|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17653
   |
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have a few ideas and am putting together a big feedback piece for Hotfix Echo about tanking (respeced out of everything infantry and into all things tanks just to write it which is costing me major ISKies) in any case it mainly is designed to contain my perspective on the new tanking paradigm and a few considerations for Rattati presented as suggestions.
I'd really like if both you Pokey and Dukey would look over them and give me feed back.....while its unlikely to change the content since its really a perspective piece it might help certain things fall into place.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17704
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 01:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Back on topic...
While I actually am more of a fan of making hardeners similar if not identical, I also understand that people appreciate them being different which is also fine by me. If they're going to be the same, the ratios you presented need to be the same and the cooldown/duration needs to be the same.
If they're going to be different, I'd probably vote for a difference in resistance (though I'm reluctant to push the shield higher than its current 40%) in exchange for the Armor hardener's longer duration.
But again I honestly feel trying to make them different is more of a hassle than its worth. Making them equal is probably the simplest route in my opinion.
The problem with making them equal is that shields and armor aren't equal, therefor you will have differing performance despite having identical modules. Well at that point it comes down to secondary attributes the define the differences between the two which gives shields advantages over armor's higher eHP. This is admittedly more difficult to balance, so it may be simply more viable to make the resistances different. I was honestly shocked at the choice to move armor from 25% to 40%. I expected something more along the lines of 30-35% At this point the only thing that makes sense is to give shields the original 60% damage reduction to hardeners. Unless Ratatti is looking to slash armor hardener duration to 24 seconds base from 41 or whatever they are.. his shield nerfs so far make no sense unless hardener efficiency increases dramatically.
The logical thing to me would be to avoid giving Shield HAV back their 60% resistance modules that would be shamelessly abused and simply look into reductions to the modules themselves placing partial efficiency within a skill.
E.g- for arguments sake
Armour Adaption gives 5% efficiency per level and starts at 28% resistance. This adds up to 35% when the skill is maxed.
Shield Adaption gives 5% efficiency per level and starts at 32% resistance. This adds up to 40% when the skill is maxed.
Honestly the fact that we can even fit two active hardeners on tanks is beyond ridiculous if we had capacitor it would cap us our so quickly, inclusive of the Cap cost of firing and using other modules like Prop Modules, Shield Boosters, Armour Repairers that you simply wouldn't be able to use them effectively.
Hell EVE side frigates can't do this let alone bloody tanks.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17709
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 03:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:
Yeah, again, this isn't Eve.
Maybe go play Eve?
We are trying to bring somesort iof balance to shield and armor tanks rather than just have shield tanks living in the redline, where armor tanks would still do a better job.
Shield hardener increase to 60% is a good start given the shorter duration.
I don't believe continuity between EVE and Dust is necessarily a negative thing. In fact your yourself have said the earliest builds were some of your favourites if I am not mistaken. Those builds are arguably the closest to EVE mechanics Dust vehicles have ever been exposed to.
Rather than reverting back to a figure we know was bad, in a climate where multi hardener stacking is rife, and one that was changed because of its imbalance we should look to other values. I'm sure there will be many suggestions.
For a whole six seconds 20% extra resistance is rather unreasonable don't you think? Consider of course how easy it would be to exploit fittings using two such hardeners and being still able to attain very competitive raw shield values.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17725
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 20:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:Doc DDD wrote:
Yeah, again, this isn't Eve.
Maybe go play Eve?
We are trying to bring somesort iof balance to shield and armor tanks rather than just have shield tanks living in the redline, where armor tanks would still do a better job.
Shield hardener increase to 60% is a good start given the shorter duration.
I don't believe continuity between EVE and Dust is necessarily a negative thing. In fact your yourself have said the earliest builds were some of your favourites if I am not mistaken. Those builds are arguably the closest to EVE mechanics Dust vehicles have ever been exposed to. Rather than reverting back to a figure we know was bad, in a climate where multi hardener stacking is rife, and one that was changed because of its imbalance we should look to other values. I'm sure there will be many suggestions. For a whole six seconds 20% extra resistance is rather unreasonable don't you think? Consider of course how easy it would be to exploit fittings using two such hardeners and being still able to attain very competitive raw shield values. 20% extra doesn't seem unreasonable considering the fact that shield tank hardeners don't last as long, don't cool down as fast, we don't rep passive shield through them, and they cost a lot more resources.
But it is a considerable amount regardless.
I'm hoping to convince Rattati to remove Passive Armour Repairers so Armour has no passive or Native repairs at all. The current armour repair values (@ PRO tier around 305) aren't wrong just broken because they are a purely passive per second value that requires no management.
For example I have a model I'm working on that when two Heavy Reppers are activated at the same time the armour tank will experience 317.6 repair per second (WIP so adjustable values) for a grand total of 15 seconds...... after that its a long cool down on the repairers with now passive regen at all.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
|
|
| |
|