| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1036
   |
Posted - 2012.09.15 02:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tanks 2.0 ideas GÇô Give them diversity and purpose. Easier to let them be good as specific things then all things at once.
GÇóSmall and large turrets should be optional
GÇóRemote reppers should use a turret slot (small or large)
GÇóIntroduce equipment slots (call them mids if you want). Now it would be better to just make current high slots mids like in eve and make the new items high slots. ThatGÇÖs just me being nerdy though
GÇóEquipment slots will be where turrets, cpu upgrades, power grid upgrades, weapon upgrades, remote reppers, and specialty equipment like cru.
GÇóEach hull should have multiple role bonuses based upon skill levels
GÇóEach tank needs to have resists for shield and armor for damage type applied and listed on hull. There should be appropriate hull bonuses based on race
GÇóIntroduce rigs into tanks. As in eve it allows for further customization and bonus for the tanks
GÇóTank support skills should be tier 2. Example vehicle engineering should require engineering level 5 to start. I would leave turret and vehicle skills as they are high already
GÇóTanks can be used solo but the effectiveness of them with full crew should be given bonus of sorts
Example 1
Caldari logi tank GÇô really good remote rep ability, avg ehp, low damage, better than avg speed and agility.
Hull bonus = 5% Remote Shield Amount per level of Caldari HAV. 5% Remote shield rep rang per level of Caldari HAV
Highs 5 GÇô 1DCU, 1 passive shield resist module, 1 large shield extender, 1 shield booster, 1 Remote Rep shield amp (new item to give bonus rr turret)
Mids 6 - (1 large turret, 2 small turrets) Large shield remote rep turret, 2 small missile turrets, 1 cpu upgrade, pg upgrade, cru
Lows 3 GÇô 2 nano mod, 1 armor resist mod
Rigs 3 and 400 calibration GÇô 2 remote rep cycle time reduction (15% each and apply stacking penalty). Only 2 of the 3 rig slots used because each of these rigs cost 200 calibration each.
Example 2
Caldari offensive tank GÇô Anti tank/installation that is high alpha, avg dps, high burst resist/tanking, avg ehp, above average speed/agility.
This is a hit and run fit.
Hull bonus = 5% large turret ROF increase, 5% reduction in active hardener cool down per level of Caldari HAV
Highs 5 - 1 large shield extender, 1 active shield hardener, 2 passive shield recharges, 1 passive shield resist.
Mids 6 GÇô 1 large missile turret, 1 small missile turret, 1 small rail gun, 2 damage mods, 1 cpu upgrade
Low 3 GÇô 2 nano, 1 armor resist.
Rigs 3 and 400 calibration GÇô 1 turret damage rig +10% (200), 1 shield cycle reduction -20%(150). Only 2 rigs fit here
More examples to come.
Things you like? Things you don't like? Need to get your troll on? Discuss! |
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
328
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 02:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Some nicetohaves but nothing that would make the tank less solo. |
dent 308
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
967
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 02:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Regarding Tanks and Balance.
I think these recent AV / tanks changes are short term science.
The introduction of more advanced ewar will throw these balances into disarray once again and we will repeat this process with more variables.
The eternal conflct of man vs machine(run by other man) will continue. |
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1036
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 02:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Telcontar Dunedain wrote:Some nicetohaves but nothing that would make the tank less solo.
you probably hate puppies too  |
Skytt Syysch
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 02:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:GÇóEquipment slots will be where turrets, cpu upgrades, power grid upgrades, weapon upgrades, remote reppers, and specialty equipment like cru.
I like all of these ideas, but the one I've quoted I have an issue with for one reason - I don't think the turrets and turret upgrades should fight for room in the same slot type. I think the weapons should be how they are now in terms of their own slot, only you should be able to function with none of them if you want to free up fitting space (or create a super tanky transport), or swappable with remote rep turrets. |
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1036
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 03:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Skytt Syysch wrote:Free Beers wrote:GÇóEquipment slots will be where turrets, cpu upgrades, power grid upgrades, weapon upgrades, remote reppers, and specialty equipment like cru. I like all of these ideas, but the one I've quoted I have an issue with for one reason - I don't think the turrets and turret upgrades should fight for room in the same slot type. I think the weapons should be how they are now in terms of their own slot, only you should be able to function with none of them if you want to free up fitting space (or create a super tanky transport), or swappable with remote rep turrets.
This is actually for power balance.
In the exmaple i gave you have a beast of rr shield tank there was a more pressing need for additional cpu and pg to be used. You could trade out the cru, cpu upgrade, pg upgrades and put in damage mods. Now this may hurt what you can fit in your high or shields slots. Why you would want to do that in a logi tank when damage is secondary purpose i dont know, but you can. So let me come up with another example for you of a say damage tank.
will put in OP |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 04:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Your fits are beyond terrible, but I support many of the ideas in this thread (considering you cribbed some of them I better). Some modifications:
Reppers should always be small turrets, heavy reps just require more fitting (to the point you might ditch the main turret, but choice is key here).
Utility slots should be added, and rigs aren't a bad idea. I would call them highs and move shield stuff to proper mids, but that's just me being nerdy. Keep damage mods in the lows, move pg upgrades to the same slots as shields, and put equipment like crus, ammo depots, etc in the utility slots.
Your fits are really really bad lol. |
Ignatius Crumwald
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 03:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
I would like a tank that has a CRU that takes the place of the Main turret and one of the support turrets that has a reduced number of slots to keep it more of a utility vehicle than damage eater.
That way we can have a kind of APC without actually having to wait for them to get around making an APC. |
Sleepy Zan
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
2047
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 13:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
I like some of these ideas, its good to have someone with a different point of view on things. |
FatalFlaw V1
ISK Faucet Industries
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 13:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think there would be less crying about tanks if they just made vehicles used for anti-vehicle and anti-installation combat. You would bring in a tank to kill their installations or rep your own. The other team would bring in a tank to counter your tank.
With this role, large turrets and maybe smalls also would do far reduced damage to infantry. You would also have to nerf AV weapons back down since the tank would not be able to kill the infantry well at all.
I don't see them doing this though. I think we'll see either OP tanks, or useless tanks. It's just a difficult thing to balance, a vehicle vs infantry units.
|
|
|
Sleepy Zan
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
2047
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 13:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
FatalFlaw V1 wrote:I think there would be less crying about tanks if they just made vehicles used for anti-vehicle and anti-installation combat. You would bring in a tank to kill their installations or rep your own. The other team would bring in a tank to counter your tank.
With this role, large turrets and maybe smalls also would do far reduced damage to infantry. You would also have to nerf AV weapons back down since the tank would not be able to kill the infantry well at all.
I don't see them doing this though. I think we'll see either OP tanks, or useless tanks. It's just a difficult thing to balance, a vehicle vs infantry units.
I don't see the point in having a tank if its only purpose is to counter other tanks. |
Skytt Syysch
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 18:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sleepy Zan wrote:FatalFlaw V1 wrote:I think there would be less crying about tanks if they just made vehicles used for anti-vehicle and anti-installation combat. You would bring in a tank to kill their installations or rep your own. The other team would bring in a tank to counter your tank.
With this role, large turrets and maybe smalls also would do far reduced damage to infantry. You would also have to nerf AV weapons back down since the tank would not be able to kill the infantry well at all.
I don't see them doing this though. I think we'll see either OP tanks, or useless tanks. It's just a difficult thing to balance, a vehicle vs infantry units.
I don't see the point in having a tank if its only purpose is to counter other tanks.
Exactly what I was going to respond with. There's no reason to be the first person to bring out a tank if all it can do is kill other tanks. |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 18:57:00 -
[13] - Quote
Skytt Syysch wrote:Sleepy Zan wrote:FatalFlaw V1 wrote:I think there would be less crying about tanks if they just made vehicles used for anti-vehicle and anti-installation combat. You would bring in a tank to kill their installations or rep your own. The other team would bring in a tank to counter your tank.
With this role, large turrets and maybe smalls also would do far reduced damage to infantry. You would also have to nerf AV weapons back down since the tank would not be able to kill the infantry well at all.
I don't see them doing this though. I think we'll see either OP tanks, or useless tanks. It's just a difficult thing to balance, a vehicle vs infantry units.
I don't see the point in having a tank if its only purpose is to counter other tanks. Exactly what I was going to respond with. There's no reason to be the first person to bring out a tank if all it can do is kill other tanks.
That is all the current tank is fit for now after the hotfix hence why im the only one in the game with a tank
As for the ideas i only want rig slots tbh like in EVE with a calibration |
Encharrion
L.O.T.I.S.
Legacy Rising
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 20:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
Skytt Syysch wrote:Sleepy Zan wrote:FatalFlaw V1 wrote:I think there would be less crying about tanks if they just made vehicles used for anti-vehicle and anti-installation combat. You would bring in a tank to kill their installations or rep your own. The other team would bring in a tank to counter your tank.
With this role, large turrets and maybe smalls also would do far reduced damage to infantry. You would also have to nerf AV weapons back down since the tank would not be able to kill the infantry well at all.
I don't see them doing this though. I think we'll see either OP tanks, or useless tanks. It's just a difficult thing to balance, a vehicle vs infantry units.
I don't see the point in having a tank if its only purpose is to counter other tanks. Exactly what I was going to respond with. There's no reason to be the first person to bring out a tank if all it can do is kill other tanks.
I agree, however what if there were tanks that kill other tanks, and then tanks that kill infantry. The first person to bring in a tank would probably bring in an anti-infantry tank with a large missile turret to support their infantry against other infantry. The other team could then field a railgun tank designed to destroy other tanks, to take out the missile tank. The railgun tank would have limited ability to deal with infantry, so it would be countered by AV personnel.
Edit: The missile turret would have it's direct damage nerfed to limit it's effectiveness against other tanks. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |