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)
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?
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19969	Posted - 2014.12.09 21:39:00 - [2] - Quote 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. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 22:17:00 - [3] - Quote 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3403	Posted - 2014.12.09 22:49:00 - [4] - Quote Will it 1 shot bolas? If the answer is no, then it's not worth. Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.09 22:57:00 - [5] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:09:00 - [6] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: 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 There will be no passive armour reps. **** them they need to die in a fire. As for fitting modules I currently see and huge imbalance in this especially for Shield HAV to the point where a Shield HAV that can fit its full racial tank and turret options without the use of fitting modules can abuse them to stack armour modules. This should never be possible EVER for any reason. But consider this. If CCP Rattati is serious about allowing for new modules and the return of old modules you not only have ammunition, Torque, Tracking Enhancers, and other weapons modifying modules. Not to mention I mentioned the Power Diagnostic Unit which does increase PG and Shield Regen rates. If a Sagaris is on the field and has as much Shield EHP as I have suggested it should never be able to stack or modify with armour modules. This however is only and example of a PASSIVE EHP tank that relies on its Shield Regen and Hardeners. Other variations will exist with Marauders having 2x Complex Extenders, Hardeners, Boosters, etc allowing EHP to spike when required or it due to the Shield Boosters instantaneous 1900 Shield Injection. By comparison an Armour tank will have similar HP values with less plate stacking, but not have any passive reps. *"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 3895	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:16:00 - [7] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:18:00 - [8] - 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. Just looking at my suggested fit would you consider that "fair" or could you see ways to abuse it? *"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 3895	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:22:00 - [9] - Quote True Adamance 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. Just looking at my suggested fit would you consider that "fair" or could you see ways to abuse it? Well you basically built a Drake on Treads, which is innately obnoxious but I don't have any glaring issues with it. Only thing I worry about is that at that rate, it's nearly 3 minutes to recharge from 0% to full shields. I guess for me the question comes down to "Should HAVs have poor regen with high HP and be more reliant on Logistics to maintain said HP?" That's somewhat how Sentinels work. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:29:00 - [10] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance 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. Just looking at my suggested fit would you consider that "fair" or could you see ways to abuse it? Well you basically built a Drake on Treads, which is innately obnoxious but I don't have any glaring issues with it. Only thing I worry about is that at that rate, it's nearly 3 minutes to recharge from 0% to full shields. I guess for me the question comes down to "Should HAVs have poor regen with high HP and be more reliant on Logistics to maintain said HP?" That's somewhat how Sentinels work. I think HAV should be able to adjust their style. You either compromise for great EHP values and have less regenerations or you have solid regeneration and less EHP. E.G- The "Drake" Tank has massive EHP but suffers a lack of regenerative capacity. Another fit I could propose could have the standard 2x Extender, 1x Hardener, and two Boosters of varying size and efficiency. Comparatively this second fit has less EHP and significantly less passive regen but can re-actively tank according to damage taken making it more adaptable. The Latter would be likely a better solo tank, the former if Remote Reps were introduced would be a better squadron tank. EDIT - I should note that that bloody Hardener in the last calculation is active and likely should not be able to be fitted like that. Perhaps one of the only Passive Shield Ward Resistance Amplifiers or something would better? In assuming that it was an active hardener it has higher EHP than any armour HAV I can create but assuming its a passive mod @ 20-25% It could work wonders and reduce the need for that PG Extender allowing for the PDU and boosting shield regen up to around 45 per second. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 129	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:32:00 - [11] - Quote I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3895	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:35:00 - [12] - Quote Oh I'm totally on board with the high eHP low regen, I was more questioning the degree of that effect. Upping the regen to 45/s brings you to a bit over 2.5 minutes regen which is looking a bit better. I mean in that regard it comes down to tweaking the numbers, but I think you're on the right track, particularly if we go with my working model for Pilot Suits. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:36:00 - [13] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:39:00 - [14] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Oh I'm totally on board with the high eHP low regen, I was more questioning the degree of that effect. Upping the regen to 45/s brings you to a bit over 2.5 minutes regen which is looking a bit better. I mean in that regard it comes down to tweaking the numbers, but I think you're on the right track, particularly if we go with my working model for Pilot Suits. Also consider that under your model and armour tank will require 2.5 cycles of a rep module to return to full HP, that could be up to 30 seconds per module activation with a down time of 30 seconds again..... that roughly equates to the same down time for armour HAV. The more I talk about Drake Tanks the more I can imagine 3 man squadrons with 2x 10K Passive Tanks and one light tank behind the lines fully equipped with Remote Shield Reps....... The whole cost for the column would be well over 5 million ISK...... and wholly reliant on that small HAV to keep them alive. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 129	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:41:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. Lol I haven't dealt with stats in a while true, pardon me for my rustiness. Heck, why don't we make the hulls cost 1.2m again that would be fun XD Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:43:00 - [16] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. Lol I haven't dealt with stats in a while true, pardon me for my rustiness. Heck, why don't we make the hulls cost 1.2m again that would be fun XD Sorry I'm not trying to be antagonistic....just passionate about the subject. Personally I wouldn't mind the high costs. Would give infantry one less reason to whine. Also with the alterations I believe it will also bring Gunnlogi back into line vs Madrugars as currently their is no competition. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2689	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:46:00 - [17] - Quote I think we should discuss in general terms of relative terms (such as, "Compaired to the Gunnlogi..."). I mean, CCP will come up with their own numbers anyway, it would probably be best to describe what we want specifically and have them fit the bill. Personally, I think they should be glass cannons: high damage output but little defenses (compared to a gunnlogi), a bit faster and more agile (similar to ADSs). Either that or high damage, high resistance, but like 10% the movement speed. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14233	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:48:00 - [18] - 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. I'll make a spreadsheet of the TTK vs different AV weapons and get back to you on that. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3895	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:50:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Oh I'm totally on board with the high eHP low regen, I was more questioning the degree of that effect. Upping the regen to 45/s brings you to a bit over 2.5 minutes regen which is looking a bit better. I mean in that regard it comes down to tweaking the numbers, but I think you're on the right track, particularly if we go with my working model for Pilot Suits. Also consider that under your model and armour tank will require 2.5 cycles of a rep module to return to full HP, that could be up to 30 seconds per module activation with a down time of 30 seconds again..... that roughly equates to the same down time for armour HAV. The more I talk about Drake Tanks the more I can imagine 3 man squadrons with 2x 10K Passive Tanks and one light tank behind the lines fully equipped with Remote Shield Reps....... The whole cost for the column would be well over 5 million ISK...... and wholly reliant on that small HAV to keep them alive. I would rather love making Vehicle Logistics a thing again. Underutilized in the past, nonexistent now. I'll be the first to admit that vehicle Logistic is really my ideal role in this game so I will always push for it. I think another important question to ask is, assuming the existence of Remote Armor Reps and Shield Transporters, how would those compare in HP/s? EDIT: Also I HATE trying to balance things via ISK cost. I"m fine with specialty vehicles being more expensive but I don't want prices to get so high that the loss of one means you're in the red for the next 2-3 hours either. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 129	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:53:00 - [20] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. Lol I haven't dealt with stats in a while true, pardon me for my rustiness. Heck, why don't we make the hulls cost 1.2m again that would be fun XD Sorry I'm not trying to be antagonistic....just passionate about the subject. Personally I wouldn't mind the high costs. Would give infantry one less reason to whine. Also with the alterations I believe it will also bring Gunnlogi back into line vs Madrugars as currently their is no competition. IMO, gunnlogi should stay where they're at while removing the ability to dual tank. That's the biggest problem is when I see 3000 armour 4000 shield gunnies on the field. Maddies should rule in ehp, like 6000 ish armour, along with a choice between either a active or passive rep. Maybe 75 hp/s for a complex passive and 450 hp/s for 15 seconds on a complex active rep. Please tell me how bad my suggestions are. EDIT: this is considering having the best modules on the tank. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

Sequal Rise Les Desanusseurs 407	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:53:00 - [21] - 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 think that with the new 300WP OB that drops almost instantly, the shield tanks have now something real to fear. I destroyed many shield tanks with friends using this OB tonight and it's an amazing technic! Just saying tho^^ I don't know enough about tanks to deal with them much more than that x) Assault, Logi, Scout, Heavy.. What do you need?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3895	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:56:00 - [22] - Quote Sequal Rise 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 think that with the new 300WP OB that drops almost instantly, the shield tanks have now something real to fear. I destroyed many shield tanks with friends using this OB tonight and it's an amazing technic! Just saying tho^^ I don't know enough about tanks to deal with them much more than that x) Well keep in mind your normal Warbarge OB is 24 volleys, the new ones are....2 I think. So 8.3% of the damage, and it's only to shields. And even if it was significant, Warbarge Orbitals don't exist in Facwar or PC, so you really can't count Orbitals as a balancing mechanic for one type of vehicle over the other. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3896	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:03:00 - [23] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. Lol I haven't dealt with stats in a while true, pardon me for my rustiness. Heck, why don't we make the hulls cost 1.2m again that would be fun XD Sorry I'm not trying to be antagonistic....just passionate about the subject. Personally I wouldn't mind the high costs. Would give infantry one less reason to whine. Also with the alterations I believe it will also bring Gunnlogi back into line vs Madrugars as currently their is no competition. IMO, gunnlogi should stay where they're at while removing the ability to dual tank. That's the biggest problem is when I see 3000 armour 4000 shield gunnies on the field. Maddies should rule in ehp, like 6000 ish armour, along with a choice between either a active or passive rep. Maybe 75 hp/s for a complex passive and 450 hp/s for 15 seconds on a complex active rep. Please tell me how bad my suggestions are. The issue isn't the dual tanking. The issue is that currently shield HAVs had 3 high slots. Their shield regen naturally which means they dont need to use a repper of any kind. This allows them to stack 2 hardeners at 40% each on top of a shield extender. Armor on the other hand has to use a repper, which means they get similar levels of reps, but only a single plate and a single 25% hardener. And while its true that the plate gives more raw HP than an extender, resists are FAR better than raw HP. This is primarily due to the fact that shields and armor regen at an absolute rate, meaing a set amount of HP per second. However since hardeners block incoming damage, this means that the effective rep rate is higher. Imagine this scenario. Vehicle 1 has 100 base HP and adds 100 HP with a plate, but has no resists for a total of 200eHP. It repairs at 10HP/s Vehicle 2 has 100 base HP and has a 50% hardener, but with no extender for a total of 200eHP. It also repairs at 10HP/s AV Swarmer hits each vehicle with a weapon that deals 100 damage. Vehicle 1 resists no damage, loses 100HP. It will take 10 seconds to repair all the damage. Vehicle 2 resists 50% of the damage, loses 50HP. It will take 5 seconds to repair all the damage. Same eHP. Same Regen rate. Very different recovery times. This is the primary reason why shield vehicles perform so well currently. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:05:00 - [24] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. Lol I haven't dealt with stats in a while true, pardon me for my rustiness. Heck, why don't we make the hulls cost 1.2m again that would be fun XD Sorry I'm not trying to be antagonistic....just passionate about the subject. Personally I wouldn't mind the high costs. Would give infantry one less reason to whine. Also with the alterations I believe it will also bring Gunnlogi back into line vs Madrugars as currently their is no competition. IMO, gunnlogi should stay where they're at while removing the ability to dual tank. That's the biggest problem is when I see 3000 armour 4000 shield gunnies on the field. Maddies should rule in ehp, like 6000 ish armour, along with a choice between either a active or passive rep. Maybe 75 hp/s for a complex passive and 450 hp/s for 15 seconds on a complex active rep. Please tell me how bad my suggestions are. My/ Pokey's suggestions follow a rather simple rebalance. Gunnlogi lose 300 armour but gain 350 Shields Shields - 3000 Armour- 1200 Madrugar lose 200 Shields and between 375 and 600 armour (bear with me a moment) Shields- 1000 Armour -3400 -3625 Power lies in the modules. Gunlogi can now attain 5650 Shields ( 7345 EHP + 1200 armour and passive reps) and have their fair armour tank. Madrugar with 180mm plating (part of the suggestions) can have 6375 Armour ( 7995 EHP + 1000 Shields, no passive reps) If we went back to 2/4 and 4/2 tanks we could do some very nice things especially if fitting is tight and we have lots more varied and valuable utility mods for our lows and highs. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2309	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:16:00 - [25] - Quote Seriously? We're not asking for racial parity in vehicles before we get old stuff back? Dust514/Legion should be a(n): [_] Arcade Lobby Shooter [X] Sci-fi Military Sim
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14237	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:25:00 - [26] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Seriously? We're not asking for racial parity in vehicles before we get old stuff back? It's much better to do what we can now than ask for something that probably won't ever come. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:25:00 - [27] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Seriously? We're not asking for racial parity in vehicles before we get old stuff back? Give up mate. I have, lets work on actually balancing the modules and fleshing out how vehicles should work before we badger Rattati for place holders. Plus this is a Holiday Hotfix. It's unlikely he will even be able to get most of it done.....but if we submit a strong case for rebalances he may well take it into a proper update. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2690	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:34:00 - [28] - Quote Just as a point, last we heard from Rattati was that the Gunnlogi was underperforming compared to the Madrugar. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2309	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:37:00 - [29] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Seriously? We're not asking for racial parity in vehicles before we get old stuff back? Give up mate. I have, lets work on actually balancing the modules and fleshing out how vehicles should work before we badger Rattati for place holders. Plus this is a Holiday Hotfix. It's unlikely he will even be able to get most of it done.....but if we submit a strong case for rebalances he may well take it into a proper update. I don't think it would be that hard to give us some reskins with tweaked stats as our racial parity. It isn't like we're asking for new models, reskins are all that the Sagris/Surya are anyway so why give us old broken instead of giving us new toys? Dust514/Legion should be a(n): [_] Arcade Lobby Shooter [X] Sci-fi Military Sim
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15633	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:48:00 - [30] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Seriously? We're not asking for racial parity in vehicles before we get old stuff back? Give up mate. I have, lets work on actually balancing the modules and fleshing out how vehicles should work before we badger Rattati for place holders. Plus this is a Holiday Hotfix. It's unlikely he will even be able to get most of it done.....but if we submit a strong case for rebalances he may well take it into a proper update. I don't think it would be that hard to give us some reskins with tweaked stats as our racial parity. It isn't like we're asking for new models, reskins are all that the Sagris/Surya are anyway so why give us old broken instead of giving us new toys? Because the Surya and Sagaris benefit tank pilots more than any racial variants would at this current time. They require the bland and lacking vehicle skills tree to be addressed and altered and provide tank operators with an "End game unit" to put SP into and work towards indicating who is dedicated to their role and offering them another step up from the standard hull. Currently all I have to do to operate tanks is Vehicle Command V, HAV Command I This would be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better if it required - Vehicle Command V - Racial HAV Operation V - Racial Marauder Operation V and encouraged - X Racial Tank Skills to V - Turrets V - Core Tank Skills V and rewarded dedicated tankers for it by offering them a machine they can customise deeply to their tastes and have pride in, and spend ISK on. I could care less about Sica and Soma unless I'm up against an organised team and want something cheap to ruin their ISK efficiency with, Gunnlogi and Madrugar are also lacking and just the run of the mill crap you see every day and only set me back 700,000 ISK a pop...... But a Surya [Sagaris} that costs 1.5-2 Million ISK a pop, allows me to invest all of my skills, fitting, etc into is something I would care about...... I wouldn't want to lose it, I'd protect it, I'd only get it out when I needed it, I could escalate depending on what my opponents brought to the fight, etc. *"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 3901	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:01:00 - [31] - Quote Not to mention that there is a fundamental problem with the balance of armor and shield. Adding more variants before hammering out this imbalance will only compound the issue. Trust me, we've already been working on variants within the community for some time and we reached the conclusion that the way armor and shields work need to be looked at as well. If you want to see the results of our first pass on vehicles in general, feel free to look here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15635	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:08:00 - [32] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Not to mention that there is a fundamental problem with the balance of armor and shield. Adding more variants before hammering out this imbalance will only compound the issue. Trust me, we've already been working on variants within the community for some time and we reached the conclusion that the way armor and shields work need to be looked at as well. If you want to see the results of our first pass on vehicles in general, feel free to look here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing Besides the Scriptures this is my Bible. *"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 3901	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:11:00 - [33] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Not to mention that there is a fundamental problem with the balance of armor and shield. Adding more variants before hammering out this imbalance will only compound the issue. Trust me, we've already been working on variants within the community for some time and we reached the conclusion that the way armor and shields work need to be looked at as well. If you want to see the results of our first pass on vehicles in general, feel free to look here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing Besides the Scriptures this is my Bible. Never have I heard such high praise. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:22:00 - [34] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15641	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:48:00 - [35] - Quote 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. *"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 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:13:00 - [36] - 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.
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 129	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:26:00 - [37] - Quote 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? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:31:00 - [38] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15650	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:41:00 - [39] - Quote 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. *"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 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:40:00 - [40] - 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.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15666	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:49:00 - [41] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: 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. Yeah you make fair points...... something the issue is just a matter of luck though. Maybe a squad of tankers is playing together, maybe they randomly turn up by chance...... sometimes there's just misfortune at work. I'd love to be able/ necessary/ be wanted for a damn change in missions that required us to destroy specific objects like doors, defence matrix installations, and put turrets into reinforcement timers so that infantry could move around and have cover, and focus on infiltration and such...... BUT BACK TO THE TOPIC! Honestly I wish HAV would go back to the way they were pre-1.7 when people enjoyed them and from there Rattati could work his magic that only he knows how to work. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 544	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:53:00 - [42] - Quote You've got to think of the worst possible fits to see if that would be balanced. In all honesty we need to rebalance some current modules around a 5-2 slot layout. Possible troll fits: - 5 damage mods and two armor plates, the redline special. - 3 damage mods , 2 hardeners, particle cannon, plate, repper. - 3 hardeners, Shield booster, extender - Or hell, 5 hardeners on a continuous cycle. This will not be fun for either AV or Tankers. The only counter might be itself. We ought to also brainstrom other possible checks and balances. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:17:00 - [43] - 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.
oldhero Titans of Phoenix 19	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:52:00 - [44] - Quote Justin add my current missile shield tank is able to TANK vs 2 rail tanks at once or 3 blaster tanks if the two rails are near me its guaranteed they will go down in the case of the blasters 2 will die and they last one usually runs before i get to shoot or he stays and kill my tank many people here have forgotten the terror of a triple hardener shield tank now imagine a 3 hardeners and 2 extenders :) very scary and possibly OP and a basic turret is good because u can stay in the fight longer and if you managed your heat cost you can keep firing until other pops or u run out ammo The Black Reaper Employed as a angeloid guardian Pray you don't cross paths whit me
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15671	Posted - 2014.12.10 07:28:00 - [45] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: You've got to think of the worst possible fits to see if that would be balanced. In all honesty we need to rebalance some current modules around a 5-2 slot layout. Possible troll fits: - 5 damage mods and two armor plates, the redline special. - 3 damage mods , 2 hardeners, particle cannon, plate, repper. - 3 hardeners, Shield booster, extender - Or hell, 5 hardeners on a continuous cycle. This will not be fun for either AV or Tankers. The only counter might be itself. We ought to also brainstrom other possible checks and balances. That's a fair assessment and there are some checks an balanced that could be suggested to artificially curb these problems. - Only one Hardener can be active at a time (keeps total resistances low....but does not prevent perma harden) - Fitting requirements (certain modules based on their capacity for abuse might cost more to fit than others) - Simply reducing the effectiveness of those modules ( I HATE active damage mods and 40% Shield Hardeners ) I don't really see a problem with long Hardener durations (lol) especially if we are reducing things like Shield Regen back to the way it used to be and removing passive armour reppers entirely. Damage applied stays applied longer unless a module is activated to repair that damage and as neither the old armour reppers nor passive shield regen could quickly restore all HP HAV had longer down times. ** I'm definitely (and this is merely opinion and mainly stemming from EVE links) not a fan of active damage modules...in fact I don't really like them at all. I love the idea of weapons modifications, tracking enhancements, heat sinks, etc but loathe the idea of Damage modules. I also against Shield Hardeners being 40% resistances. I feel both Shield and Armour Hardeners could be standardised to 30% which could encourage passive shield and armour plating to be used instead of multiple active hardener spams. Any thoughts on these suggestions/ ideas for checks and balances. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 547	Posted - 2014.12.10 11:49:00 - [46] - Quote I like the idea of having one type of module active at a time, but instead of hardeners it should be damage mods. Say you stack 3 damage mods. Instead of getting a roughly 60% total damage bonus you get 20 percent but over a long period of time, i.e as long as you keep a damage mod active. You could have a nice little perma boost, but you give up survivability. I would keep shield hardeners as they are, but cap all hardeners at two to avoid the permanent state as you noticed. We have the afterburner / nitro cap on, why not apply it where it makes sense. You could still in thoery run two shield and two armor hardeners, but not 3 of one type or the other. Then we could keep the 5-2 layout which could at maximum fit two hardeners, and though it may have multiple damage mods equiped use only one at a time. Provided we get favorable modules back (such as tracking, damage computer, heat sink) we can still fit the tanks more creatively without resorting to the dumb 5 damage mods = win or generating too many AV tears with unbreakable amounts of hardened HP. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 729	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:04:00 - [47] - 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?
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 129	Posted - 2014.12.10 15:33:00 - [48] - Quote Maybe tweak the skills and modules to be where only the most sp invested tankers can run these kind of fits, along with having the cap on hardeners to 2. Sure, there can be some OP fits out there, but only the people who have put a ton of time into them woukd be able ti use them Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2014.12.10 15:37:00 - [49] - Quote 1. Old modules and worthwhile skills and skill bonuses need to come back with the hulls 2. It basically need to come back as it was stats wise or buffed if needed due to the damage of AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3911	Posted - 2014.12.10 16:23:00 - [50] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 16:37:00 - [51] - 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?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3911	Posted - 2014.12.10 16:50:00 - [52] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 17:09:00 - [53] - 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3911	Posted - 2014.12.10 17:16:00 - [54] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 17:27:00 - [55] - 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3912	Posted - 2014.12.10 17:32:00 - [56] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: 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 i read that document last night. i want to read it again a few more times though. it was a very good read. i just want to make sure i understand it all first DERP I'm sorry you totally said Damage Control. It's been a **** week so I'm out of it, my apologies. While I do like Damage Controls I do wonder how effective it would be in that particular situation, as typically when I nuke or get nuked by missiles, I don't know the damage is incoming, and the Alpha is so insanely high that even fast reflexes won't help you much. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2461	Posted - 2014.12.10 17:48:00 - [57] - 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
Shadow of War88 0uter.Heaven 471	Posted - 2014.12.10 18:16:00 - [58] - 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. lower shield recharge makes sense, but nothing extremely low like 40hp/s. Shield recharge delay and depleted shield recharge delays still apply. 4sec/10sec respectively. (164hp/s to 82hp/s is very reasonable) 1. passive armor reps need to go. 2. multi pulse boosters need to come back, stronger than active armor reps but fewer pulses. 3. passive shield regen modules need to come back, significantly weaker than active armor reps. 4. PDUs need to come back as well. 5. return poly 180mm & justice for all
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15688	Posted - 2014.12.10 19:14:00 - [59] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: 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? 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. 180mm plating is my solution to that. If you recall the old Madrugar had roughly 3625 armour and when using Polycrystalline Plates you had the old 6375 Armour Madrugar. That certainly would help armour HAV in a big way. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15688	Posted - 2014.12.10 19:17:00 - [60] - Quote Shadow of War88 wrote: 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. lower shield recharge makes sense, but nothing extremely low like 40hp/s. Shield recharge delay and depleted shield recharge delays still apply. 4sec/10sec respectively. (164hp/s to 82hp/s is very reasonable) 1. passive armor reps need to go. 2. multi pulse boosters need to come back, stronger than active armor reps but fewer pulses. 3. passive shield regen modules need to come back, significantly weaker than active armor reps. 4. PDUs need to come back as well. 5. return poly 180mm The only reason I suggest returning to the old system is that Shield HAV should not have the ability to have both a naturally high Shield regenerative power AND high EHP. Honestly that's simply not fair. The old model that I suggested we return to is based off of EVE and in theory works fine. It mans Shield HAV can have directly comparable eHP to armour tanks at the cost of their regenerative power (something that armour HAV simply don't have) or your stack for regenerative power using active modules like boosters and forgo your ability to stack extenders and hardeners etc. 82 is still far too much as it literally halves proposed shield down time and offers them 10K EHP. *"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 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?

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15737	Posted - 2014.12.11 18:13:00 - [91] - 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. We need to talk about them because if they are not built right and designed correctly then we still will not have balance in vehicle skill trees. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2465	Posted - 2014.12.11 18:16:00 - [92] - 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 - [93] - 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3950	Posted - 2014.12.11 18:27:00 - [94] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15738	Posted - 2014.12.11 18:29:00 - [95] - Quote 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. Because contrary to what you think Spkr Pokey current has the best break down and rebalance of the issues presenting in modern tanking. Tanks in Dutst 514 aren't tanks, tanks that resolve with no damage vs AV fire are not tanks, tanks that regenerate their HP too quickly are not function like tanks should and I know Pokey understands that. As pilots we cannot have the best of bother worlds. Cannot have eHP, mobility, AND regen power. *"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 3950	Posted - 2014.12.11 18:32:00 - [96] - Quote True Adamance 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. Because contrary to what you think Spkr Pokey current has the best break down and rebalance of the issues presenting in modern tanking. Tanks in Dutst 514 aren't tanks, tanks that resolve with no damage vs AV fire are not tanks, tanks that regenerate their HP too quickly are not function like tanks should and I know Pokey understands that. As pilots we cannot have the best of bother worlds. Cannot have eHP, mobility, AND regen power. Don't worry about it True, I see it all the time where people assume that "If the other guy has a very different opinion from my own, he clearly must have no idea what he's talking about". What's even more amusing is that I'm not even against the idea of potentially giving Enforcers more slots. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 131	Posted - 2014.12.11 18:54:00 - [97] - Quote Tune in for our next episode of Everyone hates Spkr!! Brought to you by Dust 514 Forums Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 215	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:02:00 - [98] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. 1. Yes you can, lets take the 4 races, Minmatar - speed/dual tanking, Amarr - Armor tanking, Gallente - Reps, Caladri - Shields - then you can look at how many mods you have for each area such as speed, shield, armor, turret modules etc and build around that and decide on slots 2. Take vehicles - You can improve alot in a vehicle, its far bigger than a suit and requires alot more to make it work, if you take a standard tank on todays battlefield you can improve various things such as the gun/engine/suspension/radio etc and to compare a HAV to a dropsuit it has 10times the PG/CPU and require modules which require more PG/CPU than a suit module 2a. Take Planetside 2 - Every race has a Lightning tank, fast light kinda weak but they also have a specialized vehicle beyond that which is tougher and stronger and can hit harder than a Lightning tank 2b. World of Tanks - Take the Heavy tank, as you go through a nations Heavy tank tier the tank itself will generally have thicker armor, a more powerful gun, sometimes it may forfeit thicker armor for a faster movement speed and better traverse or maybe a heavy top turret to support a more powerful gun which having a weaker armor but overall the next tank in line has more HP and better stats in someway even tho there is the odd tank which is terrible than the previous tank (Churchill VII you are the worst tank ive ever used) 2c. The ADS in DUST, you can argue it has less slots so it can be more agile and move faster but really for a 8x skill it needs to have a bonus that reflects what it has to give up which is 1 high and low and frankly the bonus does not 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle - Now when you get something more specialized its generally better in all ways than the basic HAV, thus i do expect more PG/HP/Shield/Armor/Slots, i dont expect a better turret because they are out, i dont expect a faster top speed because it has more basic HP and slots for modules but i do expect something to be worthwhile when its a x12 skill
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15738	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:17:00 - [99] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2c. The ADS in DUST, you can argue it has less slots so it can be more agile and move faster but really for a 8x skill it needs to have a bonus that reflects what it has to give up which is 1 high and low and frankly the bonus does not 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle - Now when you get something more specialized its generally better in all ways than the basic HAV, thus i do expect more PG/HP/Shield/Armor/Slots, i dont expect a better turret because they are out, i dont expect a faster top speed because it has more basic HP and slots for modules but i do expect something to be worthwhile when its a x12 skill It's fine to suggest that for this kind of skill you deserve something..... but that something does not mean massive bonuses that render a vehicle, weapon, dropsuit, etc without a fair counter. Nor is their any value in calling yourself a user of that item if it is without counter. In the end the best things we can do is offer each hull small HP increases, couple that it tastefully selected boosters that apply best to a specific racial groups tanking style and if required add the minimum slots possible (under the current model not desgned for high module counts) to boost eHP. No Marauder in this game deserves more that 10-11 K eHP for any reason. On a different note Minmatar do not dual tank. They either Shield or Armour Tank, and they do not primarily speed tank any more than any other racial groups can do equally well or better. Cuz Slicers, cuz Crusader, cuz Succubus, cuz Tristain, cuz any ship with and MWD and a smart pilot in the pod. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2465	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:25:00 - [100] - 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 - [101] - 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
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 218	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:30:00 - [102] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2c. The ADS in DUST, you can argue it has less slots so it can be more agile and move faster but really for a 8x skill it needs to have a bonus that reflects what it has to give up which is 1 high and low and frankly the bonus does not 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle - Now when you get something more specialized its generally better in all ways than the basic HAV, thus i do expect more PG/HP/Shield/Armor/Slots, i dont expect a better turret because they are out, i dont expect a faster top speed because it has more basic HP and slots for modules but i do expect something to be worthwhile when its a x12 skill It's fine to suggest that for this kind of skill you deserve something..... but that something does not mean massive bonuses that render a vehicle, weapon, dropsuit, etc without a fair counter. Nor is their any value in calling yourself a user of that item if it is without counter. In the end the best things we can do is offer each hull small HP increases, couple that it tastefully selected boosters that apply best to a specific racial groups tanking style and if required add the minimum slots possible (under the current model not desgned for high module counts) to boost eHP. No Marauder in this game deserves more that 10-11 K eHP for any reason. On a different note Minmatar do not dual tank. They either Shield or Armour Tank, and they do not primarily speed tank any more than any other racial groups can do equally well or better. Cuz Slicers, cuz Crusader, cuz Succubus, cuz Tristain, cuz any ship with and MWD and a smart pilot in the pod. 1. The old Surya/Sagaris had its counter and its bonuses were fine for me because it required a large amount of SP to run them and also 2.5mil fully fit 2. Minmatar can do both since vehicles have no EWAR hence why the Gunlogi has a plate on it because why not and more defence against easy AV 3. If the Marauders came back how they used to be i think it would be fine 4. 10-11k EHP is only in cycles at best, if modules use is split up then its less EHP over a longer time, give me capacitors instead of these time cycles which predetermine how long i have to wait under my MCC whenever i want to do anything
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3952	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:37:00 - [103] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15739	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:48:00 - [104] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2c. The ADS in DUST, you can argue it has less slots so it can be more agile and move faster but really for a 8x skill it needs to have a bonus that reflects what it has to give up which is 1 high and low and frankly the bonus does not 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle - Now when you get something more specialized its generally better in all ways than the basic HAV, thus i do expect more PG/HP/Shield/Armor/Slots, i dont expect a better turret because they are out, i dont expect a faster top speed because it has more basic HP and slots for modules but i do expect something to be worthwhile when its a x12 skill It's fine to suggest that for this kind of skill you deserve something..... but that something does not mean massive bonuses that render a vehicle, weapon, dropsuit, etc without a fair counter. Nor is their any value in calling yourself a user of that item if it is without counter. In the end the best things we can do is offer each hull small HP increases, couple that it tastefully selected boosters that apply best to a specific racial groups tanking style and if required add the minimum slots possible (under the current model not desgned for high module counts) to boost eHP. No Marauder in this game deserves more that 10-11 K eHP for any reason. On a different note Minmatar do not dual tank. They either Shield or Armour Tank, and they do not primarily speed tank any more than any other racial groups can do equally well or better. Cuz Slicers, cuz Crusader, cuz Succubus, cuz Tristain, cuz any ship with and MWD and a smart pilot in the pod. 1. The old Surya/Sagaris had its counter and its bonuses were fine for me because it required a large amount of SP to run them and also 2.5mil fully fit 2. Minmatar can do both since vehicles have no EWAR hence why the Gunlogi has a plate on it because why not and more defence against easy AV 3. If the Marauders came back how they used to be i think it would be fine 4. 10-11k EHP is only in cycles at best, if modules use is split up then its less EHP over a longer time, give me capacitors instead of these time cycles which predetermine how long i have to wait under my MCC whenever i want to do anything I'd like to see an fit from EVE (yes EVE and not representation in Dust is particularly good) for a dual tanked Minmatar ship. If Marauders came back how they were, which is more or less what I've been advocating you are looking at the wait times I've been suggesting as the old tanks did not have the 168 Shield repairs per second after a 4 second delay. At best you could amass on the old passive tanked Sagaris fits roughly 7000 Shields (passive resistances of 15% plus the 10 shield adaptation conveyed) and between 40-50 constant passive regen per second. Which is what I personally and suggesting. No tank should have high eHP and amazing regenerative powers. Instead you should either opt for your constantly passive modules that push up your EHP to high values and do not require manipulation or your have your actives which convey powerful bonuses for short periods of time but cause your HAV to have less base statistics. *"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 3953	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:55:00 - [105] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Yes you can, lets take the 4 races, Minmatar - speed/dual tanking, Amarr - Armor tanking, Gallente - Reps, Caladri - Shields - then you can look at how many mods you have for each area such as speed, shield, armor, turret modules etc and build around that and decide on slots 2. Take vehicles - You can improve alot in a vehicle, its far bigger than a suit and requires alot more to make it work, if you take a standard tank on todays battlefield you can improve various things such as the gun/engine/suspension/radio etc and to compare a HAV to a dropsuit it has 10times the PG/CPU and require modules which require more PG/CPU than a suit module 2a. Take Planetside 2 - Every race has a Lightning tank, fast light kinda weak but they also have a specialized vehicle beyond that which is tougher and stronger and can hit harder than a Lightning tank 2b. World of Tanks - Take the Heavy tank, as you go through a nations Heavy tank tier the tank itself will generally have thicker armor, a more powerful gun, sometimes it may forfeit thicker armor for a faster movement speed and better traverse or maybe a heavy top turret to support a more powerful gun which having a weaker armor but overall the next tank in line has more HP and better stats in someway even tho there is the odd tank which is terrible than the previous tank (Churchill VII you are the worst tank ive ever used) 2c. The ADS in DUST, you can argue it has less slots so it can be more agile and move faster but really for a 8x skill it needs to have a bonus that reflects what it has to give up which is 1 high and low and frankly the bonus does not 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle - Now when you get something more specialized its generally better in all ways than the basic HAV, thus i do expect more PG/HP/Shield/Armor/Slots, i dont expect a better turret because they are out, i dont expect a faster top speed because it has more basic HP and slots for modules but i do expect something to be worthwhile when its a x12 skill 1. Ok since slots don't matter, lets assume Gunnlogi has 1/0 and Madrugar has 0/1. Gunnlogi will fit a better tank, every time, without exception under that assumption since the shield HAV will have better regen, and eHP because it can put a hardener in its 1 slot. Armor will HAVE to fit a repper, and suffer in terms of effective repping an eHP. So how would fix that? Increase armor rep rate to such an extreme that its benefit offsets the fact that it can't fit any hardeners while the 1/0 shield vehicle can. Alright so now reppers are insanely good. Now design your actual tank with 3-5 low slots. Oh look you've recreated a situation where armor reps are obscene compared to the overall fit. So yeah, slots matter when it comes to basic design. 2. lol, HAV = Heavy Attack Vehicle, and I'm the one that gets accused of not knowing what I'm talking about. But that's ok, I'll overlook it. So basically what you're saying is "Well, ADS has a good bonus so thats why it loses slots". I'm not advocating the removal of slots from an HAV, not in the slightest. But the fact of the matter is that if you've got a Marauder, it's going to be getting bonuses to its defenses that the standard HAV will not have. This will innately make it a more heavily armored vehicle. Therefor it is indeed better in terms of defense compared to a standard HAV, regardless of how many slots it has. Therefor it is not REQUIRED that it has more slots. Will it? Maybe, but you act like "HOLY ***** ** IF IT DOESNT HAVE MORE SLOTS THEN WHY BOTHER?!" So listen up kiddos, I know you're red with nerd rage but do try to pay attention for a little longer. I am not saying that specialty HAVs should not receive additional slots. Hell my initial design pass actually included both Marauders and Enforcers having additional slots. What I'm saying is that for sake of balance, it may be unfeasible for them to have an additional slot on top of Specialist Bonuses. Adding 1 slot increases Main-Rack fitting capacity by 33%, and a 20% increase overall... that's huge. The addition of another slot offers an insane benefit, especially if it's on the main rack of the vehicle. Remember the old Marauders? Went from 5/2 to 5/3. That's a 0% increase to main rack fitting ability, and a 12% increase overall. The addition of a slot now is a significantly larger buff on top of the existing basic HAV than it used to be. So now you stack on bonuses, which will push the defenses even higher. So now you have a 33% increase to the fitting ability of the tank, plus bonuses on top of that. How do you think that's going to stack up in terms of balance? You might argue that the bonuses offer a very small benefit to prevent this, but that simply makes the training of that skill even more painful because each level of it feels like a very minor improvement. The ADS gains a powerful bonus at the expense of slots, and that's why it works. Again, not advocating removal of HAV slots in the slightest, but if I had to pick between the two would rather have powerful bonuses with the same level of slots which would still make the HAV significantly more defensible rather than an extra slot and weak bonuses that don't feel like they're worth training. Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. No, I don't like you because you won't compromise enough of vehicles for other vehicle pilots to be satisfied. I say the things I say because, unlike some, I actually want to develop a responsible design as not to make Specialty Vehicles so overpowered that the devs go after them with a hacksaw and nerf them into a bloody mess. I'm done with you. Have a nice day. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2465	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:58:00 - [106] - 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
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14309	Posted - 2014.12.11 20:04:00 - [107] - Quote See Spkr? What I told you in-game was true. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15741	Posted - 2014.12.11 20:10:00 - [108] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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? The closest comparison would be T1 vs T2...... for tanks it's not even a matter of dropsuit - vehicle parity. Sure at some point, perhaps if capacitors ever get added, it might be worth giving standard vehicles hulls bonuses to fitting racially appropriate turrets, tracking speeds, etc (very generic bonuses that don't define a role). But the way vehicles are now, the Gunnlogi doesn't need more fitting capacity, and the Maddrugar won't have its issues solved by this alone. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2465	Posted - 2014.12.11 20:13:00 - [109] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15741	Posted - 2014.12.11 20:49:00 - [110] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Atiim wrote: See Spkr? What I told you in-game was true. Keep complaining that AV is underpowered. It's comparatively underpowered vs Shield Vehicles but incredibly over powered vs armour vehicles and all at the same time very circumstantially effective vs aerial vehicles. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 219	Posted - 2014.12.11 22:32:00 - [111] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 1. Ok since slots don't matter, lets assume Gunnlogi has 1/0 and Madrugar has 0/1. Gunnlogi will fit a better tank, every time, without exception under that assumption since the shield HAV will have better regen, and eHP because it can put a hardener in its 1 slot. Armor will HAVE to fit a repper, and suffer in terms of effective repping an eHP. So how would fix that? Increase armor rep rate to such an extreme that its benefit offsets the fact that it can't fit any hardeners while the 1/0 shield vehicle can. Alright so now reppers are insanely good. Now design your actual tank with 3-5 low slots. Oh look you've recreated a situation where armor reps are obscene compared to the overall fit. So yeah, slots matter when it comes to basic design. 2. lol, HAV = Heavy Attack Vehicle, and I'm the one that gets accused of not knowing what I'm talking about. But that's ok, I'll overlook it. So basically what you're saying is "Well, ADS has a good bonus so thats why it loses slots". I'm not advocating the removal of slots from an HAV, not in the slightest. But the fact of the matter is that if you've got a Marauder, it's going to be getting bonuses to its defenses that the standard HAV will not have. This will innately make it a more heavily armored vehicle. Therefor it is indeed better in terms of defense compared to a standard HAV, regardless of how many slots it has. Therefor it is not REQUIRED that it has more slots. Will it? Maybe, but you act like "HOLY ***** ** IF IT DOESN'T HAVE MORE SLOTS THEN WHY BOTHER?!" So listen up kiddos, I know you're red with nerd rage but do try to pay attention for a little longer. I am not saying that specialty HAVs should not receive additional slots. Hell my initial design pass actually included both Marauders and Enforcers having additional slots. What I'm saying is that for sake of balance, it may be unfeasible for them to have an additional slot on top of Specialist Bonuses. Adding 1 slot increases Main-Rack fitting capacity by 33%, and a 20% increase overall... that's huge. The addition of another slot offers an insane benefit, especially if it's on the main rack of the vehicle. Remember the old Marauders? Went from 5/2 to 5/3. That's a 0% increase to main rack fitting ability, and a 12% increase overall. The addition of a slot now is a significantly larger buff on top of the existing basic HAV than it used to be. So now you stack on bonuses, which will push the defenses even higher. So now you have a 33% increase to the fitting ability of the tank, plus bonuses on top of that. How do you think that's going to stack up in terms of balance? You might argue that the bonuses offer a very small benefit to prevent this, but that simply makes the training of that skill even more painful because each level of it feels like a very minor improvement. The ADS gains a powerful bonus at the expense of slots, and that's why it works. Again, not advocating removal of HAV slots in the slightest, but if I had to pick between the two would rather have powerful bonuses with the same level of slots which would still make the HAV significantly more defensible rather than an extra slot and weak bonuses that don't feel like they're worth training. . 1. Taking it out of context so lets give an example - Slots dont matter 1a. Whats the race? - Caldari so the hull is then what? Shield so that means what fits in the tank slots? Extenders/Boosters/Rechargers/Hardeners/Resistance plates/Energizers? Maybe dmg mods and nitros and the low slots? well should be armor but if they can fit it why not but if not armor then possibly damage control units/Power diagnostic systems/nanofibres/overdrive modules/armor reps etc. Then build a basic fit, ie Extender/Booster/Hardener and Nitro with Low slot of damage control and PDS with missiles - 4/2 layout on theroy - Slots dont matter 2. Description says - Heavy Armored Unit - So its both and currently with your ideas you dont know what you are talking about 2a. Like i said a vehicle is better in every way when compared to a dropsuit and that includes the ability to do more and when improving on vehicles like on dropsuits the better the dropsuit the more slots it has like std-adv-pro so if my Maurader has a 3/2 layout then im defo going to expect a adv-pro Marauder aswell because last time i check my Amarr PROTO logi doesnt have 2/2 slot layout now does it? 3. If its unfeasible then why does my Amarr Adv logi suit have more slots? 3a. Old Marauders gained an extra dmg mod or ewar/speed mod, just because it doesnt gain tank doesnt mean it doesnt gain anything, it what you put in that slot 3b. Old bonuses were a x12 skill, if they are a x12 skill it better be worthwhile to have and if it improves the tank then great because my amarr logi skill improves my logi suit so again whats wrong with that? 4. Powerful? Not anymore - Its useless 4a. Well id rarther have both since i get that with all my infantry suits 5. Just to show you how much vehicles have changed form the old glory days of chrome and the Sagaris/Surya days 5a. I at one point had 30mil+ SP all into vehicles, nothing in infantry i used BPO but vehicles were my playstyle and now i have just over 17mil - The skills, modules, turrets, hulls all gone backwards from Chrome 5b. PC days - Fighting 2 tanks with AV hitting me and coming out alive due to having the correct fit, experience and important skills maxed out while still being useful- Now its what 3 shot with a FG or just glass cannon sica because lol, im used at best to shoot at ADS while i sit inside with a proto heavy for defence because blasters are luck 5c If the old Sagaris and Surya came back as they were would give hope but 3/2 why use it over a Gunlogi which can glass cannon you? Vayus used to fall to Madrugars because they were worthless with milita PG/CPU - You want that back?
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 732	Posted - 2014.12.12 14:26:00 - [112] - 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
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 221	Posted - 2014.12.12 15:15:00 - [113] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: 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 5. allow marauders to fit and use two active modules of the same type 1. Fine - If i used it for 10seconds and not the full 30 i wouldnt mind a shorter cooldown 2. Nope 3. Nope because i can still use 2 4. Passive suffer stacking penalties anyways 5. Nope because no limit on active modules
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3964	Posted - 2014.12.12 15:38:00 - [114] - Quote http://dust514.wikia.com/wiki/Heavy_Attack_Vehicles_%28HAV%29 "The Heavy Attack Vehicle (HAV) serves as an anchoring unit for many planetary engagements, fulfilling its role as a long-range and heavily armoured unit. Equipped with thick and resilient armour plating and high-capacity shielding systems, it is a tenacious defensive vehicle, able to withstand persistent onslaughts from entrenched enemies." "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 221	Posted - 2014.12.12 15:48:00 - [115] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: http://dust514.wikia.com/wiki/Heavy_Attack_Vehicles_%28HAV%29 "The Heavy Attack Vehicle (HAV) serves as an anchoring unit for many planetary engagements, fulfilling its role as a long-range and heavily armoured unit. Equipped with thick and resilient armour plating and high-capacity shielding systems, it is a tenacious defensive vehicle, able to withstand persistent onslaughts from entrenched enemies."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3964	Posted - 2014.12.12 16:22:00 - [116] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle Lol, again HAV in DUST stands for Heavy Attack Vehicle, as per the wiki. Sure it can be heavily armored, but that's not what the acronym stands for. The really hilarious part is that I'm not even necessarily disagree with you on increase slot layout, yet you're still flailing your arms about like I am. It's cute, adorable even. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 221	Posted - 2014.12.12 16:30:00 - [117] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle Lol, again HAV in DUST stands for Heavy Attack Vehicle, as per the wiki. Sure it can be heavily armored, but that's not what the acronym stands for. The really hilarious part is that I'm not even necessarily disagree with you on increase slot layout, yet you're still flailing your arms about like I am. It's cute, adorable even. 1. Its both, mentioned in the description, it should be both but the majority of the time im not on the attack unless its against another vehicle im on the defence against AV since i dont want to die 2. I noticed you are only going on about this 1 point, i know i debated your points since i went past 4 but yet this is the only point you are yapping on about, looks like i might have to make another Sagaris thread
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3964	Posted - 2014.12.12 16:36:00 - [118] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle Lol, again HAV in DUST stands for Heavy Attack Vehicle, as per the wiki. Sure it can be heavily armored, but that's not what the acronym stands for. The really hilarious part is that I'm not even necessarily disagree with you on increase slot layout, yet you're still flailing your arms about like I am. It's cute, adorable even. 1. Its both, mentioned in the description, it should be both but the majority of the time im not on the attack unless its against another vehicle im on the defence against AV since i dont want to die 2. I noticed you are only going on about this 1 point, i know i debated your points since i went past 4 but yet this is the only point you are yapping on about, looks like i might have to make another Sagaris thread Should we just hug and make up then? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2465	Posted - 2014.12.12 17:21:00 - [119] - 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
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 732	Posted - 2014.12.12 20:48:00 - [120] - 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 - [121] - 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 - [122] - 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


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one 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.