| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Piercing Serenity
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
1
   |
Posted - 2015.08.22 23:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
I started thinking about this idea after making a post on the fact that armor mods are over represented in low slots.
If you look at the the fitting requirements of shield extenders, you'll find the following:
Complex Shield Extender: 54 CPU / 11PG / 66HP
Complex Armor Plate: 37 CPU / 12 PG / 135 HP
Complex Ferroscale Plates: 23 / 8 / 75 HP
Complex Reactive Plates: 25 / 8 / 60 HP
Source: http://wiki.dust514.info/index.php?title=Armor_Plates
I'm of the opinion that shields were given fitting values after armor very early in development for the purpose of dissuading dual tanking. However, this leaves shield suits in a bad spot, as they just don't have the PG to fit everything that you need.
I think that armor mods would need to get a fitting requirement increase (PG specifically) first before I would be okay with that change to shield mods (CPU specifically). I believe that this will improve balance by dissuading dual tanking, as well as curbing armor tanks from stacking heavy armor and damage at the same time. If armor mods have higher PG costs, armor suits will need to run PG upgrades to sustain the same level of tankiness, which will necessitate reducing their damage output (AM suit). Galente suits would be able to retain their high damage, high reps model by utilizing more repairers than plates, and not needing to spend a slot on a PG upgrade.
Thoughts?
"For people who don't really do S**T, ya'll really doing the most"
Lv. 1 Forum Warrior
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 00:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Piercing Serenity wrote:
Thoughts?
Nothing's more useful than HP modules, and as such, they should rank among the hardest modules to fit. Shield Extenders are already there; Armor (especially ferro and reactive) is too easy to fit.
CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
|
Alena Ventrallis
Commando Perkone
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 01:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
I would rather buff the other modules til they become useful. That strategy has been working very well so far.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
|
Saint Winter
THE N.O.O.B.S
56
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 03:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Piercing Serenity wrote:
Thoughts?
I agree completely that high resource requirements for HP modules are the best way to manage/curb/prevent dual tanking. Seems to me like Shield Extenders are already there; Armor Plates (especially ferro and reactive) are arguably too easy to fit. I would absolutely support an increase in fitting requirements of all armor plates, though I'd propose Heavy frames somehow be given an offset to the increase. The offset could be implemented via a class bonus or (if possible) through the modules themselves, for instance: * Increase PG/CPU requirements of Ferro & Reactive Plates * Restrict Vanilla Plates to Heavy Frames (e.g. Heavies, Sentinels and Commandos) (or) * Increase PG/CPU requirements of Ferro and Reactive Plates * Double the movement penalty of Vanilla Plates * Add 50% movement penalty reduction to all plates when fit on Heavy Frames Thoughts?
Increase the value of PG and PA would not be bad, but for the bonus they give not think it worthwhile to increase.
Restrict armor plates to heavy frame , I say no, because here everyone can equip ourselves with what we want to adapt to the situation (either light, medium or heavy frame )
In addition to the penalty and how slow they are I do not think there's a problem.
But if you want to restrict armor plates to heavy, then, restrict the kinetic catalyzer to light.
Double the value of the penalty, I think not.
50% movement penalty for the armor plates, NOT exaggerate too much, I do not see heavy as a problem. |
Saint Winter
THE N.O.O.B.S
56
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 03:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:I would rather buff the other modules til they become useful. That strategy has been working very well so far.
That's a good idea, I like |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 05:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Saint Winter wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Piercing Serenity wrote:
Thoughts?
I agree completely that high resource requirements for HP modules are the best way to manage/curb/prevent dual tanking. Seems to me like Shield Extenders are already there; Armor Plates (especially ferro and reactive) are arguably too easy to fit. I would absolutely support an increase in fitting requirements of all armor plates, though I'd propose Heavy frames somehow be given an offset to the increase. The offset could be implemented via a class bonus or (if possible) through the modules themselves, for instance: * Increase PG/CPU requirements of Ferro & Reactive Plates * Restrict Vanilla Plates to Heavy Frames (e.g. Heavies, Sentinels and Commandos) (or) * Increase PG/CPU requirements of Ferro and Reactive Plates * Double the movement penalty of Vanilla Plates * Add 50% movement penalty reduction to all plates when fit on Heavy Frames Thoughts? Increase the value of PG and PA would not be bad, but for the bonus they give not think it worthwhile to increase. Restrict armor plates to heavy frame , I say no, because here everyone can equip ourselves with what we want to adapt to the situation (either light, medium or heavy frame ) In addition to the penalty and how slow they are I do not think there's a problem. But if you want to restrict armor plates to heavy, then, restrict the kinetic catalyzer to light. Double the value of the penalty, I think not. 50% movement penalty for the armor plates, NOT exaggerate too much, I do not see heavy as a problem.
Pretty sure you didn't follow. I'll reword later. Maybe :-)
CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
|
Georgia Xavier
Incorruptibles
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 23:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:* Double the movement penalty of Vanilla Plates
That would mean 8% penalty per module, a bit too much don't you think? Goal here is diversify low slot usage not fully eliminate a module is it not?
Click for an instant good day! (or atleast cheer you up a bit)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 01:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Georgia Xavier wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:* Double the movement penalty of Vanilla Plates
That would mean 8% penalty per module, a bit too much don't you think? Goal here is diversify low slot usage not fully eliminate a module is it not?
The proposed double penalty would only apply to Meds and Lights who opted to equip heavy plates. It might be a better idea to simply restrict heavy plates to Sentinels and Commandos.
Goals absolutely include diversifying low slot usage, but not at the expense of Heavy Frames.
CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
|
Georgia Xavier
Incorruptibles
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 01:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Georgia Xavier wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:* Double the movement penalty of Vanilla Plates
That would mean 8% penalty per module, a bit too much don't you think? Goal here is diversify low slot usage not fully eliminate a module is it not? The proposed double penalty would only apply to Meds and Lights who opted to equip heavy plates. It might be a better idea to simply restrict heavy plates to Sentinels and Commandos. Goals absolutely include diversifying low slot usage, but not at the expense of Heavy Frames.
Ah, makes sense,carry on then
Click for an instant good day! (or atleast cheer you up a bit)
|
Saint Winter
THE N.O.O.B.S
56
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 02:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Saint Winter wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Piercing Serenity wrote:
Thoughts?
I agree completely that high resource requirements for HP modules are the best way to manage/curb/prevent dual tanking. Seems to me like Shield Extenders are already there; Armor Plates (especially ferro and reactive) are arguably too easy to fit. I would absolutely support an increase in fitting requirements of all armor plates, though I'd propose Heavy frames somehow be given an offset to the increase. The offset could be implemented via a class bonus or (if possible) through the modules themselves, for instance: * Increase PG/CPU requirements of Ferro & Reactive Plates * Restrict Vanilla Plates to Heavy Frames (e.g. Heavies, Sentinels and Commandos) (or) * Increase PG/CPU requirements of Ferro and Reactive Plates * Double the movement penalty of Vanilla Plates * Add 50% movement penalty reduction to all plates when fit on Heavy Frames Thoughts? Increase the value of PG and PA would not be bad, but for the bonus they give not think it worthwhile to increase. Restrict armor plates to heavy frame , I say no, because here everyone can equip ourselves with what we want to adapt to the situation (either light, medium or heavy frame ) In addition to the penalty and how slow they are I do not think there's a problem. But if you want to restrict armor plates to heavy, then, restrict the kinetic catalyzer to light. Double the value of the penalty, I think not. 50% movement penalty for the armor plates, NOT exaggerate too much, I do not see heavy as a problem. Pretty sure you didn't follow. I'll reword later. Maybe :-)
Sorry to sound somewhat or very confident, but I really see no problem with the suit. |
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 03:03:00 -
[11] - Quote
Saint Winter wrote:
Sorry to sound somewhat or very confident, but I really see no problem with the suit.
Agreed completely. If we can protect Heavy Frames from blowback when nerfing Armor, I think we should. This is why I proposed making heavy frames immune to any increase in movement penalty to armor.
CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |