DUST Search - Armor Hardener vs. Shield Hardener.

Velvet Overkill wrote:

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Sir Dukey wrote:

Pokey Dravon wrote:

The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me.

Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that.

Ah ah ah... don't forget to reduce the CPU cost of Shield extenders so they take up 13% of the total CPU on a Shield tank and increase PG by 4% so they take up 13% total PG on shield tank.

Yep that too. Like I get if Rattati was trying to avoid a certain fit by tweaking fitting to prevent it, I totally get that. But never should one hardener be innately equal or better than the other in every way, which is what we have now.

Regulators would also need a cut in fitting requirements; for a passive module it uses up a lot of PG and it also takes up a slot that could be used for fitting mods.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17725	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:14:00 - [31] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yeah, again, this isn't Eve. Maybe go play Eve? We are trying to bring somesort iof balance to shield and armor tanks rather than just have shield tanks living in the redline, where armor tanks would still do a better job. Shield hardener increase to 60% is a good start given the shorter duration. I don't believe continuity between EVE and Dust is necessarily a negative thing. In fact your yourself have said the earliest builds were some of your favourites if I am not mistaken. Those builds are arguably the closest to EVE mechanics Dust vehicles have ever been exposed to. Rather than reverting back to a figure we know was bad, in a climate where multi hardener stacking is rife, and one that was changed because of its imbalance we should look to other values. I'm sure there will be many suggestions. For a whole six seconds 20% extra resistance is rather unreasonable don't you think? Consider of course how easy it would be to exploit fittings using two such hardeners and being still able to attain very competitive raw shield values. 20% extra doesn't seem unreasonable considering the fact that shield tank hardeners don't last as long, don't cool down as fast, we don't rep passive shield through them, and they cost a lot more resources. But it is a considerable amount regardless. I'm hoping to convince Rattati to remove Passive Armour Repairers so Armour has no passive or Native repairs at all. The current armour repair values (@ PRO tier around 305) aren't wrong just broken because they are a purely passive per second value that requires no management. For example I have a model I'm working on that when two Heavy Reppers are activated at the same time the armour tank will experience 317.6 repair per second (WIP so adjustable values) for a grand total of 15 seconds...... after that its a long cool down on the repairers with now passive regen at all. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5483	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:19:00 - [32] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me. Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that. Ah ah ah... don't forget to reduce the CPU cost of Shield extenders so they take up 13% of the total CPU on a Shield tank and increase PG by 4% so they take up 13% total PG on shield tank. Yep that too. Like I get if Rattati was trying to avoid a certain fit by tweaking fitting to prevent it, I totally get that. But never should one hardener be innately equal or better than the other in every way, which is what we have now. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Velvet Overkill SI6MA Learning Alliance 147	Posted - 2015.03.19 20:20:00 - [33] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me. Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that. Ah ah ah... don't forget to reduce the CPU cost of Shield extenders so they take up 13% of the total CPU on a Shield tank and increase PG by 4% so they take up 13% total PG on shield tank. Yep that too. Like I get if Rattati was trying to avoid a certain fit by tweaking fitting to prevent it, I totally get that. But never should one hardener be innately equal or better than the other in every way, which is what we have now. Regulators would also need a cut in fitting requirements; for a passive module it uses up a lot of PG and it also takes up a slot that could be used for fitting mods. Using this account until The-Errorist is unbanned on April 10th. AV vs Dropship
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1946	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:53:00 - [34] - Quote Velvet Overkill wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me. Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that. Ah ah ah... don't forget to reduce the CPU cost of Shield extenders so they take up 13% of the total CPU on a Shield tank and increase PG by 4% so they take up 13% total PG on shield tank. Yep that too. Like I get if Rattati was trying to avoid a certain fit by tweaking fitting to prevent it, I totally get that. But never should one hardener be innately equal or better than the other in every way, which is what we have now. Regulators would also need a cut in fitting requirements; for a passive module it uses up a lot of PG and it also takes up a slot that could be used for fitting mods. Currently, none of my fits are without both lows dedicated to CPU and PG expansions. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1962	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:07:00 - [35] - Quote bumparoo. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 559	Posted - 2015.03.26 15:08:00 - [36] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: 1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill) 2.) The fitting: The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT... Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost. The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank? Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG. So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank? Repair modules and EHP are both magnified by hardeners, this only comes into effect for shield vehicles if the hardening prevents the shield regen from going down, and even then the current heavy reps can rep more than the shield rep, and there is no way to increase shield reps. This results in armor vehicles that just cannot be killed unless you bring 2 or 3 or more different high damage high stamina weapons to the fight, and shield vehicles that might be balanced but its impossible to tell because they are so overshadowed.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 432	Posted - 2015.04.13 16:59:00 - [37] - Quote One of the reasons the double hardener double rep Maddies are so prevalent is the fact large rails have been nerfed at least 5 times in a row instead of fixing core issues. Damage Nerf Range Nerf Heat Build up Nerf Giving 90% more resist to armor hardener Nerf Basic and Advanced damage mod Nerf On top of these nerfs, shield tanks have also been nerfed ( because sitting in the redline hiding is supposed to be a 'pkaystyle' according to armor users). These nerfs include: Hardener Nerf Shield fitting Nerf Shield staking penalty Nerf Breaking Shield Booster Nerf Shield regen rate Nerf Shield starting armor value Nerf Missile splash damage nerf Missile clip size nerf Missile reload time nerf Fix Shields Fix Rails Fix Missiles Fix the core problems or do as per usual and pander to the masses that QQ on the forums for nerfs, as it is easier to cry on the forums than realize what the actual problem is in-game.
Velvet Overkill SI6MA Learning Alliance 166	Posted - 2015.04.13 17:49:00 - [38] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: One of the reasons the double hardener double rep Maddies are so prevalent is the fact large rails have been nerfed at least 5 times in a row instead of fixing core issues. Damage Nerf Range Nerf Heat Build up Nerf Giving 90% more resist to armor hardener Nerf Basic and Advanced damage mod Nerf On top of these nerfs, shield tanks have also been nerfed ( because sitting in the redline hiding is supposed to be a 'pkaystyle' according to armor users). These nerfs include: Hardener Nerf Shield fitting Nerf Shield staking penalty Nerf Breaking Shield Booster Nerf Shield regen rate Nerf Shield starting armor value Nerf Missile splash damage nerf Missile clip size nerf Missile reload time nerf Fix Shields Fix Rails Fix Missiles Fix the core problems or do as per usual and pander to the masses that QQ on the forums for nerfs, as it is easier to cry on the forums than realize what the actual problem is in-game. Based on the tone on your post, it can be interpreted as crying; any posting one does for something that they think is unbalanced will be perceived by someone as "crying". The main way for devs to know what's wrong and need tweaking is by people who voice their opinions on whatever that thing is aka "crying". Though a lot of times people like you say "fix the core" when they cry, instead of naming specifically what about the core needs fixing, and most of the time they don't have any details of which way the problem can be fixed. Keep in mind that "the core" could mean a lot different things to many people. It would be much better if you added what about shields, rails, and missiles need fixing and it would be even better if you suggested how you would go about fixing it. For example, for large missiles turrets you could say they can't be used to win in any 1v1 situation because even though they have high damage per mag, the slow fire rate and reload speed makes it subpar for any engagement; they could be fixed by decreasing reload speed by 2s. The-Errorist AV vs Dropship. Flux variant balancing
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 318	Posted - 2015.04.13 19:21:00 - [39] - Quote After reading the forum i only see that it boils down to one thing: Either we go back to 1.7 with a twist since armor hardeners are already there. Or. We just add 7.5 to the old hardeners and call it a day. Like honestly, i seriously wonder what is there to discuss by now. Armor hardeners, you aren't fair. "You have no delay, you repair more HP/s than me, you got almost a minute of uptime and almost half a minute of downtime. While you can get the same resistance as me. i can gimp fits with my crazy resource cost. " -sHardener. The only reason why i find this silly is that people are basically saying undo 1.8 to balance it. Ill tell you, AV will not like it. My python would be indestructable (if you know my fit, you understand). Every Tank would just look at each other and wonder what to do... it will become so unbalanced its not even funny. If you think that is the right way, tell me exactly why we should basically undo most things for balance. This isnt a matter of who beats who, it's just like wasting months of time just to go back to square one... The ADS tourney! Join today!
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3070	Posted - 2015.04.13 20:27:00 - [40] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: One of the reasons the double hardener double rep Maddies are so prevalent is the fact large rails have been nerfed at least 5 times in a row instead of fixing core issues. Damage Nerf Range Nerf Heat Build up Nerf Giving 90% more resist to armor hardener Nerf Basic and Advanced damage mod Nerf On top of these nerfs, shield tanks have also been nerfed ( because sitting in the redline hiding is supposed to be a 'pkaystyle' according to armor users). These nerfs include: Hardener Nerf Shield fitting Nerf Shield staking penalty Nerf Breaking Shield Booster Nerf Shield regen rate Nerf Shield starting armor value Nerf Missile splash damage nerf Missile clip size nerf Missile reload time nerf Fix Shields Fix Rails Fix Missiles Fix the core problems or do as per usual and pander to the masses that QQ on the forums for nerfs, as it is easier to cry on the forums than realize what the actual problem is in-game. Rails had a fundamental problem of being vastly superior to blasters, even in their optimal. Many times, Rails try and attack blasters in their optimal now, and expect to reasonably win, which they won't, unless they get some good shots in at first. Using a rail up close is a silly notion to have. However, it being a high alpha, but crazy heat giver doesn't really help much of anything either. Uprising had a great system of attack for rails, being able to hit targets at longer ranges with multiple shots, but those shots being not as much as now. Rockets are still just broken Rockets, but they are still usable (gotten some kills with them through tests, they aren't completely useless). Their insta gank style of going about things needs to go, and instead go on a more high salvo count, lower damage, higher splash, and higher reload, so it can be the thing to just keep on slinging shots at targets until they move, or they die. Kinda like a direct arty. For Squid HAV's, it's obviously with module balance. plates and extenders aside, boosters and repairers needs serious looking at, making repairers not passive and making boosters actually useful would be a good start on that front. Also, making Shield and Armor hardeners fit their styles more (so Shield hardeners having a lower up and downtime, and armor having the opposite, but Shield hardeners having more eHP given, so say the armor hardeners percent given is slightly nerfed, and the cooldown on the shield hardeners are buffed?), as well as a myriad of utility modules given to both low and hi slots, and enough resources to fit everything, I think we'd see more of a balance between the hulls. Also,people really need to stop trying to use rails in close. It's just stupid. If you get ganked by a blaster in CQ with a rail, it's your damn fault. Don't blame balance for your idiocy. EDIT: I'd also like to push my agenda all by my lonesome and still say that shotty blaster should be a thing. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-



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

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.