DUST Search - Discussion: Shield vs Armor

All Channels

General Discussions

Discussion: Shield vs Armor

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Boot Booter Titans of Phoenix 1198	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:15:00 - [1] - Quote What is the current state of shield vs armor tanking? What can we do to balance the two? Does it make sense to balance weapons before balancing shield and armor? Rattati has spent a lot of time balancing weapons. We are now in a much better place than we were previously (six months ago), however now we are getting into small tweaks and it made me wonder what the point was if there is imbalance between shields and armor. I'd like if we could discuss this and come up with some solutions. Mandatory "Keep it civil" statement. My opinion. The trend from what I have been seeing is repeating buffs to shield based weaponry (AR and AScr) as these weapons underperform in the current armor meta. This makes shield tanking even more difficult. I see no point in further balancing weapons until we fix shield and armor. My Ideas. Shield damage threshold - any damage below the threshold does not stop recharge or reset delay (value idk) Passive shield and armor hardeners - this would be a new module which goes in highs for shields and lows for armor. We could use this module directly to balance the two.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3198	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:26:00 - [2] - Quote Shield tanking will always be worse than armor, mainly because flux grenades wipe out any shield tank, and to a lesser extent Scrambler weapons (highest burst DPS light weapons, highest damage profile, against the weaker tank (in terms of straight numbers)). Other factors include: minimal speed difference per hp lost (due to ferroscales being about as good as extenders and fitting difficulties between kin cats and shield extenders), repair tools/hives for armor competing shield's higher native reps, and the lack of a damage threshold for breaking shield regen (people stopping you shield regen by plinking you from 80m doing <5 damage or falling down a small drop). Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
LUGMOS Corrosive Synergy 2830	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:32:00 - [3] - Quote Damage threshold NEEDS to be a thing. Plasma Cannon :3 Anti-FoTM Prof. V Forum Scavenger Prof. V
Boot Booter Titans of Phoenix 1199	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:36:00 - [4] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Shield tanking will always be worse than armor, mainly because flux grenades wipe out any shield tank, and to a lesser extent Scrambler weapons (highest burst DPS light weapons, highest damage profile, against the weaker tank (in terms of straight numbers)). Other factors include: minimal speed difference per hp lost (due to ferroscales being about as good as extenders and fitting difficulties between kin cats and shield extenders), repair tools/hives for armor competing shield's higher native reps, and the lack of a damage threshold for breaking shield regen (people stopping you shield regen by plinking you from 80m doing <5 damage or falling down a small drop). What exactly would you change to balance them?
7 Djin The Hundred Acre Hood 61	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:46:00 - [5] - Quote Nerf the **** outta ferroscale fitting requirements and nerf strafe speed and buff shield extenders 10hp. I'm 100% against this, I just wanna throw out a viable idea.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3199	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:47:00 - [6] - Quote Boot Booter wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Shield tanking will always be worse than armor, mainly because flux grenades wipe out any shield tank, and to a lesser extent Scrambler weapons (highest burst DPS light weapons, highest damage profile, against the weaker tank (in terms of straight numbers)). Other factors include: minimal speed difference per hp lost (due to ferroscales being about as good as extenders and fitting difficulties between kin cats and shield extenders), repair tools/hives for armor competing shield's higher native reps, and the lack of a damage threshold for breaking shield regen (people stopping you shield regen by plinking you from 80m doing <5 damage or falling down a small drop). What exactly would you change to balance them? I don't know exactly, I have a few ideas but haven't given a whole lot of thought to it: Change SCR profile to 15/-15 Nerf fluxes (keep range (for clearing equipment) but nerf damage, perhaps add an AV variant with much higher damage but lower radius and only affects vehicles, something like that) Some sort of shield repair tool/hive. I'd like them to be somewhat unique from repair tools functionally, but that's for a different thread. Lower fitting for extenders slightly Damage mods to low slots (highs can have alternate weapons mods if they're introduced: range, dispersion, cool down, etc.) Just to name a few things. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9961	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:52:00 - [7] - Quote I agree with Damage threshold and Hardeners but as far as meta goes these are the weapons that are good against armor: Projectile - combat rifles, smgs, HMGs Explosive - Grenades (which if you're into your armor and a grenade hits you you're dead 97% of the time) mass drivers, REs, Flaylock pistols and large missiles. Hybrid Rail aka Kinetic - sniper rifles, rail rifles, bolt pistols, magsecs Weapons against armor infantry: Hybrid plasma aka Thermal - Plasma Rifle, shotgun, plasma cannon ion pistol Lasers aka EM - scrambler rifles, scrambler pistols, lasers and a flux which is actually an electromagnetic grenade. Take that as you will. I believe shields just need a threshold of damage and we need hardeners in general, people need to learn that you can't play and fit a shield fit and an armor fit the same way. If they wanted that Call of Duty is over there. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
pegasis prime BIG BAD W0LVES 2043	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:04:00 - [8] - Quote Iv been shield tanking since i started playing Dust specificly caldari suits and teck. There is a few things about shield tanking iv learned 1. If your engaging your enimy head on your doing it wrong. (Allways attack frohpthe flank unless your wepon outranges thiers) 2. It's not about stacking extenders , regulators are key here on my Cko suits i stack complex regulators and get my delay down to1.6 seconds on my assaults and 1.2 on my logies (all caldari) also enegisers do wonders 90+ hp per second 3. cover is your friend (especially when you get that recharge dely down to less than 2 seconds and that regen up to 90+ on a 400+ shielded assault suit. Most folks who claim shield tanking is garbage are doing it wrong, any one who puts armour on a Caldari suit is doing it wrong. Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior. I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9962	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:39:00 - [9] - Quote PegasIs Prime is one of those rare breads of people that know how to shield tank. We have a Gallente Guide which includes tactics and fitting for everything aspect of Gallente Mannerism. The Caldari need a guide as well and you, Mexx and four others are the ONLY people I have seen in game that actually know how to fit and play as shields. Everybody else just armor stacks and make no use out of regulators. Argh, its so frustrating. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 22856	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:45:00 - [10] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Shield tanking will always be worse than armor, mainly because flux grenades wipe out any shield tank Considering a core locus grenade will do the same in most cases and actually kill you, I don't see the problem. Gallente Guide

Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3540	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:46:00 - [11] - Quote Kirk, You guys are hardly the only ones that have figured out to run shields. Most people simply prefer the better performance of armor. Look around. How many people do you think are using armor versus shields? How do you explain that without unnecessarily insulting their intelligence or playstyles?
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3200	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:49:00 - [12] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Shield tanking will always be worse than armor, mainly because flux grenades wipe out any shield tank Considering a core locus grenade will do the same in most cases and actually kill you, I don't see the problem. Not with a shield buffer or poorly thrown. The kill radius is much smaller than an equivalent flux grenade (even a STD flux). Throw a core at a ak0 Sentinel and attack then do the same with a flux to a Ck0. Which is easier to kill? Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens 3394	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:51:00 - [13] - 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!"
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3540	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:52:00 - [14] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: Iv been shield tanking since i started playing Dust specificly caldari suits and teck. There is a few things about shield tanking iv learned 1. If your engaging your enimy head on your doing it wrong. (Allways attack frohpthe flank unless your wepon outranges thiers) 2. It's not about stacking extenders , regulators are key here on my Cko suits i stack complex regulators and get my delay down to1.6 seconds on my assaults and 1.2 on my logies (all caldari) also enegisers do wonders 90+ hp per second 3. cover is your friend (especially when you get that recharge dely down to less than 2 seconds and that regen up to 90+ on a 400+ shielded assault suit. Most folks who claim shield tanking is garbage are doing it wrong, any one who puts armour on a Caldari suit is doing it wrong. 1. Any suit will be dominant if you only engage against targets that don't see you. 2. Regulators/rechargers don't work if you're taking damage or dead before the modules start to work 3. Any suit will die if you don't use cover effectively. I know how to shield tank. The problem is it sucks in comparison to plates, and shields some type of balance adjustment, IMO. It's this fundamental imbalance that cascades to the weapons and why we find a preponderance of anti-armor weapons, as well. I would fix it with increasing HP of shields, or reducing their fitting cost, or both. Because, as it is, armor is dominant, and it only takes a quick glance at your team and opponent to figure it out. All of the above IMO, of course.
Reign Omega T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1314	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:58:00 - [15] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Kirk, You guys are hardly the only ones that have figured out to run shields. Most people simply prefer the better performance of armor. Look around. How many people do you think are using armor versus shields? How do you explain that without unnecessarily insulting their intelligence or playstyles? Most players tend to favor armor playstyle because it is skewed toward the average non thinking player, and favors better players with more forgiveness. Armor is the run in chin down swing hard until they fall and that's what most people want (generalization). Not many people want the pick apart mid to long range hit and run coupled with using cover, because it isn't optimal for general purpose combat. Dust players as I have seen tend to try and fit the square peg in the round hole, then rather than choose the proper peg they shave the peg so it fits the whole. True shield players are pleasantly annoying to fight, and I consider them niche artists in a crudely painted landscape. Mark a$$ tricks, and bags of dicks....
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3541	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:01:00 - [16] - Quote Please stop insulting people. The reason people "swing hard until they fall" is because skirm/dom are games where you have to do that to win. If I wanted to sit back and pick people off -- and lose -- I'd be a sniper. You are no more intelligent or a thinking man's player than me, so please stop with the banter suggesting otherwise. This game is about taking and holding points. Sitting back and picking people off at distance, but jumping behind cover everytime you take enemy fire is a marginal role at best -- and that's precisely how you see them used. Shield tanks simply don't have enough HP to do take/hold points effectively. Damage mods in highs also add to this challenge. It's just that simple, IMO.
Cody Sietz Random Gunz 4440	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:01:00 - [17] - Quote Pretty equal, but shield tankers will always say it's worst(I'm sort shield tankers, but slot of your guys complain about regain 500 shields within a short amount of time) "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
Reign Omega T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1314	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:16:00 - [18] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Please stop insulting people. The reason people "swing hard until they fall" is because skirm/dom are games where you have to do that to win. If I wanted to sit back and pick people off -- and lose -- I'd be a sniper. You are no more intelligent or a thinking man's player than me, so please stop with the banter suggesting otherwise. This game is about taking and holding points. Sitting back and picking people off at distance, but jumping behind cover everytime you take enemy fire, is a marginal role at best -- and that's precisely how you see them used. Shield tanks simply don't have enough HP to do take/hold points effectively. Damage mods in highs also add to this challenge. It's just that simple, IMO. I was no more suggesting that I am better than anyone, nor was I labeling you or anyone else as unintelligent. Please try not to misread. What I was suggesting however, was that players tend to group towards playstyles that are more general purpose and forgiving rather than ones that take time to understand and that aren't necessarily more rewarding upon understanding. Armor tanked suits are brawlers suits, and Dust tends to favor brawlers over thinkers in most cases. It's in no way meant as an insult, it's a simple truth gained from 3 years of observation. Mark a$$ tricks, and bags of dicks....
Reign Omega T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1314	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:22:00 - [19] - Quote Also by comparison, the few cases in which shield combat and long range warfare are actually effective at holding ground, they're highly effective. Cal assault with RR can essentially lock down wide open spaces between objectives with minimal manpower. It's just unfortunate that there aren't more situations like this available for those types of players. Mark a$$ tricks, and bags of dicks....
Tiny Pineapple Corrosive Synergy 73	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:22:00 - [20] - Quote As Leadfoot has repeated over and over, it's not the lack of intelligence in shield users but simply armor>shield. There's nothing more to it. Do you really believe that the average armor user is smarter than the average shield user? That the reason why shield isn't used as often is because people don't know how to? And if that were true, why does 99% of everyone worth a damn in PC, who arguably know this game the best, never use a pure shield/regen fit? Surely the pros would see the advantages of shield to armor in an objective based game, right? But they don't because shield has no advantage over armor in winning the match. Half of what I say is sarcasm. Don't take me too seriously.

Reign Omega T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1314	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:26:00 - [21] - Quote Tiny Pineapple wrote: As Leadfoot has repeated over and over, it's not the lack of intelligence in shield users but simply armor>shield. There's nothing more to it. Do you really believe that the average armor user is smarter than the average shield user? That the reason why shield isn't used as often is because people don't know how to? And if that were true, why does 99% of everyone worth a damn in PC, who arguably know this game the best, never use a pure shield/regen fit? Surely the pros would see the advantages of shield to armor in an objective based game, right? But they don't because shield has no advantage over armor in winning the match. Well that's definitely not what I'm talking about. I personally think shield suits require more finesse and tactical awareness to run competitively and properly and don't necessarily give exponential returns for the extra work. Mark a$$ tricks, and bags of dicks....
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3543	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:35:00 - [22] - Quote Reign Omega wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Please stop insulting people. The reason people "swing hard until they fall" is because skirm/dom are games where you have to do that to win. If I wanted to sit back and pick people off -- and lose -- I'd be a sniper. You are no more intelligent or a thinking man's player than me, so please stop with the banter suggesting otherwise. This game is about taking and holding points. Sitting back and picking people off at distance, but jumping behind cover everytime you take enemy fire, is a marginal role at best -- and that's precisely how you see them used. Shield tanks simply don't have enough HP to do take/hold points effectively. Damage mods in highs also add to this challenge. It's just that simple, IMO. I was no more suggesting that I am better than anyone, nor was I labeling you or anyone else as unintelligent. Please try not to misread. What I was suggesting however, was that players tend to group towards playstyles that are more general purpose and forgiving rather than ones that take time to understand and that aren't necessarily more rewarding upon understanding. Armor tanked suits are brawlers suits, and Dust tends to favor brawlers over thinkers in most cases. It's in no way meant as an insult, it's a simple truth gained from 3 years of observation. You should consider substituting "attacks at distance" for "thinkers", lest others get the same idea. It takes no more thinking to run or fit one suit than it does the other.
Tiny Pineapple Corrosive Synergy 73	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:35:00 - [23] - Quote Reign Omega wrote: Tiny Pineapple wrote: As Leadfoot has repeated over and over, it's not the lack of intelligence in shield users but simply armor>shield. There's nothing more to it. Do you really believe that the average armor user is smarter than the average shield user? That the reason why shield isn't used as often is because people don't know how to? And if that were true, why does 99% of everyone worth a damn in PC, who arguably know this game the best, never use a pure shield/regen fit? Surely the pros would see the advantages of shield to armor in an objective based game, right? But they don't because shield has no advantage over armor in winning the match. Well that's definitely not what I'm talking about. I personally think shield suits require more finesse and tactical awareness to run competitively and properly and don't necessarily give exponential returns for the extra work. My post wasn't specifically replying to yours just the people who think shield users are total idiots. I understood your argument in your first reply and half of me agrees with you. I just think that we need more maps with open areas and objectives that favor the shield playstyle. Half of what I say is sarcasm. Don't take me too seriously.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3544	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:43:00 - [24] - Quote Reign Omega wrote: I personally think shield suits require more finesse and tactical awareness to run competitively and properly and don't necessarily give appropriate returns for the extra work. That is the very definition of UP.... ...although I substituted "appropriate" for "exponential" from your quote.
Reign Omega T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1314	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:44:00 - [25] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Reign Omega wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Please stop insulting people. The reason people "swing hard until they fall" is because skirm/dom are games where you have to do that to win. If I wanted to sit back and pick people off -- and lose -- I'd be a sniper. You are no more intelligent or a thinking man's player than me, so please stop with the banter suggesting otherwise. This game is about taking and holding points. Sitting back and picking people off at distance, but jumping behind cover everytime you take enemy fire, is a marginal role at best -- and that's precisely how you see them used. Shield tanks simply don't have enough HP to do take/hold points effectively. Damage mods in highs also add to this challenge. It's just that simple, IMO. I was no more suggesting that I am better than anyone, nor was I labeling you or anyone else as unintelligent. Please try not to misread. What I was suggesting however, was that players tend to group towards playstyles that are more general purpose and forgiving rather than ones that take time to understand and that aren't necessarily more rewarding upon understanding. Armor tanked suits are brawlers suits, and Dust tends to favor brawlers over thinkers in most cases. It's in no way meant as an insult, it's a simple truth gained from 3 years of observation. You should consider substituting "attacks at distance" for "thinkers", lest others get the same idea. It takes no more thinking to run or fit one suit than it does the other. I get it, you run shields. You think it takes more intelligence/skill/dedication, and with your last post you've also added that the returns are minimal. But there's no reason to look down your nose at other play styles with pejoratives such as you have used -- it weakens your message and leads towards non-productive conversations like this. Regardless, I appreciate your response & thank you for it. Actually all my suits are gallente... I have all Gallente suits and weapons proto. My alt was a Cal scout and logi, and I specced out of it into Amarr. I'm not championing shield players over armor, nor am I downplaying armor players in light of shields. I was merely stating that you can't tank a shield suit and forget it like you can armor, that's where the thinker comment comes in. So no... you didn't get it. Mark a$$ tricks, and bags of dicks....
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3544	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:45:00 - [26] - Quote I do now. I was dead on except for what you're running now -- after, apparently, you drew the same conclusion as me and the other 3/4 of the vets around here. Armor>Shields. Thanks.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 414	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:46:00 - [27] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: I agree with Damage threshold and Hardeners but as far as meta goes these are the weapons that are good against armor: Projectile - combat rifles, smgs, HMGs Explosive - Grenades (which if you're into your armor and a grenade hits you you're dead 97% of the time) mass drivers, REs, Flaylock pistols and large missiles. Hybrid Rail aka Kinetic - sniper rifles, rail rifles, bolt pistols, magsecs Weapons against armor infantry: Hybrid plasma aka Thermal - Plasma Rifle, shotgun, plasma cannon ion pistol Lasers aka EM - scrambler rifles, scrambler pistols, lasers and a flux which is actually an electromagnetic grenade. Take that as you will. I believe shields just need a threshold of damage and we need hardeners in general, people need to learn that you can't play and fit a shield fit and an armor fit the same way. If they wanted that Call of Duty is over there. Shields are screwed by grenades too, because lower hp Molestia approved
Cypher Nil Fireteam Tempest 78	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:49:00 - [28] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Reign Omega wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Please stop insulting people. The reason people "swing hard until they fall" is because skirm/dom are games where you have to do that to win. If I wanted to sit back and pick people off -- and lose -- I'd be a sniper. You are no more intelligent or a thinking man's player than me, so please stop with the banter suggesting otherwise. This game is about taking and holding points. Sitting back and picking people off at distance, but jumping behind cover everytime you take enemy fire, is a marginal role at best -- and that's precisely how you see them used. Shield tanks simply don't have enough HP to do take/hold points effectively. Damage mods in highs also add to this challenge. It's just that simple, IMO. I was no more suggesting that I am better than anyone, nor was I labeling you or anyone else as unintelligent. Please try not to misread. What I was suggesting however, was that players tend to group towards playstyles that are more general purpose and forgiving rather than ones that take time to understand and that aren't necessarily more rewarding upon understanding. Armor tanked suits are brawlers suits, and Dust tends to favor brawlers over thinkers in most cases. It's in no way meant as an insult, it's a simple truth gained from 3 years of observation. You should consider substituting "attacks at distance" for "thinkers", lest others get the same idea. It takes no more thinking to run or fit one suit than it does the other. I get it, you run shields. You think it takes more intelligence/skill/dedication, and with your last post you've also added that the returns are minimal. But there's no reason to look down your nose at other play styles with pejoratives such as you have used -- it weakens your message and leads towards non-productive conversations like this. Listen, if you think shield tanking is fine, awesome. However, given you just said it is not "necessarily more rewarding upon understanding" it does suggest there's something amiss that could be addressed as the OP suggested with this thread. And, FWIW, I agree with him....and I suspect you do to. Regardless, I appreciate your response & thank you for it. Saying that it takes more intelligence/skill/dedication to run shields is a reflection of compensating for shields being WORSE then armour. This statement has nothing to do with looking down at other players. If I say that being a doctor takes intelligence/skill/dedication that doesn't mean everyone who's not a doctor is stupid. your reading into something that isn't there. honestly given the stat's of armour compared to shields the clever thing is to go armour. shields require tactict's to compensate for lower HP and only offer a benefit of taking less damage from long ranged designed weapons. Its ok, I'm a ninja
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3545	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:56:00 - [29] - Quote Cypher Nil wrote: Saying that it takes more intelligence/skill/dedication to run shields is a reflection of compensating for shields being WORSE then armour. This statement has nothing to do with looking down at other players. If I say that being a doctor takes intelligence/skill/dedication that doesn't mean everyone who's not a doctor is stupid. your reading into something that isn't there. honestly given the stat's of armour compared to shields the clever thing is to go armour. shields require tactict's to compensate for lower HP and only offer a benefit of taking less damage from long ranged designed weapons. You're right. These were terms of endearment: "Most folks who claim shield tanking is garbage are doing it wrong" "The Caldari need a guide as well and you, Mexx and four others are the ONLY people I have seen in game that actually know how to fit and play as shields. " "Dust players as I have seen tend to try and fit the square peg in the round hole" As if regulators/rechargers and using cover are some secret only revealed after 4 years of graduate school and residency....
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 865	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:02:00 - [30] - Quote TL:DR: Armor and Shield Tanking are balanced on a micro level. They are not balanced on a macro level I have made this point before, but it think that it bears repeating: I do not think that shield and armor values are extremely imbalanced. Rather, shield tanking is harder than armor tanking because of the many small benefits that armor tanking receives on a scale larger than raw numbers. If someone asked me: "Piercing, Who do you think would win in a 1v1 - Ghost Kaiser or True Adamance?", I would not answer "True would win, because he is an armor tanker". The victor would not be chosen by the tank, but by: How well each of them used cover How well each of them understood the map that they were fighting on How well each of them understood the damage profiles and optimal ranges of their weapons etc This type of example is more clearly illustrated by combat between lone heavies and assaults. Lone heavies can be considered "armor tankers" if you compare them to assault suits. Yet it is very often to see an "armor tanker" lose to a "shield tanker" in a mid to long range battle. In like manner, the "shield tanker" would lose in a mid to short range battle. This is why I argue that armor and shield tanking are balanced on a micro level - the type of tank is not the deciding factor in these battles, but the environment that the battle takes place in. The environment that most DUST battles take place in are in favor of armor tanking. This leads to armor tanking being imbalanced on a macro level. If we pit a caldari team of 4 Heavies, 4 Assaults, 4 Scouts, and 4 Logis against an Amarr team with the same composition, the Amarr team would win. This would be due, in large part, to the following factors: Repair Tools increase the survivability of the Amarr team much more than they do of the Caldari team Nanite Injectors (100% HP) afford a high chance of a revived revived Amarr merc moving out of fire than a caladri one. Triage Nanohives increase the survivability of the Amarr team much more than they do of the Caldari team Many maps have a majority of null cannons that highly favor CQC The final point deserves more explanation. Many maps are designed in a way such that access to null cannons consists of many narrow passage ways that favor CQC (Armor) over range (Shield). Next, due to complaints of snipers killing mercs at null cannons, most null cannons are designed to hamper ranged attacks - the types of attacks that shield oriented dropsuits are built for - and promote CQC and armor tanking as a result. Additionally, some null cannons are housed in a "box", where you can place a merc in front of the terminal to guard it. Such a design also favors armor tankers (and high alpha weapons to an extent), because of the lack of mobility required to defend those points. As an example, consider Boulder Rim. In Skirmish, with respect to the Null cannon, there is no way to flank mercs holding Objective A. The only two entrances to the null cannon are forward of the null cannon. Additionally, Objective A has many large containers for cover, which are more highly concentrated around the objective (CQC oriented). Finally, Objective A is housed in a "box", such that a merc can stand directly in front of the terminal to defend it. This also largely favors CQC armor tanking (Generally heavies), because this type of objective nullifies all of the advantages of shield tanking. There is no room for mobility, and armor tanking allows you the most time to deal and receive damage. Objective B is in a space that does not truly allow for flanking any more than one person. There are exactly two ways to enter the building, and both are in tight corridors that do not allow for mobility. This is the objective that is most commonly filled with heavies and Logis. Objective C is housed in a cylindrical building, again made of solely thin corridors. This further promotes CQC due to decreased mobility around the objective. To me, it is clear that - as far as the objectives are concerned - Bolder Rim is entirely CQC/Armor focused. Because the only victory condition of DUST is "Capture and Hold the Null Cannons", the aforementioned caldari team would be at a huge disadvantage compared to the Amarr team. Similar descriptions can be made for: Bolder Rim Domination Fracture Rode Skirmish (Objectives A, B, and C Ashland Skirmish (Objective B) Border Gulch Skirmish (Objectives B, C, D, and E) Impact Ridge Skirmish (Objective A, C, and D) Iron Delta Skirmish (Objectives A and B) Spine Crescent Skirmish (Objectives B and C) Skim Junction Skirmish (Objectives A, B, and C) From my look at these maps, only the only map that seems balanced in favor of Armor and Shield tanking at every objective is Line Harvest. These are my thoughts on why Armo... I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy

Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3545	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:03:00 - [31] - Quote You could not be more dead on accurate & have done so with no disparaging remarks (intended or unintended). Well done.
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens 3395	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:14:00 - [32] - 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!"
Songs of Seraphim Negative-Feedback. 364	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:33:00 - [33] - Quote Boot Booter wrote: What is the current state of shield vs armor tanking? What can we do to balance the two? Does it make sense to balance weapons before balancing shield and armor? Rattati has spent a lot of time balancing weapons. We are now in a much better place than we were previously (six months ago), however now we are getting into small tweaks and it made me wonder what the point was if there is imbalance between shields and armor. I'd like if we could discuss this and come up with some solutions. Mandatory "Keep it civil" statement. My opinion. The trend from what I have been seeing is repeating buffs to shield based weaponry (AR and AScr) as these weapons underperform in the current armor meta. This makes shield tanking even more difficult. I see no point in further balancing weapons until we fix shield and armor. My Ideas. Shield damage threshold - any damage below the threshold does not stop recharge or reset delay (value idk) Passive shield and armor hardeners - this would be a new module which goes in highs for shields and lows for armor. We could use this module directly to balance the two. Damage threshold should be a thing, for sure. It's aggravating when I barely scathe into armor and as I'm recharging shields, a random bulllet puts that to a screeching halt. And scrambling for cover till then is no good when the enemy is barraging you with bullets. And something should be done about shield regulators as well. Or the depleted rates on shield suits. Even with 3 regulators, I have 2.5 seconds of delay and 3 seconds depleted delay. Diminishing returns lead to some putting a Ferroscale or reactive in the lows for higher survivability (or even a KinCat). As for shield extenders... Lower fitting cost and/or keep the depleted delay percentile in line with the other extenders. Caldari loyalist
Izlare Lenix Pub Stars 1415	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:37:00 - [34] - Quote CCP is incapable of balance and their love of armor is undeniable. Therefore the following will always remain true in Dust: Armor > Shields. The only real truth in history is that it was bloody.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 521	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:42:00 - [35] - Quote One merc vs. one merc, the equation is pretty close to balanced, which is why this is such a difficult issue to get across to people. In a team setting armor has more EHP, more regen due to triage hives/repair tools, more access to damage via damage mods. The only thing shields are good for is HP padding a speed tanked suit, which is why every single suit I have with high shields is either a speed tank suit or a passive scan cal scout. P.S. Tac Scrambler still massively OP vs. shield tanked suits, etc.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 521	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:44:00 - [36] - Quote Izlare Lenix wrote: CCP is incapable of balance and their love of armor is undeniable. Therefore the following will always remain true in Dust: Armor > Shields. This sounds pretty spectacularly dumb considering we just went through patch Charlie where the Gunnlogi was functionally invincible. I keep seeing **** like this ascribing all kinds of blanket opinions and favoritism to CCP, but the fact is CCP couldnt find its own butt if it wasnt attached to their backsides, so this kind of conspiracy theory talk as if they have some kind of unified vision, or any vision at all, is ludicrous and doesn't help anything.
gustavo acosta Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1069	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:59:00 - [37] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: 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. 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. GimmeDatSuhWeet isk We found a new pope to teach shield users how to shield tank, all hail pope redblood the 6th
Foo Fighting Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 208	Posted - 2015.03.17 21:17:00 - [38] - Quote Interesting discussion. Map design is the biggest factor for sure. The other disadvantage that shields suffer is the fact they are on top of armour. Meaning any weapon with a shield biased profile gets its advantage earlier in the engagement than an armour biased weapon, this is a real advantage with high alpha weapons like the scr (tactical and psychological).
Ghost Kaisar Negative-Feedback 10680	Posted - 2015.03.17 21:21:00 - [39] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: Damage threshold NEEDS to be a thing. But what would the threshold be? It would have to be high enough to warrant use, but low enough that you aren't horridly OP. I'm thinking 10-15ish damage. Enough that SMG / ACR/ HMG rounds at range would be almost inneffective, but not high enough to shrug off Rail Rifle shots. Or maybe a threshold over time? Otherwise the burst HMG could be useless. Something like 100 damage over a second? Combine the two? You ignore regen if you take less than 100 damage from weapons that deal 15 damage per shot over 1 second? I'm not sure. It would be cool, and a defining feature for shield tankers, but very hard to do right. You're a hop, skip, and a jump away from OP with this. Currently listening to: Max Anarchy OST Old School Scout, watch out for the knives
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens 3397	Posted - 2015.03.17 21:25:00 - [40] - 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!"

Izlare Lenix Pub Stars 1415	Posted - 2015.03.17 21:37:00 - [41] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Izlare Lenix wrote: CCP is incapable of balance and their love of armor is undeniable. Therefore the following will always remain true in Dust: Armor > Shields. This sounds pretty spectacularly dumb considering we just went through patch Charlie where the Gunnlogi was functionally invincible. I keep seeing **** like this ascribing all kinds of blanket opinions and favoritism to CCP, but the fact is CCP couldnt find its own butt if it wasnt attached to their backsides, so this kind of conspiracy theory talk as if they have some kind of unified vision, or any vision at all, is ludicrous and doesn't help anything. A small window of time when gunlogi was good does not change the fact that the vast majority of Dust's history armor had been the preferred meta especially for infantry. I'd also like to point out the ONLY reason why gunlogi had it's 15mins of fame is because swarms were way too strong against armor vehicles. The only real truth in history is that it was bloody.
gustavo acosta Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1069	Posted - 2015.03.17 21:52:00 - [42] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: 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. 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. GimmeDatSuhWeet isk We found a new pope to teach shield users how to shield tank, all hail pope redblood the 6th
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3547	Posted - 2015.03.17 22:36:00 - [43] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: P.P.S. Energizers and Rechargers take way too much CPU. That is a very good idea, I think.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3547	Posted - 2015.03.17 22:44:00 - [44] - Quote Izlare Lenix wrote: CCP is incapable of balance and their love of armor is undeniable. Therefore the following will always remain true in Dust: Armor > Shields. The above was not even close to always true, and I truly believe that CCP wants balance in this game. I'm sorry if you disagree. Tell me, Islare, were you around during the reign of Cal Logis and AR514? Listen, I don't think anyone is arguing that shields are better than armor, but to say that CCP wants it one way and it has never been and will never be another is both untrue and unfair. IMO, of course. :)
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 522	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:58:00 - [45] - Quote Izlare Lenix wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Izlare Lenix wrote: CCP is incapable of balance and their love of armor is undeniable. Therefore the following will always remain true in Dust: Armor > Shields. This sounds pretty spectacularly dumb considering we just went through patch Charlie where the Gunnlogi was functionally invincible. I keep seeing **** like this ascribing all kinds of blanket opinions and favoritism to CCP, but the fact is CCP couldnt find its own butt if it wasnt attached to their backsides, so this kind of conspiracy theory talk as if they have some kind of unified vision, or any vision at all, is ludicrous and doesn't help anything. A small window of time when gunlogi was good does not change the fact that the vast majority of Dust's history armor had been the preferred meta especially for infantry. I'd also like to point out the ONLY reason why gunlogi had it's 15mins of fame is because swarms were way too strong against armor vehicles. Someone doesnt remember Cal Logi. And swarms were not too strong against armor tanks, the gunnlogi was just straight up overpowered.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9967	Posted - 2015.03.18 01:01:00 - [46] - Quote Izlare Lenix wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Izlare Lenix wrote: CCP is incapable of balance and their love of armor is undeniable. Therefore the following will always remain true in Dust: Armor > Shields. This sounds pretty spectacularly dumb considering we just went through patch Charlie where the Gunnlogi was functionally invincible. I keep seeing ** like this ascribing all kinds of blanket opinions and favoritism to CCP, but the fact is CCP couldnt find its own butt if it wasnt attached to their backsides, so this kind of conspiracy theory talk as if they have some kind of unified vision, or any vision at all, is ludicrous and doesn't help anything. A small window of time when gunlogi was good does not change the fact that the vast majority of Dust's history armor had been the preferred meta especially for infantry. I'd also like to point out the ONLY reason why gunlogi had it's 15mins of fame is because swarms were way too strong against armor vehicles. A small window of time? You haven't been here long I take it, this is the third cycle of shield vehicles being over powered and little known fact for the first year of this game armor tanking on infantry was the worst thing you could do. The only thing CCP favors is Caldari art. As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP**
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens 3403	Posted - 2015.03.18 02:58:00 - [47] - 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!"
Ralden Caster KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 153	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:39:00 - [48] - Quote Make shield regen less "pulsey" and make it restore large chunks of shielding, or even all at once. Pick up a QUAFE weapon today; ITS TIME TO PUMP LIQUID FREEDOM
cray cray FISH Caught Me With My Pants Down 41	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:00:00 - [49] - Quote I have run caldari assault from the beginning of my dust career. It is better than people give it credit for, example, the reload bonus i actually enjoy, i only recently tried a RR on my alt and my god it has gotten me killed how slow it reloads. Anyway the caldari are effective at mid range where cover can be used, the problem here is that dust isn't built around this. Skirmish and Domination require you to push points and breach locations, which the caldari just is bad at. (I don't consider ambush a real game mode). So the fundamental features of dust, shields are less effective. .#Stormtrooper4life Team BD's Resident Fish
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars 288	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:07:00 - [50] - Quote [quote=Vulpes Dolosus]Shield tanking will always be worse than armor, mainly because flux grenades wipe out any shield tank, and to a lesser extent Scrambler weapons (highest burst DPS light weapons, highest damage profile, against the weaker tank (in terms of straight numbers)). Other factors include: minimal speed difference per hp lost (due to ferroscales being about as good as extenders and fitting difficulties between kin cats and shield extenders), repair tools/hives for armor competing shield's higher native reps, and the lack of a damage threshold for breaking shield regen (people stopping you shield regen by plinking you from 80m doing <5 damage or falling down a small drop).[/quote/] Flux nades usually do 500 shield damage to all suits cause they only have roughly 500 shields except caldari sentinels. M1 grenades do roughly 500 armor damage anyway and can kill you. The grenades are pretty balanced except that std locus and sleek grenades do very little damage compared to other rifle weapons 'damage over 1 second' values. That creates a disincentive to use std locus grenades. The real annoyance is that shields have a playstyle that is less obvious to see when use for CQC. You need dampeners and damage mods and maybe 1 shield mod for CQC shield styles. The armor CQC style is stack armor and damage, you will be fighting head on and dying anyway, that is a obvious thing for new players, it is the easiest playstyle to understand and there are less things to worry about that could go wrong. The lack of tutorials in DUST 514 is contributing to the new players understanding the obvious armor style first (there are other armor play styles as though) before understanding how to use shield suits in different ways. Additionally the map design favours the easy to understand 'in your face' player style of armor that I highlighted.

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9968	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:18:00 - [51] - Quote WeapondigitX V7 wrote: [quote=Vulpes Dolosus]Shield tanking will always be worse than armor, mainly because flux grenades wipe out any shield tank, and to a lesser extent Scrambler weapons (highest burst DPS light weapons, highest damage profile, against the weaker tank (in terms of straight numbers)). Other factors include: minimal speed difference per hp lost (due to ferroscales being about as good as extenders and fitting difficulties between kin cats and shield extenders), repair tools/hives for armor competing shield's higher native reps, and the lack of a damage threshold for breaking shield regen (people stopping you shield regen by plinking you from 80m doing <5 damage or falling down a small drop).[/quote/] Flux nades usually do 500 shield damage to all suits cause they only have roughly 500 shields except caldari sentinels. M1 grenades do roughly 500 armor damage anyway and can kill you. The grenades are pretty balanced except that std locus and sleek grenades do very little damage compared to other rifle weapons 'damage over 1 second' values. That creates a disincentive to use std locus grenades. The real annoyance is that shields have a playstyle that is less obvious to see when use for CQC. You need dampeners and damage mods and maybe 1 shield mod for CQC shield styles. The armor CQC style is stack armor and damage, you will be fighting head on and dying anyway, that is a obvious thing for new players, it is the easiest playstyle to understand and there are less things to worry about that could go wrong. The lack of tutorials in DUST 514 is contributing to the new players understanding the obvious armor style first (there are other armor play styles as though) before understanding how to use shield suits in different ways. Additionally the map design favours the easy to understand 'in your face' player style of armor that I highlighted. You hit the nail on the head brother. This game has a ** poor tutorial on the game's own mechanics. CCP Ratati wants to make NPE better, he should have stayed on the track on better explanations on the game and its features. As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP**
GLOBAL RAGE Consolidated Dust 138	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:22:00 - [52] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: Iv been shield tanking since i started playing Dust specificly caldari suits and teck. There is a few things about shield tanking iv learned 1. If your engaging your enimy head on your doing it wrong. (Allways attack frohpthe flank unless your wepon outranges thiers) 2. It's not about stacking extenders , regulators are key here on my Cko suits i stack complex regulators and get my delay down to1.6 seconds on my assaults and 1.2 on my logies (all caldari) also enegisers do wonders 90+ hp per second 3. cover is your friend (especially when you get that recharge dely down to less than 2 seconds and that regen up to 90+ on a 400+ shielded assault suit. Most folks who claim shield tanking is garbage are doing it wrong, any one who puts armour on a Caldari suit is doing it wrong. Let's talk about your #1. Gal and Ammar can do both and Minass speed equates to anything they want. If your enemy assaults you head what do you do? run away and flank..lol
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9968	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:38:00 - [53] - Quote GLOBAL RAGE wrote: pegasis prime wrote: Iv been shield tanking since i started playing Dust specificly caldari suits and teck. There is a few things about shield tanking iv learned 1. If your engaging your enimy head on your doing it wrong. (Allways attack frohpthe flank unless your wepon outranges thiers) 2. It's not about stacking extenders , regulators are key here on my Cko suits i stack complex regulators and get my delay down to1.6 seconds on my assaults and 1.2 on my logies (all caldari) also enegisers do wonders 90+ hp per second 3. cover is your friend (especially when you get that recharge dely down to less than 2 seconds and that regen up to 90+ on a 400+ shielded assault suit. Most folks who claim shield tanking is garbage are doing it wrong, any one who puts armour on a Caldari suit is doing it wrong. Let's talk about your #1. Gal and Ammar can do both and Minass speed equates to anything they want. If your enemy assaults you head on what do you do? run away and flank..lol Enemy assaults you head on from what? Be more specific. Does he charge you head on from 70 meters? Blap his ass before he can get in close. Is he already close? Try to control the range. Whoever controls the range controls the tide of battle. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 749	Posted - 2015.03.18 06:25:00 - [54] - Quote I think it's less a matter of --->Armor>shield and more a matter of ---->Most-battlefield-situations-in-dust-favor-stand-and-deliver-over-guerilla-style-combat. (especially around objective points) and armor is better at stand and deliver. Of course that is not always the case; my Cal Sent is just fine going toe to toe with an Am Sent or Gal Sent, but that is because of how I play him. Since most people who want to run shields don't want to run shields like shields are MEANT to be run -- they fail and say Armor>shield. Although, honestly, the lack of shield repair tools/hives CERTAINLY shifts the balance of power towards armor in terms of maintainability! This is another part where map design is a huge factor on balance.
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 3627	Posted - 2015.03.18 06:32:00 - [55] - Quote My only issue is that at higher SP, you can in most situations (not all) create a better armor regen then shield regen. My CalAss sports 500 sheilds and boasts an amazing regen of I think over 80 a second with a delay of like a second and a half or two, but it doesn't stack up against a guy with the (now) spammable triage hives, especially if you already have a suit repping natively 20+ a second. Armor has flexibility when you count hives and rep tools, Shields don't have much. "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire
GLOBAL RAGE Consolidated Dust 138	Posted - 2015.03.18 10:17:00 - [56] - Quote Reign Omega wrote: Also by comparison, the few cases in which shield combat and long range warfare are actually effective at holding ground, they're highly effective. Cal assault with RR can essentially lock down wide open spaces between objectives with minimal manpower. It's just unfortunate that there aren't more situations like this available for those types of players. wide open spaces? do you mean where the tanks drive around? you do get to wave at the derp ship side gunners, and keep the snipers interest until clokeboy scout shoots you in the BACK!
GLOBAL RAGE Consolidated Dust 138	Posted - 2015.03.18 10:21:00 - [57] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: GLOBAL RAGE wrote: pegasis prime wrote: Iv been shield tanking since i started playing Dust specificly caldari suits and teck. There is a few things about shield tanking iv learned 1. If your engaging your enimy head on your doing it wrong. (Allways attack frohpthe flank unless your wepon outranges thiers) 2. It's not about stacking extenders , regulators are key here on my Cko suits i stack complex regulators and get my delay down to1.6 seconds on my assaults and 1.2 on my logies (all caldari) also enegisers do wonders 90+ hp per second 3. cover is your friend (especially when you get that recharge dely down to less than 2 seconds and that regen up to 90+ on a 400+ shielded assault suit. Most folks who claim shield tanking is garbage are doing it wrong, any one who puts armour on a Caldari suit is doing it wrong. Let's talk about your #1. Gal and Ammar can do both and Minass speed equates to anything they want. If your enemy assaults you head on what do you do? run away and flank..lol Enemy assaults you head on from what? Be more specific. Does he charge you head on from 70 meters? Blap his ass before he can get in close. Is he already close? Try to control the range. Whoever controls the range controls the tide of battle. kirk, you truly represent the average gaullente.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Plasma Cannon :3

Caldari loyalist

GimmeDatSuhWeet isk

GimmeDatSuhWeet isk