|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
46
   |
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
So you're suggesting that AV grenades should should stay at current damage and make the light weapon, Swarm launcher, do less damage to tanks? This would make the AV grenade even more powerful compared to the Swarm Launcher.
AV grenades should do less damage to tanks. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:AV grenades should do damage. but as stated in my op, tanks armor should be adjusted, to gain more resistance to damage, so harderners dont put you up to 50-60%, they take you to you closer to 100%, meaning you can tank almost all AV when fully beafed up.
Get caught out and boom
This sounds ok. Also you should post something about shield tanking. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Also the resistances for the plates is a little too much. With those bonuses, an armor tank would not need to use active defense. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
I re-read the parts about the capacitor and better understand what you're proposing.
Since shield extender modules and armor plates would bring extra resistance with it, they would need to have low resistance with a stacking penalty so that people cant just only stack tons of 60mm plates or shield extenders for a ton of permanent resistance.
For example, 3 of those armor plates would give 30% damage reduction and with max armor upgrades, a tank would still have 40% damage reduction when their capacitor overloads.
Shifting over 6-7% resistance of shield extenders and armor plates to the active and passive hardeners would solve that problem. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Cyrille Fodeux wrote:There should be more different versions of AV nades though.
1. Basic AV nade: medium damage, targeting, the current one with less damage
2. higher damage, less throwing distance, no targeting, no splash
3. higher slpash rad and damage, targeting, less damage, also damages passengers
They would need to be used more tactical and would also give more variety. 1 is for fast vehicles, 2 for stronger vehicles, 3 for all
What you are suggesting more or less already exist in Dust.
1- AV grenade
2- Basically a Packed AV grenade
3- Sleek AV grenade. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:The-Errorist wrote:I re-read the parts about the capacitor and better understand what you're proposing.
Since shield extender modules and armor plates would bring extra resistance with it, they would need to have low resistance with a stacking penalty so that people cant just only stack tons of 60mm plates or shield extenders for a ton of permanent resistance.
For example, 3 of those armor plates would give 30% damage reduction and with max armor upgrades, a tank would still have 40% damage reduction when their capacitor overloads.
Shifting over 6-7% resistance of shield extenders and armor plates to the active and passive hardeners would solve that problem. But on 2nd thinking, I also mentioned this in last post/edit. When a tanks capacitor fails, maybe to stop the op nightmare it could create, all equiped items should fail, including plates. leaving you with just base skill resistances. Creating risk.
I didn't think you meant also plates. It doesn't really make sense for armor plates and shield extenders to fail too. EVE ships don't lose armor/shields from their plates and extenders when their capacitor fails, why should that happen in Dust? |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Cyrille Fodeux wrote:There should be more different versions of AV nades though.
1. Basic AV nade: medium damage, targeting, the current one with less damage
2. higher damage, less throwing distance, no targeting, no splash
3. higher slpash rad and damage, targeting, less damage, also damages passengers
They would need to be used more tactical and would also give more variety. 1 is for fast vehicles, 2 for stronger vehicles, 3 for all
For number 3 you have both higher damage and less damage. Anyway I support what you probably meant:
higher splash rad and targeting range, less damage, also damages passengers. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:"Disclaimer: Idea's could be very flawed"
fair enough. it is a work in progress though, just deleted them cells. I have a general Idea, my knowledge of eve is minimal, my friend was mentioning how capacitors would be better than PG/CPU reqs on tanks. I liked how it sounded, and I'm kinda interested on how to get that into dust instead of the lack luster sub par tanks available.
Just giving some friendly criticism to make the great idea better. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 07:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
As you stared, since its a PG/CPU replacement, having the just the resistance of plates/extenders only stay instead of keeping HP bonuses when the capacitor would need to recharge, would be good. Having it be based on what the cap would allow would make balancing easier. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
49
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 07:19:00 -
[10] - Quote
Aizen Intiki wrote:Lower the values of the resistances, trash your idea of how the cap should work, and get rid of PROTO AV until We get PROTO vehicles. Fixed the game vehicle side. Peace, Aizen 
I don't think proto vehicle are ever gonna come. Their probably just be standard and specialized versions of those vehicles, proto pilot suits, and proto modules for the suit.
Tanks and LAVs can already fit all proto stuff, so its like proto. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|