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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3928	Posted - 2014.12.10 19:49:00 - [61] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15688	Posted - 2014.12.10 20:06:00 - [62] - Quote 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. Indeed I feel like if Tanks are going to find themselves a place we need to work on the pro's and cons of how shielding works. Either a vehicle (any vehicle) should be able to push up into high eHP values and rely on that buffer (and the passive shield regen) to withstand damage or they should be able to use their module slots at the cost of total eHP to increase and better their regenerative power. For example- a Sagaris "Drake" Tank might do the following 3x Heavy Extenders 1x Shield Regenerator 1x Passive Shield Resistance Module 2x PDU's (for added passive regen) Theoretically this fit could have slightly less than 10000 HP and have 40-43 constant passive regeneration per second Comparatively a Booster Shield Tank might fit 1x Heavy Extender 1x Small Extender 1x Active Hardener 2x Shield Boosters 2x PDU's or 1x Jovian Powercore (better torque) 1x Tracking Enhancer ( better tracking) This fit might have 5523 Hp and the capacity to rep much faster using the boosters. Depending on fitting requirements of the modules you might be able to find a middle ground that suits your personal style of play. Consider also that during Shield Tank down times (time where they are repping in cover before redeploying a Shield tank will get 1950 Shield HP back instantly due to a booster and during that module cool down you will also be repping X (shield regen) x 40 second cooldown for additional repairs. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3928	Posted - 2014.12.10 20:22:00 - [63] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 21:24:00 - [64] - 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)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15695	Posted - 2014.12.10 21:47:00 - [65] - Quote Personally I'm all about establishing that link to EVE so I honestly believe shields should have that Comparable eHP values and active rep rates that they do in EVE, as well as their slow, natural passive regeneration. Shields should never be able to resist a greater amount of damage, have equivalent HP values, and regenerate that HP faster than an armour variant without having to fit a module. Part of the reason Shield Extenders are significantly better than Armour Plating is that shields are simply extensions that add more to the proverbial pool. Each Shield extender added will be repaired over countless times passively and at a very prodigious rate (that arguably makes it difficult for bother AV and tanks to apply lasting damage and a tank should not be immune to lasting damage) whereas armour modules won't every repair without module use. Moreover continuing on into the future if remote repairs are introduced Shield remote repairs will have to be significantly less efficient than armour ones to maintain balance as shield HAV would get their basic rep values plus their power passive regen. I'd suggest that no vehicle, HAV, DS, LAV should have prolific passive regeneration for any reason unless they fit modules to do so. A Sheild Tank as a Shield Recharge Delay of 4 seconds and a per second pulse of 168 (greater than a skilled Passive Complex Heavy Armour Repairer) and does not require a module. Within 10 seconds of receiving damage it can currently regenerate 1008 (between 1/4 and 1/5 of its primary shield tank) Within 20 seconds of receiving damage it can currently regenerate 2688 (between 1/2 and 2/3 of its primary shield tank) Within 30 seconds of receiving damage it can currently regenerate 4368 ( either the entirety or close to all of its shield tank) Couple this with a Shield Boosters and that is an additional 1900. On a shield tank there is no penalty for being forced off the map and no reasonable down time. Rather than a 30 second down time a slower passive Shield regen would ensure even on a very high eHP hull would only set back the Tank if no other regen modules were fit roughly 165 seconds. Assuming shield regen rates could be boosted at Supply depots that could be even less. That seems more than fair enough when you compare regenerative rates to armour HAV. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Shadow of War88 0uter.Heaven 471	Posted - 2014.12.10 22:38:00 - [66] - Quote 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! & justice for all
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15703	Posted - 2014.12.10 22:53:00 - [67] - Quote 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.... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 23:23:00 - [68] - 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3937	Posted - 2014.12.10 23:37:00 - [69] - Quote Shadow of War88 wrote: 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! I'm sorry if I came off as hostile in any way, I didn't mean to seem antagonistic. Regardless, a big issue is that we don't have a capacitor system in Dust like we do in EVE. Things would be far easier to work with but alas we don't have such a useful tool. I think you're compounding a bunch of suggestions into one which was not the intention; I wouldn't suggest nerfing both the regen and the hardeners at the same time, that's overkill. What I'm getting at is that because shields don't need to fit any modules to regenerate HP, and the fact that they Regenerate HP naturally at 50% faster than a Complex Armor Repairer, that raises an eyebrow. Now I don't have an issue with that in of itself (and yes they do have to deal with a shield recharge delay of 4 seconds, though I do like the general idea of Vehicle Shield Regulators, but regardless) but the problem is that not only are they repping at 150% the rate of a top of the line armor repairer, but they're also able to fit two hardeners and an extender at the same time, which pushes their eHP way way up. So now shield HAVs have more eHP and better regen than the best Armor HAV. The only downside is that 4 second recharge delay, but I really can't see that as justification for more eHP and better recharge, so something has to give (Also those Minor Flux Strikes are a factor in Pubs but do no exist in FacWar or PC, so I can't really count that as a balancing mechanic). So the point I'm making is that a Shield HAV should have to choose with either having insane eHP with a slower regen, or a extremely high regen with lower eHP. Now I say this comparatively to the Armor HAV because that's really the issue at hand. That is to say the shield HAV should have to choose between "Do I fit my vehicle in such a way that I have very high resists and thus more eHP than an armor HAV but with relatively slow Regen? Or do I want much better regen than an Armor HAV, with relatively lower eHP?" Right now Shield Pilots (myself included, I have both shield and armor maxed out) don't have to make that choice because they get both regardless. Do you see where this is problematic? Now the means to achieve this and to what degree are of course up for discussion, may that be decreasing some stats on shield vehicles or increasing some on armor, but I would like to get everyone on the same page at least. Also I'm not exactly sure why you hate Rattati? Jihad Jeeps and Commandos existed and did those things long before he was around. Also Proxy Mines need some love, particularly to deal with lazy LAVs. If you're paying attention and watching your speed, proxies are very easy to avoid as an HAV so I really don't see this as problematic, particularly since your shield HAV will resist 20% of their damage anyways. Also appreciate your kind words about that document, it was a lot of discussion and work within the community and to compile it. And no I'm not on the CPM, I was unfortunately unsuccessful in the CPM1 election but thats no reason for me to not work to improve the quality of the game. Besides there is always next term. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15706	Posted - 2014.12.10 23:45:00 - [70] - Quote Unlike Pokey I am willing to keep suggesting adjusting both shield regen AND hardener values. When a Shield Tank Passive Tanks it should have comparable HP to an Armour Tank that is passive tanking. When a Shield Tank is active Tanking it should have comparable regenerative capabilities to an Armour Tank that is doing the same thing. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3937	Posted - 2014.12.10 23:48:00 - [71] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Unlike Pokey I am willing to keep suggesting adjusting both shield regen AND hardener values. When a Shield Tank Passive Tanks it should have comparable HP to an Armour Tank that is passive tanking. When a Shield Tank is active Tanking it should have comparable regenerative capabilities to an Armour Tank that is doing the same thing. That's a fair enough statement. Always a question of the matter of degree but I think the end goal you stated is a valid one. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15709	Posted - 2014.12.11 00:02:00 - [72] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Unlike Pokey I am willing to keep suggesting adjusting both shield regen AND hardener values. When a Shield Tank Passive Tanks it should have comparable HP to an Armour Tank that is passive tanking. When a Shield Tank is active Tanking it should have comparable regenerative capabilities to an Armour Tank that is doing the same thing. That's a fair enough statement. Always a question of the matter of degree but I think the end goal you stated is a valid one. I suppose a Lesser Regen fit for an Armor HAV would be a Light Armor Repper + 180mm Plate then? I suppose the most comparable example of an armour passive tank could looke something like. 1x 180mm Plate 3x Energized Adaptive Armour Plating 1x Light Repper That roughly amounts (and I was assuming 20% resistances with something like 2.5% decrease in efficiency of the Adaptive Plating per module stacked) 10337 eHP with only whatever the rep rate of the Light Repper Applies. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3937	Posted - 2014.12.11 00:17:00 - [73] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15711	Posted - 2014.12.11 00:22:00 - [74] - 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. 3/2 ratio? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.11 05:22:00 - [75] - 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?
pegasis prime BIG BAD W0LVES 1858	Posted - 2014.12.11 07:14:00 - [76] - Quote 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. Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior. I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.11 07:27:00 - [77] - 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3945	Posted - 2014.12.11 15:40:00 - [78] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: 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? Yes. Not saying a change to slot layout is bad, just trying to hammer out the problems in the differences between shield and armor vehicles before tackling slot layouts. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 207	Posted - 2014.12.11 15:51:00 - [79] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: 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? Yes. Not saying a change to slot layout is bad, just trying to hammer out the problems in the differences between shield and armor vehicles before tackling slot layouts. 1. If Surya and Sagaris stay as a 3/2 layout then there is no point in using them and they are worse than before, its like having a proto amarr logi suit being 2/2/2
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3946	Posted - 2014.12.11 15:54:00 - [80] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: 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? Yes. Not saying a change to slot layout is bad, just trying to hammer out the problems in the differences between shield and armor vehicles before tackling slot layouts. 1. If Surya and Sagaris stay as a 3/2 layout then there is no point in using them and they are worse than before, its like having a proto amarr logi suit being 2/2/2 facepalm You didn't read the context, did you? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 207	Posted - 2014.12.11 16:15:00 - [81] - Quote 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3946	Posted - 2014.12.11 16:17:00 - [82] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 208	Posted - 2014.12.11 16:30:00 - [83] - 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. 1. Best to ignore slots and work on basics of tanking but the problem is also the reduction in useful modules and what happens if they eventually make a return, plus possible skill bonuses and useful skills 2. Need to really see everything that they plan to bring out and make some theory fits with everything upto level 5
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3946	Posted - 2014.12.11 16:48:00 - [84] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused 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. 1. Best to ignore slots and work on basics of tanking but the problem is also the reduction in useful modules and what happens if they eventually make a return, plus possible skill bonuses and useful skills 2. Need to really see everything that they plan to bring out and make some theory fits with everything upto level 5 No, you really can't just ignore slots because viable tanking requires a minimum number of them, and when one tanking style requires fewer minimum slots than the other, you have to look at how it's laid out. Also I'm going to have to disagree with your analogy. Marauders and Enforcers are no Prototype Tanks, they are Specialty Tanks. So comparing a Standard Amarr Assault with a Standard HAV and then a Prototype Amarr Assault with a Marauder, is simply incorrect. The proper analogy would be Comparing Prototype Frame Suit to a Prototype Specialty suit. The slot layout doesn't differ much, if at all, but people still prefer the Specialty Suits. Why? Because Bonuses are a substantial benefit that the Frame Suit lacks. So while I am not against the idea of increasing slot layouts for specialty vehicles (Hell the Assault Dropship has 2 less slots than the Standard Dropship), I also feel it is unreasonable to innately expect an increase in slots, simply because it's a specialty vehicle. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2465	Posted - 2014.12.11 17:18:00 - [85] - 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 - [86] - 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3946	Posted - 2014.12.11 17:22:00 - [87] - Quote Spkr4theDead 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. Well then, infantry slot layout should stay the same from STD to PRO. Sound fair? You don't....actually read everything do you? Pokey Dravon wrote: Also I'm going to have to disagree with your analogy. Marauders and Enforcers are no Prototype Tanks, they are Specialty Tanks. So comparing a Standard Amarr Assault with a Standard HAV and then a Prototype Amarr Assault with a Marauder, is simply incorrect. The proper analogy would be Comparing Prototype Frame Suit to a Prototype Specialty suit. The slot layout doesn't differ much, if at all, but people still prefer the Specialty Suits. Why? Because Bonuses are a substantial benefit that the Frame Suit lacks. So while I am not against the idea of increasing slot layouts for specialty vehicles (Hell the Assault Dropship has 2 less slots than the Standard Dropship), I also feel it is unreasonable to innately expect an increase in slots, simply because it's a specialty vehicle. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 731	Posted - 2014.12.11 17:53:00 - [88] - 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3949	Posted - 2014.12.11 17:57:00 - [89] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: You are a gentleman and scholar. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 731	Posted - 2014.12.11 17:59:00 - [90] - 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?



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.