Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
566
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 04:33:48 -
[1] - Quote
Many years ago you made a post discussing the differences in power between local reps and remote reps. One of the examples you cited in this now AWOL thread was the brutix and why it would be getting the local repair bonus (which IIRC it didn't previously have). In doing some forum searches down in to the distant past I've found a lot of interesting things that seem kind of tame by todays standards, it's been quite a trip re-reading the crucible/inferno balancing era stuff and how decisions were made that led us to where we are today.
But I'll always remember seeing that post, because it discusses something very dear to my heart: repair modules.
I've always been mystified by repair modules. Look at small shield boosters, they're practically worthless. You're almost always better off fitting MASB to a hawk than SASB. Cases could still be argued for cap injected double smalls but I don't see them being flown a lot. Next we take a look at medium armour reppers, I've always found these ones underwhelming and I believe this is the exact reason why certain gallente ships started getting repping bonuses - because medium armour reps *are* underwhelming. Finally you get large and XL shield boosters. These are another confusing diversion as well. Why do we have 4 sizes of shield booster? What do you really feel small shield boosters provide that forms some unique niche?
And then there's remote reps, one of the unholy trinity of evils that hurts this game. While local reps cannot scale on a ship that cannot oversize, a carrier can rep a frigate just as easily as it reps another carrier. There is no sense to why remote reps scale infinitely. There's no reason why wormholers should be able to use 300k ehp proteus' in battle with full compliment of carrier reps with no penalties. There's no reason why someone should be able to cap chain and create cap stable repairing fleets either, these modules make cap out of thin air and magic? Wut?
So that's what I wanted to ask; in the 4 or 5 years since you made that original post do you feel that the local/remote rep argument you presented back then is still valid or have you changed your mind on some things and these concepts presented above and back then are now up for review and subject to change?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
439
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 10:20:29 -
[2] - Quote
Okay you seem to be reasonably articulate... I have never understood why logi is bad, and i have logi 5, carrier 5, triage 5 etc... Could you explain to me what the actual problem is? And in your answer please remember that there are people who use logi for things that are NOT pvp...
Because i dont think its cap chaining, because scimis and oneirosses dont do that and you still seem to be annoyed by them... |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
566
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 10:23:58 -
[3] - Quote
I think I'll just wait and see if Ytterbium or Foozie responds.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
439
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 10:46:31 -
[4] - Quote
dont think they will until we get a good discussion going based on previous experience... But i might be wrong... |
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
127
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 12:22:31 -
[5] - Quote
I agree that there's an odd trend (I was going to say problem, but not sure it is) with tank modules these days, but not just with repair mods. Actually I have NO problem with Remote Repair modules... it's the state of local repairs and tanks, which you mentioned...
Currently:
Small shield extenders are obsolete and basically useless, every good shield buffer frigate uses Medium Shield Extenders
Small shield boosters are only competitive if you use Deadspace versions
Why can you fit dual Anciallary shield boosters, but only 1 ancillary armor repairer.
Why do XL shield boosters exist? This compounds the obsolescence of small shield boosters.
All competitive shield buffer cruisers use Large Shield Extenders, instead of the Mediums that are supposed to be for their hull size.
Same for armor plates... all competitive cruisers use 1600mm plates. 800mm are pretty much un-used, and 400mm are used more often for frigates.
Sidenote: Similar trend happening with the oversized prop mods, which there are other threads for I think, but still worth noting.
Is it time for size limitations on tank mods/hulls? Not saying I believe it definitely is, but genuinely wondering if it would make the game more fun. What do we think?
The UI update we deserve
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1180
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 14:12:31 -
[6] - Quote
reps/logi does need a nerf .. only question is how? stacking pens? .... also 300k proteus why T3 cruiser tank hasn't been nerfed into the ground yet is odd...
it was mentioned in the module tiercide thread about the smaller modules not being used, thus 50mm and micro were deleted, small extenders got buffed a little but not enough really. oversized mods have been discussed on threads in particular prop mods on the D3's, there is certainly an appetite for right sized mods too be used instead of oversized.
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
128
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 15:48:35 -
[7] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:logi reps do need a nerf .. only question is how?
What reason or evidence do you have for this claim?
I see some merit to complaints of infinite cap generation by Guardian cap chains, but what about the remote repairs themselves causes you to say they "need" a nerf? Why?
I see this mindset as people complaining because they fire their hard earned DPS at ships, and the enemy ships don't die because they have a TEAM of remote repairing "healers". I don't see any way in which this is over-powered or unbalanced.
If you don't have Logi, and the enemy does, you usually die. Doesn't mean remote repairs are overpowered.
I don't see anyone calling for a nerf to DPS...
"Ohh waaahhh, when the enemy has lots of DPS, they blow up our ships! Make DPS have a stacking penalty so the more ships that are firing at me, the less DPS each one does."
Maybe cap chains need a slight nerf, but remote repairs DEFINITELY don't need a stacking penalty. If you bring a fleet of 10 guardians, you get 10 Guardians worth of tank, just like if you bring a fleet of 10 Megathrons, you get 10 Megas worth of DPS. Can't handle Logi? Go play single player games where you're supposed to win.
The UI update we deserve
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1882
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 16:38:35 -
[8] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:Harvey James wrote:logi reps do need a nerf .. only question is how? What reason or evidence do you have for this claim? I see some merit to complaints of infinite cap generation by Guardian cap chains, but what about the remote repairs themselves causes you to say they "need" a nerf? Why? I see this mindset as people complaining because they fire their hard earned DPS at ships, and the enemy ships don't die because they have a TEAM of remote repairing "healers". I don't see any way in which this is over-powered or unbalanced. If you don't have Logi, and the enemy does, you usually die. Doesn't mean remote repairs are overpowered. I don't see anyone calling for a nerf to DPS... "Ohh waaahhh, when the enemy has lots of DPS, they blow up our ships! Make DPS have a stacking penalty so the more ships that are firing at me, the less DPS each one does."Maybe cap chains need a slight nerf, but remote repairs DEFINITELY don't need a stacking penalty. If you bring a fleet of 10 guardians, you get 10 Guardians worth of tank, just like if you bring a fleet of 10 Megathrons, you get 10 Megas worth of DPS. Can't handle Logi? Go play single player games where you're supposed to win.
The guardian and basilisk have to be stable one way or another. If it's not with the cap chain model, then they will be made just like the scimitar and oneiros because nobody would take logi that can't last a full fight. |
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
129
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 16:49:54 -
[9] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The guardian and basilisk have to be stable one way or another. If it's not with the cap chain model, then they will be made just like the scimitar and oneiros because nobody would take logi that can't last a full fight.
I don't see why that has to be a rule.
Why is that any different than saying "Nobody would take any self-repping ship that isn't cap stable into a fight."
Almost every competitive active armor repping fit requires cap boosters to stay stable. I think it's the same way for shield boosting (non-ancillary), I just don't use it enough to know for sure.
Maybe a fair balance would be something like... Guardians are cap stable with 2-3 Large reppers running, but not stable with all 4-6 (6 if cap chains are nerfed and no longer used)?
Or if cap chains are nerfed so that they can't create infini-cap by running constantly, maybe each Guard has 1 transfer, and they leave them off until one of them gets targeted by neuts, then all the others help to keep him up.
Again, I'm a Guard pilot once in a while, so I don't necessarily think cap chains NEED nerfed. But it's a valid concern. We have run into more than a couple stalemates, where neither side could break each other's guard tanks. Maybe removing infinite cap would make armor fleets more micromanagement intensive, and therefore more skill-intensive, and therefore more fun?
The UI update we deserve
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1048
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 16:58:40 -
[10] - Quote
It only stands to reason that the ships that depend on other ships for external support should be better. This is a team game. That is why the Basilisk and Guardian are the way they are. That is why Logistics ships are better than local repairs.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1048
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 16:59:28 -
[11] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:I agree that there's an odd trend (I was going to say problem, but not sure it is) with tank modules these days, but not just with repair mods. Actually I have NO problem with Remote Repair modules... it's the state of local repairs and tanks, which you mentioned... Currently: Small shield extenders are obsolete and basically useless, every good shield buffer frigate uses Medium Shield Extenders Small shield boosters are only competitive if you use Deadspace versions Why can you fit dual Anciallary shield boosters, but only 1 ancillary armor repairer? (Maybe the reason for this was explained when AARs were introduced, but I missed it). Why do XL shield boosters exist? This compounds the obsolescence of small shield boosters. All competitive shield buffer cruisers use Large Shield Extenders, instead of the Mediums that are supposed to be for their hull size. Same for armor plates... all competitive cruisers use 1600mm plates. 800mm are pretty much un-used, and 400mm are used more often for frigates or destroyers. 200mm are used on frigates (fine), and 100mm are almost never seen. Sidenote: Similar trend happening with the oversized prop mods, which there are other threads for I think, but still worth noting. Is it time for hard size limitations on tank mods/hulls? (Or "soft" limits, using fitting requirements) Not saying I believe it definitely is, but genuinely wondering if it would make the game more fun. What do we think? As an example... this doesn't happen with weapon systems. You can't possibly fit a frigate with Medium guns, or a cruiser with large guns. Why is it possible to fit "Large" size tanks on cruisers, and "Medium" tanks on frigates? Again, not saying I definitely think this should be changed, but I wonder...
All good questions. And yes, it is time for hard size limitations on modules. The time was actually a long time ago.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Iain Cariaba
1507
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 17:05:07 -
[12] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:"Ohh waaahhh, when the enemy has lots of DPS, they blow up our ships! Make DPS have a stacking penalty so the more ships that are firing at me, the less DPS each one does."
I have actually seen this suggested before.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1882
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 17:30:24 -
[13] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
The guardian and basilisk have to be stable one way or another. If it's not with the cap chain model, then they will be made just like the scimitar and oneiros because nobody would take logi that can't last a full fight.
I don't see why that has to be a rule. Why is that any different than saying "Nobody would take any self-repping ship that isn't cap stable into a fight." Almost every competitive active armor repping fit requires cap boosters to stay stable. I think it's the same way for shield boosting (non-ancillary), I just don't use it enough to know for sure. Maybe a fair balance would be something like... Guardians are cap stable with 2-3 Large reppers running, but not stable with all 4-6 (6 if cap chains are nerfed and no longer used)? Or if cap chains are nerfed so that they can't create infini-cap by running constantly, maybe each Guard has 1 transfer, and they leave them off until one of them gets targeted by neuts, then all the others help to keep him up. Again, I'm a Guard pilot once in a while, so I don't necessarily think cap chains NEED nerfed. But it's a valid concern. We have run into more than a couple stalemates, where neither side could break each other's guard tanks. Maybe removing infinite cap would make armor fleets more micromanagement intensive, and therefore more skill-intensive, and therefore more fun?
Self repping ship are not a class based compeltely around providing reps to other ships hence why they are not designed to be cap stable.
Why should gardians/basilisk only be able to run 3 reppers while scimitars/oneiros can run 4 while also not having to deal with the burden of establishing a cap chain?
If the chain is only used in case of neuts, they become copy of scimitar/oneiros (running without cap chain) but with added bonus to be able to fight off neuting. How is that balanced?
Lowering the output of reppers by limiting the number of module they can run stable will only reduce the minimum dps required to beat them to a new threshold leading to a new point where you can't break enemy reps if you fall below that. It's not the logi's fault you didn't bring enough dps to break their reps or can't find a way to disrupt them.
Logi only gets stupid when the fleet are too massive but then again, what isn't broken when you bring enough of them? |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
79
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 18:57:41 -
[14] - Quote
A few people have said it already - Local reps are meant for Solo pvp/pve activities as an alternative to bringing a second player/alt in a logistics ship. They are not as effective, but name a single game where a DPS role's personal heal could ever compare to a specialized healer.
Fleet warfare is a whole other ballgame for those (presumably yourself included) who have little to no large fleet combat experience. It doesn't matter how many logistic you bring if the enemy is in a counter alpha doctrine. This isn't world of warcraft where you have healers who can throw a bubble on your ship and make you have more effective hp. Closest we have here are command links and titan role bonuses. As such, there is a critical damage point at which even 100 logi will never save you. You don't hear people complaining and saying damage need's a diminishing return (DR). And those that do think that will one day come to the realization that EVE is not for them. Outside of alpha doctrines it's simply a sustained dps/hps numbers game. Bring more dps than they have logistics, buffer is only there to allow time for the reps to land. It provides nothing more, nothing less.
All that aside, I do agree there could be some love given towards small buffer modules. Small X armor/shield anything are not normally used because these ships cannot build up enough resistance to allow these buffers to scale as well as you would like. They are typically a "well I have an extra slot and near no fitting left so better than nothing" kind of fitting decision. That is a nice option to have to be honest, and it's better than the alternative of removing them and downshifting the names of the other modules to S/M/L from M/L/XL.
As far as why XL exists for shields but not armor the explanation is actually simpler than you would think. Any good armor tank will fit dual reps. Armor reps have longer cycle times as well as lower cap cost to their shield equivalents. As such it is much harder to be cap stable with dual shield reps of any size, XL allows for slightly more tank with and increase in cap use over a large booster. Pair it with an amplifier and you effectively have the same repair power of two large armor reps for almost exactly the same capacitor use. Both required two fitting slots to be used so neither truly have an advantage. In fact you'd find armor is actually better off because in situations of low cap or low damage they can turn off a single rep, where as the shield tanked vessel is all or nothing.
Reasoning for the dual ancillary shield but not armor follows closely to the same logic just so you know. It's all about balance of rep vs cap use (none) vs possible tank. Which is also the reason armor does not have an amplifier.
Hope that helps shed some light on your balance questions. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
9999
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 19:10:26 -
[15] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:logi reps do need a nerf .. only question is how? stacking pens? .... also 300k proteus why T3 cruiser tank hasn't been nerfed into the ground yet is odd... One of ours theory crafted one with much more than three, much much more, No I'm not posting the fit before anyone asks, the last thing we need is that thing getting out. when I saw the fit I immediately thought of your Sig and general posting and I'm now actually inclined to agree on the subject of t3's
=]|[=
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
861
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 21:25:52 -
[16] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Harvey James wrote:logi reps do need a nerf .. only question is how? stacking pens? .... also 300k proteus why T3 cruiser tank hasn't been nerfed into the ground yet is odd... One of ours theory crafted one with much more than three, much much more, No I'm not posting the fit before anyone asks, the last thing we need is that thing getting out. when I saw the fit I immediately thought of your Sig and general posting and I'm now actually inclined to agree on the subject of t3's I've theory crafted out 500 DPS proteii that get 320k EHP before implants or links. That was kind of the reason I started on my attempt to rebalance slaves.....600k with links and slaves, and near 1m with titan boosts and full tank implants.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
861
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 21:30:12 -
[17] - Quote
As for the plague of oversized modules, I blame the generous fitting room needed to allow low SP players to compete which means that the higher SP characters, with perfect fitting skills and the occasional piece of bling, can now fit oversized modules with much lower sacrifices than was originally intended.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
973
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 22:02:03 -
[18] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Harvey James wrote:logi reps do need a nerf .. only question is how? stacking pens? .... also 300k proteus why T3 cruiser tank hasn't been nerfed into the ground yet is odd... One of ours theory crafted one with much more than three, much much more, No I'm not posting the fit before anyone asks, the last thing we need is that thing getting out. when I saw the fit I immediately thought of your Sig and general posting and I'm now actually inclined to agree on the subject of t3's It's honestly not a secret to anyone who plays around with EFT. You're not going to gain "fitting master-level" cred for holding on to OpSec.
It's pretty easy to push a proteus, under certain conditions well past the 500k EPH mark. It's not terribly difficult to push them over 1m EHP.
What it IS though, and this applies to both examples above, 1. so situational as to never get used AND 2. so expensive that no one in their right mind would actually put that much ISK into a "Paper Weight" of a ship as that's about the utility of it at those tank levels AND 3. any FC that knows what they're doing would realize, quickly, "That thing isn't going to die soon, nor is it going anywhere soon, so keep it pointed and kill everything else first. We'll come back to that loot pinata of a bad idea later."
But either way T3 takn levels are a "dead horse" issue. Having said that, the changes just recently made lowered the tank of T3 by a not insignificant amount.
I'm right behind you
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2229
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 22:25:04 -
[19] - Quote
DPS stacking penalties aren't as silly as it sounds. Consider the following, if more than a squad worth of DPS is inefficient, then squad leaders are the ones that have to target call, rather than the FC calling for the entire fleet. This then makes the FC more about grand strategy while making all the various roles important in a fleet rather than just 'Leadership V so you can pass boosts on'.
Obviously this would then need Logi to be balanced with similar stacking penalty, which again adds tactics to logi also in order to make sure they aren't over-repping one target and not getting enough on another.
But it's not a silly idea and fluff lore excuses like 'Warp field interactions breakthrough that reinforces the shield as more ships engage' can be used to explain the change away. It could also be individual per weapon/rep to avoid civilian weapons on friendlies and small reps on hostiles to mess with stacking. Or simply diminishing returns like resists where the biggest numbers get added first. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
82
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 22:49:33 -
[20] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:DPS stacking penalties aren't as silly as it sounds. Consider the following, if more than a squad worth of DPS is inefficient, then squad leaders are the ones that have to target call, rather than the FC calling for the entire fleet. This then makes the FC more about grand strategy while making all the various roles important in a fleet rather than just 'Leadership V so you can pass boosts on'.
Obviously this would then need Logi to be balanced with similar stacking penalty, which again adds tactics to logi also in order to make sure they aren't over-repping one target and not getting enough on another.
But it's not a silly idea and fluff lore excuses like 'Warp field interactions breakthrough that reinforces the shield as more ships engage' can be used to explain the change away. It could also be individual per weapon/rep to avoid civilian weapons on friendlies and small reps on hostiles to mess with stacking. Or simply diminishing returns like resists where the biggest numbers get added first.
You literally gave me cancer. You want an unrealistic DR to "balance" the playing field between large and small gang warfare go play another game, or better yet go make more friends and band together as those large fleets have done.
Simply put: Get your small gang mentality out of my fleet.
PS - The least you could have done is said everyone's bullets and lasers converging on a single location was causing interference or ricochets to occur. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2229
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 22:57:25 -
[21] - Quote
Uh, how would it 'balance' anything. Even assuming my idea went forward as written. The small gang can then shoot at a single target. The large gang puts their 'efficient' DPS onto every single ship in the small gang at once. It might save the small gang from being alpha'ed ship by ship, but it sure won't save them from being shot to pieces. Seriously did you bother to read anything. This is not an attempt to balance small and large gangs. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
82
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 23:23:27 -
[22] - Quote
I read it, that's the direction people always take it tho. Split fire in fleets with multiple target callers actually already occurs when the situation calls for it. Implementing a feature that makes it a requirement just adds more chaos to an already chaotic fight. Could players adapt? Sure, but why? This adds very little to the game but more frustration to fleet warfare.
You want fleets to act like multiple individual squadrons working together but separately. It sounds like fun, but the reality of it is that it would just be a massive PITA.\
Broadcasts would need to be reworked entirely such that it was by wing/squad with crossover since logistics and damage ships must get their information here. Currently someone in wing 2 broadcasting for armor has no difference to a player in wing 1, causing a crossover in reps which now are hit by this magical DR. Squad x and y commanders broadcasting a target is shown to all with no name attached now causing uneven split damage that can easily be tanked.
Getting all your fleet members into a single TS channel as of now is realtively easy. But now have them switch to the proper squad channels prior to the fight beginning and handing out permissions - and having late comers join in is yet another headache this would cause.
This is also assuming the player holding squad/wing/fleet command are not simply alts with the proper skills to hold that and actually a player capable of issuing proper commands to their fleet. Which anyone who has ever been involved with a fleet knows that this is very much not the case. It's typically alts sitting in command ships or off grid boosting.
It's a headache not many outside of those with the small gang mentality would be willing to put up with just because some players felt a DR was needed. I know I'd personally be done if CCP ever stooped to such an artificial mechanic.
Is this the better critique you were after? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2229
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 23:45:01 -
[23] - Quote
It's a better critique since it actually addresses the post I made, rather than the thoughts you decided I must have. :) I do agree a well flown blob should win vs an equally well flown small gang, and see utterly no reason to change that.
I do agree it would also call for a rework to broadcasts with better control over who receives the broadcast you make. But that isn't a bad thing. It's just a thing that would need doing.
Your point that if it was the Alts simply to hold the proper skill while sitting off grid..... Well, to me that's a point in favour. It brings those positions back on grid and to real players, and makes leadership skills have more importance to normal players. Most of the rest of your arguments are simply a matter of some player discipline, which should differentiate the good from the bad but currently because the bar is set so low really doesn't have significant effects on the game. So to me those arguments that it makes a large fleet trickier to manage are also a good thing. Bigger is only better if you have the skills, both in game and player, to manage it. This is true for ships, it should be true for blobs.
I don't believe it would be the headache you imply, but assuming CCP made the changes to the broadcast system, their in game voice already supports squad/wing/etc chat levels as far as I am aware, I don't see the headache on the game mechanics level, just on the herding cats level. And that makes it more of an achievement to be a large fleet FC. If more players being involved in running a fleet rather than being F1 monkeys is something that would make you quit, well *shrugs* I'll be sorry to see you go if it ever comes in. But it is the only way to stop the F1 blob being the most efficient method while still being low skill and alts taking all the leadership spots. |
Solairen
Matsuko Holding
257
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 23:59:18 -
[24] - Quote
Meh - foot in mouth here. nothing to see. |
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
129
|
Posted - 2015.06.11 00:43:30 -
[25] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
PS - The least you could have done is said everyone's bullets and lasers converging on a single location was causing interference or ricochets to occur.
Seriously, this is the only... ONLY thing you could ever use to justify DR on DPS... but no. No. No. A thousand times No.
Diminishing returns ONLY belongs on intra-ship stats... that is, bonuses and stats effecting a single ship.
NOT inter-ship (between multiple ships) values... never, never, never.
The UI update we deserve
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
566
|
Posted - 2015.06.11 04:33:56 -
[26] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:As for the plague of oversized modules, I blame the generous fitting room needed to allow low SP players to compete which means that the higher SP characters, with perfect fitting skills and the occasional piece of bling, can now fit oversized modules with much lower sacrifices than was originally intended.
10mn T3D's in particular are more a facet of the 10mn AB being only 55grid while most other modules going from small to large are in the 150-175grid bracket. Look at it for yourself.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
868
|
Posted - 2015.06.11 20:35:42 -
[27] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:James Baboli wrote:As for the plague of oversized modules, I blame the generous fitting room needed to allow low SP players to compete which means that the higher SP characters, with perfect fitting skills and the occasional piece of bling, can now fit oversized modules with much lower sacrifices than was originally intended. 10mn T3D's in particular are more a facet of the 10mn AB being only 55grid while most other modules going from small to large are in the 150-175grid bracket. Look at it for yourself.
And the usual generous fitting room on t3s of all kinds. And the low relative use of grid for weapons. And the massive boosts that they get from propulsion mode and and and.
No one single issue is to blame for 10mn D3s. But any of several things could have made the trade offs much more severe.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |