you to know where I am coming from. My thoughts and suggestions:
1. Militia Sicas are far too powerful. Sicas have a far better layout of CPU/PG than Somas do. A Sica will has 761/1908 while a Soma has 428/2241. That is 77.8% more CPU for only 14.9% less PG. The big thing though is that both Sica and Somas have a 2/2 loadout. This means that you are better off Armor Tanking a Sica with damage mods than running a Soma. I would suggest making Somas 1/2 and Sicas 2/1. This mirrors what the defense role should be for the respective tanks so it also lets people test if they want to use Caldari or Gallente tanks. It would stop the Armor Sica glass cannon.
2. Hardeners were nefed by 33% and 37.5%. Putting damage mods at 20% is an equivilant hit.
3. Give Armor Repairers a stacking penalty. First is 100%, second is 75%, and the third is 50%. Would make the Complex-Complex-Advanced Repairing Madrugar go to 181.25 + 135.9375 + 75 = 392 rather than 512.5. Complex-Complex-Hardener would go to 317.1875 (422.92 effective HP a second with Hardener on) from 362.5 (483.33 effective HP a second with Hardener on). So perhaps even a greater hit than that.
4. Shield Boosters are incredibly difficult to fit. Complex is 1,048 PG and 214.5 CPU with max optimization. Compared to a 143 CPU and 541.5 PG Complex Repairer. Basically, the stupidly hard to fit shield modules from dropsuits followed over to tanks.
5. Shield Boosters will stop giving shields if they take damage sometimes. Also, it is quite easy to deactivate the booster. The module wheel has a tendency to get stuck, turn on the booster, and then turn it off giving you zero shield. Possibly remove the cycle time.
6. Turret Proficiency still does nothing.
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|
Joseph Ridgeson
warravens
Final Resolution.
1989
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 18:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
I find it curious how harshly Repairers were hit when stacking was seen as the biggest problem:
100 -> 80 (20%)
120 -> 90 (25%)
145 -> 110 (24.14%)
CCP has a tendency of nerfing too many things at once. "Tanks are too powerful so lets lower their PG, remove Vehicle Engineering, and increase the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are too weak so lets remake them completely and lower the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are repairing too much damage when they stack Armor Repairers so lets add a Stacking Penalty and nerf the amount that is repaired." This has the potential of causing them same thing as before. Why not do the Stacking Penalty and if Repairers are still too powerful then drop the amount? If it has already been proposed, is there harm in saying "we may do this but we want to see how the first rounds of balance adjustments go; if they are still too effective we will reduce the amount"?
It is kind of funny how you are going about it. "We want to see different styles of Madrugars. At the moment, Double or Triple Repairer is too powerful and to common so we are lowering the Repair rate." Which will have the opposite result to an extent on the people that ran 1 Repairer because they will want to run another to get back to what they were Repairing before.
I dunno.
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|