Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BL4CKST4R
WarRavens League of Infamy
820
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 10:45:00 -
[601] - Quote
Maybe if we do some butt kissing... |
zzZaXxx
The Exemplars Top Men.
122
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 22:21:00 -
[602] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:zzZaXxx wrote:Bonuses should work like ship bonuses in EVE. You have your racial tank bonus (Caldari & Minmatar - Shields, Amarr & Gallente - Armor) and then you have your bonus which is specific to that ship's role, i.e. +5% rate of fire, -10% capacitor usage, +10% drone HP and damage, +5% max velocity. So all Cal and Min medium, light, and heavy should have a different shield bonus, and all Amarr and Gallente a different armor bonus. Then each suit has a bonus for it's specific role, which could be tank, weapon, fitting, speed, or scan related.
Regulators should be kept in low slots so shield tankers can focus fully on shields if they wish, but armor tankers need a high slot module to give them that option too. And I think we need to explore how armor modules can be make armor tanking equally effective before we give huge buffs to to of the races to solve its UPness for them, because that would pigeonhole armor into two races and shields into the other, whereas balanced modules and suit stats would make one more effective on each suit but wouldn't rule out the other as a secondary option. By different tank bonuses do you mean like Assault gets efficacy and Scout repair? I see where this is going but keep in mind that let's say a Caldari scout and a Gallente scout come face to face, technically their HP will be the same or the Gallente will be lower since the Gallente didnt get an efficacy bonus, that Gallente scout should have 25% more HP than the Caldari when both equally focused on tank. A different tank bonus should be applied after the 25% bonus, if not then some role suits will be balanced while others will remain UP.
By tank bonus I mean some kind of bonus to either shields or armor, depending on faction. I agree armor tanks should have more HP, slower (but dynamic) rep, and slower movement but we have to keep in mind that each change ripples out to affect other aspects. For example if they're able to fix hit detection so that strafing back and forth doesn't make you immune to bullet spray then movement speed will be less of a factor. Also the armor modules need to be reimagined, so talking specifics about suit bonuses is moot until that happens.
Another thing to keep in mind is that standard and advanced suits perform very differently from prototype, and most people run advanced, myself included. (I won't get to proto for a while.) Balancing everything based on proto may imbalance advanced. |
Killar-12
Intrepidus XI EoN.
237
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 22:54:00 -
[603] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:Maybe if we do some butt kissing... You know the difference between a butt kisser and a brown noser?
Here's an update to my thread on Armor/Shield tanking |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
102
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 23:42:00 -
[604] - Quote
I've been thinking. I think armor isn't hard enough to skill into a good fit with.
Consider shield extenders. 22hp, 33hp, 66hp at complex. It really encourages you to use complex extenders.
Consider armor plates: 65hp, 87hp, 115hp at complex, with increasing penalties. It actively discourages using complex plates.
If the armor plates were 65hp, 97hp and 195hp with a flat 3% speed penalty, it would encourage armor suits to actually expend CPU and PG on. |
Draco Cerberus
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
205
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 00:21:00 -
[605] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:I've been thinking. I think armor isn't hard enough to skill into a good fit with.
Consider shield extenders. 22hp, 33hp, 66hp at complex. It really encourages you to use complex extenders.
Consider armor plates: 65hp, 87hp, 115hp at complex, with increasing penalties. It actively discourages using complex plates.
If the armor plates were 65hp, 97hp and 195hp with a flat 3% speed penalty, it would encourage armor suits to actually expend CPU and PG on. I agree with you, there really needs to be less of a movement penalty as the amount of DPS on the individual increases seemingly exponentially with the larger movement penalties. As an alternative to a buffer tank I believe we need to have some more options with our fittings in the way of armor and shields. Here is my thread expanding on this point of view https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=95980&find=unread |
Killar-12
Intrepidus XI EoN.
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 00:33:00 -
[606] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:I've been thinking. I think armor isn't hard enough to skill into a good fit with.
Consider shield extenders. 22hp, 33hp, 66hp at complex. It really encourages you to use complex extenders.
Consider armor plates: 65hp, 87hp, 115hp at complex, with increasing penalties. It actively discourages using complex plates.
If the armor plates were 65hp, 97hp and 195hp with a flat 3% speed penalty, it would encourage armor suits to actually expend CPU and PG on. Here's an extension of that idea |
Draco Cerberus
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
206
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 00:50:00 -
[607] - Quote
Killar-12 wrote:SponkSponkSponk wrote:I've been thinking. I think armor isn't hard enough to skill into a good fit with.
Consider shield extenders. 22hp, 33hp, 66hp at complex. It really encourages you to use complex extenders.
Consider armor plates: 65hp, 87hp, 115hp at complex, with increasing penalties. It actively discourages using complex plates.
If the armor plates were 65hp, 97hp and 195hp with a flat 3% speed penalty, it would encourage armor suits to actually expend CPU and PG on. Here's an extension of that idea I'm not sure I like the idea of an increased movement penalty for the size of suit I wear. Already a 3%-10% penalty is bad enough leading to really really slow moving mercs, I'd rather see the movement penalty reduced to the same level as the Basic armor plates and have a bigger visible signature on the Tac Net depending on level of armor plating. It is a big enough penalty already if only running basic armor and the light frame suits are meant to be speed tanked anyways, why give them a compounding bonus by making their plates less restrictive in movement, they are already the fastest suits on the battle field and have the smallest signature. Because the movement penalty is a percentage of base movement there is already a reduced movement penalty on the scout suits. |
Killar-12
Intrepidus XI EoN.
241
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 00:53:00 -
[608] - Quote
Draco Cerberus wrote:Killar-12 wrote:SponkSponkSponk wrote:I've been thinking. I think armor isn't hard enough to skill into a good fit with.
Consider shield extenders. 22hp, 33hp, 66hp at complex. It really encourages you to use complex extenders.
Consider armor plates: 65hp, 87hp, 115hp at complex, with increasing penalties. It actively discourages using complex plates.
If the armor plates were 65hp, 97hp and 195hp with a flat 3% speed penalty, it would encourage armor suits to actually expend CPU and PG on. Here's an extension of that idea I'm not sure I like the idea of an increased movement penalty for the size of suit I wear. Already a 3%-10% penalty is bad enough leading to really really slow moving mercs, I'd rather see the movement penalty reduced to the same level as the Basic armor plates and have a bigger visible signature on the Tac Net depending on level of armor plating. It is a big enough penalty already if only running basic armor and the light frame suits are meant to be speed tanked anyways, why give them a compounding bonus by making their plates less restrictive in movement, they are already the fastest suits on the battle field and have the smallest signature. Because the movement penalty is a percentage of base movement there is already a reduced movement penalty on the scout suits. Give armor scouts the ability to partially negate speed penalties letting them get away with using light plates Give shield scouts the ability to partially negate signiture penalties letting them get away with using light extenders
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 05:55:00 -
[609] - Quote
Bump. |
Dj grammer
Red Star. EoN.
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 06:07:00 -
[610] - Quote
bump |
|
Killar-12
Intrepidus XI EoN.
286
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 06:38:00 -
[611] - Quote
BAMP! |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 06:42:00 -
[612] - Quote
I'm going to miss my scrambler rifle being adequate once armor plates get fixed.
After that, I won't be able to get through the plates before I overheat. |
Killar-12
Intrepidus XI EoN.
286
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 06:45:00 -
[613] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:I'm going to miss my scrambler rifle being adequate once armor plates get fixed.
After that, I won't be able to get through the plates before I overheat. I'll run MD with you if you want |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:13:00 -
[614] - Quote
So far I'm resisting jumping on the flaylock bandwagon, but I'll do it if I have to. |
Kekklian Noobatronic
Goonfeet Top Men.
201
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 08:24:00 -
[615] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:I've been thinking. I think armor isn't hard enough to skill into a good fit with.
Consider shield extenders. 22hp, 33hp, 66hp at complex. It really encourages you to use complex extenders.
Consider armor plates: 65hp, 87hp, 115hp at complex, with increasing penalties. It actively discourages using complex plates.
If the armor plates were 65hp, 97hp and 195hp with a flat 3% speed penalty, it would encourage armor suits to actually expend CPU and PG on.
If shields had a penalty it wouldn't be so bad. But thinking up penalties for shields IS HARD GUYZ
Oh wait.
Your suit can only output so much shield recharge power. Smaller amounts of shields will recharge faster, tapering off to a smaller number the more shields past the base you put on. So stacking 5 extenders means that extra buffer takes an *increasingly long time* regen.
Oh snap, I guess it's not so hard after all to spitball ideas. |
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
5098
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 08:40:00 -
[616] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:Reactive plates: basically shield extenders (low HP, self repairing), but with less HP, and have movement penalty. Not only are the HP values lower than their shield counterparts, but their armor repair rates are so low (1 for STD & ADV, 2 for PRO) that they don't even come close to matching the shield recharge rate of the worst shield recharging dropsuit. Reactive plates need to have at least as much HP as their shield extender counterpart, or else you're just better off using shield extenders.
Ferroscale plates: They need to have more HP than their shield extender counterparts, they may not have movement penalty (neither do shields), but they still can't repair themselves unlike shields, so they should have more HP to make up for that.
The PG/CPU costs compared to the regular armor plates are terrible for the reactives and ferroscales; they have to sacrifice HP to get what little advantages they possess, increased fitting cost on top of that is unnecessary
My suggestions for the new armor plates specifically. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=91014 |
Draco Cerberus
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
209
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:39:00 -
[617] - Quote
The problems with the new plates are relatively small compared with the fact that rather than give us something that balances shield vs armor they just gave us another couple types of plating. Movement penalties are a natural attribute for armor but I still feel that the benefits from using the feroscale and reactive armors are small and the resistance plating/shielding that is used in EVE should be ported into Dust. This would allow us to just tweak our tanks however we want to be better at what we do. |
TheGoebel
Kite Co. Couriers
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:39:00 -
[618] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:I've been thinking. I think armor isn't hard enough to skill into a good fit with.
Consider shield extenders. 22hp, 33hp, 66hp at complex. It really encourages you to use complex extenders.
Consider armor plates: 65hp, 87hp, 115hp at complex, with increasing penalties. It actively discourages using complex plates.
If the armor plates were 65hp, 97hp and 195hp with a flat 3% speed penalty, it would encourage armor suits to actually expend CPU and PG on. Ha, so now we're in "it's so bad it's good" territory. Bigger plates did get a little bit more manageable with the ferro plates bug so you still will want to skill up.
And seriously, armor tanking is more skill intensive if you want to max out your tank. You have 3 necessary skill, armor tanking, plates and repair. Shields only need concern themselves with 2 to be as effective, shield tanking and shield extenders. The other shield skills are useful only if you use the connected modules, which most don't.
Draco Cerberus wrote:The problems with the new plates are relatively small compared with the fact that rather than give us something that balances shield vs armor they just gave us another couple types of plating. Movement penalties are a natural attribute for armor but I still feel that the benefits from using the feroscale and reactive armors are small and the resistance plating/shielding that is used in EVE should be ported into Dust. This would allow us to just tweak our tanks however we want to be better at what we do. I think what you're talking about here is resistance tanking. I believe the CCP party line on this is that there's no way for the attacker to know if his attacks are missing or are mostly being resisted. They don't know how to effectively portray that information so we're at a standstill there. |
xSir Campsalotx
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 07:47:00 -
[619] - Quote
Make shield extenders enlarge hit box size but once shields go down they return back to original size.
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention
1327
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 15:56:00 -
[620] - Quote
I'm still a major proponent of increasing the buffer provided by an armor tank as part of a fix.
Having said that here are some ideas (many already mentioned in this thread) that I think would combine well with buffer to near a fix on basic plates. With the basic type of armor mod fixed we'd have a baseline to balance the others around.
Changes to basic plates
- Increase total buffer HP offered
- Fix internal scaling so that the value of fitting the plates increased with meta level
- Normalize the movement penalty from plates and/or provide a 'honeycombing' skill to lessen impact
- Replace the speed penalty with a penalty to total stamina and/or stamina regeneration
- Move the speed penalty to a sprint penalty, thereby still limiting movement while not impacting basic functions
- Add a signature profile debuff
- Retouch CPU/PG fitting requirements to provide an even eHP per CPU/PG spent with shields. This must be eHP specific not HP because the innate regen of shields needs to be accounted for in mod balance.
Specific values have intentionally been omitted because many of these aspects interact heavily so their values will be interdependent. Giving suits with more armor stacked on them a higher presence on TacNet preserves some of the current play where armor tankers draw more fire thus relying on their buffer as opposed to the shield skirmish tactics. However drawing fire due to being seen more often creates less of a hard counter situation than the current stacked speed penalties which prevent taking cover, jumping over even small objects, correcting aim to engage a hostile etc.
Other options listed with a * are alternatives for handling the speed penalty and not specifically intended to be stacked. All three options for #3 are also geared to be less Dev intensive regarding new code and tools (although this effort is based on my own guesswork so may not be accurate).
I'd be very interested in thoughts on these ideas and other ways to deepen balance between the two tank types while maintaining clearly unique methods for each to accomplish their goal of enhancing survivability.
Cheers, Cross |
|
BL4CKST4R
WarRavens League of Infamy
842
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:53:00 -
[621] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:I'm still a major proponent of increasing the buffer provided by an armor tank as part of a fix. Having said that here are some ideas (many already mentioned in this thread) that I think would combine well with buffer to near a fix on basic plates. With the basic type of armor mod fixed we'd have a baseline to balance the others around. Changes to basic plates
- Increase total buffer HP offered
- Fix internal scaling so that the value of fitting the plates increased with meta level
- Normalize the movement penalty from plates and/or provide a 'honeycombing' skill to lessen impact
- Replace the speed penalty with a penalty to total stamina and/or stamina regeneration
- Move the speed penalty to a sprint penalty, thereby still limiting movement while not impacting basic functions
- Add a signature profile debuff
- Retouch CPU/PG fitting requirements to provide an even eHP per CPU/PG spent with shields. This must be eHP specific not HP because the innate regen of shields needs to be accounted for in mod balance.
Specific values have intentionally been omitted because many of these aspects interact heavily so their values will be interdependent. Giving suits with more armor stacked on them a higher presence on TacNet preserves some of the current play where armor tankers draw more fire thus relying on their buffer as opposed to the shield skirmish tactics. However drawing fire due to being seen more often creates less of a hard counter situation than the current stacked speed penalties which prevent taking cover, jumping over even small objects, correcting aim to engage a hostile etc. Other options listed with a * are alternatives for handling the speed penalty and not specifically intended to be stacked. All three options for #3 are also geared to be less Dev intensive regarding new code and tools (although this effort is based on my own guesswork so may not be accurate). I'd be very interested in thoughts on these ideas and other ways to deepen balance between the two tank types while maintaining clearly unique methods for each to accomplish their goal of enhancing survivability. Cheers, Cross
The only problem with this is that the buff needs to be large enough were stacking that extra low with a armor module makes a significant difference but doesnt actually hinder playability. The best way to resolve this is by providing a bonus to armor efficacy not higher than 40%, and a small bonus to base armor not higher than 60, along with passive repair to all suits nothing above 5. So basically it fixes armor.modules for all suits, but st the ssme time extends the usagr of them for srmor duits keeping them ontop as buffers at any level, even eithout stacking modules. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention
1328
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 01:19:00 -
[622] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:Cross Atu wrote:I'm still a major proponent of increasing the buffer provided by an armor tank as part of a fix. Having said that here are some ideas (many already mentioned in this thread) that I think would combine well with buffer to near a fix on basic plates. With the basic type of armor mod fixed we'd have a baseline to balance the others around. Changes to basic plates
- Increase total buffer HP offered
- Fix internal scaling so that the value of fitting the plates increased with meta level
- Normalize the movement penalty from plates and/or provide a 'honeycombing' skill to lessen impact
- Replace the speed penalty with a penalty to total stamina and/or stamina regeneration
- Move the speed penalty to a sprint penalty, thereby still limiting movement while not impacting basic functions
- Add a signature profile debuff
- Retouch CPU/PG fitting requirements to provide an even eHP per CPU/PG spent with shields. This must be eHP specific not HP because the innate regen of shields needs to be accounted for in mod balance.
Specific values have intentionally been omitted because many of these aspects interact heavily so their values will be interdependent. Giving suits with more armor stacked on them a higher presence on TacNet preserves some of the current play where armor tankers draw more fire thus relying on their buffer as opposed to the shield skirmish tactics. However drawing fire due to being seen more often creates less of a hard counter situation than the current stacked speed penalties which prevent taking cover, jumping over even small objects, correcting aim to engage a hostile etc. Other options listed with a * are alternatives for handling the speed penalty and not specifically intended to be stacked. All three options for #3 are also geared to be less Dev intensive regarding new code and tools (although this effort is based on my own guesswork so may not be accurate). I'd be very interested in thoughts on these ideas and other ways to deepen balance between the two tank types while maintaining clearly unique methods for each to accomplish their goal of enhancing survivability. Cheers, Cross The only problem with this is that the buff needs to be large enough were stacking that extra low with a armor module makes a significant difference but doesnt actually hinder playability. The best way to resolve this is by providing a bonus to armor efficacy not higher than 40%, and a small bonus to base armor not higher than 60, along with passive repair to all suits nothing above 5. So basically it fixes armor.modules for all suits, but st the ssme time extends the usagr of them for srmor duits keeping them ontop as buffers at any level, even eithout stacking modules.
I think I like where you're going with this (I'm doing three things so may have overlooked an aspect lol) would you mind elaborating a bit or providing an example case (I'm not worried about use of 'actual' numbers per se, just an example to make sure I'm properly following you, though if you have specific numbers those would be great too ).
Cheers, Cross |
TheGoebel
Kite Co. Couriers
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 05:01:00 -
[623] - Quote
xSir Campsalotx wrote:Make shield extenders enlarge hit box size but once shields go down they return back to original size.
I would say this solution would be fine but I propose another idea.
How about we don't punish either tank? |
BL4CKST4R
WarRavens League of Infamy
842
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:31:00 -
[624] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:BL4CKST4R wrote:Cross Atu wrote:I'm still a major proponent of increasing the buffer provided by an armor tank as part of a fix. Having said that here are some ideas (many already mentioned in this thread) that I think would combine well with buffer to near a fix on basic plates. With the basic type of armor mod fixed we'd have a baseline to balance the others around. Changes to basic plates
- Increase total buffer HP offered
- Fix internal scaling so that the value of fitting the plates increased with meta level
- Normalize the movement penalty from plates and/or provide a 'honeycombing' skill to lessen impact
- Replace the speed penalty with a penalty to total stamina and/or stamina regeneration
- Move the speed penalty to a sprint penalty, thereby still limiting movement while not impacting basic functions
- Add a signature profile debuff
- Retouch CPU/PG fitting requirements to provide an even eHP per CPU/PG spent with shields. This must be eHP specific not HP because the innate regen of shields needs to be accounted for in mod balance.
Specific values have intentionally been omitted because many of these aspects interact heavily so their values will be interdependent. Giving suits with more armor stacked on them a higher presence on TacNet preserves some of the current play where armor tankers draw more fire thus relying on their buffer as opposed to the shield skirmish tactics. However drawing fire due to being seen more often creates less of a hard counter situation than the current stacked speed penalties which prevent taking cover, jumping over even small objects, correcting aim to engage a hostile etc. Other options listed with a * are alternatives for handling the speed penalty and not specifically intended to be stacked. All three options for #3 are also geared to be less Dev intensive regarding new code and tools (although this effort is based on my own guesswork so may not be accurate). I'd be very interested in thoughts on these ideas and other ways to deepen balance between the two tank types while maintaining clearly unique methods for each to accomplish their goal of enhancing survivability. Cheers, Cross The only problem with this is that the buff needs to be large enough were stacking that extra low with a armor module makes a significant difference but doesnt actually hinder playability. The best way to resolve this is by providing a bonus to armor efficacy not higher than 40%, and a small bonus to base armor not higher than 60, along with passive repair to all suits nothing above 5. So basically it fixes armor.modules for all suits, but st the ssme time extends the usagr of them for srmor duits keeping them ontop as buffers at any level, even eithout stacking modules. I think I like where you're going with this (I'm doing three things so may have overlooked an aspect lol) would you mind elaborating a bit or providing an example case (I'm not worried about use of 'actual' numbers per se, just an example to make sure I'm properly following you, though if you have specific numbers those would be great too ). Cheers, Cross
I wrote a post about it https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1086580#post1086580, that along with the changes you posted above would be really good for all suits, and even better for armor tanks. Armor tanking suits always nerd to have more HP than their shield counterparts, the fact our HP is the same means that damage to us needs to be the same but it is not, and it should not, but we should have a reason to actually have so much damage incoming. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention
1330
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 03:54:00 -
[625] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:I wrote a post about it https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1086580#post1086580, that along with the changes you posted above would be really good for all suits, and even better for armor tanks. Armor tanking suits always nerd to have more HP than their shield counterparts, the fact our HP is the same means that damage to us needs to be the same but it is not, and it should not, but we should have a reason to actually have so much damage incoming. Thanks for the link, read and replied in thread.
I agree with you if we take some of the suggestions I compiled in my prior post as a way to attain internal mod balance for armor and then extended it via your suggestions from that thread we'd very likely be in the right ball park and only need to fine tune actual values past that point.
Cheers, Cross |
Text Grant
Planetary Response Organization
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 06:36:00 -
[626] - Quote
Are the devs just in denial about how much armor sucks or do they hate us? |
Gorgoth24Reborn
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 07:00:00 -
[627] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Are the devs just in denial about how much armor sucks or do they hate us?
The problem is that overpowered gets balanced before underpowered. CCP is still balancing flaylocks, log suits, contact nades, murder taxis, etc. trying to knock all the overpowered stuff into line. It's only after this that I see them taking a serious look at underpowered things. This is besides the token advance in armor tanking given in 1.2 which, let's face it, didn't improve armor tanking by leaps and bounds. |
Gorgoth24Reborn
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 07:08:00 -
[628] - Quote
+1 again
For the 1.2 update |
Text Grant
Planetary Response Organization
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 07:35:00 -
[629] - Quote
Gorgoth24Reborn wrote:Text Grant wrote:Are the devs just in denial about how much armor sucks or do they hate us? The problem is that overpowered gets balanced before underpowered. CCP is still balancing flaylocks, log suits, contact nades, murder taxis, etc. trying to knock all the overpowered stuff into line. It's only after this that I see them taking a serious look at underpowered things. This is besides the token advance in armor tanking given in 1.2 which, let's face it, didn't improve armor tanking by leaps and bounds. Or at all. It helped sheild tankers and commandos |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 14:06:00 -
[630] - Quote
Wolfman mentioned that MKB will have uncapped turn rate in 1.3 (or was it 1.4?)
Being able to wear heavy plates without gimping your turn rate would be an interesting change. I know I try to minimise my armour penalty mostly for the turn rate rather than the speed. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |