DUST Search - Suggestions on how to Improve Shield Tanking (Vehicles)

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Suggestions on how to Improve Shield Tanking (Vehicles)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 246	Posted - 2013.07.13 10:08:00 - [1] - Quote Throughout a long period of time, I've come up with many suggestions along with seeing many other suggestions for improving shield vehicles, particularly HAVs. I would like to make a nice list of any improvement that can be made. I want you all to discuss and provide feedback for any suggestion. Keep in mind that this list is simply a list of suggestions, and does not mean that every single one of them should be implemented. Yes, I am aware of the rules about making lists, but there are so many different suggestions and threads all over the place that I'd maybe like to combine them all into one thread about one topic: the imbalance between shield and armor tanking for vehicles. Buff shield boosters so that they can actually provide burst tanks. For example, rep 5000 shield in 5 seconds for the best heavy booster, then scale it down from there. Buff the duration on active shield hardeners. Perhaps 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off. Buff the resistances on passive shield hardeners. Perhaps 20% resists instead of 15% to make passive shield tanking more viable. Buff the acceleration on Caldari vehicles, but their top speeds will be unaffected and still lower than the Gallente vehicles. A buff to acceleration may also apply to turning speed as well. Buff missile turrets such that they become viable again. Currently they are inferior to blasters and railguns. Blasters are better against infantry and railguns are better for AV outside a blaster's range. A couple suggestions: add weak tracking abilities against vehicles to be more competetive against railguns and add airburst capabilities against infantry to be more competitive against blasters. Return the Engineering skill back to 5% more PG per level. This will free up the low slots on shield vehicles for damage mods. Make large railguns harder to fit on Gallente HAVs. Perhaps increase the CPU need of railguns. Also increase the CPU need for missiles so that railguns are still between blasters and missiles in fitting requirements. Buff the CPU output on Caldari HAVs to compensate for this increase in CPU need. Buff the base shield recharge rates on Caldari vehicles (all LAVs are excluded). Perhaps a base recharge rate of 50 hp/s. This will go well with the next suggestion. Add shield energizer modules for vehicles. Greatly increase shield recharge rates while slightly reducing max shield. Depending on how effective these modules are (say 100% boost to shield recharge rate), you will be restricted to using only one of these modules. Someone with no skills into shield recharge can thus get a shield recharge rate of 100hp/s (if the previous suggestion is implemented as well). That seems viable for a passive tank. Everything that comes to mind currently. If you have something you want to add to this list, just specify. If you already have a thread on any one of these suggestions, simply say which suggestion and give us a link to your thread. I will do my best to update this. Again, keep in mind that this is intended as a gathering place to talk about how to improve shield tanking for vehicles. Many of these suggestions are reasonable to be implemented, but I'm not saying that every single one has to be.
Godin Thekiller Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 262	Posted - 2013.07.13 10:19:00 - [2] - Quote Let's try this again, shall we?: I agree with everything but 5, 7, kinda on 8, and kinda on 9. They should make the splash damage although lower (no more than 20-40 damage), they should make the radius higher (2-3 meters on small turrets, and 3-6 meters on Large turrets overall); they should also make the missiles move faster, because they seem a bit slow. The CPU/PG models are fine imo for the turrets. Also, the passive regen needs to work like EVE, and needs to be although higher than now for base, lower than that. say 40, or 35. Lastly, I think that instead of the energizers taking shield away (coping the useless flux coils from EVE), they could take speed away. Peace, Godin
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 246	Posted - 2013.07.13 14:44:00 - [3] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Let's try this again, shall we?: I agree with everything but 5, 7, kinda on 8, and kinda on 9. They should make the splash damage although lower (no more than 20-40 damage), they should make the radius higher (2-3 meters on small turrets, and 3-6 meters on Large turrets overall); they should also make the missiles move faster, because they seem a bit slow. The CPU/PG models are fine imo for the turrets. Also, the passive regen needs to work like EVE, and needs to be although higher than now for base, lower than that. say 40, or 35. Lastly, I think that instead of the energizers taking shield away (coping the useless flux coils from EVE), they could take speed away. Peace, Godin I think we can have both shield energizers and shield flux coils. One will reduce total shields (flux coils) and the other will reduce top speed (shield energizers). It will depend on your gameplay. If you want to take more damage, take the shield energizer, but if you want better speed, take the shield flux coil. I'm fine with base recharge rates of 35 or 40 if passive regen works like in EVE, where adding shield extenders also helps improve recharge rate. But it would need to be carefully implememented so that it's not better to add an extender as opposed to a shield recharge booster. But I think fitting costs will take care of that. You'll just need to figure out if you want improved resistances or an improved recharge rate. Hehe, seems like we can't find a medium on splash damage for missiles. I personally think it should be relatively high because it's what missile users rely on most of the time to take care of infantry. Direct hits most often happen on bigger targets, such as installations and vehicles. Lower the splash damage to 20-40 damage and missile users will be almost helpless against infantry. But too much splash damage and it will be like in closed beta where missiles were the go-to turrets. I'll actually be fine if splash damage was lowered if airburst abilities were given. Since I rely on direct hits for AV, this won't change any AV gameplay.
Godin Thekiller Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 271	Posted - 2013.07.13 15:21:00 - [4] - Quote Fair enough.
Godin Thekiller Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 271	Posted - 2013.07.13 15:21:00 - [5] - Quote I wish Blam! was on the Fourms to discuss this with us as well
Meeko Fent Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 263	Posted - 2013.07.13 15:55:00 - [6] - Quote Plas One, except 2. I think that is an over buff, maybe 20 on, 30 off. Otherwise, my Plas One stands.
darkiller240 INGLORIOUS-INQUISITION 70	Posted - 2013.07.13 16:12:00 - [7] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Plas One, except 2. I think that is an over buff, maybe 20 on, 30 off. Otherwise, my Plas One stands. da fuc ??? you know armour have 60s on 15 off right? +1 to all of them
Lorhak Gannarsein DUST University Ivy League 61	Posted - 2013.07.14 14:12:00 - [8] - Quote buuuuuuuuump for righteousness.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 256	Posted - 2013.07.14 17:41:00 - [9] - Quote What do you guys think would put shield HAVs in the right direction? Are these suggestions balanced? How much aid do shield HAVs need? What do the devs think about these suggestions? Please, discuss!
darkiller240 INGLORIOUS-INQUISITION 74	Posted - 2013.07.14 19:17:00 - [10] - Quote Yes yes and yes i agree Shield Taking is UP

Crimson Judgment ROGUE SPADES EoN. 55	Posted - 2013.07.14 19:52:00 - [11] - Quote caldari pilot suit +15% to vehicle shield recharge rate per level. amarr pilot suit +2% to module active time per level
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 265	Posted - 2013.07.15 12:55:00 - [12] - Quote buuuuuump
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 266	Posted - 2013.07.16 02:46:00 - [13] - Quote Bump. Let's make shield tanks right
Aerion Spiritus Phaze O n e 46	Posted - 2013.07.16 04:40:00 - [14] - Quote change passive shield recharge on vehicles to the eve system where it recharges in a set amount of time no matter what. Add capacitor so managing that gets added in so active tanking and passive tanking can become 2 seperate tanking methods instead of the current 1 extender/plate and 1 booster/rep. And with that I conclude vehicles should also get the 5% pg bonus from engineering back as though tanks got hit a bit from that, LAVs are now impossible to put enough tank to survive a swarm launcher as well as chuck speed modules on it, Increase acceleration but lose tank. Increase tank but lose speed/acceleration.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 269	Posted - 2013.07.16 20:32:00 - [15] - Quote Aerion Spiritus wrote: change passive shield recharge on vehicles to the eve system where it recharges in a set amount of time no matter what. Add capacitor so managing that gets added in so active tanking and passive tanking can become 2 seperate tanking methods instead of the current 1 extender/plate and 1 booster/rep. And with that I conclude vehicles should also get the 5% pg bonus from engineering back as though tanks got hit a bit from that, LAVs are now impossible to put enough tank to survive a swarm launcher as well as chuck speed modules on it, Increase acceleration but lose tank. Increase tank but lose speed/acceleration. Thanks! I added #10 to the list as you reminded me about it. As far as capacitors go, I believe CCP is going to add them at some point.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 271	Posted - 2013.07.18 02:56:00 - [16] - Quote Bump. This is what CCP needs to see and read. Not all the rants and spam.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 321	Posted - 2013.07.21 16:14:00 - [17] - Quote Bump. We need this post now more than ever
Cosgar ParagonX 2905	Posted - 2013.07.21 16:18:00 - [18] - Quote 11. Make passive shield tanking viable for shield tanks.
marksmn Gespenster Kompanie Villore Accords 0	Posted - 2013.07.21 16:24:00 - [19] - Quote I would ne happy with just more pg cpu for my tank least i could fit some heavy boosters
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 325	Posted - 2013.07.21 18:21:00 - [20] - Quote Cosgar wrote: 11. Make passive shield tanking viable for shield tanks. Pretty much what points 3 and 10 are about



Pages: 1 :: [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.