|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
IamBeastx
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of repppers.
I see no changes to buffer fits, we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists.
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold. |
IamBeastx
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:You said "The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus " Then you said "1600s Still get the benefit of the new skill." Which is it?
Read his post again.
Some plates have a decreased mass penalty.
All plates have a new appropriate skill to further reduce mass penalty.
|
IamBeastx
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:This makes the hyperion very hard to fit, also your new mod is not as good as two faction reps. I have to say, the speed > powergrid penalty swap thing does appear likely to blow a crap ton of armor fits off the table. Bye bye to anything but the tiniest guns on any armor fit at all. One thing, I really cannot see a reason why you would fit 2 vanilla reppers rather than a ancil and a vanilla. Like, sure it will rep a bit less once it runs out of charges but surely its massively worth that?
Increased PG issues from active tanking a Hyperion AND increased cargo space needed for cap boosters to run the AAR, no thanks.
|
IamBeastx
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed? |
IamBeastx
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:IamBeastx wrote:So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed? It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction. There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it. You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.
While i appreciate (and endorse) the removal of the speed penalty, in the shield vs armor debate, i and others still see the loss of PG (and therefore theoretically a DPS loss through smaller weapon usage) not a good thing overall.
Read it, still asking about trimarks/resist rigs (non active armor rig) changes, if not, why not.
Your looking to increase active armor tanks options, but without any idea of what cap booster sizes are needed, or how many fit in the AAR, we can only guess at how much space we lose to AAR cap boosters. Also in the shield vs armor debate, the AAR does seem to lack the same punch as ASB which does not use cap AND cap boosters to achieve its potential.
The plates change is very nice. The new rig is potentially interesting and powerful.
You asked for feedback and i gave it, theres no need for snide comebacks in a legitimate conversation.
|
|
|
|