DUST Search - Buff vehicle damage mods = caldari tank useful, again

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Buff vehicle damage mods = caldari tank useful, again

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
CharCharOdell Shining Flame Amarr Empire 297	Posted - 2013.07.08 22:23:00 - [1] - Quote In Chromosome, Armor tanks whooped shields up close, and at a distance, a shield rail was king. This was because of the glitched damage mods and passive skills that could bring a saggy with a particle cannon up to 5000DPS, where a well tanked Surya would bring about 3k. It seemed like the shield tanks were OP by comparison, but that was not the case, as only at a distance would they match the Surya, and with the Surya's passive blaster skills, they were king of close range fighting. We need to bring these tanks back with the old damage skills so that shield tanks stand a chance. Caldari needs to be a better glass cannon. They need to be able to dish out more damage than any armor tank can handle, within reason, or they will never be a good investment. In fact, Caldari tanks are the superior frontline tanks vs infantry bc of their explosive resistance, and maddys, for the opposite reason, are the better tank killers. This needs to be completely switched around. We need Caldari tanks to be able to boost their passive damage by 50%, just like in Chromosome. Any infantry with an issue shouldn't have one, because you'll get one-shotted by a rail or missile (direct hits, only), either way. This is a tanker issue; it doesnt even affect AV either because it has nothing to do with more 'tank' on tanks. I want to hear from the armor tankers and shield tankers bc we both need our own niches to fill, and right now, it's armor or be gimped.
Sinboto Simmons SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 432	Posted - 2013.07.08 23:09:00 - [2] - Quote ..........are you off your head man
Nocturnal Soul Immortal Retribution 79	Posted - 2013.07.08 23:27:00 - [3] - Quote you do realize that armor tanks will use those mods to
CharCharOdell Shining Flame Amarr Empire 299	Posted - 2013.07.08 23:41:00 - [4] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: you do realize that armor tanks will use those mods to you also realize that armor tanks cannot passive tank, and therefore, to be powerful, must use as many low slots as possible to tank themselves. That means ONE heavy repper (as burning starts around 1700 HP) and one av nade does about 1700 damage, so then u have to fit one hardener, and a good amount of plates (180's or 120's will do)..... so no, no armor tank will fit that and survive vs a shield tank at any range. it didnt work in chromosome and it wont work now- especially with nerfed PG. Lol. i dare an armor tank to fit 3 dmg mods and take a hit.
CharCharOdell Shining Flame Amarr Empire 299	Posted - 2013.07.08 23:42:00 - [5] - Quote Sinboto Simmons wrote: ..........are you off your head man Do you not realize that the damage nerf hit shield tanks the hardest?
Sinboto Simmons SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 450	Posted - 2013.07.08 23:59:00 - [6] - Quote CharCharOdell wrote: Sinboto Simmons wrote: ..........are you off your head man Do you not realize that the damage nerf hit shield tanks the hardest? Yes I do, I was a tanker as well and I know that bringing back the:HOLY CRAP HE TWO SHOT A BOLAS tank ain't gonna help this game in any way especially with the larger maps we have now. 50% damage increase is insanity. The only thing it'll do is create chaos, encourage redlining, and get them the ban hammer twice as hard. I understand that shield tanks are struggling but this ain't the answer.
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY 394	Posted - 2013.07.09 00:08:00 - [7] - Quote At first I thought bringing the damage levles back to that of chromasome was a bad idea , but it was the high dammage that put shield tanks on par with armour tanks as our reps have been crap for a while now.
CLONE117 Planetary Response Organization 19	Posted - 2013.07.09 00:17:00 - [8] - Quote vehicle repper mods need to be fixed i have lost to many vehciles because of my repper not working right....
CharCharOdell Shining Flame Amarr Empire 300	Posted - 2013.07.09 00:46:00 - [9] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: vehicle repper mods need to be fixed i have lost to many vehciles because of my repper not working right.... then what's the difference between shield and armor tanks? face it: armor tanks will always be superior to shield tanks, unless we make them equal, in which case, there is no difference. shield tanks need to be glass cannons and armor tanks need to slay everything close range.
The Attorney General ZionTCD 223	Posted - 2013.07.09 02:08:00 - [10] - Quote Good ole Charlotte, only ever whining for your own stuff back. Why don't you just make a signature that lets everyone know that you not only want to redline snipe, but you also want 15k eHP to do it in. Yeah, that seems perfectly reasonable and not at all pathetic.

shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon DARKSTAR ARMY 263	Posted - 2013.07.09 09:50:00 - [11] - Quote I use both tanks now, but i would like to buff the defense or the shield regen rate of shield tanks instead of their damage. As i wrote yesterday on my post, i would like to have the shield energizer and the reactive plates on vehicles, this two modules would allow us some good fitting options.
Aizen Intiki Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 83	Posted - 2013.07.09 09:58:00 - [12] - Quote Why doesn't anyone ever listen to me? Am I a ******* Ghost or something?
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 208	Posted - 2013.07.09 14:40:00 - [13] - Quote Sinboto Simmons wrote: CharCharOdell wrote: Sinboto Simmons wrote: ..........are you off your head man Do you not realize that the damage nerf hit shield tanks the hardest? Yes I do, I was a tanker as well and I know that bringing back the:HOLY CRAP HE TWO SHOT A BOLAS tank ain't gonna help this game in any way especially with the larger maps we have now. 50% damage increase is insanity. The only thing it'll do is create chaos, encourage redlining, and get them the ban hammer twice as hard. I understand that shield tanks are struggling but this ain't the answer. I remember when I finally got my compressed particle cannon. I was scoring over 3000 WP per match because I could kill any Bolas and the vehicle that it dropped quickly. Then Uprising deployed one week later...
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY 410	Posted - 2013.07.09 14:58:00 - [14] - Quote It took you that long to get the particle cannon? When did you start tanking?
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY 410	Posted - 2013.07.09 15:07:00 - [15] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Why doesn't anyone ever listen to me? Am I a ******* Ghost or something? Because wed rather listen to someone much more sensible like sau Godin .
Sir Meode Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 694	Posted - 2013.07.09 15:14:00 - [16] - Quote When you cant out DPS the rep from a HAV then there is a problem, either with the Reppers or the damage from the other HAV. Now i think nerfing the repper isnt the way to go because Armour HAV are weak against the easiest AV weapons in game so you then have to look at increasing the damage done. I would like to see the damage increased but you also need to look at Shield survivability because if you increase damage across the board they will be even weaker than they already are. So its not just damage that needs a possible increase but also the effectiveness of Shield modules for HAV's.
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY 410	Posted - 2013.07.09 15:20:00 - [17] - Quote If say we had a heavy passive regen module that wod rais the passive regen somewhere between 70-120 hp persecond then shield tanks would be able to burst and buffer tank. I would happily give up a high slot for a heavy shield regenerator or possibly a heavy shield energiser possibly giving a reduction of 15% hp fir 300% passive regen as with current skills pasive is at aprox 26 so a heavy energiser with the stats I propose would rais it to 78 hp per second and that combind with the heavy boosters would make shield tanks more viable.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon DARKSTAR ARMY 268	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:08:00 - [18] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: If say we had a heavy passive regen module that wod rais the passive regen somewhere between 70-120 hp persecond then shield tanks would be able to burst and buffer tank. I would happily give up a high slot for a heavy shield regenerator or possibly a heavy shield energiser possibly giving a reduction of 15% hp fir 300% passive regen as with current skills pasive is at aprox 26 so a heavy energiser with the stats I propose would rais it to 78 hp per second and that combind with the heavy boosters would make shield tanks more viable. A shield energizere like the infantry already have.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 216	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:12:00 - [19] - Quote I'd like to give an alternate suggestion: Revert missile damage mods back to a 20% damage bonus like they were a long time ago and keep railgun and blaster damage mods at 10%. Hopefully this will give a bigger edge to a shield tank with missiles trying to assault an armor tank. Ony problem being PG and the lack of free low power slots to place even a single damage mod.
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY 420	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:26:00 - [20] - Quote shaman oga wrote: pegasis prime wrote: If say we had a heavy passive regen module that wod rais the passive regen somewhere between 70-120 hp persecond then shield tanks would be able to burst and buffer tank. I would happily give up a high slot for a heavy shield regenerator or possibly a heavy shield energiser possibly giving a reduction of 15% hp fir 300% passive regen as with current skills pasive is at aprox 26 so a heavy energiser with the stats I propose would rais it to 78 hp per second and that combind with the heavy boosters would make shield tanks more viable. A shield energizere like the infantry already have. That was my point good sir . Dont try and troll by pointing out what was intended to be .

CharCharOdell Shining Flame Amarr Empire 327	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:41:00 - [21] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: It took you that long to get the particle cannon? When did you start tanking? february, i got my first sica. kinda came to the scene a bit late.
CharCharOdell Shining Flame Amarr Empire 327	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:42:00 - [22] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: If say we had a heavy passive regen module that wod rais the passive regen somewhere between 70-120 hp persecond then shield tanks would be able to burst and buffer tank. I would happily give up a high slot for a heavy shield regenerator or possibly a heavy shield energiser possibly giving a reduction of 15% hp fir 300% passive regen as with current skills pasive is at aprox 26 so a heavy energiser with the stats I propose would rais it to 78 hp per second and that combind with the heavy boosters would make shield tanks more viable. this is a good idea.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 854	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:44:00 - [23] - Quote CharCharOdell wrote: Nocturnal Soul wrote: you do realize that armor tanks will use those mods to you also realize that armor tanks cannot passive tank,. You also realize that shield tanks cannot reasonably passive tank either. Give us modules which decrease shield boost amount, and greatly increase passive recharge, then we'll talk about passive tanking.
CharCharOdell Shining Flame Amarr Empire 327	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:46:00 - [24] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Good ole Charlotte, only ever whining for your own stuff back. Why don't you just make a signature that lets everyone know that you not only want to redline snipe, but you also want 15k eHP to do it in. Yeah, that seems perfectly reasonable and not at all pathetic. Oh, look, the general showed up to say something is a bad. idea, funny thing is that you're an armor tank and this would make shield tanks viable again. you get threatened pretty easily, dont you. it's hilarious. now go away.
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY 427	Posted - 2013.07.09 19:41:00 - [25] - Quote CharCharOdell wrote: pegasis prime wrote: It took you that long to get the particle cannon? When did you start tanking? february, i got my first sica. kinda came to the scene a bit late. I know your record food sir I was asking hypeja.
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 808	Posted - 2013.07.09 20:17:00 - [26] - Quote you i know i think i have fix to this. inceased CPU on armor modules that shouldn't be stacked, IE armor hardeners (i propose it have a CPU of 56&25 PG), armor repairers( i propose 40 CPU). this would basically get rid of the problem, dual armor hardeners with dual repairers. also with this change the armor adaptation from CPU to PG. this makes sense because active armor hardeners are 5-6X more effective the active shield hardeners so it should cost more in fittings then not less. if CCP is not willing to make that big of a jump(on CPU) then atleast 40CPU on hardeners and 80 PG(or something like it), maybe more like 140 PG or you know make it like active heat sinks where it makes the fit invalid.
CharCharOdell Shining Flame Amarr Empire 367	Posted - 2013.07.10 01:12:00 - [27] - Quote ladwar wrote: you i know i think i have fix to this. inceased CPU on armor modules that shouldn't be stacked, IE armor hardeners (i propose it have a CPU of 56&25 PG), armor repairers( i propose 40 CPU). this would basically get rid of the problem, dual armor hardeners with dual repairers. also with this change the armor adaptation from CPU to PG. this makes sense because active armor hardeners are 5-6X more effective the active shield hardeners so it should cost more in fittings then not less. if CCP is not willing to make that big of a jump(on CPU) then atleast 40CPU on hardeners and 80 PG(or something like it), maybe more like 140 PG or you know make it like active heat sinks where it makes the fit invalid. no, i dont like the idea of nerfing armor tanks bc i use those too. I want them to be equally effective. I have the same amount of SP into each so i see both sides of it and shield tanks either need to passive tank 100 hp/s all the time or damage mods need to do 20% again.
Aizen Intiki Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 122	Posted - 2013.07.10 01:44:00 - [28] - Quote That's what I was thinking: 100 HP is very reasonable for passive shield tanking.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 244	Posted - 2013.07.10 07:40:00 - [29] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: It took you that long to get the particle cannon? When did you start tanking? I was an extremely casual player up until a few weeks before Uprising. I would play several games at most during any one day. I've been tanking since I started in the closed beta about a year ago and had gone through at least a couple of resets. But my minimal gameplay had me at about 5mil SP when Uprising deployed.
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 846	Posted - 2013.07.14 02:06:00 - [30] - Quote bored so putting up some numbers to revive thread shield transporter heavy(it booster other vehicles) best one does 5895 armor repairer best on does 6210 light armor remote does 9300 light repairer 2325 heavy booster 1640 heavy armor remote 24850(yes that is correct btw 24.8k) light booster 635 just some general info to think about for everyone.

Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 250	Posted - 2013.07.14 08:35:00 - [31] - Quote ladwar wrote: bored so putting up some numbers to revive thread shield transporter heavy(it booster other vehicles) best one does 5895 armor repairer best on does 6210 light armor remote does 9300 light repairer 2325 heavy booster 1640 heavy armor remote 24850(yes that is correct btw 24.8k) light booster 635 light transport 2280 just some general info to think about for everyone. The remote armor reps do that MUCH?! I must check them out for myself when I get back... But if those numbers are true, then light booster < heavy booster < light transporter < light repairer < heavy transporter < heavy repairer < light remote rep < heavy remote rep Makes absolutely no sense.
Godin Thekiller Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 287	Posted - 2013.07.14 08:55:00 - [32] - Quote ladwar wrote: bored so putting up some numbers to revive thread shield transporter heavy(it booster other vehicles) best one does 5895 armor repairer best on does 6210 light armor remote does 9300 light repairer 2325 heavy booster 1640 heavy armor remote 24850(yes that is correct btw 24.8k) light booster 635 light transport 2280 just some general info to think about for everyone. Those numbers are awfully wrong.
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 848	Posted - 2013.07.14 09:10:00 - [33] - Quote Harpyja wrote: ladwar wrote: bored so putting up some numbers to revive thread shield transporter heavy(it booster other vehicles) best one does 5895 armor repairer best on does 6210 light armor remote does 9300 light repairer 2325 heavy booster 1640 heavy armor remote 24850(yes that is correct btw 24.8k) light booster 635 light transport 2280 just some general info to think about for everyone. The remote armor reps do that MUCH?! I must check them out for myself when I get back... But if those numbers are true, then light booster < heavy booster < light transporter < light repairer < heavy transporter < heavy repairer < light remote rep < heavy remote rep Makes absolutely no sense. yes but they rep(armor) over 60 second(armor repair are over 20 seconds) with shield transport booster over 15 seconds( pshh thats faster then booster for shields for less time while its just a slight boost for armor over a much longer time frame) remotes do more then self repairers/booster.
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 848	Posted - 2013.07.14 09:12:00 - [34] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: ladwar wrote: bored so putting up some numbers to revive thread shield transporter heavy(it booster other vehicles) best one does 5895 armor repairer best on does 6210 light armor remote does 9300 light repairer 2325 heavy booster 1640 heavy armor remote 24850(yes that is correct btw 24.8k) light booster 635 light transport 2280 just some general info to think about for everyone. Those numbers are awfully wrong. actually they are correct, its just not showing time frames for each with CDs. which make a bigger diffence in the remote booster/repairers. it also doesn't so the passive gains for shield over those time but you can your own math on that if you like.
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 940	Posted - 2013.07.14 09:29:00 - [35] - Quote I agree with increasing shield tanks' basic passive regeneration rates. Would certainly make missiles more worthwhile as they're still very effective outside blaster range, which means they can easily stay behind the frontline, but can't hide in the redline. The only thing that can stop a railgun tank in the redline is a forge gun atm. Now, if CCP removes the redline or at least pushes it back and limits boundaries with natural terrain, at least then there's always a way to get to those tanks hiding away. If we aren't going to change redline mechanics, implementing things which make hiding in it viable would just make the game even more painful for those who haven't invested in long-range weaponry. So, buff large missile turrets and shield tank passive regeneration. Using missile turrets will also alleviate problems with fitting around the extremely limiting PG of shield tanks too. I'm not going into infantry involvement much, but no one else really has either. So I feel it's worthwhile to mention here that this isn't just between tanks. Buffing vehicle damage mods means shield tanks can stand alone against armour tanks, but also means that infantry are going to get kittened if tankers start avoiding each other because their tanks are so balanced against each other, and only aim for other vehicles (our poor dropships, for instance) and infantry. Buff large missiles by giving them a tad bit more range and splash damage to be able to kite blasters (which involves constantly damaging them whilst staying out of range, but baiting/pulling them along to follow you, like a kite) and still be a threat to infantry. Furthermore, it appears their turret design should allow missiles to have better elevation angles than a railgun/blaster, which should be implemented to make them effective anti-air (for aircraft slower than dropships, when they're implemented) as well as effective when the tank is on a sharp downward slope (although if you're in this position you're going to get hurt). Shield tank passive regeneration should support usage of missiles, in that it's not so fast as to mean you don't need boosters, but it's fast enough that if you're only getting hit at the very limits of a blaster's range, you'll not need to pop a booster until much later (and won't have to at all if you have someone shield transporting you).
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 934	Posted - 2013.07.18 16:29:00 - [36] - Quote to rebring to light an issue thats still going on.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 286	Posted - 2013.07.18 18:24:00 - [37] - Quote ladwar wrote: to rebring to light an issue thats still going on. The announcement that came with the removal of free LAVs stated that they are working on it and will probably be deployed with 1.4 (I wish it was 1.3 because I won't be able to see 1.4 )


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.