Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 17:27:00 -
[31] - Quote
Eris Ernaga wrote:Severus Smith wrote:We already have Hull, we just don't see it. When we are bleeding out we have taken Hull damage (so our suits are nonresponsive) and when we die instantly its because the damage we took was more than our total Hull HP.
Thats why a grenade at your feet will insta-kill you while one a few meters away will put you in bleed out mode. Also why a sniper usually just puts you in bleed out, but if you had low armor will insta-kill you.
Vehicles work the same way. It's just that most AV weapons do enough damage to destroy the remaining armor and Hull in the last shot. But, vehicles that are at 0 armor but have some Hull HP left cannot move but their turrets can still fire. It's rare, but happens. that is not true at all there is nothing showing hull or saying hull even exist at this point. There are simply objects with tank and shield and no real indication that these objects even exist. Wait, so since you can't see it on the HUD it doesn't exist? Hull already exists, and has been talked about before, a long time ago. As I said, it is an invisible stat on our suits / vehicles that controls if we instantly die or go into bleedout (for suits) and (for vehicles) if it instantly explodes or is just rendered immobile until Armor burnout finishes it off. Go do some testing, it is there.
Now, if your asking to see it on the HUD, or increase it with Mods / Skills then awesome, no arguments here. But to say it doesn't exist, when it does (per my previous examples and many people's testing) is just plain wrong. |
Aeon Amadi
Maverick Conflict Solutions
1003
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 17:48:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:+1 for having a Hull bar.
-9000 for all the bull**** arguments in the thread. Act like civilized human beings. So you think having vehicles take no shield damage for collision is good? .... What in the absolute **** is with this 'community' and their ****ing assumptions, god it's like talking to toddlers... Let me spell it out for you since you obviously can't use context clues to save your life: +1 (meaning that I am supporting this particular feature) for (the action of) having (implementing the particular feature) a (self explanatory, but if you need me to explain this too I can) Hull (the chassis, the bit beneath the armor) Bar (a representation of the numerical Hit Point value) Where in the **** did you EVER see 'hell yeah let's make it to where shields don't take collision damage' FFS, I swear sometimes I feel like I'm the only son of a ***** with intellectual capability around here. All of the so called bull**** arguments against this thread were either misguided into thinking he wanted this to apply to infantry as well as vehicles or against having shields take no collision damage, which more than likely would mean you agree with that ******* idea. It's not much of an assumption jack*** if you completely ignore something that would become a problem.
Ah, you see there? Over-reaction breeds argumentation. Thereby, crafting another bull**** argument.
My theory was correct.
Calm down guys, just take a step back and look at how the person is speaking before you respond. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Intara Direct Action Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 18:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
EVE ship = Shield/Armor/Hull
DUST HAV = Shield/Armor/Dead
I agree with adding hull |
Eris Ernaga
Super Smash Bros Friends United Seeking Influence and Notoriety
26
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 09:19:00 -
[34] - Quote
Yes I think it would be smart if they stopped armor burn by adding in hull only hull would burn saving gallente vehicles that annoying pesky problems. Caldari vehicles don't get it so why should gallente once against part of the hole balancing thing CCP needs to do. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
398
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:04:00 -
[35] - Quote
To the top |
Thrillhouse Van Houten
Expert Intervention Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:44:00 -
[36] - Quote
Just completely remake vehicles...
Shield/Armor/Hull
Capacitor for module usage
High slots for weapons, medium slots for shield/cap mods, low slots for armor/hull/PG/CPU mods
Guns use cap, don't overheat
Get rid of turret damage modifiers (or make missile damage modifiers low and gun damage modifiers medium)
Ya know, I feel like I've seen this kind of vehicle set up before somewhere...
CCP had a system for vehicles already built for them, by them. Why the changes? To make vehicle fitting more like dropsuit fitting? WHY? Vehicle =/ Dropsuit.
If they thought the FPS crowd wouldn't be able to adjust to the "super complicated" vehicle fitting that Eve has then they could have always just restricted the number of vehicle and module types (like they already did). Silly move now that the chips are down.
|
Thor Thunder Fist
Better Hide R Die
81
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 06:06:00 -
[37] - Quote
Vermaak I am not agreeing with the no shield collision damage at all, but I think you may have read it wrong or they explained it wrong. my understanding of the proposal in the OP was that collision damage bypasses shield and goes straight into armor damage. I do agree with you that this would be yet another thing in favor of shield tanks and would be unbalanced though. I will support getting rid of armor burn and adding (visual) hull, lost too many shield tanks from either not having an armor repper and it catching fire(and me driving it to a safe zone only for it to blow up) or me have my rep tool on my suit jump out start reppin and some **** jumps in the tank, to not agree with that. |
Adstellarum
G I A N T
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:19:00 -
[38] - Quote
bump |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |