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)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17200	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:32:00 - [361] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: 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? Not possible to fit on my ships. I use either a speed tanked Slicer or smaller ships like the Tormentor/Coercer. (the former being passive tanked for a really nice allotment of eHP for Scrambrawling, the latter actually being Shield Tanked to allow for increased DPS and range in fleet ops). "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.23 01:00:00 - [362] - Quote True Adamance wrote: duster 35000 wrote: 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? Not possible to fit on my ships. I use either a speed tanked Slicer or smaller ships like the Tormentor/Coercer. (the former being passive tanked for a really nice allotment of eHP for Scrambrawling, the latter actually being Shield Tanked to allow for increased DPS and range in fleet ops). If I played eve I would use caldari and a active hardener. Molestia approved
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17201	Posted - 2015.02.23 01:11:00 - [363] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: If I played eve I would use caldari and a active hardener. Depending on your fit that would be a good idea. However we're getting off topic. So in this instance is it plausible to keep multiple hardeners in use without the heavy handed arbitrary limit and allow players to specifically stack resistance vs certain damage type or combine the aforementioned hardeners with Omni Hardeners for some middle ground. E.G- I am fitting a Gladius. Lets assume I have the following natural resistances. Expl- -20% Kinetic- -10% Heat- +10% EM- +20% I fit two Hardeners. 1x Omni-Damage Shield Hardener (-25% to all damage types) and 1x EM Ward Screen Shield Thingamywhassit (-40% damage to EM damage) this is because I know I am weakest against EM damage and am moderate against all other damage types. Now I do not have ridiculous damage resistance values against any one weapon BARRING the ones I've specifically invested ISK, SP, and Slot into fitting. When active my profile looks like Expl- -40% Kinetic- -30% Heat- -10% EM- -37.5% (-40% modified by stacking penalties) "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Soul Cairn Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 59	Posted - 2015.02.23 04:05:00 - [364] - Quote Specific damage type hardeners? Yes please. I was so delighted to have these in EVE. Of course, we're going to need anti-shield AV along with this. Don't be fooled, I'm Caldari Vehicular Specialist I need to play more often...
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 1513	Posted - 2015.02.23 07:33:00 - [365] - Quote I feel the better course of action is to remove damage profiles for vehicles entirely until we can get more variation in AV. Our lives are nothing but a means to an end. AIV member. 21 day EVE trial.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9660	Posted - 2015.02.23 07:44:00 - [366] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: I feel the better course of action is to remove damage profiles for vehicles entirely until we can get more variation in AV. Cough, Cough, add variation. Thermal Swarm Missiles (Hybrid Plasma damage profile) Laser "Forge" Gun (Laser damage profile) have it be a beam that you have to keep on to deal the full damage. It should still be charged shot. At least until we can get actual weapons in the game but with missiles there should be a damage profile for everyone really. Kinetic Swarm Missile Launcher which uses sheer kinetic force to deal damage. It would be the most accurate, longest range and fastest missile (Hybrid Rail Profile) Swarm Missile Launcher with Thermal Warhead (Hybrid Plasma Profile) Swarm Missiles with Explosive Warhead (Explosive Profile) Swarm Missiles with Electromagnetic warheads *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17212	Posted - 2015.02.23 08:55:00 - [367] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: I feel the better course of action is to remove damage profiles for vehicles entirely until we can get more variation in AV. Cough, Cough, add variation. Thermal Swarm Missiles (Hybrid Plasma damage profile) Laser "Forge" Gun (Laser damage profile) have it be a beam that you have to keep on to deal the full damage. It should still be charged shot. At least until we can get actual weapons in the game but with missiles there should be a damage profile for everyone really. Kinetic Swarm Missile Launcher which uses sheer kinetic force to deal damage. It would be the most accurate, longest range and fastest missile (Hybrid Rail Profile) Swarm Missile Launcher with Thermal Warhead (Hybrid Plasma Profile) Swarm Missiles with Explosive Warhead (Explosive Profile) Swarm Missiles with Electromagnetic warheads Eh..... really you'd put that kind of douchey ass anti everything power in the hands of a Caldari Kirk? What kind of Gallentean are you? "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 7358	Posted - 2015.02.23 09:00:00 - [368] - Quote I just want to make an amarr heavy weapon using the forge gun asset until Rattati can kidnap a graphic design nerd. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3943	Posted - 2015.02.23 11:12:00 - [369] - 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. Hence why we do not need a hard cap on hardeners
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1774	Posted - 2015.02.23 12:16:00 - [370] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. Hence why we do not need a hard cap on hardeners Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7360	Posted - 2015.02.23 12:58:00 - [371] - Quote What's the projected TTK for each of the heavy turrets vs. A reasonable enemy tank? Assume unmodded, one mod and two mods. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3943	Posted - 2015.02.23 13:23:00 - [372] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1774	Posted - 2015.02.23 14:37:00 - [373] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits Do you guys always forget to think about ADS? ADS is one shot by a Proto rail with 2 complex damage mods, gunnlogis will now have 5 highs... Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3943	Posted - 2015.02.23 15:05:00 - [374] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits Do you guys always forget to think about ADS? ADS is one shot by a Proto rail with 2 complex damage mods, gunnlogis will now have 5 highs... Stacking penalty generally makes the 4 and 5th damage mod next to useless and also i find swarms are an ADS enemy since the ADS cannot throw off the SL aim or anything, at least with FG and rail it can dodge shots. The ADS itself needs an overhaul and a buff anyways and also countermeasures. If its redline rail the problem is the redline due to it being far too close to objectives and the gamezone in my book, if the redline and spawns were moved 500m back it would not be a problem.
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1774	Posted - 2015.02.23 16:13:00 - [375] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits Do you guys always forget to think about ADS? ADS is one shot by a Proto rail with 2 complex damage mods, gunnlogis will now have 5 highs... Stacking penalty generally makes the 4 and 5th damage mod next to useless and also i find swarms are an ADS enemy since the ADS cannot throw off the SL aim or anything, at least with FG and rail it can dodge shots. The ADS itself needs an overhaul and a buff anyways and also countermeasures. If its redline rail the problem is the redline due to it being far too close to objectives and the gamezone in my book, if the redline and spawns were moved 500m back it would not be a problem. 3 complex damage mods on a proto rail and you can take 90% of a tanked ADS's HP. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 357	Posted - 2015.02.23 16:53:00 - [376] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits Do you guys always forget to think about ADS? ADS is one shot by a Proto rail with 2 complex damage mods, gunnlogis will now have 5 highs... Stacking penalty generally makes the 4 and 5th damage mod next to useless and also i find swarms are an ADS enemy since the ADS cannot throw off the SL aim or anything, at least with FG and rail it can dodge shots. The ADS itself needs an overhaul and a buff anyways and also countermeasures. If its redline rail the problem is the redline due to it being far too close to objectives and the gamezone in my book, if the redline and spawns were moved 500m back it would not be a problem. 3 complex damage mods on a proto rail and you can take 90% of a tanked ADS's HP. I wouldn't say 90% of a tanked ads fit, but would defiantly 2 shot most ADS just floating under 300m from the turret. It is a redline issue more than damage mod issue as 2 damage mods will have nearly the same effect. And let's be serious, even one damage mod is going to smash an ADS pretty hard with 2 shots. Shouldn't it?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5041	Posted - 2015.02.23 19:36:00 - [377] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. Hence why we do not need a hard cap on hardeners The primary issue when we had the 3 slot system was that the Gunnlogi didn't need any modules to have very good regen, so they could fill their 'regen slot' with the second hardener. Had they required a module to get really good regen, the stacking of hardeners would have been non-issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3955	Posted - 2015.02.23 19:43:00 - [378] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: The primary issue when we had the 3 slot system was that the Gunnlogi didn't need any modules to have very good regen, so they could fill their 'regen slot' with the second hardener. Had they required a module to get really good regen, the stacking of hardeners would have been non-issue. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17216	Posted - 2015.02.23 19:52:00 - [379] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The primary issue when we had the 3 slot system was that the Gunnlogi didn't need any modules to have very good regen, so they could fill their 'regen slot' with the second hardener. Had they required a module to get really good regen, the stacking of hardeners would have been non-issue. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. His inference was that the Gunnlogi could effectively have a rep/sec rate of 168 (higher than a single complex [with skills V] armour repairer) without having to fit a module at all. That gave it a huge edge over the Madrugar counter part since you could couple that rep rate with higher module based and natural resistances and higher total eHP's. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3956	Posted - 2015.02.23 20:03:00 - [380] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The primary issue when we had the 3 slot system was that the Gunnlogi didn't need any modules to have very good regen, so they could fill their 'regen slot' with the second hardener. Had they required a module to get really good regen, the stacking of hardeners would have been non-issue. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. His inference was that the Gunnlogi could effectively have a rep/sec rate of 168 (higher than a single complex [with skills V] armour repairer) without having to fit a module at all. That gave it a huge edge over the Madrugar counter part since you could couple that rep rate with higher module based and natural resistances and higher total eHP's. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5041	Posted - 2015.02.23 20:17:00 - [381] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The primary issue when we had the 3 slot system was that the Gunnlogi didn't need any modules to have very good regen, so they could fill their 'regen slot' with the second hardener. Had they required a module to get really good regen, the stacking of hardeners would have been non-issue. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. His inference was that the Gunnlogi could effectively have a rep/sec rate of 168 (higher than a single complex [with skills V] armour repairer) without having to fit a module at all. That gave it a huge edge over the Madrugar counter part since you could couple that rep rate with higher module based and natural resistances and higher total eHP's. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time. I think the Gunnlogi should have a better regen than an armor vehicle, that's the tradeoff for the shield delay. The issue was that they also didn't need to fit a module to do it. A shield vehicle using a regen module should easily outrep an armor repairer. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17216	Posted - 2015.02.23 20:31:00 - [382] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The primary issue when we had the 3 slot system was that the Gunnlogi didn't need any modules to have very good regen, so they could fill their 'regen slot' with the second hardener. Had they required a module to get really good regen, the stacking of hardeners would have been non-issue. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. His inference was that the Gunnlogi could effectively have a rep/sec rate of 168 (higher than a single complex [with skills V] armour repairer) without having to fit a module at all. That gave it a huge edge over the Madrugar counter part since you could couple that rep rate with higher module based and natural resistances and higher total eHP's. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time. The 4 second delay was incredibly manageable. In many respects too easy to manage for the prolific nature of the reps that did not require a module. I've basically be using the two common Gunnlogi fits since their inception.....half the reason the 5300 one works as well as it does is that it has enough hardened and unhardened tank to survive until you could get your shield regen to kick in. It was basically a passive tank for all intents and purposes but with significantly higher rep values than it should have had. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that a passive shield rep rate take 90 seconds without imput from boosters. "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 5041	Posted - 2015.02.23 23:33:00 - [383] - Quote Not to mention if Rattati goes ahead and adds Regulators, 2 complex regs will drop the recharge delay to 1.8 seconds.....faster than most infantry AV weapons can refire. It'll be awesome. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.23 23:47:00 - [384] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The primary issue when we had the 3 slot system was that the Gunnlogi didn't need any modules to have very good regen, so they could fill their 'regen slot' with the second hardener. Had they required a module to get really good regen, the stacking of hardeners would have been non-issue. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. His inference was that the Gunnlogi could effectively have a rep/sec rate of 168 (higher than a single complex [with skills V] armour repairer) without having to fit a module at all. That gave it a huge edge over the Madrugar counter part since you could couple that rep rate with higher module based and natural resistances and higher total eHP's. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time. The 4 second delay was incredibly manageable. In many respects too easy to manage for the prolific nature of the reps that did not require a module. I've basically be using the two common Gunnlogi fits since their inception.....half the reason the 5300 one works as well as it does is that it has enough hardened and unhardened tank to survive until you could get your shield regen to kick in. It was basically a passive tank for all intents and purposes but with significantly higher rep values than it should have had. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that a passive shield rep rate take 90 seconds without imput from boosters. With boosters being broken for all intents and purposes, both in functionality and extreme cpu/pg costs, all the shield tank has is passive reps. With the hardener nerf and recharge rate nerf (double gunlogi nerf), if low slot shield rechargers/regulators are not released alongside a fix tto shield boosters, then armor repairers are going to have a huge advantage everywhere on the map. One armor repair module with bonuses will rep 500 damage before a shield starts repping at all, that's if the shields don't take any damage past their threshold, which they more than likely will with only one hardener. The armor tank reps damage while taking damage. All shield tanks have are one level of unalterable shield recharge. Those are now being nerfed by 20% while hardner stacking (which armor tanks don't do ) is also being nerfed. Seems a little too aggressive during these changes, would make more sense to try out the new fits with current recharge/hardener values in battle to see if there is need for improvement. Otherwise it's just going to be shield tanks in the redline while armor tanks nitro around repping instantaneously.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17228	Posted - 2015.02.24 00:21:00 - [385] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: With boosters being broken for all intents and purposes, both in functionality and extreme cpu/pg costs, all the shield tank has is passive reps. With the hardener nerf and recharge rate nerf (double gunlogi nerf), if low slot shield rechargers/regulators are not released alongside a fix tto shield boosters, then armor repairers are going to have a huge advantage everywhere on the map. One armor repair module with bonuses will rep 500 damage before a shield starts repping at all, that's if the shields don't take any damage past their threshold, which they more than likely will with only one hardener. The armor tank reps damage while taking damage. All shield tanks have are one level of unalterable shield recharge. Those are now being nerfed by 20% while hardner stacking (which armor tanks don't do ) is also being nerfed. Seems a little too aggressive during these changes, would make more sense to try out the new fits with current recharge/hardener values in battle to see if there is need for improvement. Otherwise it's just going to be shield tanks in the redline while armor tanks nitro around repping instantaneously. But you are not considering that those reps were nothing to do with anything I fitted. So while an Armour tank might have been able to rep 500 armour between when its repair start and my regen start that Madrugar consumed PG and CPU to fit that as well as a low slot that could have been reserved for another module. So in terms of contemporary fittings where the Madrugar is forced to fit at least one repair module to keep it functional on the battlefield and Gunnlogi never did since it was always taken for granted that those shield values would passively repair after a set amount of time essentially cementing the value of a high eHP tank using hardeners and extenders in a situation it was undeserving of. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.24 00:28:00 - [386] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With boosters being broken for all intents and purposes, both in functionality and extreme cpu/pg costs, all the shield tank has is passive reps. With the hardener nerf and recharge rate nerf (double gunlogi nerf), if low slot shield rechargers/regulators are not released alongside a fix tto shield boosters, then armor repairers are going to have a huge advantage everywhere on the map. One armor repair module with bonuses will rep 500 damage before a shield starts repping at all, that's if the shields don't take any damage past their threshold, which they more than likely will with only one hardener. The armor tank reps damage while taking damage. All shield tanks have are one level of unalterable shield recharge. Those are now being nerfed by 20% while hardner stacking (which armor tanks don't do ) is also being nerfed. Seems a little too aggressive during these changes, would make more sense to try out the new fits with current recharge/hardener values in battle to see if there is need for improvement. Otherwise it's just going to be shield tanks in the redline while armor tanks nitro around repping instantaneously. But you are not considering that those reps were nothing to do with anything I fitted. So while an Armour tank might have been able to rep 500 armour between when its repair start and my regen start that Madrugar consumed PG and CPU to fit that as well as a low slot that could have been reserved for another module. So in terms of contemporary fittings where the Madrugar is forced to fit at least one repair module to keep it functional on the battlefield and Gunnlogi never did since it was always taken for granted that those shield values would passively repair after a set amount of time essentially cementing the value of a high eHP tank using hardeners and extenders in a situation it was undeserving of. Which is all well and good if a single shield module could give constant reps with zero delay, and said modules could be stacked. But no such module exists nor will it likely, as such a module would just create shield and armor tank fits inversions of each other rather than different repairing mechanisms that function in different ways, both having different drawbacks.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.24 00:49:00 - [387] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Not to mention if Rattati goes ahead and adds Regulators, 2 complex regs will drop the recharge delay to 1.8 seconds.....faster than most infantry AV weapons can refire. It'll be awesome. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17228	Posted - 2015.02.24 00:53:00 - [388] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Not to mention if Rattati goes ahead and adds Regulators, 2 complex regs will drop the recharge delay to 1.8 seconds.....faster than most infantry AV weapons can refire. It'll be awesome. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks. You are not supposed to passively for any reason repair a significant amount of HP during Large Turret reloads. Prolific regeneration is the sole domain of active modules. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:08:00 - [389] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Not to mention if Rattati goes ahead and adds Regulators, 2 complex regs will drop the recharge delay to 1.8 seconds.....faster than most infantry AV weapons can refire. It'll be awesome. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks. You are not supposed to passively for any reason repair a significant amount of HP during Large Turret reloads. Prolific regeneration is the sole domain of active modules. That would mean armor repairers need a nerf to become active to follow suit. Boosters would need to be fixed to repair damage under fire and cost less cpu/pg. And instead of regulators on my shield tank it will still make more sense to fit a plate.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17228	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:11:00 - [390] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Not to mention if Rattati goes ahead and adds Regulators, 2 complex regs will drop the recharge delay to 1.8 seconds.....faster than most infantry AV weapons can refire. It'll be awesome. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks. You are not supposed to passively for any reason repair a significant amount of HP during Large Turret reloads. Prolific regeneration is the sole domain of active modules. That would mean armor repairers need a nerf to become active to follow suit. Boosters would need to be fixed to repair damage under fire and cost less cpu/pg. And instead of regulators on my shield tank it will still make more sense to fit a plate. Yup Passive Armour reps need to die in a fire. Ideally the conflict between shield and armour mods should be intense enough that fitting both is less valuable than fitting on single tank type. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."



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

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris