Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 18:27:00 -
[1]
Edited by: procurement specialist on 18/06/2008 18:44:59 I am mostly curious about these. I am not demanding them or anything of that variety but wondered why they donÆt exist.
Large shield booster -> X-L boost -> capital booster Large shield extender -> ? -> ?
Large Armor Repairer -> ? -> capital armor rep 800mm plate -> 1600mm plate -> ?
Currently for though attempting to structure tank you have reinforced bulkheads, Damage Control Units, and only upto large hull reps. No X-L of capital hull reps exist that I found when looking at database.
With people fittings dual armor reps already, why not a single X-L armor rep that takes enough grid to demand a reactor control unit or cut down on guns?
Is the reason there are no X-L shield extenders to prevent larger passive tanks? Most passive shield setups require almost all fittings devoted to it and have terrible pvp use due to slowness and lack of mids for web/scram.
Was this just done to keep armor and shield tanking more distinct from each other?
What about X-L or capital cap boosters? They have support from micro to large and then stop completely.
Again I am not demanding these modules but wondering why these modules donÆt exist when there appears to be a progression.
|
Extraction Drone
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 20:30:00 -
[2]
I understand where you are coming from, it does seem there are some holes in module progression, but as you hit upon, those holes most likely exist for a reason
XL Armor Reps would allow for tanked low-slot heavy battleships essentially one more low-slot (dual large rep -> one XL rep), allowing for a larger boost in damage output by permitting more damage mods, or heavier tank through resistance mods or armor plates, or better fitting by allowing an additional fitting mods.
XL shield extenders could create insane passive shield tanks, particularly for battleships. A Dominix with a few XL shield extenders, some passive shield resist mods, and a full rack of shield power relays would become the new beast of passive shield tanking.
There does not need to be any plates larger than 1600mm. Capitals do not require more HP buffer, and 1600's work just fine for Battleships.
Capital class cap boosters with Capital sized cap charges (2400's or 4800's something along those lines?) would make sieged Dreads almost unkillable until they ran out of charges, and Dreads have massive cargo capacity.
Well, these are the reasons I could think of. Maybe this will change in the future, ya never know.
|
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 12:11:00 -
[3]
according to eft i can already get a domi to permatank 410 dps equal weight for damage types. If you take off em considerations becuase few people would try and shoot em at a traditional armor tank if they could help it then if gets higher. Mostly i was curious because we have angel rats shooting mostly exp to deal with a lot.
The purpose of the X-L armor rep would be it could provide somewhere in the large rep + medium or other large rep amount of repair but would require an rcu to be fit. you could balance it so that an rcu 2 and max skills gave you a small powergrid increase to up teh blasters slightly or something similar.
dreads between fuel and ammo normaly have problems with their cargo even though it looks large at first and I don't think they can be remote helped in siege mode.
The plates / extenders for capital ships I hadn't thought about that much. The size that would be required would probably not offset more than just a recharger due to the huge amount of hp the capital already has.
anyway yeah I kinda thought about it but wasn't sure of the reasons.
|
Merroki
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 21:04:00 -
[4]
I totally agree with this. The holes do limit flexibility somewhat, and it shouldn't be hard to deal with any major now-we-have-an-extra-slot difficulties. While this may keep the shield and armor tank more distinct, I don't see this as a good thing.
For example, as it is right now, if you're in a fleet and you're fitting for a large buffer tank, armor tank is the way to go. Why? Because there's no 1600mm plate equivalent to shields. This tends to inherently favor caldari for pve and armor tanked everything else for pvp, as pvp favors large buffer tanks, while in pve a sustainable tank is more important.
In the RP sense, it makes no sense that nobody's come up with a medium powered module between a bigger and a smaller one anyway. I'm sure everyone would like to see every race equally good at both pvp and pve. Filling in the module holes should help with that. This should also help with the whole "lasers need buff because they suck in pvp because everyone else armor tanks" thing..
|
The Djego
merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 22:44:00 -
[5]
Mayby because Shield and Armor Tanks are not the same?
XL Shield extenders donŠt only increase the HP they also increases the Tank by a bigger recharge. Shield Tanking is allready powerfull(especialy passive Tanking that is plain overpowert because of the lack of Stacking).
Shield Tanking has allways a smaller buffer in a trade of faster Boost Cycles and becomes even more cap efficent with a Amplifier and also gets the better Faction suff.
Armortanking is more buffer style, you starting at 100 and buffer Damage that you canŠt tank on the Armor. Because of this you need more HP and better Resistaces in PVE. XL Reppers would free a Low on many Ships and would make Shield Tanks subpar.
Capitals allready can tank very good on her own Cap Recharge and they have planty of HP.
All this modules donŠt exist because of ballence Issues and it would be not whise to release them. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 22:50:00 -
[6]
I honestly much rather have 25/50mn AB/MWD - for Battlecruiser Sized vessels. Of course that would include rebalancing the the Battlecruiser/Command PG/CPU allotments.
|
Merroki
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 23:22:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Merroki on 19/06/2008 23:27:24
Originally by: The Djego Mayby because Shield and Armor Tanks are not the same?
XL Shield extenders donŠt only increase the HP they also increases the Tank by a bigger recharge. Shield Tanking is allready powerfull(especialy passive Tanking that is plain overpowert because of the lack of Stacking).
Shield Tanking has allways a smaller buffer in a trade of faster Boost Cycles and becomes even more cap efficent with a Amplifier and also gets the better Faction suff.
Armortanking is more buffer style, you starting at 100 and buffer Damage that you canŠt tank on the Armor. Because of this you need more HP and better Resistaces in PVE. XL Reppers would free a Low on many Ships and would make Shield Tanks subpar.
Capitals allready can tank very good on her own Cap Recharge and they have planty of HP.
All this modules donŠt exist because of ballence Issues and it would be not whise to release them.
Yes but I believe you are confusing the cause and effect between mechanics and player strategy. Generally, the way the mechanics are end up promoting certain play styles, such as the two that you've obviously learned are advantageous with the current module holes.
As mentioned, XL reppers should obviously not be a free drop in replacement for 2x Large reppers. In fact, the fitting cost for an XL repper should be at the very least 1.5x MORE than that of 2x large reppers combined. The higher fitting cost will naturally balance out what else you can (or can't) fit with the XL repper in.
An easy solution to XL shield extender would be to have it also give a negative regen modifier. This would result in larger buffer without shooting passive recharge through the roof, making shield buffer tanking as viable as armor buffer tanking in a pvp fleet.
|
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 01:21:00 -
[8]
Edited by: procurement specialist on 20/06/2008 01:22:51 i figured xl shield extenders should be about 2/3 to 3/4 as efficient as large shield extenders myself. this means only ships with a decent amount of extra grid left anyway would be able to fit them. same with x-l armor rep. Have it take 5k pg and rep double large rep amount. this requires an rcu in the other low slot to fit but with high skills might give a small amount more spare pg to up other fittings. was just the idea running around in my head though.
also most passive shield tanks can't fit any damage mods either and using a nos them to break the invuln field use is normally quite effective. as long as their is no shield equivalent of eamn II i don't see a major problem.
|
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 14:59:00 -
[9]
I had another thought over the weekend. there are 3 blasters and 2 railguns the long range version. likewise there are at least 2 of every other short range and long range variant except missiles.
long range = cruise short range = torpedo
The ammo is almost exactly the same as standard per missiles but where both blasters and railguns use antimatter there are distinct cruiser/torpedo. I will assume that is intended because it is common to every missile group but I think the option on different cruise launchers is just missing. not saying it really needs it but it struck me as another of the missing modules i started the post about.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |