|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
684
   |
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Gameplay over lore really, I just want Sentinels to have a weakness so that an Assault can stand a chance by headshotting. Right now, the Sentinel wins 99% of the time.
Using a mass calculation (substituting HP for mass), the sentinel simply moves to fast comparative to other frames. Without hurting those that don't armor stack and also making it a chore to play heavies, this was my proposal.
Extenders were thrown into the mix because of the HP=Mass idea. I still don't understand the hubbub, obviously it would be less than plates, and similar as reactives as they give similar HP.
Here's the "hubub" made logically simple for you to understand CCP Rattati!
First and foremost, if you give both the shield extenders AND the armor plates the SAME drawback, then it only ENCOURAGES people to DUAL TANK!!!! After all the extender is already penalizing your speed, so why not slap on some plates too and become even more of a brick!!! Now if plates penalizes speed and extenders penalize something like signature, then by dual tanking you incur two sets of penalties. This is why no one dual tanks in EVE.
Second, why the hell have a choice in how you fit your dropsuits in this game? IF both shields and armor have the same effects/drawbacks then why even bother? They are the same, so just name them the same and be done with it. Just get rid of high/low slots and make one set of slots and all modules go there.
Third, people CHOSE shields over armor for the specific reason that they wanted to be able to run fast. You are removing that choice from the game! Remember this is a sandbox where the players determine the outcomes and you are removing one of those tools.
That easy enough for you to understand CCP Rattati? |
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
684
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote:Ripley Riley wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Extenders were thrown into the mix because of the HP=Mass idea. I still don't understand the hubbub, obviously it would be less than plates, and similar as reactives as they give similar HP. When extenders give the exact same penalty as armor, why fit anything but armor? Armor gets more HP anyway. This will further drive the armor metagame. Can we please give the infantry shield tankers SOMETHING?! The speed penalty will be scaled to the HP of the module, so extenders will get ~half the penalty of the armor plate (a complex shield extender, 66hp, will have less penalty than a basic armor plate, 85hp). At least thats how I read the proposed changes. And to those saying this will encourage dual tanking: sure if you want to have insane movement penalties, why not. But my money is on that kind of fit being a really dumb idea if these changes are implemented. The only thing shield tankers need in this game is a tightening of the scrambler rifle damage profiles so it doesnt feel like a nuclear strike hit your shield every time you get shot a couple times by it.
Having the same penalty for two different modules only encourages that both modules be used since you are already taking the hit for one of them. It will encourage even more brick-tank style play and not diversify the module usage like CCP is hoping for. Instead they need to come up with a different penalty for the shields. That way if you do both armor AND shields you get two different penalties and not just one that you can overcome by being a better statistician than CCP is.
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
685
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote:Vesta Opalus wrote:Ripley Riley wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Extenders were thrown into the mix because of the HP=Mass idea. I still don't understand the hubbub, obviously it would be less than plates, and similar as reactives as they give similar HP. When extenders give the exact same penalty as armor, why fit anything but armor? Armor gets more HP anyway. This will further drive the armor metagame. Can we please give the infantry shield tankers SOMETHING?! The speed penalty will be scaled to the HP of the module, so extenders will get ~half the penalty of the armor plate (a complex shield extender, 66hp, will have less penalty than a basic armor plate, 85hp). At least thats how I read the proposed changes. And to those saying this will encourage dual tanking: sure if you want to have insane movement penalties, why not. But my money is on that kind of fit being a really dumb idea if these changes are implemented. The only thing shield tankers need in this game is a tightening of the scrambler rifle damage profiles so it doesnt feel like a nuclear strike hit your shield every time you get shot a couple times by it. Having the same penalty for two different modules only encourages that both modules be used since you are already taking the hit for one of them. It will encourage even more brick-tank style play and not diversify the module usage like CCP is hoping for. Instead they need to come up with a different penalty for the shields. That way if you do both armor AND shields you get two different penalties and not just one that you can overcome by being a better statistician than CCP is. Im not sure how adding penalties to HP modules will encourage brick tank play. Its already a pretty dubious choice as it is, why do you think putting penalties on the modules would somehow magically make it more attractive?
Please re-read... I said putting the SAME penalty on two DIFFERENT types of tanking will only encourages the usage of BOTH of them not one. Earlier I detailed this here:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2479861#post2479861
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
685
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote:
Having the same penalty for two different modules only encourages that both modules be used since you are already taking the hit for one of them. It will encourage even more brick-tank style play and not diversify the module usage like CCP is hoping for. Instead they need to come up with a different penalty for the shields. That way if you do both armor AND shields you get two different penalties and not just one that you can overcome by being a better statistician than CCP is.
yeah. I predict the people who believe that dual bricking will be the best way to go after the change are going to have a very bad day I remember dual tanking with 10% movement penalties on armor. Hilarity will ensue because penalties do NOT have stacking penalties.
I know they don't however once you reach a point it no longer matters as much if you are a fraction slower than you were before.
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
685
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote:Well I dont think you have much of a point here, we'll see how the penalty breaks out. If you are Amar going 70% speed with 1k HP from armor tanking only and then stacking 3 extenders on top or whatever which takes you down to 55-60% speed, I think thats a big difference and probably doesnt have as much utility as throwing 3 damage mods in your highs. It all depends on what the numbers are, but I still think that adding penalties to something isnt going to make it more attractive. Just because you are going slower doesnt mean what speed you still have somehow has no value. Personally I've always thought speed penalties were pretty ineffective and I'd like them to just implement straight up stacking penalties to HP mods (each additional HP mod grants less HP total), but whatever, we'll see what happens.
You're still not getting it... You say, "I still think that adding penalties to something isnt going to make it more attractive" *I* never said it makes it more attractive. I said that by only having one penalty, then thee is no difference between using shield tanking, armor tanking, and BOTH. Thus using BOTH is just as "attractive" as using only one or the other. Now if they had DIFFERENT penalties, then you would incur BOTH of those and then things become an actual trade-off as is often used in most game design theory. This is how choices and game balance is maintained in many games. I believe that if CCP does this change to BOTH armor and shields, then they remove that CHOICE from the game and upset one of the balancing points of the game-play.
|
|
|
| |
|