DUST Search - CCP Rattati, Resistance Modules for Infantry

Aeon Amadi wrote:

Avallo Kantor wrote:

Aeon Amadi wrote:

Here's my proposal.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p754JSaoUrvON5pV65fJAfyIcZPAccNMJDgFCO5tXqg/edit?usp=sharing

I am not sure how I like the idea of having different % resists for each damage type, as it simply makes some modules more effective than others, for example Laser based weapon is weakened most here while others are not, which would weaken the weapon considerably when compared to other weapons fighting against their opponent's 1x resist mod.

If you want to have different % resists for each damage type, then they should follow a logic based on Shield and Armor.

For example:

The lowest progression on Shields is Laser, while the lowest progression on Armor is explosives. Basically making it hardest to fit against a tank type's weakness. [EDIT:] Or perhaps Vice Versa would be better, based on True's Concerns.

Another concern which I voiced earlier is that I don't think general passive resist mods will work as well in DUST, as it becomes a rather straight forward math equation as to when a plate is flat out better than the adaptive, or vice versa. It is, in essence, a false choice as you would (on math) either be choosing the better or the worst one for -all- circumstances.

Another idea is to have these modules increase a tank type's blast weakness (Flux for Shields, and Explosive Splash for Armor) by a moderate amount, with the trade off of even lower resistances so that they are always a 'worse' eHP choice than buffer, but potentially made better by the Flux / Explosive splash resistance. Basically making the desire to take the mod for those unique benefits.

I do like the idea of adding skills for each type though, as I feel DUST could always do with more skills that provide some benefit to skilling into them (Other than just unlocks)

Not necessarily. The only reason there is a difference in the percentages is because each of those weapon types do different damage profile bonuses. Blaster/Railguns do +10/-10, Projectile does +15/-15, Laser does +20/-20. The modules are designed to counter those bonuses and level the playing field with just one and if you're adding more than that you're -REALLY- sacrificing in order to reduce the damage.

Essentially the idea is that, if I'm an Armor Tanker... and I fit, say, an Explosive resistance plate. That levels the playing field against Projectile weapons, but I'm still weak against Rail weaponry.

On the other hand, if I'm armor tanking and I fit an Electromagnetic resistance plate, I'm power-housing my resistance to Laser weaponry. I'm still weak against Projectile and Rail but someone using a Scrambler rifle is going to have a -REALLY- hard time trying to kill me.

This design wouldn't work with active modules (like Equipment) because the amount of time you'd be spending trying to turn them on/off would just make infantry combat a hassle and I don't think anyone would use them. In an emergency, they'd be useless because the time it'd take to bring up the equipment wheel and turn them on is time that you'd be getting shot at. The idea of active resistance modules is cool for premeditated fights (like you know they're there and you're going to turn it on before you start fighting) but it's essentially useless for on-the-spot fights, which is what the majority of Dust 514 combat is.

Another benefit of passive modules is it provides more opportunities to fit more than one as you're not limited by low equipment slots. Resistance Equipment would just be a buff to slayer Logi's and it'd maybe bring back Assault Scouts as they'd use the two equipment slots for resistance modules and the rest for plates/extenders.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Avallo Kantor 514	Posted - 2015.03.16 04:57:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Well, actually, if there is some OP meta, like let's say Scrambler Rifles, being able to say "I want to be properly defended against that and sacrffice HP" is pretty cool. Why not throw some ideas out, types, names, fitting cost, and values plus slot (high/low)? Hardeners based on each damage type, that reduce incoming damage by 10%, 20%, 25% per level. One for Shield, and Armor, with Shields being Highs, and Armor being lows. (They should not be able to be used without sacrificing the same spaces you use for buffer mods) And similar to how extender vs hardener mods work on vehicles: About 120% CPU than same level extender / plate, and 53% PG compared to same level extender / plate.
Avallo Kantor 517	Posted - 2015.03.16 13:28:00 - [2] - Quote Sole Fenychs wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Well, actually, if there is some OP meta, like let's say Scrambler Rifles, being able to say "I want to be properly defended against that and sacrffice HP" is pretty cool. Why not throw some ideas out, types, names, fitting cost, and values plus slot (high/low)? It would be important to consider how resistances would interact with damage profiles and how they apply to armor/shields. Imagine finding out that your 20/20 profile makes you useless, because the enemy's resistance applies to their shields and armor at the same time and you are pure Amarr Assault. With brick tanking, you at least know that your weapon is doing the amount of damage that it is supposed to do. Then again, what, exactly, is the difference between added HP and a percentage-based resistance? In the end, both do exactly the same thing. You just have to calculate more, to know which combination of resistance and HP modules grants the best eHP. Especially if resistance gets stacking penalties. If those modules were implemented, I'd expect the stat sheet of my dropsuit loadout to show me my eHP for all damage profiles. Because I sure as **** won't get a calculator and calculate the most effective ratio manually. Being able to be resistant against certain damage types is nice, but the infantry TTK will cause all kinds of frustration if it's implemented. We already have the silly situation where you select a Caldari, and then randomly run into someone with a Laser Rifle and see your shields evaporate in a flash. I generally feel that combat is too hectic to really make use of damage profiles. The other characteristics of weapons, like range and reload speed, are generally far more important due to not being dependant on the enemy. What if stacked laser resistance made explosive weapons better against that player? Wouldn't that be very counter-intuitive on, say, a Caldari? How would you even know that your laser weapon is being blocked by resistance and not stacked shield armor modules, with the former meaning that you'd better take out your sidearm and the latter meaning that you just need to keep firing? Do you intend to add some kind of visual or acoustic cue? A few points in response: The difference between resist and HP-mods is that HP mods are general purpose. Having more HP is applicable to everything. Resist mods only provide eHP against one narrow band of damage, taking up a slot that could have been used for other tanking modules (or utility). This is because of the current design goal of having them be placed in the respective mod for their tank type. (highs for shields, low for armor) Furthermore the general idea is to have 1 resist module provide more eHP against that specific damage type than a buffer mod, especially since that eHP increases as you add more buffer. Effectively these resistance modules give you more HP against weapon A, but 0 more HP against every other weapon. This allows more specialized fittings that are designed around a certain weapon, at the cost of being as effective against others. Also I would comment that it's not a "silly situation" to have shields be vulnerable to laser weapons. Weapon profiles add a depth to this game that many other FPS games lack, in my opinion. It allows the meta to shift as no matter what weapon is dominant, there is a tanking type that nullifies a good degree of it's damage, and no fitting can realistically be a perfect tank against every damage type, there will always be vulnerabilities. (In the case of trying to stack resistance modules against everything, then the low total raw hp values is your downfall, to high alpha) As to your last comment about needing some visual: We already have a % based indicator as to how much damage you will do with a weapon. No need to add anything, as that could easily take into account resistances. The other problems of confusion can be fixed with a bit more detailed tool tips, and perhaps a general guide on damage types somewhere IN GAME.
Avallo Kantor 519	Posted - 2015.03.16 15:04:00 - [3] - Quote dzizur wrote: we're inventing new ways of tanking and modules based around living longer... yeah, because there's so much diversity in infantry modules. EWAR - we got damps and precisions (dont get me started on range amps..) BIOTICS - running, stamina , melee and jump (funny how people got pissed about introducing a new and refreshing mechanic) DAMAGE - well.. nothing to see here, just GIMME MOAR DAMAGE mods (yeaaah, 4 types..) KING HP - 3 types of plates, armor reps, shield extenders, shield rechargers, shield regulators (and one more which I don't remember name) I like the idea of having resistance modules, as it adds diversity, but don't you guys think there are other modules that would enrich gameplay than just "oh, lemme live longer" mods? I'd argue we've spent too many iterations on decreasing TTK via various means, such as the Warbarge, damage buffs, making buffer mods less appealing, and even with more minor things like the 5MCC reward being a DAMAGE mod. It's fine to have damage increases, but they need to be balanced with increases to survivability, which would lead to a longer TTK. A component of this game I am all for. Also I would argue it's a false argument to say that there are other mods that could be added to enrich experience, as it does not impact the ability to add this module.
Avallo Kantor 520	Posted - 2015.03.16 17:02:00 - [4] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Well, actually, if there is some OP meta, like let's say Scrambler Rifles, being able to say "I want to be properly defended against that and sacrffice HP" is pretty cool. Why not throw some ideas out, types, names, fitting cost, and values plus slot (high/low)? Hardeners based on each damage type, that reduce incoming damage by 10%, 20%, 25% per level. One for Shield, and Armor, with Shields being Highs, and Armor being lows. (They should not be able to be used without sacrificing the same spaces you use for buffer mods) And similar to how extender vs hardener mods work on vehicles: About 120% CPU than same level extender / plate, and 53% PG compared to same level extender / plate. That seems good, no longer will ScR instantly desttoy shields. You have to be careful with that though. You know shields already have 20% resistance to explosives, while I'm all for making it even beefier we still have to think about balance so we really shouldn't add on another 25% to that 20% with infantry weapons. Vehicle resist and infantry resist should not be implemented the same way. Vehicles have the luxury of being a bit easier to design while infantry will require a fine scapula to make things right with it. I'll finish the rest of that document later tonight after work. That is a fair point. I would argue though that it is still sacrificing slots to further increase that advantage, instead of increasing other things such as resistance vs shields, or general hp. Much like EVE, having a incredibly high resistance to one damage type is possible, but it leaves you vulnerable to other damage types. Going further, increasing the resistance to a damage type your tank type is already strong against may sound good on paper, but I would argue out in the field explosive users are already trying not to target shield tanks over armor tanks, as they already have the disadvantage. Although to be fair, I do not think having a high resistance against only one damage type will be overly sought after mostly due to you'd be spending too much of your tank and resources on one specific damage type. I understand your concerns, but I think the inherent opportunity costs will resolve your issue, in addition to the fact that DUST (thanks to Rattati's balance efforts) sees a large variety of weapons fielded.
Avallo Kantor 520	Posted - 2015.03.16 17:40:00 - [5] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: You've a point. At least for now a flat bonus amount may be the way to go just to test the waters. So all Shield Amplifiers and Resistance plates will grant the same amount. That is an interesting idea, but the counterpoint to that would be what is the benefit of skilling up? There would be no benefit to skilling up from basic -> proto.
Avallo Kantor 520	Posted - 2015.03.16 17:46:00 - [6] - Quote Logi Bro wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Well, actually, if there is some OP meta, like let's say Scrambler Rifles, being able to say "I want to be properly defended against that and sacrffice HP" is pretty cool. Why not throw some ideas out, types, names, fitting cost, and values plus slot (high/low)? To, "throw out some ideas," I would start by saying that they shouldn't be damage specific. I know EvE does the whole explosive damage resist, laser damage resist, so on and so forth, having one specific resist mod for each damage type, but Dust has a far different meta, with no ammunition swaps or anything of the sort, so I don't think that would work out. There should just be the two categories: shield and armor. I also don't think they should be passive. If you go passive, it is just essentially the same thing a plate/extender, just giving a flat increase to your eHP, and if you do that, then why not just equip the plates/extenders? -SNIP- I don't mean to try to shoot you down, but currently there is no model for "active infantry modules", and we are trying to argue within the constraints of the current game, without trying to add a totally new system. Arguing for equipment also doesn't work, as the idea / spirit of these modules it that they would be an active choice between fitting resistance to a certain weapon vs buffer hp. Your idea works well (and already exists) for vehicles, but I would argue that it has to be passive for infantry. (Due to lack of support / structure for active infantry mods) If we accept that it has to be passive, we then also have to accept that they have to be damage-type specific. Why? Because if they were "omni-resists" then it would create a false choice. The issue becomes a math problem over an actual choice, because either the resistances or the pure hp would always trump in fitting X. In effect: one module gives a calculable EHP of X while the other gives a EHP of Y, and you need consider the mods no further past which one gives more.
Avallo Kantor 520	Posted - 2015.03.16 23:27:00 - [7] - Quote I'll add a google doc when I get out of work, but I decided to do a bit of numbers on my idea (basing CPU / PG on the % difference between tank extenders / hardeners) Proposal is based on ~120% CPU and ~53% PG of same level Extender / Plate: Name Resist CPU PG Basic Shield 10% 22 2 Enh Shield 20% 44 3 Proto Shield 25% 66 6 Basic Armor 10% 11 2 Enh Armor 20% 22 4 Proto Armor 25% 44 7
Avallo Kantor 522	Posted - 2015.03.17 00:29:00 - [8] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: I'll add a google doc when I get out of work, but I decided to do a bit of numbers on my idea (basing CPU / PG on the % difference between tank extenders / hardeners) Proposal is based on ~120% CPU and ~53% PG of same level Extender / Plate: Name Resist CPU PG Basic Shield 10% 22 2 Enh Shield 20% 44 3 Proto Shield 25% 66 6 Basic Armor 10% 11 2 Enh Armor 20% 22 4 Proto Armor 25% 44 7 Vehicle tanks? Yes. Also Link to google doc https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17STup5awUUTV-6A35QCS3dGtZxJRqXAlPeZNYq_lMMM/edit?usp=sharing
Avallo Kantor 523	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:25:00 - [9] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Here's my proposal. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p754JSaoUrvON5pV65fJAfyIcZPAccNMJDgFCO5tXqg/edit?usp=sharing I am not sure how I like the idea of having different % resists for each damage type, as it simply makes some modules more effective than others, for example Laser based weapon is weakened most here while others are not, which would weaken the weapon considerably when compared to other weapons fighting against their opponent's 1x resist mod. If you want to have different % resists for each damage type, then they should follow a logic based on Shield and Armor. For example: The lowest progression on Shields is Laser, while the lowest progression on Armor is explosives. Basically making it hardest to fit against a tank type's weakness. [EDIT:] Or perhaps Vice Versa would be better, based on True's Concerns. Another concern which I voiced earlier is that I don't think general passive resist mods will work as well in DUST, as it becomes a rather straight forward math equation as to when a plate is flat out better than the adaptive, or vice versa. It is, in essence, a false choice as you would (on math) either be choosing the better or the worst one for -all- circumstances. Another idea is to have these modules increase a tank type's blast weakness (Flux for Shields, and Explosive Splash for Armor) by a moderate amount, with the trade off of even lower resistances so that they are always a 'worse' eHP choice than buffer, but potentially made better by the Flux / Explosive splash resistance. Basically making the desire to take the mod for those unique benefits. I do like the idea of adding skills for each type though, as I feel DUST could always do with more skills that provide some benefit to skilling into them (Other than just unlocks)
Avallo Kantor 523	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:46:00 - [10] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Here's my proposal. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p754JSaoUrvON5pV65fJAfyIcZPAccNMJDgFCO5tXqg/edit?usp=sharing I am not sure how I like the idea of having different % resists for each damage type, as it simply makes some modules more effective than others, for example Laser based weapon is weakened most here while others are not, which would weaken the weapon considerably when compared to other weapons fighting against their opponent's 1x resist mod. If you want to have different % resists for each damage type, then they should follow a logic based on Shield and Armor. For example: The lowest progression on Shields is Laser, while the lowest progression on Armor is explosives. Basically making it hardest to fit against a tank type's weakness. [EDIT:] Or perhaps Vice Versa would be better, based on True's Concerns. Another concern which I voiced earlier is that I don't think general passive resist mods will work as well in DUST, as it becomes a rather straight forward math equation as to when a plate is flat out better than the adaptive, or vice versa. It is, in essence, a false choice as you would (on math) either be choosing the better or the worst one for -all- circumstances. Another idea is to have these modules increase a tank type's blast weakness (Flux for Shields, and Explosive Splash for Armor) by a moderate amount, with the trade off of even lower resistances so that they are always a 'worse' eHP choice than buffer, but potentially made better by the Flux / Explosive splash resistance. Basically making the desire to take the mod for those unique benefits. I do like the idea of adding skills for each type though, as I feel DUST could always do with more skills that provide some benefit to skilling into them (Other than just unlocks) Not necessarily. The only reason there is a difference in the percentages is because each of those weapon types do different damage profile bonuses. Blaster/Railguns do +10/-10, Projectile does +15/-15, Laser does +20/-20. The modules are designed to counter those bonuses and level the playing field with just one and if you're adding more than that you're -REALLY- sacrificing in order to reduce the damage. Essentially the idea is that, if I'm an Armor Tanker... and I fit, say, an Explosive resistance plate. That levels the playing field against Projectile weapons, but I'm still weak against Rail weaponry. On the other hand, if I'm armor tanking and I fit an Electromagnetic resistance plate, I'm power-housing my resistance to Laser weaponry. I'm still weak against Projectile and Rail but someone using a Scrambler rifle is going to have a -REALLY- hard time trying to kill me. This design wouldn't work with active modules (like Equipment) because the amount of time you'd be spending trying to turn them on/off would just make infantry combat a hassle and I don't think anyone would use them. In an emergency, they'd be useless because the time it'd take to bring up the equipment wheel and turn them on is time that you'd be getting shot at. The idea of active resistance modules is cool for premeditated fights (like you know they're there and you're going to turn it on before you start fighting) but it's essentially useless for on-the-spot fights, which is what the majority of Dust 514 combat is. Another benefit of passive modules is it provides more opportunities to fit more than one as you're not limited by low equipment slots. Resistance Equipment would just be a buff to slayer Logi's and it'd maybe bring back Assault Scouts as they'd use the two equipment slots for resistance modules and the rest for plates/extenders. Sorry if I caused a misunderstanding. I am not in any way supporting "active" mods, as I myself said earlier that I thought they wouldn't work as well. What I meant was the "omni-resist" mods you were proposing. The concern being with the "omni-resist" mods that it's just a math calculation as to which is better at a given stage: Buffer or Omni-resist. Again, not proposing active mods. As to giving laser more resists, you neglect to consider that lasers get that "extra damage" from sacrificing on the other side of things (Armor). With the higher resist given to shield you effectively counter Shields fully with the same effort as any other damage type... but that doesn't "undo" the negative cost laser weapons have already suffered for that bonus, i.e their terrible damage vs Armor. Effectively, this creates a situation where Lasers are unfairly punished for their damage profile, as resist mods equally destroy their bonus same as any other damage profile, leaving lasers with a worse weakness than any other damage type (except explosive which is reversed)

Avallo Kantor 523	Posted - 2015.03.17 03:10:00 - [11] - Quote You should take into account the values for explosive and laser damage with their opposite tank. In short: Adaptive Armor Plating (electromagnetic) and Shield Resistance Modules (Explosive) should be greatly reduced, i.e smaller than normal resist mods. In short, they shouldn't be "double punished" for having a +20 / -20.
Avallo Kantor 523	Posted - 2015.03.17 03:27:00 - [12] - Quote As to my statements about the Adaptive mods being a calculateable best choice: I am comparing them to buffer mods (Such as shield extenders) As a rough example: 36.3 - HP from basic Shield Extender with max skills 7.5% - Resists to all via the Adaptive Shield Resistance amplifiers. So, by math, you can arrive at the Shield HP value at which an Adaptive mod provides more EHP than a same level Extender. With the added benefit of being the only mod able to resist explosive splash. Do you see what I mean by the "always best choice" at a certain point?
Avallo Kantor 523	Posted - 2015.03.17 03:32:00 - [13] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: As to my statements about the Adaptive mods being a calculateable best choice: I am comparing them to buffer mods (Such as shield extenders) As a rough example: 36.3 - HP from basic Shield Extender with max skills 7.5% - Resists to all via the Adaptive Shield Resistance amplifiers. So, by math, you can arrive at the Shield HP value at which an Adaptive mod provides more EHP than a same level Extender. With the added benefit of being the only mod able to resist explosive splash. Do you see what I mean by the "always best choice" at a certain point? To be fair even though its not said I think most respectable armor tankers would fully accepts a increase to shield extender HP. Maybe up to Ferro levels Sorry, I used Shields as an example, but it applies to both tanking types. If anything, it benefits armor more, as they can more easily get more buffer.
Avallo Kantor 523	Posted - 2015.03.17 04:13:00 - [14] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Not really. A basic Armor Plate is 93.5 additional armor. I'd be hard pressed to put on a Basic (Adaptive) when that'd only shave off 35 DPS off of a Prototype ACR. You are correct, with plates you would roughly need over 1100 - 1300 (depending on comparing at basic vs proto levels) for a resist to provide more EHP than a plate. With Ferroscale however, you would need roughly 461 (basic) - 703 (proto) base HP for a resist to outstrip a ferroscale. Considering Shields perform even worse than ferroscale, this means that the Adaptive modules replace ferroscale and extenders for most respectable armor / shield tankers after a very short point. (In the case of some Amarrian / Caldari suits, this is reached very quickly) After this point, one adaptive always outshines one extender / ferroscale of equal level, although more expensive in fitting cost. While I am not against the idea of adaptive (resist all) items, I feel they have to provide bonuses that do not make them required for any eHP fitting, as the idea with resist plates / shield resistance should be that you trade overall eHP for specific weapon damage eHP.
Avallo Kantor 523	Posted - 2015.03.17 04:39:00 - [15] - Quote Fair enough, if that is the idea you want to go with then I can support that. I'd like to emphasize that I do like your idea, and generally support the majority of it. Most of these things are more nitpicks than a fundamental disagreement. My only remaining nitpick is that I feel there should be a specific module that reduces explosive (direct) damage, as I feel there shouldn't be any weapon type that is exempt from being fit to counter. As it stands the Reactive modules do not sufficiently allow armor tanks a way to resist their greatest weakness in the same way Shield is able to do with Laser weaponry.
Avallo Kantor 524	Posted - 2015.03.17 14:56:00 - [16] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright I'll run some numbers later. I have some core concerns with the potential disparity between usefulness on lighter frames vs heavier frames. It's late so I may be fudging the math in my head, so I'll confirm and get back to you. Resistance mods are inherently. More useful on high- HP/ rapid rep suits. Resist mods will be nominally useful at best on scouts. Yes, that is rather the nature of the beast with % resistances. Calculating it out, you would need in the 400 - 600 area for a reactive (resist all to lesser degree) to provide more EHP than a ferroscale / extender of the same level. This would be reached by most Med Suits , and effectively all sentinel suits. Suits would need 1100 - 1300 hp before a plate (not ferroscale) became more useful for them. As Aeon correctly pointed out, resists don't help out as much against alpha though, but more against low DPS weapons. Looking At Aeon's sheet, the resist values given practically make ferroscale an "almost always" wrong choice on heavy frames, while they will still be needed on light frame armor tanks (as not to incur speed penalties) Although the high fitting costs of Adaptive should help to keep it as a more fitting expensive option for more hp.
Avallo Kantor 525	Posted - 2015.03.17 21:55:00 - [17] - Quote danie sous wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Well, actually, if there is some OP meta, like let's say Scrambler Rifles, being able to say "I want to be properly defended against that and sacrffice HP" is pretty cool. Why not throw some ideas out, types, names, fitting cost, and values plus slot (high/low)? Low slot/hmg RoF modifier Lower RoF/DPS/heat buildup (higher effective range maybe). Would make for area enforcer/supressor. Middle ground between controlled burst and full auto. Wrong thread. This thread is for Infantry Resistance modules, not weapons upgrades. There's a thread on weapon mods at: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=196564 I suggest posting those ideas over there.