|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Joseph Ridgeson
WarRavens
3394
   |
Posted - 2015.03.17 18:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
The problems I see with Shield Tanking:
1. The fitting requirements for Shield Extenders are insane.
2. Shields require more slots in order to make full use. Regulators fill up the low slots while Armor has full access to their high slots. This may seem as a benefit ("you can use Highs and Lows for your defense strategy") however Regulators are said to have Shields "catch up with Armor" rather than surpass.
3. More SP. Regulation, Recharging, and Extenders while Armor only has two skills to worry about. It is nearly 934k saved SP from not being Shield based.
4. This one is a perception argument but not really a specific problem with shields. Most people who state that shields are in a strong place or are better than Armor will state "You are Caldari; of course you are going to lose at CQC. Fight at range." This, however, is based entirely on the weapon the person uses rather than the defense strategy they used. Sure, if you are using a Rail Rifle and are fighting from 50 meters away, you could argue that HP is not as useful. However, what is to say that an Armor Dropsuit could not utilize the same tactic and still be better at CQC?
Same goes for "If you are not Flanking, you are doing it wrong." The problem is that Shields do not give a benefit towards that play style beyond moving slightly faster, which can be avoided by utilizing Ferroscale anyway.
I see Shields as being fundamentally weaker than Armor. It is not completely doom and gloom but there is a very good reason why Armor suits are more ubiquitous than Shields and it isn't because those people can't get on the forums and find the many, many posts about "how to actually run a ck.0."
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|
Joseph Ridgeson
WarRavens
3395
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 20:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Let's not get into semantics about 'requiring more finesse' or being a better player for running Shields. That is going to bring the conversation down.
LeadFoot10 has done a good job showing the errors in many of the arguments that amount to "Shields are as good as armor." I am going to paraphrase for time purposes. If I am doing a strawman, I apologize and let me know if I can correct it while staying just a few words long:
1. "Getting the most out of Shields is not about stacking EHP but about regenerating quickly."
-Problem: This also requires more modules and more SP than Armor. The argument is about making Shields work as effectively as Armor, though not the same way. To make Shields work as well as armor, it requires more SP and module slots. This is not a benefit of Shields but a detriment.
2. "You should be fighting at range and thereby minimize your damage taken."
- Problem: This is entirely based on the weapon. An Amarr Assault with a Scrambler Rifle has about the same range as a Caldari Assault with a Rail Rifle. The Amarr is capable of operating at range as well as also having more EHP for the close range fight. Equating Shields with Range is inaccurate as it is based solely on the weapon and not the suit. Stating "we just need more maps that favor Shields" is, again, favoring only the weapon that the Caldari use and not the Shields themselves.
3. "Shields are great if you can flank the enemy."
- Problem: This is a level of play style that is not necessary for the Armor user. Instead of thinking it as "The Armor user charges while the Shield user flanks", it comes off as "The Armor user can charge or flank while the Shield user must flank." Adding an additional requirement in order for something to be on par with another option is a passable definition of underpowered. Would be like saying "A knife is more powerful than a gun if the knife is already in your throat"; it is true but it doesn't mean anything in regards to the actual power difference of a gun or a knife when the situation is already assumed to happen.
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|
Joseph Ridgeson
WarRavens
3397
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 21:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
gustavo acosta wrote:
Counterpoints:
1. SP requirements are moot in general, it is not a good point in any balancing argument because the whole "I put x amount of sp into y thing therefore I'm entitled to z is always struck down. Dedication to a certain playstyle is the choice of the user, therefore there so no good reason to give them anything.
2. Shield users aren't supposed to play at range they're supposed to play less aggressively than armor tanks, that's why the hp given from extenders is less then plates. Not to mention this is the manner of playstyle gives shield users the optimal benefits of their suits. (high regen+low reg+avoiding fire=crazy regen)
3. It's a bad point to begin with so I can't make an argument for it.
4. Shield users get the option to armor tank effectively this should not be overlooked when talking about balance.
1. It is a slippery slope to state that it isn't a negative that it requires more SP because "I put X amount of SP into Y thing therefore I'm entitled to Z." I was merely showing that, yes, it does require more SP. This is a negative of Shields. It would be like Ferroscale being a third skill called "Plate Adjustment." I was also not stating that Shields must be better because it requires more skills. I am, however, saying that it requiring more Skills to be on par with Armor is a negative to Shields. Stating "dedication to a certain playstyle is the choice of the user, therefore there so no good reason to give them anything" is no different than saying "(Underpowered thing) doesn't need to get buffed because it is the choice of the user to go down that route." Again, the primary reason was just "why does it take more SP to do the same thing?" rather than "it should do more because it takes more SP."
2. An Armor user playing "less aggressively" does not get a negative to not playing "aggressively" in the same way that a Shield user does. This is very similar to Argument 3; "just don't play Aggressive." An Armor user is more than capable as doing just as well as a Shield user by "playing less aggressively" as a Shield user.
3. Just here as a placeholder to keep in line with your 1-4 for ease of reading.
4. "Armor users get the option to Shield tank effectively. This should not be overlooked when talking about balance." This is similar to stating "X weapon is not overpowered because anyone can use X weapon." Even if that is a bit of an oversimplification, the fact is that the street goes both ways so it isn't a specific bonus to Shields.
The purpose was to show flaws that I have seen come up over and over in arguments against the basis of "Armor is superior to Shields." No disrespect was meant and, hopefully, none taken.
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|
Joseph Ridgeson
WarRavens
3403
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 02:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
gustavo acosta wrote:
1. Good point, however because of precedent in discussing balance that point is always made so I thought I should make it, not to mention a small amount of things are put under this scrutiny.
2. Playing less aggressively as an armor user is not optimal because one can say that it is a waste of consistent rep and tank. The same can be said about shield users playing aggressively in that it is a waste of regen timers and regen itself, thought you're right it is more of a detriment to shield users.
3. (deleted)
3. Technically speaking armor suits cannot "shield tank properly" because of the base stats given their suits, shield suits are not pressed under this because armor give an exponential amount of hp and reps. The versatility of a suit should not be overlooked when discussing tanks because tank is under the scrutiny of how well the suits that use their main tank.
1. Boop.
2. I don't see the logic in attempting to prove that Armor have to be more aggressive by stating "you are not utilizing your always active regeneration." That's like saying "Caldari Assaults better always be re-loading to make use out of that faster reload speed." The only thing I can see is that Armor are capable of playing more aggressive given higher EHP and constant regeneration while Shields cannot. The original premise was that "Shield were meant to be more Passive" however I do not see where Armor has a negative in having to be in CQC or not being able to also play passively. Shields having to do something in order to be arguably on par with Armor is not a benefit, but a detriment, to Shields.
3. Boop.
4. Again, "Shield suits cannot 'armor tank properly' because of the base stats given to their suits" based on naturally having less Armor. Even then, I still have to say that "you can Armor tank as a Shield suit" is hardly a bonus to Shield suits. Also, I would argue that a Caldari Assault does not have versatility because to be arguably on par with Armor suits they are going to have to use Regulators in their lows. Even if that were not the case Armor suits can be just as 'versatile' based on them being able to put in useful modules as their high slots. It isn't as if the Shield suit has some special bonus in this.
But if I were to be slightly tongue in cheek, what does it say when the benefit of the Shield suit is "it can put in Armor" but "an Armor suit couldn't/wouldn't want to put in Shield modules"?
To the people that are trying to spin the narrative that "Armor has always been better" and that "Armor is favored to CCP" probably do not remember:
1. Armor Plates and Repairers were buffed because they were not seeing use compared to Shields.
2. The Bumblebee of Death.
3. Basic and Advanced Shield Extenders were buffed because the scaling was absolutely atrocious (22/33/66).
There are still problems with the balance of Armor and Shields but attempting to say that it has always been one way is simply false.
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|
|
|
| |
|