DUST Search - Imbalances between Armor and Shield Tanking

Piercing Serenity wrote:

Joseph Ridgeson wrote:

I have to disagree with the idea that it is based on map design; that it doesn't favor Shields.

Shields do not confer some benefit to attacking at range, nor does Armor have a negative to fighting at range. That is based solely on the weapon. Take Gallente vs Caldari Assaults. Give them the same weapon, obviously not Rail or Assault Rifles to avoid any potential benefits, like Scramblers or Combat Rifles. They know shoot at the same range. Armor will still have more EHP, be just as good at range, and will have the upper hand in CQC.

Bringing up distance when talking about Armor and Shield balance is adding an extra variable, that of weapons. Armor does have an advantage in CQC because it is based on kicking each other in the shin until someone dies; it comes down to who has the biggest boots and who has shin guards on. Shields, however, don't have some benefit at range. A Caldari Assault with a Rail Rifle beating an Amarr Heavy with an HMG at 65 meters has nothing to do with the role or the defense doctrine; it was a simple fact that the HMG couldn't attack the Caldari.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The map design contributes to why shields are less favorable than armor on a macro level. If a map favors CQC, then I believe that you will see more armor tankers on that map than shield tankers. This is because armor tankers have higher survivability in CQC than shield tankers. Thus, map design does contribute to an imbalance between shields and armor - it confers higher survivability around null cannons to armor tankers.

The second paragraph of your post illustrates why I believe that armor and shield tanking are balanced in 1v1 fighting. The important variables to consider in the fight are not "What is the primary tank of each merc", but rather "What weapons are they using, what map are they on, etc".


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2744	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:24:00 - [1] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: Joseph Ridgeson wrote: I have to disagree with the idea that it is based on map design; that it doesn't favor Shields. Shields do not confer some benefit to attacking at range, nor does Armor have a negative to fighting at range. That is based solely on the weapon. Take Gallente vs Caldari Assaults. Give them the same weapon, obviously not Rail or Assault Rifles to avoid any potential benefits, like Scramblers or Combat Rifles. They know shoot at the same range. Armor will still have more EHP, be just as good at range, and will have the upper hand in CQC. Bringing up distance when talking about Armor and Shield balance is adding an extra variable, that of weapons. Armor does have an advantage in CQC because it is based on kicking each other in the shin until someone dies; it comes down to who has the biggest boots and who has shin guards on. Shields, however, don't have some benefit at range. A Caldari Assault with a Rail Rifle beating an Amarr Heavy with an HMG at 65 meters has nothing to do with the role or the defense doctrine; it was a simple fact that the HMG couldn't attack the Caldari. Perhaps I should have been more clear. The map design contributes to why shields are less favorable than armor on a macro level. If a map favors CQC, then I believe that you will see more armor tankers on that map than shield tankers. This is because armor tankers have higher survivability in CQC than shield tankers. Thus, map design does contribute to an imbalance between shields and armor - it confers higher survivability around null cannons to armor tankers. The second paragraph of your post illustrates why I believe that armor and shield tanking are balanced in 1v1 fighting. The important variables to consider in the fight are not "What is the primary tank of each merc", but rather "What weapons are they using, what map are they on, etc". You're missing the point. Take your two teams of Caldari and Amarr. All the Amarr are using rail rifles, and the Caldari are using assault rifles. Who is better at CQC? The Caldari, by far. CQC is determined by weapons, not by shield or armor tanking. Shield tanking is UP because for one it's one claim to fame over armor, high regen, can be stopped by an AR at 125m. A single plink of damage, even if it's not enough to actually decrease your displayed health, stops shields regen. Armor has far more going for it than shields do, what with rep tools, triage hives, higher hp, unstoppable reps, and able to fit damage mods without sacrificing tank. Shields have nothing. No team support. No unstoppable reps. Armor has nearly everything going for it. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me