|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
   |
Posted - 2009.12.26 23:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Future Mutant on 26/12/2009 23:45:43
All the arguments about the shield regeneration are ridiculous- if your shields arent passive tank fit then it doesnt matter.
But how about this as a solution.
Since shields dont "fill up" the potential max is increased do the same to armor.
Instead of "filling up" the armor- increase its potential max. They would need to rep up to enjoy the benefits. Then armor tankers would be on an more even playing field in regards to fleet bonuses.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.01.27 22:13:00 -
[2]
I dont understand the reluctance on the part of csm. Having shield ships get zero ehp from gang bonuses is a problem- illustrated by the low amount of shield ships used in fleets compared to armor ships. The disparity is vastly increased whith shield tanked cap ships.
Ive read the csm logs- and theres not a lot of explanation of why they think its fine as is. I would like to see a post from a few other csm members explaining their position on this more clearly.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.01.31 23:11:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: wert668
You know, you can exploit what you suggest by micromanagement. If you get free HP you just need join and leave fleet repeatedly, this will cost CCP to make whole now way to count bonuses in order to prevent this, I really don't think they are going to do this just for you 
This was already brought up- and solved. Not sure if it was this thread or a similar one where the question was posed and answered. Its really not a huge deal. The tl/dr version- it wouldnt be necessary to recode anything other then the mechanics you wanted changed. The servers can easily be made to tell the difference between bonused ehp and ships ehp.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 05:39:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Aleena Doran
Edited by: Aleena Doran on 02/02/2010 05:00:42
I use shield gang boosts with my buddies and like them the way they are. We fly hisec and are not usually involved in war. Command ships are used when doing mission ops or cosmos sites etc. The recharge rate boost they give is much appreciated. We use a lot of passive shield tank ships. Having a command ship lets us introduce new players to team activities that would otherwise be too high risk for them.
I appreciate most of the earlier posters may be involved in nul-sec warfare. Fair enough. However please remember that that is just one segment of the Eve community. I think it is good that the various command ships have different functionality. The vulture is our command ship of choice for our hisec activities. I would be dissapointed if it lost the passive recharge bonus.
HI! you like pve and thats great- np. But since the actual problem (ie this thread) is about shield bonus disparity in fleet pvp situations- well it kind of makes your whole post mute.
Lets face it- pvp and pve are different. The ships are differently fit- the tactics are different. The average pve'er isnt using a cap ship for instance.
As for the pve "what if" it lost the fleet bonus to its passive tank. Really? How much difference are we really talking here? The things can damn near survive in any lvl 4 with full room agro.
In a perfect world everyone would realize that shield tanks have passive and active tanks going for them- and armor tanks have spider repping, better resists, better buffer going for them. The entire fleet bonus confusion is crap- In virtually 99% of pvp cases the passive recharge= donkey balls.
When was the last time someone jumped into a fleet fight and said "screw buffer, ive got 400 shield recharge per second".
The problem because game breaking obvious when you consider cap ships. You almost have to be semi ******ed to use anything that fires missiles anyway- on top of that you get the passive recharge rate of the average hollywood movie and no effective hitpoint bonus. Sure you get the "possibility" of those hitpoints- and if your fleet fight was scheduled to allow you ten mins to rep up after jumping into system then your fine. If not they you should have skilled up armor tanking and brought the right ship.
Tl/dr- the entire crap about its balanced because of passive recharge is **** and lets face it- everyone making the argument knows it. You can not honestly tell me a few extra hp's a sec passive recharge is of relative value to say- a ****load more ehp's. Not even close. *unless your one of those ****ing idiots that only flies a drake and then you can go **** yourself*
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 07:57:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Aleena Doran
I agree tactics and ship fittings are different for PVP and PVE activities.
As I understand it the proposal is to make a change to shield gang boosts to benefit PVP activities.
What I'm trying to point out is that this shouldn't be to the detriment of people who use shield gang boosts in PVE activities, where the passive recharge rate boost is very useful.
PVP and PVE are both valid activities in EVE.
I agree with you. Theres no reason the fleet bonus shouldnt give the passive shield regen bonus.
The fleet bonuses (and spidertanking mechanics) aside- shields and armor are more or less balanced between themselves. Meaning that neither one has a clear advantage over the other. In my opinion the shields should keep their bonused passive recharge and get the ehp's immediately from fleet bonuses.
Barring that- armor shouldnt get the effective hitpoint bonus. Then shields and armor would have to rep up to take advantage of the potential ehp's.
Even though this prolly wont make it past csm- this is something i hope ccp notices and considers for a future change.
|
|
|
| |
|