EVE Search - Suggestion: Tackling Hardpoints

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Suggestion: Tackling Hardpoints

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.08.21 03:31:00 - [1] Okay, so I'm sure you're reading this and saying, "WTF? We don't need tackling hardpoints - we already have midslots for that!" This is, TBH, quite true...for armor tankers. Shield tankers, in contrast, suffer in PvP since their tanking slots take up the same space needed for scramblers and webs (not to mention a microwarpdrive). There's probably not a shield tanker alive who didn't wish he had one more midslot with which to fit a scrambler or a web, yet anyone who suggests this generally gets laughed right off the forums. In truth, there is, to some extent, sound reasoning behind such ridicule, as many Caldari pilots, given an extra mid, would fit EW or more hardeners instead of tackling gear, making them nigh-invulnerable in PvP. Still, the basic idea has merit. The key is implementing it in a fashion that will not result in ships being overpowered. Here is my suggestion as to how to do that: First and foremost, for most shield tanking ships (which ones would need to be determined), move one lowslot to a mid, then increase grid, CPU, or both to account for the fitting mod that's no longer filling that slot. Now that's done, make the moved slot a tackling hardpoint, only able to fit webs, warp scramblers, and warp disruptors (please note that this does not preclude the possibility of using normal midslots for these items as well, should the pilot so choose, if the tackling hardpoint is already in use). The net result of this will be to allow shield tankers to be competitive with armor tankers in PvP; they will finally be able to tackle while running a tank that's the equal of their armor-tanking competition's. At the same time, it will prevent the additional midslot from being used for more tank or EW than the ship design was meant to be capable of. Some changes I would expect to see result from this: Blaster rohks that can actually web and scramble at the same time! Ravens being able to PvP without being forced into a damp configuration. (Mine would lose an RCU or coprocessor, move its scrambler to the tackling hardpoint, then fit a microwarpdrive.) HAM nighthawks that can actually tank like command ships. (Mine would lose one of its two RCUs and be able to move the scrambler to the tackling hardpoint, thus allowing it to finally fit a second hardener.) Sleipnirs that can (gasp) fit a web. (Mine would lose a coprocessor and be able to fit a web in addition to tank, MWD, injector, and scrambler). There are many more shield tankers, but those are the ones that immediately spring to mind. Bear in mind that not all shield tankers need another mid to be viable, so which ships to apply this change to would require careful analysis. As an example, while I would absolutely LOVE another mid on the maelstrom, it most definitely does not need one. My AC mael kicks out enough DPS while still having a decent tank that increasing its tanking ability (by allowing me to move my scrambler or web and then fit a shield boost amp or another hardener in its place) would be a crime. Please also bear in mind that the idea of a tackling hardpoint should not necessarily be limited to shield tankers; one of the existing mids on some armor tanking ships could be designated as tackling hardpoints if the devs find it to be beneficial for game balance. Likewise, the concept of the tackling hardpoint could be instead expanded to a "PvP hardpoint"; this slot could be filled with a web, scrambler, sensor booster, or microwarpdrive - all modules that are essential to PvP-type fittings. Questions? Comments? Stupid tricks? -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.08.21 04:31:00 - [2] I'd like some armor rep boost amps and some active armor invuln fields too plz. And remove cap use from all my guns. And tracking. And range penalties. [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
AngelHawk Caldari Intergalactic Combined Technologies	Posted - 2007.08.21 08:24:00 - [3] Originally by: murder one I'd like some armor rep boost amps and some active armor invuln fields too plz. And remove cap use from all my guns. And tracking. And range penalties. I second this. 1) Kill with discretion 2) Always finish what you start 3) Never retreat in battle and 4) Be loyal to your corp m8s
TheEndofTheWorld	Posted - 2007.08.21 08:27:00 - [4] Originally by: murder one I'd like some armor rep boost amps and some active armor invuln fields too plz. And remove cap use from all my guns. And tracking. And range penalties. Yeah, caldari is sooo best pvp race atm...
Evainya	Posted - 2007.08.21 08:39:00 - [5] Sounds like a great idea, I liek a lot
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.08.21 08:40:00 - [6] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Originally by: murder one I'd like some armor rep boost amps and some active armor invuln fields too plz. And remove cap use from all my guns. And tracking. And range penalties. Yeah, caldari is sooo best pvp race atm... Cross train. I did. Not like there are penalties for doing so. [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Raekone	Posted - 2007.08.21 08:43:00 - [7] Well what I've been waiting for all these years is modules you choose which slots you put them in, like med/low or high/med whatever, even any of the three. Would solve a lot of issues if implemented properly and would make for some very interesting options.
Raekone	Posted - 2007.08.21 08:45:00 - [8] Originally by: murder one Cross train. I did. Not like there are penalties for doing so Hehe, yes it's not like you'll ever be leaving EVE anyway so you might as well just train everything - it'll get done eventually ^^
Seamus O'Malley Elite Storm Enterprises Storm Armada	Posted - 2007.08.21 08:53:00 - [9] Originally by: Wrayeth Long story Bad idea. Currently as it is, ships have different roles. If you were to implement those tackling hardpoint we would get ships that all would be able to tackle not sacrifying anything for it. I think it's best as it is now, use the ships for what they intend to be. Yeah, I know armor tankers can use tackling gear more than shield tankers but they lose the ability to use lowslots modules (i.e. damage mods). So please, don't let EvE become a soup of ships that can all do the same things. The variety keeps the fun in the game, imo.
Goonie Alt	Posted - 2007.08.21 09:06:00 - [10] No, get out.

Sokratesz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.21 09:17:00 - [11] I support the idea of utility slots..modules classified for utility would be: - web, scram - all drone related modules - nos, neut - tractor beams, salvagers T1 frigates should get 1 - 2, cruisers 2 - 3, battlecruisers and battleships 3 - 4. T2 frigates should get 2 - 3, cruisers & command ships 3 - 4, recons 5 - 6 depending on race. Carrier class capitals should have 2 -3 and dreads and titans none. Etc..get the idea?
Setana Manoro Gallente Firefly Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.21 09:19:00 - [12] Originally by: murder one I'd like some armor rep boost amps and some active armor invuln fields too plz. And remove cap use from all my guns. And tracking. And range penalties. Only after ammar get this. :) I'm not neutral in RAGOON vs BOB, I just dislike both sides. :)
Kirah Ovai Altcenaries	Posted - 2007.08.21 09:20:00 - [13] I actually wouldn't mind, if they made tackling gear fit in high slots (would make more sense anyway), but removing a low and compensating in CPU/grid (wich would essentially make it a perma-fitted CPU/PDU) and adding a dedicated mid isn't that great an idea.. ships aren't supposed to do everything all the time. The Sleipnir is an awesome ship, as is the Rokh. They either have to sacrifice some of their tank to tackle, or work in a team. There are very few ships if any that don't have to make compromises.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.08.21 09:37:00 - [14] The tackle/medslot-problem for shield tankers (mostly caldari) is for real, BUT Eve atm is not balanced if you would implement this. Instead I recommend Shield Boost Amplifiers being a lowslot module... Seriously - I'm a nice guy!! MOA is NOT UGLY!!! It's A FREAK SHOW!!!!
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.21 09:50:00 - [15] Originally by: Wrayeth Okay, so I'm sure you're reading this and saying, "WTF? We don't need tackling hardpoints - we already have midslots for that!" This is, TBH, quite true...for armor tankers. Shield tankers, in contrast, suffer in PvP since their tanking slots take up the same space needed for scramblers and webs (not to mention a microwarpdrive). Can we have damage mod hardpoints then too? Basically "essential" modules for meds: MWD, scram, injector, web if you intend to fight within webbing distances Basically "essential" modules for lows: 3 * damage mods, DC and for many ships fitting mods.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.08.21 09:53:00 - [16] As mentioned, then we want dmg mods hardpoints ! Why can't we fit full gank AND tank setup ? Why we need to actualy choose... Shieldtankers don't have to choose between gank/tank but between tackling/tank. --- Battlecarriers !
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.08.21 09:53:00 - [17] We should have weapon upgrade hardpoints as well. Im sure you're reading this and saying, "WTF? We don't need weapon upgrade hardpoints - we already have low slots for that!" This is, TBH quite true... for shield tankers, armor tankers, in contrast, suffer in PvP and PvE since their tanking slots take up the same space needed for their damage mod (not to mention cap relays). I could go on but I guess you get the point... --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
ZOMGchampion	Posted - 2007.08.21 10:06:00 - [18] Originally by: murder one I'd like some armor rep boost amps and some active armor invuln fields too plz. And remove cap use from all my guns. And tracking. And range penalties. I'd like excellent dps. I'd like +repping ammount shield booster rigs. I'd like a fleet command with the same dps as field command. I'd like a BC thats like the Myrmidon. I'd like a tier 1 battleship that isnt sh*t. I'd like my tier 1 battlecruiser to at least be good at something. I'd like my Nighthawk to break the tank of a battleship. I'd like to have all this dps, and be able to tank and tackle at the same time. I'd like my Rook/Falcon to be as good as the Arazu/Lachesis for EWar. I'd like a ship that can deal 450 dps, with an uber tank and cap warfare. I'd like a lot of things to change in EvE, so I can at least be just maybe half as good as Gallente, probably not gunna happen though is it?
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.08.21 10:10:00 - [19] Originally by: ZOMGchampion Originally by: murder one I'd like some armor rep boost amps and some active armor invuln fields too plz. And remove cap use from all my guns. And tracking. And range penalties. I'd like excellent dps. I'd like +repping ammount shield booster rigs. I'd like a fleet command with the same dps as field command. I'd like a BC thats like the Myrmidon. I'd like a tier 1 battleship that isnt sh*t. I'd like my tier 1 battlecruiser to at least be good at something. I'd like my Nighthawk to break the tank of a battleship. I'd like to have all this dps, and be able to tank and tackle at the same time. I'd like my Rook/Falcon to be as good as the Arazu/Lachesis for EWar. I'd like a ship that can deal 450 dps, with an uber tank and cap warfare. I'd like a lot of things to change in EvE, so I can at least be just maybe half as good as Gallente, probably not gunna happen though is it? oh lord, u want some cheese with that whine ? --- Battlecarriers !
Cpt Branko Guardian Heroes	Posted - 2007.08.21 10:18:00 - [20] Originally by: Valandril As mentioned, then we want dmg mods hardpoints ! Why can't we fit full gank AND tank setup ? Why we need to actualy choose... Shieldtankers don't have to choose between gank/tank but between tackling/tank. This. All my armour tanked ships have to make a choice: fit for damage or fit for a tank. Fitting for tank makes my damage mostly miserable and i'm unable to solo without it resorting to a whos cap lasts longer match. Fitting for damage makes the ship a glass (ok, plated glass) cannon which relies on damage controls and whatnot to outlast the foe. I'd love to be able to do both, but it's just not feasible. Still, tackling is essential solo, but still, an armour tank has to compromise. Shield tankers, on the other hand, make the tackling vs tank compromise. What's actually better in a group. I fly minmatar most of the time, meaning i fly both shield tankers and armour tankers. For example, I fly the passive-shield jag a lot (and boy, it has to make rotten compromises). In a group, i can fit a very good tank for a frigate-sized vessel and still do some damage and some tackle. Solo, i have to both tackle and do more damage, meaning my passive tank (which takes both mids and lows) is pathetic, and i rely on my buffer to kill things before they kill me. [Of course, NOS changes make me very happy, for small ships. Active tanked ships will actually make sense now, as long as the enemy doesn't use a neut. This might revise my setups a bit.] Originally by: Tsanse Kinske The second you start equating time spent playing a game with lost time and money is the second you need to ask yourself "Why am I playing?". Seriously

Acoco Osiris Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.08.21 10:25:00 - [21] The major advantage I can see to shield tankers is sheer raw tanking ability, while armor tankers can free up those precious midslots for more versatility in things like Ewar. If you gave shield tankers free tackle slots, you would eliminate one of the major advantages of an armor tank. You can't have everything. Stop whining. ------------------------------ One more soldier off to war... And one Velator in my hangars.
Iracham Gallente	Posted - 2007.08.21 10:36:00 - [22] ewar/tackling, tank, gank, pick two.
VicturusTeSaluto	Posted - 2007.08.21 10:41:00 - [23] Originally by: murder one I'd like some armor rep boost amps and some active armor invuln fields too plz. And remove cap use from all my guns. And tracking. And range penalties. /sign
NoNah Unseen University	Posted - 2007.08.21 10:51:00 - [24] Shieldtanks are better than armortanks. Midslots are expensive - most don't want to waste them tanking. Biggest flaw of your post would, in my humble opinion, be that it severly cripples and limits game flexibility. The reason caldari are not popular for pvp is not the shield tanks, its the fact that they need to be used in gangs, missiles don't do as much theoretical dps as guns(even more so in fleets, where they indeed do stink), and there's a general consensus that they're crap. People don't think - they read - at best - and as Caldari got the largest whinesquad... They all just catalyze eachother. Postcount: 11033
Kaleidon Reth	Posted - 2007.08.21 10:53:00 - [25] The problem is not that there are to few limitations on where you put stuff but to many. There are way to many ships that are more or less forced into two or even one possible config. Just give up on being able to both dish out insane dmg and tackle and you'll be fine.
Neena Valdi Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.21 11:13:00 - [26] But then the armor tankers will be able to use those additional medium slots for ewar and you will be here asking for ewar hardpoints too? :)
Gladiator Jonny Repo Industries	Posted - 2007.08.21 11:22:00 - [27] I'd like excellent dps. BlasterRokh, Gank raven is ok. I'd like +repping ammount shield booster rigs. Its not a rig, but get some crystals and stop whining ffs. I'd like a fleet command with the same dps as field command. Use blasters might come close. also the nighthawk has one hell of a tank. I'd like a BC thats like the Myrmidon. Drake + passive tank debatable, caldari arent armor tanking drone users so, i just used common sense to figure what you ment. *I'd like a tier 1 battleship that isnt sht. Use ECM nubbin. makes it the single most annoying tier 1 bs bar nos domi. I'd like my tier 1 battlecruiser to at least be good at something. ECM. I'd like my Nighthawk to break the tank of a battleship. Id like a battleship to break the tank of a nicely passive tanked nighthawk within half an hour. I'd like to have all this dps, and be able to tank and tackle at the same time. I would like my tank not to be weakened by fitting damage mods to get "all this dps" I'd like my Rook/Falcon to be as good as the Arazu/Lachesis for EWar. Arazu and lachesis are good. However, can an arazu/lachesis take out 2-4+ guys from a fight? I'd like a ship that can deal 450 dps, with an uber tank and cap warfare.** Rokh and raven both deal over 450dps and have a fairly nice tank when fitted correctly.
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.08.21 19:20:00 - [28] Edited by: Wrayeth on 21/08/2007 19:21:40 Originally by: Aramendel Can we have damage mod hardpoints then too? Basically "essential" modules for meds: MWD, scram, injector, web if you intend to fight within webbing distances Basically "essential" modules for lows: 3 * damage mods, DC and for many ships fitting mods. What you are missing here is that, with a very few exceptions (such as the maelstrom, which I mentioned in my original post as being on of the ships that should NOT receive a tackling hardpoint), a shield tanker with damage mods generally still does not inflict as much DPS as an armor tanker with no damage mods. At the same time, that shield tanker also can't fit the essential PvP modules without compromising his tank. The end result is the shield tanker either having less DPS and a lesser tank than the armor tanker, and the same ability to tackle, or less DPS, an equivalent tank, and no ability to tackle. Balanced? Hardly. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.21 21:00:00 - [29] Originally by: Wrayeth What you are missing here is that, with a very few exceptions (such as the maelstrom, which I mentioned in my original post as being on of the ships that should NOT receive a tackling hardpoint), a shield tanker with damage mods generally still does not inflict as much DPS as an armor tanker with no damage mods. Thats because most caldari shield tankers have range bonuses or use weapons which have lower dps, but far greater range performance (aka missiles). All minmatar shieldtanking ships - which do not have the caldari long range philosophy - do not have less dps. There exists no "dps imbalance" of shield tankers which needs to be balanced by them being able to use damagemods easier. If there is there is also a range imbalance of armor tankers. Free +50% range upgrade slot for those please kthx.
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.08.21 21:26:00 - [30] I see nothing wrong with the shield tankers. Armor tankers lose tank when they fit dps mods, and shield tankers lose tank when they fit tackling gear (which you don't really need in a dictor gang, you ain't gonna go fast enough to web anything anyway.) Missles, however, are years behind guns. Sure, we trade tracking for explosion velocity (read: faster than 3k = no dmg), we trade always hitting for never wrecking, and free dmg choice for lowest dps. All of this is fine imo, missles just need a speed boost to be viable in pvp. As of now, we hear most people saying "cross train" because missles are "pve" or "noob". On topic: you do know hardpoints go in the actual slots right? So 3 tackling gear hardpoints would take uuup... 3 midslots. Only restricts your use of tackling gear, which hurts the ships potential setup. PS. Trade you boost amp for your armor for more missle mods! I want speed-midslot dang it



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.