Valid 7 module slots, but gradually reducing protection value

[OKDad70 862]

I would like to see seven module slots as follows:

 

1.0x ; 1.0x

0.8x

0.7x

0.6x

0.5x

0.3x

 

Each slot would include the multiplier. The multiplier would apply to whichever module was equipped in it.

 

With seven 50% modules, that would give the top two slots 50% protection; the 3rd slot - 40%; 4th - 35%; 5th - 30%, 6th - 25%; 7th - 15%.

 

Of course, since most of us don't have that many 50% modules, we'd have to choose which to put where to maximize protection effectively against the turrets of a given battle. In 8v8, that would usually allow a protection against all the turrets, but some wouldn't be very much, but maybe enough to keep from being spawn-killed for the whole 10 minutes.

 

Modules open at Sergeant.

I suggest only two slots at that rank, then each new slot opens at progressively higher ranks, with the seventh opening at Marshal.

 

Of course, there are various other possibilities along this line, but we need more than three slots for modules. We need more than four.

 

It might be good to take an entirely different approach. Perhaps we could have 14 slots, with only the first having the 1.0x multiplier fixed. Each subsequent module equipped would gradually affect the multiplier for each.

 

Something like:

Two modules:

1.0x ; 1.0x

 

Three modules:

1.0x ; 0.95x ; 0.9x

 

Four modules:

1.0x ; 0.9x ; 0.8x ; 0.7x

 

Five modules:

1.0x ; 0.85x ; 0.75x ; 0.65x ; 0.6x

and so on in some scheme that lets players tailor their equipment to the style and capabilities that suits them best but balances extra protections with less overall effectiveness of each one.

 

This scheme could also open two slots at Sergeant rank, and open the additional 12, one at a time at appropriate rank attainment.

 

I know the old paradigm was 150% maximum total cumulative protection (with a couple exceptions). But, that is not enough with seven turrets that can destroy you from spawn before you can respond. We need protection against at least five turrets that grants us more than a single-shot kill protection and more than 2.5 seconds to respond.

 

[Maf 32,306]

Under review

[CabbageRoll 3,018]

even one 50% protection is too much we need the 150% limit

[nemoetnihil 388]

NO, modules are too powerful already. This might be fine if protection was maxed at 35% (the way it should be).

[thesquarerootof2 165]

Protection modules should get a big nerf before any stuff like this is attempted. 

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

7 protection slots? :O

 

That's more than half of the turret selection in the game, even including mines. Which is ludicrous. Makes for a dull and boring gameplay because it would take more time to kill them. And slows the growth of the battle fund.

[Maf 32,306]

even one 50% protection is too much we need the 150% limit

But the 150% limit can still exist with this idea. Only instead of 50-50-50 it will be 50-40-30-20-10, or 45-25-25-15-10-10-10, or something like that. But I can already envision the majority of Legends with full sets of modules being outraged by this idea.

[OKDad70 862]

Thanks for considering.

 

I would like to see one full module, but I'm not hard over on any of it.

 

Regardless of any other consideration, being able to protect from only three turrets with 13 (and more pending) turrets isn't enough.

 

Seven (more under some circumstances) can destroy a tank without a module in one short or in less than three seconds before a player can respond. Having no ability to respond isn't fun, isn't play. It is just frustrating. Having it happen once in a while is something to just get over. Having it happen repeatedly in the same match shouldn't be something players must be subjected to.

 

Having only three modules and not being able to change any for five minutes after changing only one is frustrating. It is NOT playing. It is not valid competition.

 

I'd also like to see slots with garage timers instead of the whole of protections. As is, if I change my first slot, then maybe it should be unchangeable for five minutes, but why are the second and third slot also locked? I didn't change them.

 

I suppose nothing like this should be attempted before we see how bad the overdrives affect things.

 

I don't suppose it is something that could possibly be implemented by the New Year. If I knew something like what I suggest we being implemented, I'd have no problem being patient. (Well, at least for a few months. Overdrives have taken much too long.)

 

Again, I reiterate, I do not think the 150% combined total protection is enough. Maybe 35% for any module should be the limit, but that would alter the overall game significantly. But I don't see any drawback to having a higher combined total.

[OKDad70 862]

MM battles typically have six to eight turrets on a team.

 

Three modules leves over half the opposing team with significant advantage over a given player.

 

In MM DM, usually at least ten of the turrets are represented.

[wolverine848 13,097]

But the 150% limit can still exist with this idea. Only instead of 50-50-50 it will be 50-40-30-20-10, or 45-25-25-15-10-10-10, or something like that. But I can already envision the majority of Legends with full sets of modules being outraged by this idea.

Definitely have to keep the 150% total protection - or even less.

 

But not sure why "majority of Legends with full sets of modules" would be outraged with the idea.  They would benefit more than anybody... no?

[Maf 32,306]

Definitely have to keep the 150% total protection - or even less.

 

But not sure why "majority of Legends with full sets of modules" would be outraged with the idea.  They would benefit more than anybody... no?

In reality it would probably be a benefit, or at least no change in effectiveness compared to the current system, but in the eyes of most players devs made it impossible for them to use their 50% modules, meaning that all those crystals went to waste. Obviously that's not the case, but I'm sure that's exactly how a lot of people would see it.

[OKDad70 862]

In reality it would probably be a benefit, or at least no change in effectiveness compared to the current system, but in the eyes of most players devs made it impossible for them to use their 50% modules, meaning that all those crystals went to waste. Obviously that's not the case, but I'm sure that's exactly how a lot of people would see it.

Hmm...could be. Hard to tell how players will react, but I think more control and more options will be a majority win. Assuming a heavy buyer or a Legend of several levels, such players likely have all the protections they care to have MUd to 50%. They can only use three of those at a time, and they likely cannot change more then once per battle. They likely have a lot of protections they never use at all.

[thesquarerootof2 165]

Seven (more under some circumstances) can destroy a tank without a module in one short or in less than three seconds before a player can respond. Having no ability to respond isn't fun, isn't play. It is just frustrating. Having it happen once in a while is something to just get over. Having it happen repeatedly in the same match shouldn't be something players must be subjected to. 

I agree with you very much on this; it is frustrating to be one-shotted. However, these turrets in question are already fairly balanced in many other ways. By allowing 50% modules against these weapons, you are essentially rendering them utterly useless, simply because you do not like one of their upsides. That is not good. 

[Maf 32,306]

They likely have a lot of protections they never use at all.

Well, I'm one of those people and the only protection I don't use is from mines and Vulcan.

[GorgoBlesk 831]

After Magnum nerf, players NEED only 2 modules against OP Thunder and Smoky. The 3rd module is just a bonus one...

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

After Magnum nerf, players NEED only 2 modules against OP Thunder and Smoky. The 3rd module is just a bonus one...

I don't need any modules against smoky because I barely see any. Besides I already have hunter, which nullifies smokys ability to knock off my aim. I have thunder module to mainly protect myself against self damage, protecting me from other thunders is just an additional bonus. I have protection against railgun, because every battle I see at least 3 railgun, and they're even more annoying than smoky and thunder combined. Now I just need a module against OP firebird and I'll have a versatile set.

[wolverine848 13,097]

After Magnum nerf, players NEED only 2 modules against OP Thunder and Smoky. The 3rd module is just a bonus one...

Um... Firebird?  

 

A team in Bobruisk last night had 4 of them.  Makes it an easy decision to equip - but - without it you are burnt toast.

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

Protection modules should get a big nerf before any stuff like this is attempted. 

I bought Clay, Zeus.... before the modules update. I am not the only one in that case. If they nerf module, we deserve a refund.

 

Or...

 

Wait for it...

 

Oh yes, batteries.

[OKDad70 862]

Typical battles for Marshal Ricosck:

Enter battle with Legends (all or mostly) and notice I have the wrong protections. Ricosck has all the protections, most of theme over 35%, so I change. Then the other team changes, either turrets or players. Then I'm being one-shot'd again. Even if I manage to have enough time to change protections again, invariably, a turret I'm now at 0% protection against is shooting me.

 

I can hang with the Legends. That isn't an issue, but only three protections against multiple turrets that can one-shot me is overly frustrating. And, sometimes, Ricosck still plays with Generals. The protections problem is still there, but much less frustrating.

 

There are other ways to increase the protection, perhaps four, with a progressively larger reduction multiplier on three of them, and then three more available only in DM, where 8 to 10 different turrets is normal. (These would have a reduction multiplier, also.) There needs to be more slots, and the 150% limit needs to be increased, at least a little.

[GorgoBlesk 831]

Um... Firebird?

 

A team in Bobruisk last night had 4 of them. Makes it an easy decision to equip - but - without it you are burnt toast.

Smoky was buffed. It can now kill these Firebirds across the map easily.

 

Some players just do not know about huge Smoky buff or they have not bought it yet or they use Thunder which is as OP as Smoky.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

Smoky was buffed. It can now kill these Firebirds across the map easily.

Some players just do not know about huge Smoky buff or they have not bought it yet or they use Thunder which is as OP as Smoky.

Who says that firebird has to come right at you as you're shooting it? <_<

[wolverine848 13,097]

Smoky was buffed. It can now kill these Firebirds across the map easily.

 

Some players just do not know about huge Smoky buff or they have not bought it yet or they use Thunder which is as OP as Smoky.

1) How does smoky being "powerful" preclude you from also choosing firebird?

 

2) What Diesel said

[CabbageRoll 3,018]

So you can simply multiply values by 2 and you get 20-100% efficiency. This will allow easy additional protections

 

100% efficiency = 50 protection

 

Also more protections = lesser overall protection

 

1 module - no efficiency loss (50% protection) (+50)

2 modules - no efficiency loss (100% protection) (+50)

3 modules - no efficiency loss (150% protection) (+50)

That is what we have now and then

4 modules - 30% efficiency loss (140% protection) (-10)

5 modules - 50% efficiency loss (125% protection) (-15)

6 modules - 65% efficiency loss (105% protection) (-20)

7 modules - 80% efficiency loss (70% protection) (-35)

 

(for fully upgraded m3 with 100% efficiency)

 

So you see more modules = weaker efficiency of modules which would be easy to add

[Maf 32,306]

So you can simply multiply values by 2 and you get 20-100% efficiency. This will allow easy additional protections

Topic merged

 

You're suggesting a very similar concept to this topic. Also, I don't get why you had to introduce this "efficiency" into the mix. Not to mention that I think your numbers are wrong, since 150 being reduced to 140 is not a 30% loss.

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

These days, I am sick because when I join battle, at least 2 enemies have 50% against Rico, sometimes 4 or 5. I can't imagine with 7 slots.