Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 01:32:00 -
[91] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Scripts are an option imo but not for reppers thesmevles but for resitance modules.
Did't CCP say NEVERMOAR to scripts after the bitching in.... Rev2(?).... when they added current scripts? |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 01:48:00 -
[92] - Quote
Give active tanking a peak rep rate?
Most active repping only occurs at around the 50% mark for solo to mid-sized PvP anyway, so why does a rep need to give 100% of its ability 100% of the time?
We all agree that in organized warfare there are other ships involved and remote repping, so...
100% tank = 50% rep 50% tank = 125% rep 0% tank = 100% rep
The percentages should not go up or down in chunks but just be a scaling figure.
This gives an overall boost to repping and scales nicely across all rep types and hull classes.
Close range blaster PvP will lose out on approach to optimal, but when in optimal (and hopefully dealing damage with hybrid buff), they can reap the rewards of committing to the fight.
If they do not quite make it, then their survival goes up a few points, but ultimately pilots who have them outside the blaster optimal, but inside their optimal will kill them anyway - if they have fitted an anti-blaster setup.
The other idea I had on this (not in combination with the above) would be something along the lines of an after-effect for repping, in that modules activate and for a period of time (say, 3 seconds) the ship that activated the repairer will not take as much damage. It could also be calculated as a percentage.
So, if it takes 15 seconds for the modules to cycle, the first 20% of that cycle (3 seconds) the ship will not incur as much damage. Once again as it's a percentage, it scales across all modules and repairers.
This also means that if someone is dual-repping, they can time their reps and reap the rewards of it, but it should not multiple the effect of reduction if they time their reps incorrectly, bringing skill into the equation.
Don't know what the reduction in incoming damage should be, but 50-75 % would be interesting to measure.
AK GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002. |
Terminal Entry
New Fnord Industries
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 03:39:00 -
[93] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.
With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.
With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.
This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.
The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.
Making the armour repairer a mid slot module might go some way to helping to fix Blaster boats. It may need a lot of ships to be tweaked though....
Just a thought. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 03:59:00 -
[94] - Quote
Note: this is only my opinion. Not fact.
To me, active reps are not for large scale PvP, but rather small scale PvP and PvE content. Just like you would not use a freighter to mine with and a Hulk to carry ships around the galaxy.
Anyway, unless active reps are brought into overpowered proportions, a ship using such will not even finish its first cycle before dying to massive alpha. Again, my opinion. |
Sphit Ker
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 04:01:00 -
[95] - Quote
+1
On armor repairers : built-in +15% Omniresistances, affected by compensation skills
> Make this an active bonus, much like hardeners.
Capboosters charges volume : -50%
> Also make spent charges rechargeable while in space. SomehowGǪ Proximity to star?
---
Why do I even care? Because I've been there. Active taking in PVP sucks. There's nothing to account for the major pains of fitting such a setup. For it to be more than a vague attempt at not dying right away, it requires damn near EVERYTHING AT V along super awesome fleet boost bonus and combat boosters AND top-end modules. A-types and so on and even then that's still funny.
That's not right and you know it!
On the other hand, boosting active tanking could very well throw PVE tanks way beyond overpowered so there's that. |
Tamiya Sarossa
Hedion University Amarr Empire
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 06:10:00 -
[96] - Quote
Active tanking has a very effective niche in PvP - small gang action where it's valuable to appear to be losing a fight when you are not, in order to keep the maximum number of targets aggressed/on the field.
I seriously don't think a radical overhaul is needed, significantly boosted overheating bonuses would achieve the desired effect of giving active tanks an impressive burst tank and thus make them more competitive in survival time when primaried, while also not upsetting the current PvE balance. It's also easy to implement!
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
159
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 06:28:00 -
[97] - Quote
Check sig for fixes Ideas and CSM stuff No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
81
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 06:30:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.
With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.
With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.
This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.
The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP. Add or change the armor repping rigs so that instead of their drawback being mass added (slowing the ship) that local reppers consume more cap.
On ships like the brutix where it needs to close range, you're going to want the fight to be as short as possible anyway and having a cap booster with an active armor tank would achieve this.
This puts the choice into the player's hand: Do I want to rep more or rep faster and in both cases (nano acc / nano pump), consume more cap. Or do i want to go with a slower ship (trimarks/anti-RESISTANCE pumps) and be heavy buffered.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Roger Soros
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:28:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.
With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.
With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.
This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.
The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.
Simple solution 1) align the fitting cost of a armor reps to the corrispective plates 2) reduce armor reps cap consumption per circle 3) armor hitpoint repped need to be added at the start of the circle not at the conclusion 4) add a passive res bonus with stacking penalty to the module 5) insert stacking penalty to the amount of armor repped if more than 1 module is fitted and online 6) make overload not only increase the amount of armor repped but also remove the penalty (to counter incoming damage spike) 7) change armor rep booster rigs drawback to -10% armor hitpoint
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
188
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:38:00 -
[100] - Quote
simple fix, the more people locking on to a target, the longer it takes everyone else after to get a lock.
BAM active tanking is fixed. your welcome. |
|
Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:46:00 -
[101] - Quote
Talking about active tanking. Whoever that did construct the Brutix didn't have a clue, did he?
Few low slots combined with repping bonus + a weapon system that drains cap and don't have any range what so ever. Not even mentioning that the speed suck so bad you have probably use your MWD constantly.
All this for like 400 in defence with 2 reppers and 3 repping rigs? Even with navy cap booster 800 you can't keep your guns or your reppers going more than a few minutes.
I mean come on. Active tanking an armor ship means that you can't put any damage mods in. So IF you are inside the 1500 meters (optimals of Electrons) you can dish out 545 but the tracking will probably be aweful anyway.
Kite a battlecruiser at 5km is kind of big comedy in it self.
The repping power with this setup should, in my mind, be at least 800 |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
139
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 10:40:00 -
[102] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:...Another option is to use the heat system, but it's not hugely user-friendly and ends up with your reps being burnt out which is less cool. Which is kind of the point as we don't want active repair to remain viable as gang size goes up.
Thermodynamics is the only skill I consider mandatory for PvP and the first I recommend people get if they ask how to get started with bloodsports. The truly "gf" is practically always the one where two or three racks are deep in the red from heat .. where you and your ship have been pushed to the brink. What you seem to want is a mechanic that allows serial solo-pvp with no downtime in between fights which will be quite impossible to balance as it is multiplied ad infinitum by scaling .. there has to be a very real and very hard limit to the duration or you risk breaking a lot more than you fix.
MotherMoon wrote:simple fix, the more people locking on to a target, the longer it takes everyone else after to get a lock.
BAM active tanking is fixed. your welcome. And the mechanic will differentiate between friend and foe how exactly? You'd just have gangs with all but 2 lock slots used on each other to make an enemy take forever locking anything of value, surprised you haven't read all the times that idea was shot down Mother
Walextheone wrote:Talking about active tanking. Whoever that did construct the Brutix didn't have a clue, did he? ... It was king of the hill for the longest time thanks to that bonus, problem as with all things is that it got old .. it hasn't been updated since forever (same as other tier1 BCs) while stuff has been added and improved around it.
|
Heimdallofasgard
APEX ARDENT COALITION NEM3SIS.
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:08:00 -
[103] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:simple fix, the more people locking on to a target, the longer it takes everyone else after to get a lock.
BAM active tanking is fixed. your welcome.
oh god please no, I've been in quite a lot of large scale engagements (yes I kindof enjoy them sometimes! the massive fleet sizes, the slew of km's, the stressed out fc's and the possibility of caps dropping on you. amazing!) and this would destroy warfare at that scale, it'd pretty much make logi redundant as well..
As for scripts... maybe a single armour hardener with scripts for different damage types... CCP was it true that you guys hate scripts? if so... how comes? would be good to know :) |
mental maverick
Percussive Diplomacy
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 12:43:00 -
[104] - Quote
I completely agree with the PG/CPU issues with fitting an active tank and lowering the fitting requirerments would help out alot in making active tanking more viable.
Cap requirement is also an issue, especially with ships that have cap dependable guns which ironically both armor tanking races gallente and amarr have. Making cap charges smaller is one solution, reducing cap drain on active tank mods is another.
The current cap requirements also makes active tanks extremely vulnerable to neuts. Sure, making cap charges smaller will increase the time you can stay in a fight but it wont help much against neuts. I think someone mentioned something about a cap hardener and I really like that idea. . A module that will make you more resistant to cap warfare by reducing the amount of cap drained from your ship. Yes i know, yet another module for your tank, but still... I don' have much experience with larger fleets using RR and Triage carriers but from reading some of Lord Maldorors battle reports I take it that cap warfare is an important factor in breaking an enemy's RR..? Maybe someone with a bit more experience in that department care to comment on a possible cap hardener, would it screw up cap warfare on Logistics and Carriers in larger engagements?
There has also been some discussion in this thread about improving repping amount in an unsustainable burst to help deal with lots of initial dps and alpha. Currently overloading an armor repper gets you 10% to amount repped and 15% shorter cycle time. In my experience alot of active armor tanks struggle to be cap stable with cap boosters running and a lot of my personal fittings are not cap stable while overheating. A solution to the burst repping might be to Increase the overheating bonus to the cycle time. The increased cap usage and heat will prevent it from being sustainable for more than a short period of time.
And lastly, making active tanking viable in large fleet battles is not that important. As someone said earlier, active tanking has its niches where its used somewhat effectively, PvE and solo/small gang PvP. Trying to make everything fit into the mold of large scale warfare is not a good idea imo.
Disclaimer: I have lots of experience flying dual armor rep setups and not much with active shield tanks hence the focus on armor tanking in this post. |
Xavier Quo
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 13:46:00 -
[105] - Quote
how about a new kind of energized plating that turns a percentage of incoming damage into cap? |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 13:56:00 -
[106] - Quote
Xavier Quo wrote:how about a new kind of energized plating that turns a percentage of incoming damage into cap?
well i dont think cap is an problem for active armor tanking... The ammount of repaired damage at the time is just of no use, unless you use triple large armor rep hyperion. And eventhen X-large booster with boost amplifier will get the upper hand |
Lando Tarsadan
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:23:00 -
[107] - Quote
might be way off here and it might not scale or anything like that esp on small modules but one of my issues with active shielding/armor is either I get the HP at the start of the circle(shield) or at the end of the circle(armor)
What would happen if you lower the init shield HP repair to like 60 % of today and then gave the last 40 % (what ever numbers) over time before the next circle starts. and opposite with armor slowly build up tics til the boost in the end jump in. might even make it so the "slower" the module (large/x-large/cap) have it so its more like 30 % boost and 70 % over time and small modules have 80 % boost and 20 % over time.
Overload today increases speed. (correct me if im wrong dont often overload) could be on thies types of modules they also add to either boost or over time repair (script could be a way of handling this) and so forth. Might be a combo og active/passive
Dont know if it would work or not. but its an idea :D |
Xavier Quo
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:57:00 -
[108] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Xavier Quo wrote:how about a new kind of energized plating that turns a percentage of incoming damage into cap? well i dont think cap is an problem for active armor tanking... The ammount of repaired damage at the time is just of no use, unless you use triple large armor rep hyperion. And eventhen X-large booster with boost amplifier will get the upper hand
yeah, I just thought that addresses the scaling somewhat & makes a "role" fit for a ship that is going to encounter heavy dps, and in other situations it would be gimped - i.e. fit two or three reppers (or a heavy rep on a med ship etc) and the special plating, it can only really activate the repper(s) when damage is incoming without totally destroying its cap. it could also speed up rep cycle or whatever.
I think the situation we have now is decent for amarr mid/long range armour doctrine, but gallente close range doctrine needs something to protect them when they are moving into close range before firing. bit of tricky one really.
|
Something Random
The Barrow Boys
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 15:06:00 -
[109] - Quote
Apologies fif this has been mentioned.
Cant the rig system be used to improve this situation ? The main argument is that activ tanks take a minimum slot requirement to even start working properly, while buffer mods can be dropped in those slots with only improvement for each slot (none are redundant until the proper mod is slotted in)
What about rigs that are activ tank derived - require the activ tank skill sets, and balance those in as effective extra slots.
"caught on fire a little bit, just a little." |
Tellahane
X-Fleet RaVeN Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 15:33:00 -
[110] - Quote
Someone may have suggested this already, and I may have missed it but why not have the % resists increase on the active shield or armor reppers only apply when the module is active? you still then have a limited capacitor use, if you double up you can scale up the tank because your scaling up resists at the same time, and still very vulnerable to capacitor problems. |
|
Elson Tamar
Lion Investments
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 19:42:00 -
[111] - Quote
Now im new to pvp so take everything i say with a pinch of salt, i fly gallantee so i active armour tank. Grayscale is right the main issue is the scalability and how we fight our games, if you buff reps too much you can just ignore incoming fire, i have fought the triple rep myrm and i lost. Look at the poor Brutix and its relegation to Hulk and Orca ganking! Now the reduction in cap cost of hybrids will help this as your cap will last longer, which means rep longer.
The problem most affects Blaster boats the most too. Now the obvious fix is to alter the bonus that blaster boats give and remove a bonus to active tanks and reppers and give bonus's to resists, that way you can choose to fit either an active or passive tank. This gives you flexability in fit and you can gank it your way, also it does it withouty changing how the modules themselves and may breath some life into some old hulls.
|
Theodemir
Nemesis Holdings Corp Luna Sanguinem
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 21:54:00 -
[112] - Quote
Tellahane wrote:Someone may have suggested this already, and I may have missed it but why not have the % resists increase on the active shield or armor reppers only apply when the module is active? you still then have a limited capacitor use, if you double up you can scale up the tank because your scaling up resists at the same time, and still very vulnerable to capacitor problems.
Doesn't sound too bad a proposition considering. Per cap usage, armour repairers would benefit more through longer repair duration(% resist bonus active for longer), but lesser repairing throughput in a small timeframe. Flip the coin for shield reps on the pro/con. However, wouldn't cap stable tank setups for PvE be a little too overtanked, should the resist bonus be too large or not affected through stacking penalties[and if it does stack, is it worth it]?That is if this debate is considering that prospect at all. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 02:02:00 -
[113] - Quote
About those rigs, If you check Core extenders or Trimarks. There is no stacking penalty on those.
No trimarks => 100HP
Add a trimark, +15% => 115HP right ?
Add another trimark, you'll have more than 130HP.
Check nanopumps (Active armor rigs). They have a stacking penalty applied to them.
I'll post something about rebalancing rigs (All rigs, not just active tanking ones and whatnot) later, I'm tired right now. |
Denuo Secus
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 08:30:00 -
[114] - Quote
I really like the mentioned idea of an inbuilt resist bonus of active repair modules! This tiny change would help so much. Add charge based burst mode + slightly lowered fitting and running costs -> active tanking would be much more viable. Pure buffer tanking would still have a place in large fleets with dedicated logistics.
@CCP: is this just theory-crafting or are there existing plans to make active tanking more viable? If so: please don't boost the "active tanking races" (Gallente, Minmatar) only! Boost modules, not ships. |
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:14:00 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements.
2005 called. They wanted to thank you for worrying about small gang pvp while it still happens, but that it will be a thing of the past by 2008.
|
Denuo Secus
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:31:00 -
[116] - Quote
Arthur Frayn wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. 2005 called. They wanted to thank you for worrying about small gang pvp while it still happens, but that it will be a thing of the past by 2008.
I do small gang PvP every day I'm online. It exists and it's a lot of fun.
Trying to make active tanking able to counter the blob would make it (ofc) overpowered in small gang PvP. But boosting it a bit (efficiency + fitting/running costs) would help alot. It shouldn't feel like a wasted slot when I fit an armor repper. |
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
94
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:37:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.
With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.
With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.
This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.
The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.
Overpowered tanks in smaller engagements already exist. They are called passive shield with high recharge + buffer on ships like the drake. |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 10:12:00 -
[118] - Quote
Simple fix:
Make active tanking modules use less cap in general.
Give all ships with an active tanking bonus an additional bonus to cap usage. This doesn't need to strictly violate the two-bonuses rule - you have enough ships that have a 5% bonus to X and a 7.5% bonus to Y AND Z. Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
263
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 10:18:00 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.
With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.
With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.
This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.
The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.
This guys seems to know his stuff. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
263
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 10:21:00 -
[120] - Quote
SilentSkills wrote:Why not make the nanite repair paste (or a version of it) the "ammo" of active reppers, and then scale the amount used / min. accordingly. I mean, the reppers use nanites to repair according to its description, so why not combine the twoand then tweak numbers
I like this.
- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |