|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2461
   |
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
They would probably unfortunately have to keep in line with infantry HP.
2650 shield
1500 armor
5 hi / 3 lo
far more CPU and PG than the Gunnlogi
passive skills to improve the hull and damage output
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 17:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
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.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 17:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
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.
Well then, infantry slot layout should stay the same from STD to PRO. Sound fair?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 18:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote: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.
Yes, not allowed to have more slots on a tank, even though Cal has 5 highs, Gal and Amarr have 5 lows, and I believe Minmatar has 4 and 4. But a tank isn't allowed to have more than 2/3 and 3/2. Makes a lot of sense.
More double standards from those that believe they should be the ones to dictate the direction vehicles go in. Why can't you all go ruin some other game?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 18:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Pokey, have you ever tried tanking consistently? If not, what makes you think you know the direction vehicles should go in? We just tell you how to destroy us, not the direction infantry may go in, unless we have significant SP into infantry, which I now do. 5 PRO suits and weapons, which means I have a voice with infantry. I also love being in a tank, so I have a voice there too. If you don't have SP in vehicles, then you have no voice as far as vehicles are concerned.
Both the Marauders and Enforcers were ADV tanks. There's literally no reason they can't have the slot count of something that's ADV level.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 19:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey, have you ever tried tanking consistently? If not, what makes you think you know the direction vehicles should go in? We just tell you how to destroy us, not the direction infantry may go in, unless we have significant SP into infantry, which I now do. 5 PRO suits and weapons, which means I have a voice with infantry. I also love being in a tank, so I have a voice there too. If you don't have SP in vehicles, then you have no voice as far as vehicles are concerned.
Both the Marauders and Enforcers were ADV tanks. There's literally no reason they can't have the slot count of something that's ADV level. Been tanking consistently since early closed Beta, also have all meaningful skills maxed for HAVs and LAVs, so I know a couple things. By your logic, if Enforcers are indeed ADV tanks, then Standard Dropsuits would not receive any bonuses regardless of skill level, but ADV would, yes?
So you supposedly have been tanking, yet want to severely limit an ADV tank by keeping the same slot layout? You're an idiot and should find another game to ruin.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 19:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Tune in for our next episode of Everyone hates Spkr!!
Brought to you by Dust 514 Forums
Yeah, because I won't compromise enough on vehicles for infantry to be satisfied.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 19:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey, have you ever tried tanking consistently? If not, what makes you think you know the direction vehicles should go in? We just tell you how to destroy us, not the direction infantry may go in, unless we have significant SP into infantry, which I now do. 5 PRO suits and weapons, which means I have a voice with infantry. I also love being in a tank, so I have a voice there too. If you don't have SP in vehicles, then you have no voice as far as vehicles are concerned.
Both the Marauders and Enforcers were ADV tanks. There's literally no reason they can't have the slot count of something that's ADV level. Been tanking consistently since early closed Beta, also have all meaningful skills maxed for HAVs and LAVs, so I know a couple things. By your logic, if Enforcers are indeed ADV tanks, then Standard Dropsuits would not receive any bonuses regardless of skill level, but ADV would, yes? So you supposedly have been tanking, yet want to severely limit an ADV tank by keeping the same slot layout? You're an idiot and should find another game to ruin. Again, if its an ADV tank, and receives bonuses that the STD tank does not, then by that logic, ADV dropsuits should receive bonuses, but STD should receive none. Is this what you're advocating?
Dropsuits go from STD to ADV to PRO. Along with that, they get more slots. The basic suits get no passive bonis, while the commando, sentinel, assault, logistics and scout suits all get bonuses. Why shouldn't an ADV tank get a bonus?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 20:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
Atiim wrote:See Spkr? What I told you in-game was true. 
Keep complaining that AV is underpowered.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2465
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 17:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
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.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|