DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 294	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:14:00 - [331] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Well the option that is posted is the worst kind of option since a module like that does not exist and i hope it doesn't What you mean is basically 'more options for low slots' so you dont have to fill it with resource modules unless you want to Many moons ago we did have more modules for low slots and they got taken away, i wouldn't be suprised if they were buried in the code somewhere but until then if i can improve my tank by using resource modules then i will do it Resource modules have always given PG/CPU by %, frankly i do not want to see them changed Well last I checked, putting regulators in was on Rattati's plan, which is why I used it as an example. And yes i would like the return of many of those old low slot modules. I miss my Nano fit vehicles. But yes, I want valuable low slot modules so there are more options besides more resources. Yes, nano would make shield vehicles have a speed advantage over armor...I mean we can't reliably use nitro because it's a H-slot mod. Molestia approved
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2963	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:18:00 - [332] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You want a PG module to give you x% more PG for a tradeoff of something like -% CPU? Well that is an option I suppose but that's not what I was saying. Like....just as an example, Rattati is adding in Shield Regulators for vehicles. For a MBT (again just as an example), if he uses Infantry reg values, 2 regulators on a Caldari MBT would drop its recharge delay to ~1.8s which is actually pretty good. So for a Caldari MBT user, having those regs in the lows is a valuable thing, OR they can choose go with the longer recharge delay (due to not using the regs) in order to get more CPU/PG by using the Enhancers. I guess my point is that personally I don't mind shield vehicles making us of resource modules, but I would like there to be an equally attractive alternative they could use instead of PG/CPU mods, so there is actually a sort of tradeoff. Because right now, there's really not much going on for shield vehicles in the lows, so resource mods are often the clear and obvious choice. But you are right in that any sort of 'cost' for fitting them, if Rattati goes that direction, it needs to be percentage based. You can get away with absolute values for things like Heavy vs Light HP modules, but for generic modules like resource extenders, it needs to scale to the vehicle, so % based is the way to go. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs. But that's fair for infantry. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1276	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:49:00 - [333] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Well the option that is posted is the worst kind of option since a module like that does not exist and i hope it doesn't What you mean is basically 'more options for low slots' so you dont have to fill it with resource modules unless you want to Many moons ago we did have more modules for low slots and they got taken away, i wouldn't be suprised if they were buried in the code somewhere but until then if i can improve my tank by using resource modules then i will do it Resource modules have always given PG/CPU by %, frankly i do not want to see them changed Well last I checked, putting regulators in was on Rattati's plan, which is why I used it as an example. And yes i would like the return of many of those old low slot modules. I miss my Nano fit vehicles. But yes, I want valuable low slot modules so there are more options besides more resources. Yes, nano would make shield vehicles have a speed advantage over armor...I mean we can't reliably use nitro because it's a H-slot mod. I think those OH guys I faced last night in PC would beg to differ on that nitro. Worked well on those hovering ADS as well:) Tanks - Balancing Turrets
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:54:00 - [334] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Well the option that is posted is the worst kind of option since a module like that does not exist and i hope it doesn't What you mean is basically 'more options for low slots' so you dont have to fill it with resource modules unless you want to Many moons ago we did have more modules for low slots and they got taken away, i wouldn't be suprised if they were buried in the code somewhere but until then if i can improve my tank by using resource modules then i will do it Resource modules have always given PG/CPU by %, frankly i do not want to see them changed Well last I checked, putting regulators in was on Rattati's plan, which is why I used it as an example. And yes i would like the return of many of those old low slot modules. I miss my Nano fit vehicles. But yes, I want valuable low slot modules so there are more options besides more resources. Yes, nano would make shield vehicles have a speed advantage over armor...I mean we can't reliably use nitro because it's a H-slot mod. I think those OH guys I faced last night in PC would beg to differ on that nitro. Worked well on those hovering ADS as well:) A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. Molestia approved
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2933	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:01:00 - [335] - Quote Finally, I can log in! :D Anyways, two things I want to say: 1: The Blaster prof. skill is still broken. Fix it please? 2: The hardener change puts Gal HAV's into a place where they're more of a Amarrian HAV as far as tanking goes. What I mean by that is that instead of allowing people to use hardeners as your primary tank, you're making people specifically saying that the only way to achieve high amounts of eHP is plate tanking. That would be fine, but that reduces your speed and maneuverability, assuming speed penalties are the same as now. Seeing as Blasters and the rush in, dump damage, and then get out mentaltity is apart of Gallente combat, I would say that hardeners needs to be allowed to still be able to be a primary tank. I've talked with several people, and they claimed that they saw it as hardeners being OP due to having moderately high resistances while having decent reps at the same time, as well as not being able to kill them in a reasonable time, and wanted them to be a sort of turn on when you take damage, like a damage control, but for a specific tank. I simply don't. However, I'd say that having a Flux hardener in which worked similar to that, lasting for a short period of time with a decently long timer, but having a great amount of resistance given and being restricted to only one per fit would be okay to use as this sort of thing (It would help certain combat styles a lot, hell, even entire roles like being a actual transport DS, and being able to Have a certain amount of time where you can Get in and drop them off without worrying too much about being shot down). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 859	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:02:00 - [336] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You want a PG module to give you x% more PG for a tradeoff of something like -% CPU? Well that is an option I suppose but that's not what I was saying. Like....just as an example, Rattati is adding in Shield Regulators for vehicles. For a MBT (again just as an example), if he uses Infantry reg values, 2 regulators on a Caldari MBT would drop its recharge delay to ~1.8s which is actually pretty good. So for a Caldari MBT user, having those regs in the lows is a valuable thing, OR they can choose go with the longer recharge delay (due to not using the regs) in order to get more CPU/PG by using the Enhancers. I guess my point is that personally I don't mind shield vehicles making us of resource modules, but I would like there to be an equally attractive alternative they could use instead of PG/CPU mods, so there is actually a sort of tradeoff. Because right now, there's really not much going on for shield vehicles in the lows, so resource mods are often the clear and obvious choice. But you are right in that any sort of 'cost' for fitting them, if Rattati goes that direction, it needs to be percentage based. You can get away with absolute values for things like Heavy vs Light HP modules, but for generic modules like resource extenders, it needs to scale to the vehicle, so % based is the way to go. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs. But that's fair for infantry. Jesus H Christ its not about the f++++++g infantry!! You think for one flipping second i think about rail f***g rifles vs duvolle ARs when i'm bouncing pythons diving from 600 m to 150m rail turret blazing becuase lol infantry? For all of your BS about tanking, at least i'veseen you in a tank, and a jihad jeep on a regular bais. But really, please ** off with you shitposting. edit: I uderstand how much of a bad ass takahiro makes you feel. bbut takahiro doesn't talk alot of sh-ºT thats why i repspect him as a tanker, and love the duels bewtween me and him, but because your so full of false ego, nobody respects you. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2968	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:05:00 - [337] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You want a PG module to give you x% more PG for a tradeoff of something like -% CPU? Well that is an option I suppose but that's not what I was saying. Like....just as an example, Rattati is adding in Shield Regulators for vehicles. For a MBT (again just as an example), if he uses Infantry reg values, 2 regulators on a Caldari MBT would drop its recharge delay to ~1.8s which is actually pretty good. So for a Caldari MBT user, having those regs in the lows is a valuable thing, OR they can choose go with the longer recharge delay (due to not using the regs) in order to get more CPU/PG by using the Enhancers. I guess my point is that personally I don't mind shield vehicles making us of resource modules, but I would like there to be an equally attractive alternative they could use instead of PG/CPU mods, so there is actually a sort of tradeoff. Because right now, there's really not much going on for shield vehicles in the lows, so resource mods are often the clear and obvious choice. But you are right in that any sort of 'cost' for fitting them, if Rattati goes that direction, it needs to be percentage based. You can get away with absolute values for things like Heavy vs Light HP modules, but for generic modules like resource extenders, it needs to scale to the vehicle, so % based is the way to go. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs. But that's fair for infantry. Jesus H Christ its not about the f++++++g infantry!! You think for one flipping second i think about rail f***g rifles vs duvolle ARs when i'm bouncing pythons diving from 600 m to 150m rail turret blazing becuase lol infantry? For all of your BS about tanking, at least i'veseen you in a tank, and a jihad jeep on a regular bais. But really, please ** off with you shitposting. Jihad jeep on a regular basis? You have the wrong person there. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 859	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:08:00 - [338] - Quote Spkr4theDead[/quote wrote: But that's fair for infantry. Jesus H Christ its not about the f++++++g infantry!! You think for one flipping second i think about rail f***g rifles vs duvolle ARs when i'm bouncing pythons diving from 600 m to 150m rail turret blazing becuase lol infantry? For all of your BS about tanking, at least i'veseen you in a tank, and a jihad jeep on a regular bais. But really, please ** off with you shitposting.[/quote] Jihad jeep on a regular basis? You have the wrong person there.[/quote] Not when delboy had to convince me you tank, when i popped your jihad jeep on the same day you made a thread about how much you hate jihad jeeping. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1500	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:27:00 - [339] - Quote Balistyc Farshot wrote: Four - Installations need to be buffed so that tanks fear them. Sorry tankers, but the installations can't move, are usually poorly placed and can't be replaced by calling in a new one. These installations need to be useful again if you are buffing tanks like this it will be a race to blow these up for the free WP. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a tanker rage at blue berries hacked turrets. I will leave that one for another thread, but something to consider with new tank hulls. No. Never. Turrets need to just be removed, at least the ones in the redline. I'm the Rayman of uplinks. AIV member. 21 day EVE trial.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17190	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:58:00 - [340] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Balistyc Farshot wrote: Four - Installations need to be buffed so that tanks fear them. Sorry tankers, but the installations can't move, are usually poorly placed and can't be replaced by calling in a new one. These installations need to be useful again if you are buffing tanks like this it will be a race to blow these up for the free WP. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a tanker rage at blue berries hacked turrets. I will leave that one for another thread, but something to consider with new tank hulls. No. Never. Turrets need to just be removed, at least the ones in the redline. If WP are your concern just reduce the WP pay out for doing so that farming them is not worth the time or the risk. Or ask Rattati for a turret reinforcement timer model that means tanks can immobilise them but never destroy them. That way everyone gets more WP. Tanks for destroying and infantry for rehacking once they are reset to neutral ownership. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7343	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:59:00 - [341] - Quote Or reduce yhe HP and re-drop them in 2 minutes. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2934	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:07:00 - [342] - Quote True Adamance wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Balistyc Farshot wrote: Four - Installations need to be buffed so that tanks fear them. Sorry tankers, but the installations can't move, are usually poorly placed and can't be replaced by calling in a new one. These installations need to be useful again if you are buffing tanks like this it will be a race to blow these up for the free WP. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a tanker rage at blue berries hacked turrets. I will leave that one for another thread, but something to consider with new tank hulls. No. Never. Turrets need to just be removed, at least the ones in the redline. If WP are your concern just reduce the WP pay out for doing so that farming them is not worth the time or the risk. Or ask Rattati for a turret reinforcement timer model that means tanks can immobilise them but never destroy them. That way everyone gets more WP. Tanks for destroying and infantry for rehacking once they are reset to neutral ownership. I'd like them to be destroyed, but drops in or can be dropped in by infantry via orbital drop menu (maybe make it a lower cost WP award?). This would lead to HAV's having more of a actual role than current, protecting and killing installations. The reinforcement method could be used though for things that really shouldn't be blown up for gamemode's sake (such as NULL cannons) though. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2223	Posted - 2015.02.21 02:20:00 - [343] - Quote I'd like to see purchaseable turret bases. Give them functionally infinite powergrid / cpu and let them fit small and large turrets, if at all possible. Make them purchaseable assets and remove some of the redline crap. Allow them to be called in via menu. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Ralden Caster KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 107	Posted - 2015.02.21 03:28:00 - [344] - Quote Any chance of the return of the logistics MCC? I missed being able to rep people while sitting in a car. Edit: Logistics LAV. As an engineer, your buildings are like your children. You hit them to make them work harder.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5023	Posted - 2015.02.21 04:47:00 - [345] - Quote Im very confused on how the "HAV and SHAV Progression" thread turned into "Lets talk about installations!" Rattati is going to come back from vacation and be like "Guys..." "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 286	Posted - 2015.02.21 06:14:00 - [346] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Im very confused on how the "HAV and SHAV Progression" thread turned into "Lets talk about installations!" Rattati is going to come back from vacation and be like "Guys..." Pineapples are great ya know... #derailed Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2227	Posted - 2015.02.21 08:47:00 - [347] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Im very confused on how the "HAV and SHAV Progression" thread turned into "Lets talk about installations!" Rattati is going to come back from vacation and be like "Guys..." ... I have ADHD. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7350	Posted - 2015.02.21 08:54:00 - [348] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Im very confused on how the "HAV and SHAV Progression" thread turned into "Lets talk about installations!" Rattati is going to come back from vacation and be like "Guys..." ... I have ADHD. That's not an excuse. I have ADHD too. So can we find any huge broken holes in the hulls that need addressing besides the madly constricted fitting? Anything that will break when Rattati starts bringing the old modules back? AV
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 208	Posted - 2015.02.21 15:53:00 - [349] - Quote Ok...Starting to do some comparisons for people to reference I use two General Defense types for Gunnlogi fits Type 1s are dual extender, single hardener Type 1 R/R Type 1 R/B Type 1 R/D These are the three I run most often, mostly because they're what my usual squadmates like to use I also will occassionally run a type 2 fitting (Dual Hardener, 1 Extender or utility mod) Type 2 R/D-s Ok...those are for a frame of reference of where I'm coming from, I prefer Tank to Gank on my HAVs...and currently stand a solid chance in any HAV v HAV engagement... Here are some of the fittings I've been cooking up for the Gladius: R/R-T - The Raw HP this beast can get is impressive to say the least, but requires extremely high skills to achieve...although the ADV extender can be dropped for a utility module instead (Damage AMP and the like) R/B-B Fair HP, with a booster and Nitro to help it in sticky situations, I wouldn't want to use it HAV v HAV without fire support, and the Booster hits your overall fitting potential by a ton. R/D-TsA Tanky Gladius, where I drop a little bit of the HP to gain a mCRU, should prove useful as a forward fire base (If it had more seats, blues know to hop out of the turrets, or people could spawn outside the vehicle) Those are some of the things I've been messing around with, the small turrets remain largely interchangeable, so picking the right smalls for the job (or your squadmates) should be pretty easy...just wish they could get ADV gun fitting on there at the least Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:13:00 - [350] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ok...Starting to do some comparisons for people to reference I use two General Defense types for Gunnlogi fits Type 1s are dual extender, single hardener Type 1 R/R Type 1 R/B Type 1 R/D These are the three I run most often, mostly because they're what my usual squadmates like to use I also will occassionally run a type 2 fitting (Dual Hardener, 1 Extender or utility mod) Type 2 R/D-s Ok...those are for a frame of reference of where I'm coming from, I prefer Tank to Gank on my HAVs...and currently stand a solid chance in any HAV v HAV engagement... Here are some of the fittings I've been cooking up for the Gladius: R/R-T - The Raw HP this beast can get is impressive to say the least, but requires extremely high skills to achieve...although the ADV extender can be dropped for a utility module instead (Damage AMP and the like) R/B-B Fair HP, with a booster and Nitro to help it in sticky situations, I wouldn't want to use it HAV v HAV without fire support, and the Booster hits your overall fitting potential by a ton. R/D-TsA Tanky Gladius, where I drop a little bit of the HP to gain a mCRU, should prove useful as a forward fire base (If it had more seats, blues know to hop out of the turrets, or people could spawn outside the vehicle) Those are some of the things I've been messing around with, the small turrets remain largely interchangeable, so picking the right smalls for the job (or your squadmates) should be pretty easy...just wish they could get ADV gun fitting on there at the least I'm looking at fittings for the Marduk right now, but my initial fittings say it's low a tad on CPU (Not nearly to the degree they used to be) and a bit short on PGU...and extra 35-40 CPU and a 40-50 PGU boost would help them immensely All those fits are boring, nothing but railgun turret. also 4 extenders is terrible, since they nerfed the shield regen. Molestia approved

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1760	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:30:00 - [351] - Quote Cool beans but a few concerns: 1) If hardeners are being limited to one, so should damage mods. With 5 slots in highs for Gunnlogis, and 3 for Madrugars, it's going to be too easy to run around with souped up rails and negate that one hardener you get. Not only that, but with that many slots, a lot of people will run 3 complex damage modded railgun redline fit's coming out of the redline for 2 seconds to one shot ADS's. 2) The CPU and PG extender penalties are too harsh. If you put one complex PG and one complex CPU, you go back to square 0 because you have no extra fitting. I suggest reducing them by half. Especially for that flippin 400pg CPU extension. 3) Tanks are going to be a lot more expensive 4) I would really like a slot progression. 5) Heavy Shield booster need PG cut in half. Shield boosters also need a buff. Proposal: After the initial Shields, the booster stay active and boosters shield regen rates by 30% and makes it so no amount of on coming damage can stop the regen. #s can be adjusted 5 secs STD, 7 ADV, 10 seconds PRO and so can percentages.. 20% STD, 30% ADV, 40% PRO 6)If Gåæ isn't happening, then either reduce the 126 shields per sec to 80-90 and make it passive with no delays, or give us back the 168. Why? Because we have a 4 second delay. Armor tanks will be reping huge amounts of HP and in 4 seconds armor tanks could probably rep back 20-30% of total armor. 7) ORRRRRRRRRR Instead of passive armor reps on shields, I rather have passive shield reps like 25-30 passives and after 4 seconds those 25-30 HP passives add on to the 126. I Like this idea Overall, I think tanks again are being nerfed. AV still powerful AF. Swarms too EZ. Hopefully, these expensive tanks will last longer... I feel as if my current tank is more powerful than the ones that are coming up. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 208	Posted - 2015.02.21 18:57:00 - [352] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ok...Starting to do some comparisons for people to reference I use two General Defense types for Gunnlogi fits Type 1s are dual extender, single hardener Type 1 R/R Type 1 R/B Type 1 R/D These are the three I run most often, mostly because they're what my usual squadmates like to use I also will occassionally run a type 2 fitting (Dual Hardener, 1 Extender or utility mod) Type 2 R/D-s Ok...those are for a frame of reference of where I'm coming from, I prefer Tank to Gank on my HAVs...and currently stand a solid chance in any HAV v HAV engagement... Here are some of the fittings I've been cooking up for the Gladius: R/R-T - The Raw HP this beast can get is impressive to say the least, but requires extremely high skills to achieve...although the ADV extender can be dropped for a utility module instead (Damage AMP and the like) R/B-B Fair HP, with a booster and Nitro to help it in sticky situations, I wouldn't want to use it HAV v HAV without fire support, and the Booster hits your overall fitting potential by a ton. R/D-TsA Tanky Gladius, where I drop a little bit of the HP to gain a mCRU, should prove useful as a forward fire base (If it had more seats, blues know to hop out of the turrets, or people could spawn outside the vehicle) Those are some of the things I've been messing around with, the small turrets remain largely interchangeable, so picking the right smalls for the job (or your squadmates) should be pretty easy...just wish they could get ADV gun fitting on there at the least I'm looking at fittings for the Marduk right now, but my initial fittings say it's low a tad on CPU (Not nearly to the degree they used to be) and a bit short on PGU...and extra 35-40 CPU and a 40-50 PGU boost would help them immensely All those fits are boring, nothing but railgun turret. also 4 extenders is terrible, since they nerfed the shield regen. Turrets are fairly easily interchangeable, but I prefer the rail turret personally, and yeah regen can be problematic on shields, given how much has to be sacrificed to fit a Booster....really I'd like to see base regen lowered a bit more, and then add a flat regen bonus to the plates to put in place psuedo-recharge-time system, let's say we go to a 35-45 second recharge (since we're working with a system that has shield recharge delay...without delay I'd put it at a 90 second recharge). Additionally, I've found the Gladius to be too dependent on fitting mods...it also needs its fitting upped slightly...and we also need to have utility mods in the lows. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 119	Posted - 2015.02.22 18:16:00 - [353] - Quote Hmmmmmmmm... Triple hardened dropships still? Only tanks can't have triple harden? It's honestly the only way I can get a Myron in and out the heat for quick extraction/deployment safely. Or the only way i can distract swarmers for my team to rush in for the objective. Or to instill fear into those swarm mk.0's Native rep won't be that bad of an idea though. Just how much are we talking about? Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1787	Posted - 2015.02.22 21:42:00 - [354] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? The answer
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5039	Posted - 2015.02.22 21:44:00 - [355] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? We've always had stacking penalties on hardeners. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17199	Posted - 2015.02.22 22:10:00 - [356] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? We've always had stacking penalties on hardeners. Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5040	Posted - 2015.02.22 23:02:00 - [357] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17199	Posted - 2015.02.22 23:16:00 - [358] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? That is something I'm not aware of. I know the passive players have issues with stacking.....but not active hardeners since I never use them. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 209	Posted - 2015.02.22 23:52:00 - [359] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? Omni-Damage hardeners affect all 4 resistance attributes, so do have stacking penalties with specific hardeners (as it's all about if they affect a certain attribute or not). The exception being the Damage Control Module Series, which do not have stacking penalties (although only one may be fit), except with the armor resistance phasing module Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:15:00 - [360] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? That is something I'm not aware of. I know the passive players have issues with stacking.....but not active hardeners since I never use them. Why don't you use active? Molestia approved



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris