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".

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
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
LUGMOS Corrosive Synergy 2833	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:23:00 - [2] - Quote 100% correct. Inb4 maps are OPand the source of favorable engagements tilted one way or another. Plasma Cannon :3 Anti-FoTM Prof. V Forum Scavenger Prof. V
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 867	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:38:00 - [3] - Quote Bumping for feedback I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens 3397	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:39:00 - [4] - Quote 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. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
Heimdallr69 Negative-Feedback. 4940	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:47:00 - [5] - 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. Long range engagements also favor armor suits and not just because they have more ehp, they stack 2-3 DMG mods without losing their tank, they can rep through DMG whereas you can't recharge through DMG..you can use triage hives that do 70+ armor a second without sacrificing their tank.. This game benefits armor users for all aspects but that is fine it just means I have to be smarter when I use my cal ass. Removed inappropriate content - CCP Logibro
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 867	Posted - 2015.03.17 21:36:00 - [6] - 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
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2744	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:24:00 - [7] - 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
DRT 99 Commando Perkone Caldari State 277	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:42:00 - [8] - Quote weapon choice helps in CQC but so does tank type, with armor having a significant advantage. that being said shields dont have all that a significant advantage at range as an RR will cause (in a relative way) as much damage to a shield user as an armor user despite innate resists, due to inherently lower rew HP. this is worsened by the fact that the scr essentially matches RR range and the LR surpasses it. this is why people claiming 'shields are meant to be used from range' are wrong - shoehorning armor into close range is no more acceptable than shoehorning shields into long range, and shields NEED to be able to contribute to objectives (and therefore, winning) or they are literally irrelevant in PC and FW.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Plasma Cannon :3