Piercing Serenity
PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies
865
   |
Posted - 2015.03.17 20:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
TL:DR: Armor and Shield Tanking are balanced on a micro level. They are not balanced on a macro level
This post is in response to this thread. 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 Skirm...
I got enemies,
got a lot of enemies
, got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
|
Piercing Serenity
PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies
867
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 21:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
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".
I got enemies,
got a lot of enemies
, got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
|