Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2215
   |
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why not just decrease the CPU cost of armor modules? Then increase their PG costs and buff armor vehicles' PG. Should be easier fitting armor modules to armor vehicles than to shield vehicles.
I also think that another problem at play here is the lack of module variety. I will admit that I have a complex light armor rep on my Gunnlogi (advanced large missiles with small blaster and railgun, and all complex shield extender, hardener, missile damage, and CPU). But tell me, what else am I supposed to fit in my lows with all that extra fitting? (I can't add any armor modules if I have proto large missiles, so keep that in mind). I've already ran fits with ammo expanders, but the armor rep is more useful, though so far I haven't needed it since I added it about a week ago. And I don't mind running to a supply depot every once in a while.
I'll gladly trade my armor rep for some chassis upgrades, and maybe the CPU mod as well if removing the light rep frees up that much CPU.
I also hate it when people bash Gunnlogis on the forums when all they have in mind is their potential EHP abilities. Look at my fit above: 3950 shield, 1500 armor. First, AV always gets the first hit on me so my shield hardener is never up for max EHP when I'm attacked by AV. Second, aside from the armor rep which I'd trade for a chassis upgrade, my Gunnlogi is properly shield tanked. I even forego a potential shield module for a damage amplifier.
I feel like the Gunnlogi is properly balanced when fit as intended. What needs to be looked at, as I said at the very top, are armor modules themselves and armor vehicles. Just simply nerfing the Gunnlogi's fitting will nerf fits that are already at fair play.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2215
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Harpyja wrote:Why not just decrease the CPU cost of armor modules? Then increase their PG costs and buff armor vehicles' PG. Should be easier fitting armor modules to armor vehicles than to shield vehicles.
I also think that another problem at play here is the lack of module variety. I will admit that I have a complex light armor rep on my Gunnlogi (advanced large missiles with small blaster and railgun, and all complex shield extender, hardener, missile damage, and CPU). But tell me, what else am I supposed to fit in my lows with all that extra fitting? (I can't add any armor modules if I have proto large missiles, so keep that in mind). I've already ran fits with ammo expanders, but the armor rep is more useful, though so far I haven't needed it since I added it about a week ago. And I don't mind running to a supply depot every once in a while.
I'll gladly trade my armor rep for some chassis upgrades, and maybe the CPU mod as well if removing the light rep frees up that much CPU.
I also hate it when people bash Gunnlogis on the forums when all they have in mind is their potential EHP abilities. Look at my fit above: 3950 shield, 1500 armor. First, AV always gets the first hit on me so my shield hardener is never up for max EHP when I'm attacked by AV. Second, aside from the armor rep which I'd trade for a chassis upgrade, my Gunnlogi is properly shield tanked. I even forego a potential shield module for a damage amplifier.
I feel like the Gunnlogi is properly balanced when fit as intended. What needs to be looked at, as I said at the very top, are armor modules themselves and armor vehicles. Just simply nerfing the Gunnlogi's fitting will nerf fits that are already at fair play. That does not make armour module use any more viable vs AV. Vs explsove AV I can afford to ignore swarm launchers. This is only at best a Standard or t1 vehicle it is not a T2 or advanced vehicle and should not nealy have so much EHP. Now I'm not suggesting nerfing shield in anyway more the dropping their passive reps to something more manageable and to consider a vehicle rebalancing whereby players can use Armour HAV competitively vs shields.
Ehh, I was just giving my .02 ISK on fitting capabilities.
I was going to post something here about being able to take on AV, but I realized it is just too complicated to work out a decent solution to this. You can give armor vehicles a stronger active tank (by reintroducing stronger active reps), but shield vehicles are supposed to be the better burst tankers (burst > active DPS tank) so you're just back to the current situation where shield HAVs can survive an AV engagement more easily. So I don't want to get involved with any of that right now.
Though all I'm going to say is that shield vehicles should either rely on high regeneration or maximizing EHP through resists (or a combination of both) and armor vehicles should rely more on maximizing EHP through armor plates and not so much on regeneration.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|