| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1923
   |
Posted - 2015.03.14 02:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill)
2.) The fitting:
The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT...
Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost.
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi
The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank?
Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG
ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG.
So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank?
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Tread Loudly 2
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
88
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 02:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill)
2.) The fitting:
The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT...
Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost.
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi
The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank?
Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG
ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG.
So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank?
I'm going to assume you were here pre-echo. right? If not people considered Madrugar's inoperable and asked for it to get a buff all the while people wanted a nerf on the Shield side of things which basically caused what we have now... A more extreme case of what we had pre-echo...
I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1923
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 02:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tread Loudly 2 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill)
2.) The fitting:
The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT...
Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost.
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi
The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank?
Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG
ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG.
So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank?
I'm going to assume you were here pre-echo. right? If not people considered Madrugar's inoperable and asked for it to get a buff all the while people wanted a nerf on the Shield side of things which basically caused what we have now... A more extreme case of what we had pre-echo...
And??
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Tread Loudly 2
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
88
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 02:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Tread Loudly 2 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill)
2.) The fitting:
The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT...
Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost.
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi
The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank?
Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG
ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG.
So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank?
I'm going to assume you were here pre-echo. right? If not people considered Madrugar's inoperable and asked for it to get a buff all the while people wanted a nerf on the Shield side of things which basically caused what we have now... A more extreme case of what we had pre-echo... And??
What we got out of these two sides is what both sides wanted... A nerf for one side and a buff for the other which ends up giving us a worse version of pre-echo...
Which basically means the only thing that has changed is the face of the "op" tank...
It is a problem because Versatility in HAV's is key. If the Gunlogi can be stepped up just a tad from where it was in echo as far as fitting capabilities... I feel like tank battles would be put onto a whole new level.... That's just my input
I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1923
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 03:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tread Loudly 2 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Tread Loudly 2 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill)
2.) The fitting:
The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT...
Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost.
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi
The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank?
Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG
ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG.
So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank?
Ok, but first we need the hardeners balanced. I'm going to assume you were here pre-echo. right? If not people considered Madrugar's inoperable and asked for it to get a buff all the while people wanted a nerf on the Shield side of things which basically caused what we have now... A more extreme case of what we had pre-echo... And?? What we got out of these two sides is what both sides wanted... A nerf for one side and a buff for the other which ends up giving us a worse version of pre-echo... Which basically means the only thing that has changed is the face of the "op" tank... It is a problem because Versatility in HAV's is key. If the Gunlogi can be stepped up just a tad from where it was in echo as far as fitting capabilities... I feel like tank battles would be put onto a whole new level.... That's just my input
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5393
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 04:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
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.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17653
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:27:00 -
[7] - 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
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
7632
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
After my visiting family Go home I'll check out the new HAVs.
Overpowered isn't likely to be my assessment honestly from what I am hearing so far.
AV
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5394
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 07:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
True Adamance wrote: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.
Sanity checks are always good. 
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1925
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 15:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:After my visiting family Go home I'll check out the new HAVs.
Overpowered isn't likely to be my assessment honestly from what I am hearing so far.
They are not OP vs AV, but tank vs tank, madrugars are kicking Gunnlogi butt.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
|
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
4207
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 15:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
If they make it 40% for both with the same cooldown and uptimes then it will be better, just sort out the PG/CPU fitting costs.
Disclaimer:
The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514
CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
934
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 18:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
there are too many factors at work not being addressed.
the original problem with the maddrugar was that it did not have the fitting to field a propper defense vs a gunnlogi that had tow low slots to boost it defenses. if the gunnlogi didnt have those two low slot then the gunnlogi would have been equal to a maddrugar.
the simple fix wouldve been to simply increase the maddrugars fitting.
the issue with the gunnlogi will always be its ability to use low slots to field a better defense.
to keep shield tanks and armor tanks from dual tanking, we shouldve use a fitting reduction bonus to them so that shield tanks could fit shield modules without an issue but not armor modules. the same for armor tanks. then we adjust the fitting to allow for "proper" defenses without the need for fitting mods on shield tanks but also leave them without enough fitting for armor mods.
use a percentage bonus to reduce fitting costs. so that armor mods can have crazy high pg costs that get reduced to nothing on maddrugars but remain for gunnlogis.
the cpu cost of shield hardeners is crazy. yes
the fact that armor hardeners last longer than shield hardeners while providing equal bonus with cheaper fitting costs? thats just wrong, and should be changed.
lower the armor hardeners to 30%. why? because they also effect armor reppers. by reducing incoming damage to to levels low enough that the armor reps can rep through them. thats a problem because armor reppers are passive, so they never stop. you currently cant kill a dual hardner maddrugar with a gunnlogi because the gunnlogis hardeners stop before the maddrugars. and neither tank can kill the other before its hardeners end. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1039
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 21:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
This problem was mentioned multiple times in the Hotfix Echo narrative thread but there was no response. Now just a few days after the hotfix shield HAVs are dead.
Who could've known? 
"Told you so" aside - let's maintain a positive attitude - I like that armor HAV's hardeners last longer. It's nice to have one go-to tank if you want to park in front of some light AV and just rep through it for about a minute. But that has to come at the cost of lower efficacy (or higher fitting cost - I'm open to alternative ideas). 30% sounds like a very good number to me.
DS wise the Grimsnes and Myron are now neck-and-neck for my fitting style. The Myron lost some, the Grimsnes won some. The fact that armor hardeners have a shorter cooldown makes the Grimsnes more appealing to me though.
P.S.: Gamedesign question: Should hardener duration be based on how long a fight between two HAVs lasts or based around how long you need to pull out of AV range?
Right now a shield hardener - even though it is the shorter one - is still easily long enough to last a full fight. At least in my experience it isn't practical to dodge around until the shield hardeners run out. Should this be changed? |
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1925
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 14:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:there are too many factors at work not being addressed.
the original problem with the maddrugar was that it did not have the fitting to field a propper defense vs a gunnlogi that had tow low slots to boost it defenses. if the gunnlogi didnt have those two low slot then the gunnlogi would have been equal to a maddrugar.
the simple fix wouldve been to simply increase the maddrugars fitting.
the issue with the gunnlogi will always be its ability to use low slots to field a better defense.
to keep shield tanks and armor tanks from dual tanking, we shouldve use a fitting reduction bonus to them so that shield tanks could fit shield modules without an issue but not armor modules. the same for armor tanks. then we adjust the fitting to allow for "proper" defenses without the need for fitting mods on shield tanks but also leave them without enough fitting for armor mods.
use a percentage bonus to reduce fitting costs. so that armor mods can have crazy high pg costs that get reduced to nothing on maddrugars but remain for gunnlogis.
the cpu cost of shield hardeners is crazy. yes
the fact that armor hardeners last longer than shield hardeners while providing equal bonus with cheaper fitting costs? thats just wrong, and should be changed.
lower the armor hardeners to 30%. why? because they also effect armor reppers. by reducing incoming damage to to levels low enough that the armor reps can rep through them. thats a problem because armor reppers are passive, so they never stop. you currently cant kill a dual hardner maddrugar with a gunnlogi because the gunnlogis hardeners stop before the maddrugars. and neither tank can kill the other before its hardeners end.
Here's the thing though. My Gunnlogi's are fitted with complex CPU and PG expansions yet I still cannot full proto my high slots due to stupidly hight fitting requirements for Shield modules.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
DUST Fiend
16074
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 17:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
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.
Contests, Sales, Writing etc
Fly Safe
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1931
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 20:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
Just Gonna stand there and watch me burn, it's all right cuz I like the way you.... smirk?
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5456
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 20:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
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%
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1931
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 20:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
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%
The way I see it, the things Armor loses on due to Armor Damaging weapons, Armor makes up by having far superior HP wise plates and natural 500 Armor over Shield tanks.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9954
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 20:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Correct Sir Dukey. People dont realize that, and I'm beating a dead horse here, the amount of anti armor AV in the game right now is staggering compared to anti shield AV.
Shield tanks have a natural resist to Swarms, Forges, REs, God, AV grenades, AHMGs, Rails, Missiles.
Until we get more anti shield, armor kind of needs a bit more resistance to deal with the damage profile bias of the game right now.
Besides, I'm still seeing Gunlogis trying to come at me in CQC with a railgun
Have people still not realized that you shouldn't try to CQC with rail against a blaster or are people still under the impression that Caldari should be able to do everything?
On another note id like to see Caldari vehicles have more shielding in trade of more acceleration and agility when Amarr and Minmatar HAVs come out.
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
1646
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 00:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi
The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
If you pulled your head out of your ass you'd remember that large turrets take up well over half of your PG 
Mace yourself, blame someone else itGÇÖs okay, no one will believe you
AIV member.
|
|
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1933
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 00:51:00 -
[21] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi
The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
If you pulled your head out of your ass you'd remember that large turrets take up well over half of your PG
If you actually played the game, you would know that proto large missile turret costs 100 less CPU than the Shield Hardener. Oh and PG is not a problem for any of my tanks.
P.S. I don't remember Blaster Turrets costing less PG than the Hardener so why on earth is shield hardener costing more CPU than a LArge proto missile?
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
412
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 01:27:00 -
[22] - Quote
A hardened madrugar has the efficiency of the instant reps increased by 40%.
Ie.. if you have 5000 armor, one hardener ups that to 7000 effectively.
The same tank with 200 instant reps per second, with the same hardener activated effectively reps for 280 reps per second while hardened.
The gunlogi comes no where near this, will not rep while taking damage, can not increase its reps, can only decrease it's 4 to 10 second recharge delay at the cost of ehp and a rediculous amount of cpu and pg.
The most effective turret vs tanks is the blaster which does more damage vs shields. Yes there is 10 other forms of AV of which only plasma and fluxes hurt shields more than armor, BUT WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHEN ARMOR TANKS ARE TWICE AS EEFFECTIVE AS SHIELD TANKS.
Yes please tell us again how shields are perfectly viable if you have cover within spitting distance, people are quickly learning that Shield tanks belong in the redline as armor tanks have EVERY advantage short of cornering.
Rails are garbage on a gunlogi unless you trade in 3 of its 5 main tanking slots for damage mods and heat sinks. Madrugar does it better.
Missiles are garbage as blasters outclass them in every way. Missiles and Rails are stuck in the redline.
Want to beat a shield tank with an armor tank? -activate your hardeners when you see the shield tank activate his, you will not lose unless you drop your controller. If the shield tank isn't 100 meters back in thier redline before his hardeners wear off the armor tank will still have 15 seconds of damage reduction plus all the immediate reps it has been getting since the start of the battle.
Trying to convince people that an average of 10% more damage on 75% of av weapons is a fair trade off for a broken tank that has to sit in the redline to be effective is typical for someone doesn't know what they are talking about. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
412
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 01:34:00 -
[23] - Quote
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. |
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1934
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 01:48:00 -
[24] - 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.
It's not even duration/cool down. The Shield hardener has far higher fitting costs.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17704
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 01:57:00 -
[25] - 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
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
412
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 02:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
True Adamance wrote: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.
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.
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5470
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 03:33:00 -
[27] - Quote
The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me.
Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17709
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 03:45:00 -
[28] - 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
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1935
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 19:05:00 -
[29] - Quote
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.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1935
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 19:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me.
Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that.
Ah ah ah... don't forget to reduce the CPU cost of Shield extenders so they take up 13% of the total CPU on a Shield tank and increase PG by 4% so they take up 13% total PG on shield tank.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17725
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 20:14:00 -
[31] - 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
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5483
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 20:19:00 -
[32] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me.
Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that. Ah ah ah... don't forget to reduce the CPU cost of Shield extenders so they take up 13% of the total CPU on a Shield tank and increase PG by 4% so they take up 13% total PG on shield tank.
Yep that too. Like I get if Rattati was trying to avoid a certain fit by tweaking fitting to prevent it, I totally get that. But never should one hardener be innately equal or better than the other in every way, which is what we have now.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Velvet Overkill
SI6MA
Learning Alliance
147
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 20:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me.
Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that. Ah ah ah... don't forget to reduce the CPU cost of Shield extenders so they take up 13% of the total CPU on a Shield tank and increase PG by 4% so they take up 13% total PG on shield tank. Yep that too. Like I get if Rattati was trying to avoid a certain fit by tweaking fitting to prevent it, I totally get that. But never should one hardener be innately equal or better than the other in every way, which is what we have now.
Regulators would also need a cut in fitting requirements; for a passive module it uses up a lot of PG and it also takes up a slot that could be used for fitting mods.
Using this account until The-Errorist is unbanned on April 10th.
AV vs Dropship
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1946
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 01:53:00 -
[34] - Quote
Velvet Overkill wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me.
Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that. Ah ah ah... don't forget to reduce the CPU cost of Shield extenders so they take up 13% of the total CPU on a Shield tank and increase PG by 4% so they take up 13% total PG on shield tank. Yep that too. Like I get if Rattati was trying to avoid a certain fit by tweaking fitting to prevent it, I totally get that. But never should one hardener be innately equal or better than the other in every way, which is what we have now. Regulators would also need a cut in fitting requirements; for a passive module it uses up a lot of PG and it also takes up a slot that could be used for fitting mods.
Currently, none of my fits are without both lows dedicated to CPU and PG expansions.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 04:07:00 -
[35] - Quote
bumparoo.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Vesta Opalus
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 15:08:00 -
[36] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill)
2.) The fitting:
The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT...
Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost.
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi
The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank?
Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG
ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG.
So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank?
Repair modules and EHP are both magnified by hardeners, this only comes into effect for shield vehicles if the hardening prevents the shield regen from going down, and even then the current heavy reps can rep more than the shield rep, and there is no way to increase shield reps. This results in armor vehicles that just cannot be killed unless you bring 2 or 3 or more different high damage high stamina weapons to the fight, and shield vehicles that might be balanced but its impossible to tell because they are so overshadowed. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
432
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 16:59:00 -
[37] - Quote
One of the reasons the double hardener double rep Maddies are so prevalent is the fact large rails have been nerfed at least 5 times in a row instead of fixing core issues.
Damage Nerf
Range Nerf
Heat Build up Nerf
Giving 90% more resist to armor hardener Nerf
Basic and Advanced damage mod Nerf
On top of these nerfs, shield tanks have also been nerfed ( because sitting in the redline hiding is supposed to be a 'pkaystyle' according to armor users). These nerfs include:
Hardener Nerf
Shield fitting Nerf
Shield staking penalty Nerf
Breaking Shield Booster Nerf
Shield regen rate Nerf
Shield starting armor value Nerf
Missile splash damage nerf
Missile clip size nerf
Missile reload time nerf
Fix Shields
Fix Rails
Fix Missiles
Fix the core problems
or do as per usual and pander to the masses that QQ on the forums for nerfs, as it is easier to cry on the forums than realize what the actual problem is in-game. |
Velvet Overkill
SI6MA
Learning Alliance
166
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 17:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:One of the reasons the double hardener double rep Maddies are so prevalent is the fact large rails have been nerfed at least 5 times in a row instead of fixing core issues.
Damage Nerf
Range Nerf
Heat Build up Nerf
Giving 90% more resist to armor hardener Nerf
Basic and Advanced damage mod Nerf
On top of these nerfs, shield tanks have also been nerfed ( because sitting in the redline hiding is supposed to be a 'pkaystyle' according to armor users). These nerfs include:
Hardener Nerf
Shield fitting Nerf
Shield staking penalty Nerf
Breaking Shield Booster Nerf
Shield regen rate Nerf
Shield starting armor value Nerf
Missile splash damage nerf
Missile clip size nerf
Missile reload time nerf
Fix Shields
Fix Rails
Fix Missiles
Fix the core problems
or do as per usual and pander to the masses that QQ on the forums for nerfs, as it is easier to cry on the forums than realize what the actual problem is in-game.
Based on the tone on your post, it can be interpreted as crying; any posting one does for something that they think is unbalanced will be perceived by someone as "crying".
The main way for devs to know what's wrong and need tweaking is by people who voice their opinions on whatever that thing is aka "crying". Though a lot of times people like you say "fix the core" when they cry, instead of naming specifically what about the core needs fixing, and most of the time they don't have any details of which way the problem can be fixed. Keep in mind that "the core" could mean a lot different things to many people.
It would be much better if you added what about shields, rails, and missiles need fixing and it would be even better if you suggested how you would go about fixing it.
For example, for large missiles turrets you could say they can't be used to win in any 1v1 situation because even though they have high damage per mag, the slow fire rate and reload speed makes it subpar for any engagement; they could be fixed by decreasing reload speed by 2s.
The-Errorist
AV vs Dropship. Flux variant balancing
|
Shamarskii Simon
The Hundred Acre Hood
Rise Of Legion.
318
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 19:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
After reading the forum i only see that it boils down to one thing:
Either we go back to 1.7 with a twist since armor hardeners are already there.
Or.
We just add 7.5 to the old hardeners and call it a day.
Like honestly, i seriously wonder what is there to discuss by now.
Armor hardeners, you aren't fair.
"You have no delay, you repair more HP/s than me, you got almost a minute of uptime and almost half a minute of downtime. While you can get the same resistance as me. i can gimp fits with my crazy resource cost. " -sHardener.
The only reason why i find this silly is that people are basically saying undo 1.8 to balance it.
Ill tell you, AV will not like it. My python would be indestructable (if you know my fit, you understand). Every Tank would just look at each other and wonder what to do...
it will become so unbalanced its not even funny.
If you think that is the right way, tell me exactly why we should basically undo most things for balance.
This isnt a matter of who beats who, it's just like wasting months of time just to go back to square one...
The ADS tourney! Join today!
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3070
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:27:00 -
[40] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:One of the reasons the double hardener double rep Maddies are so prevalent is the fact large rails have been nerfed at least 5 times in a row instead of fixing core issues.
Damage Nerf
Range Nerf
Heat Build up Nerf
Giving 90% more resist to armor hardener Nerf
Basic and Advanced damage mod Nerf
On top of these nerfs, shield tanks have also been nerfed ( because sitting in the redline hiding is supposed to be a 'pkaystyle' according to armor users). These nerfs include:
Hardener Nerf
Shield fitting Nerf
Shield staking penalty Nerf
Breaking Shield Booster Nerf
Shield regen rate Nerf
Shield starting armor value Nerf
Missile splash damage nerf
Missile clip size nerf
Missile reload time nerf
Fix Shields
Fix Rails
Fix Missiles
Fix the core problems
or do as per usual and pander to the masses that QQ on the forums for nerfs, as it is easier to cry on the forums than realize what the actual problem is in-game.
Rails had a fundamental problem of being vastly superior to blasters, even in their optimal. Many times, Rails try and attack blasters in their optimal now, and expect to reasonably win, which they won't, unless they get some good shots in at first. Using a rail up close is a silly notion to have.
However, it being a high alpha, but crazy heat giver doesn't really help much of anything either. Uprising had a great system of attack for rails, being able to hit targets at longer ranges with multiple shots, but those shots being not as much as now.
Rockets are still just broken Rockets, but they are still usable (gotten some kills with them through tests, they aren't completely useless). Their insta gank style of going about things needs to go, and instead go on a more high salvo count, lower damage, higher splash, and higher reload, so it can be the thing to just keep on slinging shots at targets until they move, or they die. Kinda like a direct arty.
For Squid HAV's, it's obviously with module balance. plates and extenders aside, boosters and repairers needs serious looking at, making repairers not passive and making boosters actually useful would be a good start on that front. Also, making Shield and Armor hardeners fit their styles more (so Shield hardeners having a lower up and downtime, and armor having the opposite, but Shield hardeners having more eHP given, so say the armor hardeners percent given is slightly nerfed, and the cooldown on the shield hardeners are buffed?), as well as a myriad of utility modules given to both low and hi slots, and enough resources to fit everything, I think we'd see more of a balance between the hulls.
Also,people really need to stop trying to use rails in close. It's just stupid. If you get ganked by a blaster in CQ with a rail, it's your damn fault. Don't blame balance for your idiocy.
EDIT: I'd also like to push my agenda all by my lonesome and still say that shotty blaster should be a thing. 
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |