|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
xAckie
Ahrendee Mercenaries
EoN.
270
   |
Posted - 2013.07.24 08:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
there needs to be a look at module balancing and staking penalties for Logis specifically.
Logi suit is the go to suit for a very good reason. You can shield thank then:
stack speed and stamina modules and go shotgun and run faster and jump higher than a scout and carry equipment
you can carry equipment (remotes, nanohive, droplinks etc) while having shields and armour good enough for PC as an assault while attacking as an assault
just to name two possible routes.
reducing CP/ PG on suits just means logi assautls will carry one less equipment piece etc. But still focusing on slaying.
CCP could reduce a high slot to stop effective shield tanking. And /or something along the lines of forcing equipment to be carried in the slots - that are equivalent to the meta level of the weapon they are using. This would reduce the assault focus of the suit.
However:
The problem of the logi really came about when the remove the 2 equipment slots from the proto assault suit (to promote logi play) as it was felt why go logi when the assault can do it - in retrospect it was more balanced before. The differences / benefits between the two classes were not as distinct.
Assaults were assaults and logis were for healing. CCP might have had the balance right the first time... and an easier way to do it than the above tinkering.
the scout also had two equipment slots though this was at tier 3 I think. But then the scout suit is so broken in this game I dont know where to begin - I feel very sorry for them.
|
xAckie
Ahrendee Mercenaries
EoN.
270
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 08:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote:In general I agree the roles could be a bit more specific. But don't forget it's a sandbox game without classes so basicly you are not limited by a class in what you do. The only limits you have is your Dropsuit and your skill layout. And limiting Dropsuit in a class like system is not a good idea for a sandbox game.
If it was a sandbox game without classes we wouldnt have different class suits - but one suit frame from which you skill into different types of slots to build the suit however you want. But thats not what we have. We have fixed inflexible suits within a broken class system |
xAckie
Ahrendee Mercenaries
EoN.
270
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 13:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote:xAckie wrote:Korvin Lomont wrote:In general I agree the roles could be a bit more specific. But don't forget it's a sandbox game without classes so basicly you are not limited by a class in what you do. The only limits you have is your Dropsuit and your skill layout. And limiting Dropsuit in a class like system is not a good idea for a sandbox game. If it was a sandbox game without classes we wouldnt have different class suits - but one suit frame from which you skill into different types of slots to build the suit however you want. But thats not what we have. We have fixed inflexible suits within a broken class system We dont really have classes, what we have is equipment e.g. a dropsuit you skill into that suit and get some bonusses for this suit. Now you could do anything you want with that suit as long as you can fit the necessary stuff. If we ad real classes their would be restirictions and class exclusiv gear thats simply not the case. And for the Dropsuitfitting system is quite flexible.
if thats the case why are there dropsuits for: heavies, scouts, logis and assault classes - CCP call these suits classes because that is what they are.
The fact that there are different slots, pg cpu, etc are about creating/ entrenching that class structure.
Not having classes would be to have a vanilla suit and skill into L, H, S G slots etc and fit it as you please
as to restrictions on weapons equipment - well that would strengthen the class structure, I agree - it would most probably avoid the mess they are in now - but yes it would remove flexibility - unless you skill into more than 1 class.
Personally, the suits seem to have been thought about as if they were a vehicle class rather than infantry
|
|
|
| |
|