DUST Search - Hardener drops after % of max hp is soaked up...

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Hardener drops after % of max hp is soaked up...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 943	Posted - 2015.03.25 20:24:00 - [1] - Quote What if hardeners dropped after taking a certain % of your vehicles total hp? After taking 150% of your max armour, they go on cooldown. You build a tank with no added armour, but 2 reps and 2 hardeners, you get your immortality, but it only lasts a short while. You build a tank with some added armour, you aren't immortal, but it hardens for longer. Make shield hardeners block 200% of their max hp, because they have no reps. The numbers may be high if you stack hp, but then you're not stacking reps and the hardener will drop when time is up anyway. Making vehicles killable, but still having that window of opportunity. Personally I think dropping reps while hardened is a better idea, but some people don't like that... & it's always good to have choices.
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 2999	Posted - 2015.03.25 20:28:00 - [2] - Quote **** no. Just stop. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 523	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:29:00 - [3] - Quote I like the idea, but I still feel that double hardeners is not balanced. And derpty don't listen to Godin nor argue with him no where near worth it XD. Caldari Loyalist. buff swarms... D
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3001	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:34:00 - [4] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: I like the idea, but I still feel that double hardeners is not balanced. And derpty don't listen to Godin nor argue with him no where near worth it XD. Yes, because I've yet to be as unreasonable and reactionary as possible, right? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5584	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:39:00 - [5] - Quote Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 523	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:47:00 - [6] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: I like the idea, but I still feel that double hardeners is not balanced. And derpty don't listen to Godin nor argue with him no where near worth it XD. Yes, because I've yet to be as unreasonable and reactionary as possible, right? Coming from the one that entered the post with "**** no. Just stop" Caldari Loyalist. buff swarms... D
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 523	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:49:00 - [7] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. Yep fare enough they should just restrict it to 1 armor hardener 1 shield hardener per fit. Caldari Loyalist. buff swarms... D
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5585	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:58:00 - [8] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. Yep fare enough they should just restrict it to 1 armor hardener 1 shield hardener per fit. Or just fix the actual problem with is a focus on passive HP regeneration. Return active Repairers/Boosters and you'll see all of these issues evaporate. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3005	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:05:00 - [9] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: I like the idea, but I still feel that double hardeners is not balanced. And derpty don't listen to Godin nor argue with him no where near worth it XD. Yes, because I've yet to be as unreasonable and reactionary as possible, right? Coming from the one that entered the post with "** no. Just stop" I sat for 5 minutes typing up why this idea was ***** silly. Then I realized that he's made several silly ideas of this caliber, and decided to not bother, and to tell him that he really does need to stop making these silly ass ideas, or at least think them through. Pokey said pretty much what I was going to say anyways, just in a shorter format. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3005	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:06:00 - [10] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. Yep fare enough they should just restrict it to 1 armor hardener 1 shield hardener per fit. And that solves what exactly? Yea, nothing. It turns hardeners into a powerup, not a actual tool to work off of. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:09:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. More hp for a period of time, vs less hp all the time. Currently a hardener = about as much health as an extender, but only for a brief period of time, however with reps you're healing a lot more damage per second than if you have an extender. So this will allow people to still do that, but it wont last as long, making extenders worth the consideration.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:12:00 - [12] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And that solves what exactly? Yea, nothing. It turns hardeners into a powerup, not a actual tool to work off of. Bro, just make a "I want op tanks" thread already, we get it. Ads shouldn't damage tanks... AV shouldn't damage tanks... Other tanks shouldn't damage tanks... Large blasters can't hit anything (Duna goes 30+ kills a match, and he's not even a good tanker, lol.)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5585	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:18:00 - [13] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. More hp for a period of time, vs less hp all the time. Currently a hardener = about as much health as an extender, but only for a brief period of time, however with reps you're healing a lot more damage per second than if you have an extender. So this will allow people to still do that, but it wont last as long, making extenders worth the consideration. Pretty much. You can remain pretty much perma hardened with 2 complex hardeners, and I think that's fine. However with passive reps, as long as the effective rep rate is high enough, you don't need buffer because the rep rate makes up for a lack of buffer through sheer damage mitigation. If reps however are on a timer, you're going to need more buffer because you will have downtime where you're repping very little (natural armor reps only) so having that plate will be neccesary. You could theoretically fit 2 active reps but they don't last long enough to rep constantly, so you would still be left with downtime and even less buffer. Active reps force a tradeoff and mixture of raw HP, damage resistance, and repping capabilities. Passive reps and resistances pretty much kick ass currently because together their damage mitigation is extremely high with no downtime. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:21:00 - [14] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. More hp for a period of time, vs less hp all the time. Currently a hardener = about as much health as an extender, but only for a brief period of time, however with reps you're healing a lot more damage per second than if you have an extender. So this will allow people to still do that, but it wont last as long, making extenders worth the consideration. Pretty much. You can remain pretty much perma hardened with 2 complex hardeners, and I think that's fine. However with passive reps, as long as the effective rep rate is high enough, you don't need buffer because the rep rate makes up for a lack of buffer through sheer damage mitigation. If reps however are on a timer, you're going to need more buffer because you will have downtime where you're repping very little (natural armor reps only) so having that plate will be neccesary. You could theoretically fit 2 active reps but they don't last long enough to rep constantly, so you would still be left with downtime and even less buffer. Active reps force a tradeoff and mixture of raw HP, damage resistance, and repping capabilities. Passive reps and resistances pretty much kick ass currently because together their damage mitigation is extremely high with no downtime. I personally think active reps would just force more of the boring camp the redzone and wait 'strategies' rather than actually being out there in the field. currently you can drop these tanks if you're faster than them activating the hardener, but once it's on, that's it... I don't see how making them activate 2 modules changes the current trend.
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3005	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:26:00 - [15] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. More hp for a period of time, vs less hp all the time. Currently a hardener = about as much health as an extender, but only for a brief period of time, however with reps you're healing a lot more damage per second than if you have an extender. So this will allow people to still do that, but it wont last as long, making extenders worth the consideration. Pretty much. You can remain pretty much perma hardened with 2 complex hardeners, and I think that's fine. However with passive reps, as long as the effective rep rate is high enough, you don't need buffer because the rep rate makes up for a lack of buffer through sheer damage mitigation. If reps however are on a timer, you're going to need more buffer because you will have downtime where you're repping very little (natural armor reps only) so having that plate will be neccesary. You could theoretically fit 2 active reps but they don't last long enough to rep constantly, so you would still be left with downtime and even less buffer. Active reps force a tradeoff and mixture of raw HP, damage resistance, and repping capabilities. Passive reps and resistances pretty much kick ass currently because together their damage mitigation is extremely high with no downtime. I personally think active reps would just force more of the boring camp the redzone and wait 'strategies' rather than actually being out there in the field. currently you can drop these tanks if you're faster than them activating the hardener, but once it's on, that's it... I don't see how making them activate 2 modules changes the current trend. That is a problem with the redline, not the reps, or the HAV. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5586	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:28:00 - [16] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: I personally think active reps would just force more of the boring camp the redzone and wait 'strategies' rather than actually being out there in the field. currently you can drop these tanks if you're faster than them activating the hardener, but once it's on, that's it... I don't see how making them activate 2 modules changes the current trend. We've had active reps for a long time before moving to passives and it was never an issue. You relied on hardeners and your plates/extenders to tide you between cycles of repair, and it worked just fine. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:33:00 - [17] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: That is a problem with the redline, not the reps, or the HAV. The redline is going nowhere, we've got new maps, the playable area on a lot of maps shrank instead of increasing. I'm taking this to mean we're stuck with it, therefore we have to work around it. Pokey Dravon wrote: We've had active reps for a long time before moving to passives and it was never an issue. You relied on hardeners and your plates/extenders to tide you between cycles of repair, and it worked just fine. A lot has changed since then, also a lot was changed because of a lack of balance. Were hardeners 40% back then?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5586	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:34:00 - [18] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: That is a problem with the redline, not the reps, or the HAV. The redline is going nowhere, we've got new maps, the playable area on a lot of maps shrank instead of increasing. I'm taking this to mean we're stuck with it, therefore we have to work around it. Pokey Dravon wrote: We've had active reps for a long time before moving to passives and it was never an issue. You relied on hardeners and your plates/extenders to tide you between cycles of repair, and it worked just fine. A lot has changed since then, also a lot was changed because of a lack of balance. Were hardeners 40% back then? Hardeners were 25% and skills offered an additional 10% naturally. So Hardeners were 35% for Armor, effectively. Shields were 30% and also had a 10% from skills, so hardeners were 40% for Shields, effectively. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3005	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:45:00 - [19] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: That is a problem with the redline, not the reps, or the HAV. The redline is going nowhere, we've got new maps, the playable area on a lot of maps shrank instead of increasing. I'm taking this to mean we're stuck with it, therefore we have to work around it. And therefore let's not fix actual things, let's just break it even more? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:51:00 - [20] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: That is a problem with the redline, not the reps, or the HAV. The redline is going nowhere, we've got new maps, the playable area on a lot of maps shrank instead of increasing. I'm taking this to mean we're stuck with it, therefore we have to work around it. And therefore let's not fix actual things, let's just break it even more? Therefore let us work within the confines we are given. If I could personally change the redlines and make the maps less simple to camp, I would... But we've tried, we've suggested, we've pleaded... But we got nothing. It's logic, once one path closes you move a different direction.

Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3008	Posted - 2015.03.26 06:03:00 - [21] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And that solves what exactly? Yea, nothing. It turns hardeners into a powerup, not a actual tool to work off of. Bro, just make a "I want op tanks" thread already, we get it. Ads shouldn't damage tanks... AV shouldn't damage tanks... Other tanks shouldn't damage tanks... Large blasters can't hit anything (Duna goes 30+ kills a match, and he's not even a good tanker, lol.) I've given several nerf suggestions for HAV's, so I don't know wtf you're talking about. The first statement is false, as I've never said that. I've said that they shoudln't be killing HAV's like a HAV can kill a HAV, yes, but those two things are nowhere near the same thing. Never said that. Never said that either. Never said that either. You going to keep asserting what I've said? Or are you going to stop being a little ***** and get off your high horse. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4402	Posted - 2015.03.26 10:13:00 - [22] - Quote 2 AV shots and the hardener turns off. Pointless Are you trying to kill vehicles off completely? 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...''
Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2811	Posted - 2015.03.26 10:32:00 - [23] - Quote No stacking of hardeners. Problem solved. He ******* hard is that? If there were identical modules for infantry, they wouldn't be stackable. Home at Last <3
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood 225	Posted - 2015.03.26 11:17:00 - [24] - Quote Well, that's just a PG/CPU expensive extender or plate... Next, what about dropships! a good example is when you're actually using a well built Myron or Grims? All that happens is SWARMS and i need a pickup i know people who double harden their Myron for pickup/drop-off situations. Saying we can't stack hardeners wouldn't be fair for the other fitting limited/lower "effectiveness" vehicles. There is also a stacking penalty for hardeners, it's not like it roams free like extends or plates. Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7721	Posted - 2015.03.26 11:48:00 - [25] - Quote The idea is bad. I cannot count the number of ways I, or any other dedicated AV player could use this idea as a method for making HAVs the rough equivalent of trying to use a logi as a primary slayer in the current meta. In PC. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3137	Posted - 2015.03.26 12:13:00 - [26] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 2 AV shots and the hardener turns off. Pointless Are you trying to kill vehicles off completely? 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 Of course they are, you know this. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3137	Posted - 2015.03.26 12:16:00 - [27] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. Yep fare enough they should just restrict it to 1 armor hardener 1 shield hardener per fit. Then infantry gets no more than two of anything. No more than two plates (reactive and ferroscale count). No more than two reps (reactive plates count towards this). No more than two damage mods, kincats, regulators, extenders, rechargers and energizers count as one, no more than two eWar mods each, etc. Two can play at this game, if you want to go down that road. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3137	Posted - 2015.03.26 12:17:00 - [28] - Quote Of course another absolutely terrible vehicle-breaking idea bandied about on here that wasn't thought out at all, and was probably at best a fuzzy dream just before waking up. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3137	Posted - 2015.03.26 12:22:00 - [29] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And that solves what exactly? Yea, nothing. It turns hardeners into a powerup, not a actual tool to work off of. Bro, just make a "I want op tanks" thread already, we get it. None of us have ever said that. Ads shouldn't damage tanks... Or that AV shouldn't damage tanks... Or that Other tanks shouldn't damage tanks... This is what we prefer, by a huge margin. Large blasters can't hit anything (Duna goes 30+ kills a match, and he's not even a good tanker, lol.) He isn't a good tanker, and his squads entire purpose is to look out for him to keep his tank alive. Not to push the objective, or take an objective, it's to look out for his sorry arse. If there's 5 people making sure you don't get destroyed, as well as calling out infantry, of course he'll get a ton of kill each and every single match. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3137	Posted - 2015.03.26 12:23:00 - [30] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Isn't a module that soaks up damage and then stops working once its soaked up a certain amount of HP.....just be a Shield Extender or Armor Plate? You're more or less describing a hardener as an HP module that has finite amount of damage it absorbs before damage starts to hurt the rest of the vehicle. More hp for a period of time, vs less hp all the time. Currently a hardener = about as much health as an extender, but only for a brief period of time, however with reps you're healing a lot more damage per second than if you have an extender. So this will allow people to still do that, but it wont last as long, making extenders worth the consideration. Pretty much. You can remain pretty much perma hardened with 2 complex hardeners, and I think that's fine. However with passive reps, as long as the effective rep rate is high enough, you don't need buffer because the rep rate makes up for a lack of buffer through sheer damage mitigation. If reps however are on a timer, you're going to need more buffer because you will have downtime where you're repping very little (natural armor reps only) so having that plate will be neccesary. You could theoretically fit 2 active reps but they don't last long enough to rep constantly, so you would still be left with downtime and even less buffer. Active reps force a tradeoff and mixture of raw HP, damage resistance, and repping capabilities. Passive reps and resistances pretty much kick ass currently because together their damage mitigation is extremely high with no downtime. If we get active reps and AV is kept as is, then both hulls will be relegated to staying in the redline and sniping infantry. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 947	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:36:00 - [31] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: The first statement is false, as I've never said that. I've said that they shoudln't be killing HAV's like a HAV can kill a HAV, yes, but those two things are nowhere near the same thing. An ads shouldn't be able to kill a HAV like a HAV kills another HAV... Which they never have been able to, yet you wanted it nerfed more. ads can't damage the Madruga, which is a HAV, which you say is fine, which makes me think you don't want ads to be able to damage a HAV, which is in fact the only way to make sure an ads can't kill a HAV. So I could care less if you haven't directly said it, it's implied. I'm more than happy to just assume what your agenda is, hence asking you to just come out and say it and save us all the bullshit. Also, you're in Negative-Feedback, if nothing was OP, what exactly would be left for your corp to do? Might as well just change the corp name to flavour of the month spam.
Gabriel Ceja Ready to Play 101	Posted - 2015.03.26 18:33:00 - [32] - Quote This problem with hardeners would be so much simpler if they went ahead with limiting one hardener per fit. "Throw on the flux capacitor." activates fuel injector "WOOOOOO!!!"
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5588	Posted - 2015.03.26 20:29:00 - [33] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: If we get active reps and AV is kept as is, then both hulls will be relegated to staying in the redline and sniping infantry. I love how you can make that assertion without any knowledge of the stats of said active reps. You have no idea idea how much HP they would rep per second, how long they last, or how fast they cool down, so how can you possibly know how they will perform against AV when you lack all of the critical data needed to understand how well they perform? You yourself scream constantly "EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN CHROME!" where active modules were the primary means of HP regeneration. I'm sure you'll counter with "BUT AV IS SO MUCH STRONGER NOW!" shrugs sure, but again you have no idea what the stats of potentially new active modules are, so they would be need to be stronger than they were in Chrome as well. So which is it? Do you want the system to work like chrome with active modules, or keep what we have now? You can't seem to make up your mind, so pick one or the other and stick with it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17845	Posted - 2015.03.26 21:22:00 - [34] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If we get active reps and AV is kept as is, then both hulls will be relegated to staying in the redline and sniping infantry. I love how you can make that assertion without any knowledge of the stats of said active reps. You have no idea idea how much HP they would rep per second, how long they last, or how fast they cool down, so how can you possibly know how they will perform against AV when you lack all of the critical data needed to understand how well they perform? You yourself scream constantly "EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN CHROME!" where active modules were the primary means of HP regeneration. I'm sure you'll counter with "BUT AV IS SO MUCH STRONGER NOW!" shrugs sure, but again you have no idea what the stats of potentially new active modules are, so they would be need to be stronger than they were in Chrome as well. So which is it? Do you want the system to work like chrome with active modules, or keep what we have now? You can't seem to make up your mind, so pick one or the other and stick with it. More to the point I don't see how. You would essentially have the same rep/sec value per module in the case of armour tanks, however only for as long as the module itself lasts. 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 7722	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:03:00 - [35] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If we get active reps and AV is kept as is, then both hulls will be relegated to staying in the redline and sniping infantry. I love how you can make that assertion without any knowledge of the stats of said active reps. You have no idea idea how much HP they would rep per second, how long they last, or how fast they cool down, so how can you possibly know how they will perform against AV when you lack all of the critical data needed to understand how well they perform? You yourself scream constantly "EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN CHROME!" where active modules were the primary means of HP regeneration. I'm sure you'll counter with "BUT AV IS SO MUCH STRONGER NOW!" shrugs sure, but again you have no idea what the stats of potentially new active modules are, so they would be need to be stronger than they were in Chrome as well. So which is it? Do you want the system to work like chrome with active modules, or keep what we have now? You can't seem to make up your mind, so pick one or the other and stick with it. More to the point I don't see how. You would essentially have the same rep/sec value per module in the case of armour tanks, however only for as long as the module itself lasts. I'm actually pretty certain he's just trying for the gold in the DUST 514 troll category, honestly. The only other explanations involve clinical diagnoses of insanity that I'm not certified to give. AV
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3009	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:39:00 - [36] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: No stacking of hardeners. Problem solved. He ***** hard is that? If there were identical modules for infantry, they wouldn't be stackable. That doesn't solve jack **, it actually hurts players who want to keep their speed up. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17846	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:43:00 - [37] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: No stacking of hardeners. Problem solved. He ***** hard is that? If there were identical modules for infantry, they wouldn't be stackable. That doesn't solve jack **, it actually hurts players who want to keep their speed up. Eh.... I think the fact that in Dust players can get away with fitting 2x Hardeners over a Plate is a pretty stupid aspects of gameplay. If we did have Cap in this game 2x Active Hardeners would never be sustainable...EVER. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3009	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:44:00 - [38] - Quote blub click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5588	Posted - 2015.03.26 23:11:00 - [39] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If we get active reps and AV is kept as is, then both hulls will be relegated to staying in the redline and sniping infantry. I love how you can make that assertion without any knowledge of the stats of said active reps. You have no idea idea how much HP they would rep per second, how long they last, or how fast they cool down, so how can you possibly know how they will perform against AV when you lack all of the critical data needed to understand how well they perform? You yourself scream constantly "EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN CHROME!" where active modules were the primary means of HP regeneration. I'm sure you'll counter with "BUT AV IS SO MUCH STRONGER NOW!" shrugs sure, but again you have no idea what the stats of potentially new active modules are, so they would be need to be stronger than they were in Chrome as well. So which is it? Do you want the system to work like chrome with active modules, or keep what we have now? You can't seem to make up your mind, so pick one or the other and stick with it. More to the point I don't see how. You would essentially have the same rep/sec value per module in the case of armour tanks, however only for as long as the module itself lasts. Well that's sort of what I was going for with a change to Shield Boosters. They have a slightly higher HP/minute than Armor repairers, don't rep constantly but can access the regeneration in large chunks on demand. Kind of like I expressed to Breakin via Skype, even if we don't get rid of these damned passive armor reps, we can at the least make shields more viable in terms of repping power through boosters The general idea is basically this: Armor has a slow natural regen (30HP/s) that can't be interrupted Shield has a high natural regen (166HP/s) that can be interrupted Armor Repariers provide moderate HP/minute regen that can't be interrupted. Shield Booster provide a higher HP/minute regeneration that doesn't run constantly, but can be accessed on demand in large chunks. It's more efficient because armor repairers essentially 'waste' HP regen when they're at full armor and not being shot at...Shield boosters on the other hand can access that regeneration when they need it meaning they will typically get better performance and efficiency over repairers. It requires more skill and planning to pilot a shield vehicle under those conditions but unfortunately until we get proper active armor repairers, it's just going be easier to pilot armor due to fewer modules to manage. At the very least revamping the shield booster is far more viable as a short term fix since it doesnt require any large changes to code, simply updating the cooldown and HP bonus values. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17847	Posted - 2015.03.26 23:20:00 - [40] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If we get active reps and AV is kept as is, then both hulls will be relegated to staying in the redline and sniping infantry. I love how you can make that assertion without any knowledge of the stats of said active reps. You have no idea idea how much HP they would rep per second, how long they last, or how fast they cool down, so how can you possibly know how they will perform against AV when you lack all of the critical data needed to understand how well they perform? You yourself scream constantly "EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN CHROME!" where active modules were the primary means of HP regeneration. I'm sure you'll counter with "BUT AV IS SO MUCH STRONGER NOW!" shrugs sure, but again you have no idea what the stats of potentially new active modules are, so they would be need to be stronger than they were in Chrome as well. So which is it? Do you want the system to work like chrome with active modules, or keep what we have now? You can't seem to make up your mind, so pick one or the other and stick with it. More to the point I don't see how. You would essentially have the same rep/sec value per module in the case of armour tanks, however only for as long as the module itself lasts. Well that's sort of what I was going for with a change to Shield Boosters. They have a slightly higher HP/minute than Armor repairers, don't rep constantly but can access the regeneration in large chunks on demand. Kind of like I expressed to Breakin via Skype, even if we don't get rid of these damned passive armor reps, we can at the least make shields more viable in terms of repping power through boosters The general idea is basically this: Armor has a slow natural regen (30HP/s) that can't be interrupted Shield has a high natural regen (166HP/s) that can be interrupted Armor Repariers provide moderate HP/minute regen that can't be interrupted. Shield Booster provide a higher HP/minute regeneration that doesn't run constantly, but can be accessed on demand in large chunks. It's more efficient because armor repairers essentially 'waste' HP regen when they're at full armor and not being shot at...Shield boosters on the other hand can access that regeneration when they need it meaning they will typically get better performance and efficiency over repairers. It requires more skill and planning to pilot a shield vehicle under those conditions but unfortunately until we get proper active armor repairers, it's just going be easier to pilot armor due to fewer modules to manage. At the very least revamping the shield booster is far more viable as a short term fix since it doesnt require any large changes to code, simply updating the cooldown and HP bonus values. Native reps also need to die in a fire. Armour Repairers can continue to be as effective as they are now in terms of raw numbers. Lets assume at with Armour Repairs V a Heavy Efficient Active Armour Repairer heals 414 HP (base value plus skill modification) every 3 seconds for a duration of 15 seconds. Total HP Repaired : 2070 Effective Repairs Per Second : 138 (exactly the same as out current 137.5) Duration: 15 seconds Also consider that with core upgrades you might gain an additional 3.75 seconds of additional module duration which amounts to one extra pulse. Total HP Repaired: 2484 Effective Repairs Per Second : 138 Duration: 18.75 Seconds 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 5590	Posted - 2015.03.26 23:29:00 - [41] - Quote I don't disagree with you True, but Rattati is set on some of those ideas despite objections so I'm just rolling with them. I think if we can at least establish what an appropriate HP/minute is for both armor and shields, then it really comes down to a matter of how much uptime and downtime for each. Currently its at both extremes, armor is 100% uptime and 0% downtime, where shield boosters are essentially ~1% uptime and ~99% downtime. If we focus more on HP per minute we can more easily transition into armor having less uptime and more downtime, and shields having more uptime and less downtime. Regardless, we can still balance them against one another at the very least, even if we need to eventually move to a more moderate and less extreme uptime/downtime balance between the two. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 423	Posted - 2015.03.27 00:15:00 - [42] - Quote Fix shield tanks first. QQ nerf armor tank later.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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