DUST Search - [Hotfix Echo] Sagaris

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Hotfix Echo] Sagaris

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.09 21:34:00 - [1] - Quote what stats would we want? (realistically of course) anyone have the old that can post them here for reference?
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.09 22:57:00 - [2] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: The old Sagaris stats were: 3120 shields 1000 armour 24 HP/s shield regen 365 CPU 1840 PG 5 high slots 3 low slots However, the Sagaris existed at a time when vehicles worked very, very differently. These stats in the game now would not work. It's not going to be easy to balance Marauders using only 4 slots. I was going to suggest a Passive Tanked fit under the new model of regeneration I've suggested....... but that would be a Gunlogi with 400 more Shield HP. However if we don't adjust Shield regeneration rates we'll just have incredibly expensive arguably worse than OP Marauder tanks....... The fit (a Passive Tank) I wanted to suggest was something like Shield 3120 Armour 1000 5/2 3x Complex Shield Extenders 1x Shield Regenerator 1x Shield Hardener (@ 30% not 40) 1x PG Extender 1x Power Diagnostic Unit (if your remember these modules increase PG and Shield Regen by up to 9%) Total Shield 7095 Total Armour 1000 Shield EHP 9223.5 Total EHP 10223.5 With base regen of 24 Shield/sec plus skills for the modules (+25% regen) plus a 20% regen module, and a 9% module you get almost 40 rep/sec which is respectable but ensures that damage applied stays applied for longer. Critique this suggestion harshly please. 40hp/s doesn't seem very competitive compared to passive armor reps. Should be 2 or 3 times the comparative amount of armor reps. And we should balance CPU/PG at level 5 skills so we don't need fitting mods
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:22:00 - [3] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Currently shield vehicles have the benefit of stacking multiple hardeners which performat 15% greater efficiency than armor hardeners allowing them massive eHP, with a pretty sizable amount of shield regen on top of that. In addition, with limited Anti-Shield AV as well as no Laser turrets (compared to Explosive Missiles), Shield vehicles have a sizable advantage over armor vehicle, so something has to give. I thought heavy weapon parity was being looked into for the future? If amarr a/v lasers are anything like infantry lasers, then you won't have anything to worry about. There probably be a cry that shields are UP once that happens
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:13:00 - [4] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Currently shield vehicles have the benefit of stacking multiple hardeners which performat 15% greater efficiency than armor hardeners allowing them massive eHP, with a pretty sizable amount of shield regen on top of that. In addition, with limited Anti-Shield AV as well as no Laser turrets (compared to Explosive Missiles), Shield vehicles have a sizable advantage over armor vehicle, so something has to give. I thought heavy weapon parity was being looked into for the future? If amarr a/v lasers are anything like infantry lasers, then you won't have anything to worry about. There probably be a cry that shields are UP once that happens Even then you still have the issue of Shields regenerating faster than armour with no module required and an additionally 15% damage resistance vs those weapons which essentially negates skills like Proficiency and in some cases even damage modules. Like it or not Shields on Vehicles, specifically Tanks, need to be adjusted so that their hardeners are not too effective like they are now, and so that regeneration on shield vehicles does not trump Armour rep rates without module investment. It works this way everywhere. Dust and eve. Shields have much better regen than armor, even without investment. Cal assault base regen is 30. Gal assault is what? 3? The real issue I find with armor tanks is the lack of CPU/PG. That needs to be looked into. Shields tanks can fit anything. Armor tanks can barely fit standard mods even at level 5 skills A madruggar with speed mod, damage mod, two rep and a hardener would be great, except they won't fit. Even at standard.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:31:00 - [5] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: True Adamance wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Currently shield vehicles have the benefit of stacking multiple hardeners which performat 15% greater efficiency than armor hardeners allowing them massive eHP, with a pretty sizable amount of shield regen on top of that. In addition, with limited Anti-Shield AV as well as no Laser turrets (compared to Explosive Missiles), Shield vehicles have a sizable advantage over armor vehicle, so something has to give. I thought heavy weapon parity was being looked into for the future? If amarr a/v lasers are anything like infantry lasers, then you won't have anything to worry about. There probably be a cry that shields are UP once that happens Even then you still have the issue of Shields regenerating faster than armour with no module required and an additionally 15% damage resistance vs those weapons which essentially negates skills like Proficiency and in some cases even damage modules. Like it or not Shields on Vehicles, specifically Tanks, need to be adjusted so that their hardeners are not too effective like they are now, and so that regeneration on shield vehicles does not trump Armour rep rates without module investment. It works this way everywhere. Dust and eve. Shields have much better regen than armor, even without investment. Cal assault base regen is 30. Gal assault is what? 3? The real issue I find with armor tanks is the lack of CPU/PG. That needs to be looked into. Shields tanks can fit anything. Armor tanks can barely fit standard mods even at level 5 skills A madruggar with speed mod, damage mod, two rep and a hardener would be great, except they won't fit. Even at standard. Fixing CPU/PG would certainly help. Also, A/V vs tanks was balanced. Adding additional slots will break that balance. Is there a way for us to increase the power of tanks WITHOUT increasing their number of slots, even at proto? For some reason I remember Rattati being very opposed to increasing slots. Pardon me putting it bluntly, but how the hell is any sort of better tank worth the sp and isk if it has no additional slots? Bonuses. Increased CPU/PG, differing base stats Increasing slots will require rebalance of av again. I'm not opposed to it, but av meant for being a threat to proto tanks usually wrecks everything else too easily. This has been experienced before when tankers went to war with av'ers on the forums about a year ago. If we balance av for what we have now, then even proto av will be useless unless the whole team uses it for one proto tank brick tanking. It's been seen before
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:40:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Bonuses. Increased CPU/PG, differing base stats Increasing slots will require rebalance of av again. I'm not opposed to it, but av meant for being a threat to proto tanks usually wrecks everything else too easily. This has been experienced before when tankers went to war with av'ers on the forums about a year ago. If we balance av for what we have now, then even proto av will be useless unless the whole team uses it for one proto tank brick tanking. It's been seen before I cannot say that for any reason that it would be enjoyable to use a Marauder with the base number of slots. It simply does not scratch the itch. Yet most AVers while seeking balance agree that it was badass to take down a Marauder due to the high SP cap, cost, and sense of achievement. And honestly with AV how it is now, while I believe a 1v1 ratio of AV to V should be maintained....., its not hard to dish our 10K between two players using the correct AV option. As I've pointed out before Armour HAV had significantly higher EHP pre 1.7 and were still wrecked and AV hasn't been this good in a long time. Shields are what we have to be careful about though. Honestly, I'm just paranoid. Since release, tanks have been repeatedly nerfed, rebalanced, completely redone, and nerfed again. I spec out of tanks recently because there's no reason to have one. They serve no purpose, have no role, no way to influence a battle. Remember when we could shoot down the MCC? I want tanks to useful, and to serve a purpose on the battlefield. There is no situation where a tank is necessary. There's no gates to be blown up, we can't destroy null cannons, and we can't shoot the MCC so what do we need a tank for? That said, what are we going to use marauder tanks for that justify their use? How can they be used to support infantry? Making a stronger tank when there's no use for it seems odd. A proto dropsuit and weapon helps you do a lot of things besides killing. What would a proto tank do for anyone? If there's no tanks on the field what do we need it for? I feel like tanks are one side of a coin that had no other side to it. And again please remember that each tank is operated by one person. Requiring a 3-6 man squad to kill a proto tank is too much. What happens when there's 6 proto tanks? You wouldn't have enough players in a match to fight that. I feel bad about how I feel, but tanks have no use for anything other than killing bolas. At least drop ships are useful for getting to rooftops.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:17:00 - [7] - Quote Pretty sure that's why increasing slots was frowned upon. If we balanced the mods according to those fits, we end up making them useless by themselves or on vehicles with less slots. What about only allowing one mod to be fitted at a time, for certain mods? Then we could balance the mods knowing there can only be one of them. Like damage mods. We could either allow only one per tank, or make their fitting costs so high that you couldn't fit more than a few while also crippling your tank in other areas. A 5/2 sounds nice until you think about what most people will actually stick in those slots. mainly hp mods. I had a 11k shield sagaris lol. Do we want those rolling around? How about 6 of them? I'd love to have a tank with a mobile cru, supply depot, scanner, and shields that fold out from the sides to give cover to infantry. A crazy idea, but that's the kind of support I want to give. For tank battles, I might try two shield booster, one extender, and two hardeners. But you can see that'd be impossible to kill reasonably with current mods. The combo is too good. If we nerf the mods. Hardeners in particular, how useful would they be on a drop ship? Or lav? See how it works? We can't balance a mod in regards to tanks because other vehicles need the mod as well. We could nerf all mods first, and then use vehicle bonuses to module efficacy to buff them again, but that's an insane amount of work to figure out which vehicles need bonuses for which mods and how much of a bonus.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:04:00 - [8] - Quote part of the problem in shield tanks as we said is that there arent any low slot modules worth using over armor mods after we re-balance cpu/pg. we could look at making armor mods more pd costly. combining that with a low number of low slots should make the use of armor mods less attractive than using some of the other mods available, once we get them back. i think we should also look at two things for the modules: buff the more powerful modules limit the more powerful modules to only one per vehicle or only one can be activated at a time what it does is it lets us balance the modules for use on high end proto vehicles, but keep them from becoming too strong on other vehicles (lavs, dropships, and std vehicles), and also lets us balance across different slot layouts where stacking could become an issue on vehicles with more slots also, is there any reason we couldnt have both active and passive variants of each module?
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 16:37:00 - [9] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: As I've said before, simply adding PG and CPU to the Madrugar wont do much to help it. They will still need to fit 1 Repper, 1 Plate, and 1 Hardener. Even if all of those are maxed to proto, the eHP simply wont stack up against a Gunnlogi running 2 Hardeners and 1 Extender. And yes you're correct that shields in Dust typically have much faster regen rate than armor, however nearly all shield fits will fall short of comparable armor fits in terms HP, which is not the case for vehicles. Shield Vehicles enjoy both high HP as well as great regen, and they should need to pick between one or the other. Lets just assume we stick with the 3/2 and 2/3 slot system for now. So you have 3 slots you can work with. Every HAV requires at least 1 hardener and 1 HP extender (You can argue that 2 hardeners will work as well, but regardless) and then the means to regenerate HP. Armor wont regen on its own so it's 3rd slot innately gets consumed by an armor repairer. Armor 1 Hardener 1 Plate 1 Repper While this is...extremely boring, it's the bare minimum needed for an armor vehicle to survive. Shields on the other hand dont have to fit a repper since they get their regen back much faster. Shield 1 Hardener 1 Extender --Free Slot-- Currently they can fill that free slot with another extender or hardener, keeping high HP regen and pushing eHP even higher. This is problematic, there is no tradeoff. So lets say you decreased the natural shield regen rate by X% and then offered a module to increase it by X%. This would mean to maintain the same level of shield recharge, that Free Slot would need to be filled with a Recharger of sorts. OR they could accept the lower regen and put in a hardener/extender to maintain the same high eHP they're capable of now, but with longer regen times. I think this is the basic outline we need to consider when looking at shield vehicles. what about increasing armor plate hp values? again, current av vs vehicles is fairly balanced. is reducing shield tanking hp necessary because it's OP, or because armor plates are too weak?
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 17:09:00 - [10] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: what about increasing armor plate hp values? again, current av vs vehicles is fairly balanced. is reducing shield tanking hp necessary because it's OP, or because armor plates are too weak? also, its a very strange thing to note, that armor is superior to shields PASSIVELY. a passive tanked shield tank is not as good as a passive tanked armor tank. but an active tanked shield tank is better than a active tanked armor tank. active shield modules have much shorter duration than active armor modules. do you think that perhaps we should flip things around? make shields much more rep focused, and armor more hp focused? what about damage mods? arent they supposed to narrow the eHP gap between armor tanks and shield tanks? I feel that they are enough anti shield mechanics in place that we dont need to nerf shields, just yet. id be interested in seeing how the new warbarge strikes do in future meta. That is another option to look at, but bear in mind that then you have armor vehicles is obscene levels of HP which isn't going to sit well with AVers. Also I'm not really sure what you mean by an Active Armor Tank as we no longer have active armor repairers. And damage mods are great on an armor tank, sure, but they do you little good when you get instapopped by a missile tank. yes but isnt that what av'ers have to deal with anyways against shield tanks? im thinking we could increase the plate HP to provide the needed raw HP for the hardener to make up the difference. they really wouldnt have much more eHP than shield tanks. the armor tanks dont have enough cpu to stack damage mods. and they dont have enough eHP to survive getting instapopped, but that ok IMO because missile are the counter to armor. what we need are lasers to counter shields. also we could rebalance damage control modules to be more effective( if we can bring them back). perhaps an active variant that gives an additional 50% damage reduction for 3-5 seconds? just enough time to survive the initial volley and react to the threat? the vehicle landscape has always been incomplete. even if we brought back every module and tank variant, we would still have gaping holes of missing content. we either balance with the goal of having the missing content in the form of placeholders, or we balance with the idea that we wont be ever getting the missing content.

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 17:27:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: what about increasing armor plate hp values? again, current av vs vehicles is fairly balanced. is reducing shield tanking hp necessary because it's OP, or because armor plates are too weak? also, its a very strange thing to note, that armor is superior to shields PASSIVELY. a passive tanked shield tank is not as good as a passive tanked armor tank. but an active tanked shield tank is better than a active tanked armor tank. active shield modules have much shorter duration than active armor modules. do you think that perhaps we should flip things around? make shields much more rep focused, and armor more hp focused? what about damage mods? arent they supposed to narrow the eHP gap between armor tanks and shield tanks? I feel that they are enough anti shield mechanics in place that we dont need to nerf shields, just yet. id be interested in seeing how the new warbarge strikes do in future meta. That is another option to look at, but bear in mind that then you have armor vehicles is obscene levels of HP which isn't going to sit well with AVers. Also I'm not really sure what you mean by an Active Armor Tank as we no longer have active armor repairers. And damage mods are great on an armor tank, sure, but they do you little good when you get instapopped by a missile tank. yes but isnt that what av'ers have to deal with anyways against shield tanks? im thinking we could increase the plate HP to provide the needed raw HP for the hardener to make up the difference. they really wouldnt have much more eHP than shield tanks. the armor tanks dont have enough cpu to stack damage mods. and they dont have enough eHP to survive getting instapopped, but that ok IMO because missile are the counter to armor. what we need are lasers to counter shields. also we could rebalance damage control modules to be more effective( if we can bring them back). perhaps an active variant that gives an additional 50% damage reduction for 3-5 seconds? just enough time to survive the initial volley and react to the threat? the vehicle landscape has always been incomplete. even if we brought back every module and tank variant, we would still have gaping holes of missing content. we either balance with the goal of having the missing content in the form of placeholders, or we balance with the idea that we wont be ever getting the missing content. Well I'd argue that AVers currently have too much to deal with in terms of shield eHP but that is also largely in part due to lack of proper anti shield weapons aside from my beloved Plasma Cannon. Regardless I see the point you're getting at. Also going to give you a resounding NO on buffing damage modules. All that will do is bring back glass cannon rail tanks that drop Proto-fit HAVs in 2 shots. I'm fine with Glass Cannons but even the 30% damage mod was extremely stupid in its effectiveness, 50% would be ridiculous. As for missing content did you happen to take a look at the Community Document we've been working on? I know I posted it earlier, but: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing Feedback on it would be appreciated. oh no, not a damage mods. damage "controls". they are different. high slot module that works like a hardener and gave 10% damage reduction with no stacking penalty. it was basically a back up hardener for armor tanks
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 21:24:00 - [12] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well let me ask people this, if you had to pick one for shield tanks, which would you prefer? Superior HP Regen? or Superior eHP? Superior regen. That's is the strength of shields. Passive shield rep rates should be competitive against low to medium sp skilled players using active mods. passive shield tanking should be balanced against active shield tanking. Active shields should give a stronger defense over a shorter duration. Passive tanking should be an option as well. Passive tanking requires more investment into skills and use of a greater number of slots. I would want to see that reflected compared to using active modules. If we get pilot suits, then I'd want active tanking + pilot suit to be better than passive tanking. So for a new player, progression would look like this: 1. Active tanking (limited or no skills) 2. Passive tanking (investment of skills) 3. Active tanking while using pilot suit (full investment of skills)
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 23:23:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Shadow of War88 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Hmm well consider this STD Heavy Armor Rep: 80HP/s ADV Heavy Armor Rep: 90HP/s PRO Heavy Armor Rep: 110HP/s so even at 85 shield regen per second that's very close to a built-in ADV Heavy Armor rep, and still allows that shield HAV to maintain its extremely high eHP. DOn't get me wrong I'm not on a rampage to nerf Shield Vehicles into the ground, but I feel like they're getting the best of both worlds right now. Im not sure what CCPs vision is regarding the place of vehicles but from what I observed over the past 2 years it seems that shields are suppose to be alpha tank. While armor is more anti av, tanking small sustained damage over time that would otherwise break shield regen cycle. You cant tell me you want armor gone from the low slots, and less base regen, and less effectiveness on shield hardeners. 164 to 82 is a 50% nerf. Cant compare that to armor that reps without delay. New miny flux OB rain on me every ******* minute. & Im not sure where the 5h/3l talk is coming from. I haven't seen any of that confirmed or even hinted. But then again im not very involved on forums :( If PDU and effective passive regen modules return, then we can tweak numbers. But im not waiting 3 minutes for full regen. This is not EvE. Im playing a lobby shooter. side note - Anyone bothered by the extreme saturation of the battlefield by OP 12k hp free turrets? Or the fact vehicle specialists cant really play ambush........and the game has like 3 game modes total. Lol 2 games total if you a dedicated pilot. Or the fact we working hard to balance and discuss stuff, then jihad jeep rolls outa nowhere. Or you have a awesome tank fight, win by like 800 hp, then the loser of the tank fight pops out last second and boom its a min mando with swarms I never hated a dev so much as I hate Rattati. Now he wants to buff proxy mines. Oh did I mention every noob and their mom can shoot a fukin flux from the heavens on my Cal tank? Go ahead and push for a bigger nerf to shield regen. Not like it matters in the big picture. Thanks for organizing and compiling all the stuff though. Read your google doc...good stuff. And you not even a CPM. LOL! He should have been....not only has he done vehicles, he's done PC fixes and diagrams, game mode diagrams, weapon variant rebalances, etc.... CCP Blam was worse. He's single handedly responsible for vehicles being so bad. Good thing he no longer works for CCP I do prefer having high hp and regen passive shields. Reason is I don't have control of them. I can't choose when to harden or boost my shields. I can't get a quick boost in hp if I need it. Sustained damage is a problem because you can't control it. You either kill the threat or run. My 11k shield sagaris was a beast against infantry in small numbers. But against a tank it didn't do so well. Literally all my slots were used for the passive tank. I had no utility mods to help me at all
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.11 05:22:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Well I'm currently in the mindset of maintaining 3/2 ratio while we figure this basic stuff out but I think we're on the same page. 3/2 ratio? Slot layout?
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.11 07:27:00 - [15] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: shaman oga wrote: Will it 1 shot bolas? If the answer is no, then it's not worth. I just felt a tingle from this statement ...oh how I miss my double dammage mod sagi and its comoressed particle cannon. I wish bolas would stay I cloaked longer so we can actually hit them. They disappear too quickly now
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 731	Posted - 2014.12.11 17:53:00 - [16] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: facepalm You didn't read the context, did you? 1. If context you mean keeping it the same to make up some numbers then yes i did 2. Slot layout will only effect EHP numbers but either way if they are worse than the old Sagaris and Surya then they will not be worth it unless the reduced slot layout is to make way for proto HAVs then i could deal with it Context as in, I'm specifically talking about the Gunnlogi and the Madrugar and how Vehicle Shield Tanking and Vehicle Armor Tanking perform against each other. It had nothing to do with the slot layout of the Sageris. So it's a thread about the Sagaris, yet you're talking about STD tanks? Does not compute. its a thread about the sagaris yes. but we've now realized that we have some balancing issues that need to be addressed. most people think that there should be an increase in the number of slots for a proto tank. an increase in slots would create a mess in terms of balance in mainly the TTK. current av and even tank weapons were balanced with current hp values. if we give more slots then obviously someone will get the bright idea to fit more hp on their tank, at which point, god mode tanks return. what we are talking about is whether or not we can balance shield tanking vs armor tanking in a way that allows us to have more slots without creating god mode tanks again. its easier to conceptualize this if we use current tanks and slot layouts, before moving on.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 731	Posted - 2014.12.11 17:59:00 - [17] - Quote we need a list of the old modules... anyone have any favors left with CCP that could get us a list of vehicles mods? current and old would be great. also need to know what is possible to do by CCP. can we invent new modules? or just bring back the old and tweak them?
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 732	Posted - 2014.12.12 14:26:00 - [18] - Quote 1. partial module cooldowns for partial use. 2. limit all active modules to one per vehicle 3. buff active hardeners a bit to make up for not being able to stack more than one 4. allow passive modules to be stacked w/penalties
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 732	Posted - 2014.12.12 20:48:00 - [19] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: 1. partial module cooldowns for partial use. Should've been this way since the beginning. 2. limit all active modules to one per vehicle You could fit more than one rep tool, more than one scanner, more than one nanohive, more than one uplink, multiple reps, plates, biotics modules, damage mods, shield extenders on a suit, why should we be limited to one hardener/booster/AB/NOS in the highs, and one hardener in the lows? 3. buff active hardeners a bit to make up for not being able to stack more than one They should've stayed at their old values instead of being nerfed. 4. allow passive modules to be stacked w/penalties Passives had stacking penalties. 5. allow marauders to fit and use two active modules of the same type "Allow?" You should not be involved in vehicle talks at all. because then we have tanks with over 30,000 eHP, that's why. no matter how many rep plates or hives you use, you cant actually rep though or out rep the incoming damage. Tanks actually can do that, and giving them extra slot will just make them able to rep all damage without even moving. do you not remember gunnlogi with double hardeners when they were 60%? you could passive rep blaster tanks and swarms at the same time. the triple hardener made you take so litttle damage that your shields didnt even move. and if some how you did take damage, you could always use your shield booster and start all over again. you sir are the personification of the word NO
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 737	Posted - 2014.12.15 14:47:00 - [20] - Quote TL:DR a 5/3 slot layout is pointless without the necessary cpu/pg. interesting... if we ported an old Sagaris into 1.10 as it was... it'd need updated cpu/pg stats to fit anything. the additional slots cant be used even when using fitting mods in the lows. so while a triple hardener dual shield booster fit would be nice, you cant do it. 1 shield booster cripples fitting and then you run out of cpu and pg for a second and would need at least two of each fitting mod to fit the shield mods in. you dont have enough lows for it though. this brings up an interesting idea to balance tanks using cpu/pg to keep certain fits from being possible. this would include re balancing the fitting costs of modules as well as the fitting on vehicles themselves.

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 737	Posted - 2014.12.15 14:58:00 - [21] - Quote we could make passive modules super cheap fitting wise, and make active modules very expensive to fit. then we can get an increased slot layout without having to limit the number of certain modules per vehicle. for reference, a triple hardener, dual shield booster fit with 1.10 stats would yield eHP of 56,799 55,799 of that is shield hp against blaster damage, eHP for shields would dip to only 50,726 against explosive damage, eHP for shields shoots up to 69,748 explosive damage would be swarm launchers, av nades, remote and proxy explosives, mass drivers. they'd all be effectively useless and theyre the only av weapons available to players not capable of using a forge gun. this was what i didnt want to see happen. these numbers came from an older doc that was used before protofits was completed. its accurate though after updating module values

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.