|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
248
   |
Posted - 2013.02.21 03:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tank Equipment
Currently tank fittings are very tight and the winning way is to have Rep+HP Buff combined with DamaMods if possible. There's no room for special variations or qimmicky equipment.
For example, it doesn't make sense to fit tracking enhancers/heat dissipators/etc over DamaMods. Damamods Rule.
So,
[SUGGESTION:]
Give tanks (+LAVs?) one equipment slot.
That could be fitted with, for example, the following but not limited to:
- Active Scanners
- Passive Scanners
- Mobile CRUs
- Mobile Supply Depots
- Tracking Enchancers
- Range Extenders
- Heat Buildup reducers
- Cooldown Quickeners
- Battering Rams/Meat Plows (which also clear mines)
But there should never, EVER, be vehicle equipments which
* give more HP/EHP
* Give more raw damage/rof
These effects should be among those closely balanced ones on hi/low slots which would mean tough decisions for fitters. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
248
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 03:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:That's the point of high slots
For armor tankers.
Try shields.
Having cru for example as a high slot module, you're unlikely every to see shield tanking cry utilizing tank. So no Mobile CRU's for caldari race, if exaggarated a bit.
EDIT: I find it impractical to create low- and hi-versions of every special module. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
248
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 17:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:Like armor tankers give up tank for damage mods the same should and does go for shields, working perfectly atm.
How would you fix the superiority of Damage Mods vs tracking enhancers and heat dissipators?
By just lessening the effect of DamaMods until others might make sense? Even with 1% damage bonus in most cases it would be preferable.
EDIT: I agree that current system is working yes - but not perfect. Perhaps it could be improved? |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
248
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 17:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
If there's a need to make you sacrifice EHP/DPS because of certain vehicle equipment, they could possibly be done by high PG/CPU cost.
The pro would be that the Eq (scanner for example) could be used by both armor and shield tanking vehicles.
This in turn would help keeping both tanking methods more balanced. (unless, of course, part of that balance is the purpose to give one tanking method better access to some strong equipment than the other) |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
248
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 00:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Its not called an equipment slot
In EVE its called a rig slot
The rig slots on a HAV i would say at least 2 to 3max - they can be used to increase shield/armor/rep rate/damage mods/turret upgrades etc
The downside is once you add a rig you cannot remove it unless you destroy it so you have to buy it again and also it add 10% to something like PG/CPU for mods which are similar and also has packing penalties
Please read my post again.
I know very well what rigs are. And what this idea's about is exactly the opposite of rigs.
Rigs are mostly used to buff both HP and DPS. Sometimes active tanking. So that's the very same thing everyones aching to maximise anyways. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
248
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 00:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:High pg/cpu cost would just nerf electronics and dps raisers for smaller vehicles, and i find that having certain things they can fit without sacrifing ehp would work against what CCP is doing in eve right now which is now as tiericide which is meant to funnel people away from using only certain ships. This would translate into dust by making the better form of tanking (currently armor) the only thing that people use for every situation.
You're very right about PG/CPU not being good balancing method when considering LAVs. |
|
|
| |
|