|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1929
   |
Posted - 2013.06.13 18:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
How the hell would a PG/CPU bonus work? What would that allow you to do that you can't now? |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1936
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 22:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:EXASTRA INVICTAS wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:How the hell would a PG/CPU bonus work? What would that allow you to do that you can't now? Fit stuff on HAVs. I think you missed the point. If it's the suit that's giving the bonus, how do you fit the stuff in the fitting window? The vehicle fitting window won't be able to account for the dropsuit that you'll be piloting it with.
Precisely. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1938
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 02:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Pilot suit is really synonymous with mechanized infantry. Lots of equipment, limited ammo, compact weapons and will have upgraded armor at the cost of dismounted mobility. Assuming we keep this crap frame system, they should be a heavy variant while the commando a light. Basically the opposite of what is planned. Anywho, here is what I would suggest as a "pilot suit" (bonuses affect both dropsuit and vehicle)
Heavy Frame - Pilot Xk.0
10% bonus to sidearm range/level
Ak.0
300/300
2/2/2/S/S/G
Heat buildup -5%/level
Gk.0
125/375
1/3/3/S/G
Sensor range +5%/level
Mk.0
275/175
3/1/3/S/G
Equipment cooldown -5%/level
Ck.0
375/125
3/2/2/S/G
Shield recharge +5%/level
Just spitballing here, but I see no value in a light frame pilot suit besides making vehicles even more expensive and still being useless out of them. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1938
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 03:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Pilot suits won't need armor, as the wearer is safe inside of a vehicle. Plus, those bonuses are terrible for vehicles. Are you a pilot?
If the pilot suit has no purpose outside of a vehicle, then just buff the tanks directly. And yeah, you could say I know a thing or two about vehicles. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1938
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 03:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pilot suits won't need armor, as the wearer is safe inside of a vehicle. Plus, those bonuses are terrible for vehicles. Are you a pilot? If the pilot suit has no purpose outside of a vehicle, then just buff the tanks directly. And yeah, you could say I know a thing or two about vehicles. This would apparently imbalance the vehicles.
But wasting 3M+ SP more for something necessary to bring them up to snuff makes sense? |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1939
|
Posted - 2013.06.15 16:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
RINON114 wrote:Pilots should be paper thin outside of their vehicles otherwise people will use them in place of regular combat dropsuits. You could allow them increased functionality with equipment slots but why would they need them?
That would be the damn point. If they aren't combat suits, then just buff the hulls and scrap the "pilot" suit. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1939
|
Posted - 2013.06.15 16:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
EXASTRA INVICTAS wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:RINON114 wrote:Pilots should be paper thin outside of their vehicles otherwise people will use them in place of regular combat dropsuits. You could allow them increased functionality with equipment slots but why would they need them? That would be the damn point. If they aren't combat suits, then just buff the hulls and scrap the "pilot" suit. I can't be the only one facepalming right now, right guys?
No, if you seriously think a dropsuit that is useless outside of a vehicle is something useful to vehicle specialists, you are mistaken. If the bonuses are "must have" and the dropsuit is useless otherwise, then you might as well just bump the vehicle command tree cost and buff the hulls directly. That would at least save us from yet another potentially unbalancing variable and have the exact same effect on gameplay. |
|
|
| |
|