DUST Search - Yet another Hotfix Echo thread review: Sgt Kirk edition.

True Adamance wrote:

Doc DDD wrote:

The problem is too many people are trying to convince everyone that ' armor should be CQC and shields should be ranged ' .

This philosophy is flawed as whoever is better at CQC is also going to be better at range.

The argument would work if the 'ranged' suit/vehicle had a benefit over its CQC counter, right now all the shields can do is kite armor suits.

Kiting a superior suit and hiding behind cover as a play style doesn't prove suit balance as you can successfully kite using an armor build better than a shield build.

The same thing is being done to tanks. Both should be able to slap on a blaster and go toe to toe, blasters are +10/-10, but at this point armor tanks are 100% more effective instead of 10%.

And now we have people happy with shield tanks being forced to kite from range also asking for shield tanks to get a speed nerf.

There is no logic, just shield nerfs.

But don't you think that is kind of the point to some degree. Armour HAV are better because Blaster fights are battles of endurance where the profile really comes into play. It's not that the Blaster is more efficient on the Maddy its the that weapon is not designed to engage armour tanks and in endurance base battles where both tanks have 40% resistances then modified by their weapons innate attributes these values add up.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 415	Posted - 2015.03.18 23:50:00 - [1] - Quote The problem is too many people are trying to convince everyone that ' armor should be CQC and shields should be ranged ' . This philosophy is flawed as whoever is better at CQC is also going to be better at range. The argument would work if the 'ranged' suit/vehicle had a benefit over its CQC counter, right now all the shields can do is kite armor suits. Kiting a superior suit and hiding behind cover as a play style doesn't prove suit balance as you can successfully kite using an armor build better than a shield build. The same thing is being done to tanks. Both should be able to slap on a blaster and go toe to toe, blasters are +10/-10, but at this point armor tanks are 100% more effective instead of 10%. And now we have people happy with shield tanks being forced to kite from range also asking for shield tanks to get a speed nerf. There is no logic, just shield nerfs.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 415	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:07:00 - [2] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The problem is too many people are trying to convince everyone that ' armor should be CQC and shields should be ranged ' . This philosophy is flawed as whoever is better at CQC is also going to be better at range. The argument would work if the 'ranged' suit/vehicle had a benefit over its CQC counter, right now all the shields can do is kite armor suits. Kiting a superior suit and hiding behind cover as a play style doesn't prove suit balance as you can successfully kite using an armor build better than a shield build. The same thing is being done to tanks. Both should be able to slap on a blaster and go toe to toe, blasters are +10/-10, but at this point armor tanks are 100% more effective instead of 10%. And now we have people happy with shield tanks being forced to kite from range also asking for shield tanks to get a speed nerf. There is no logic, just shield nerfs. But don't you think that is kind of the point to some degree. Armour HAV are better because Blaster fights are battles of endurance where the profile really comes into play. It's not that the Blaster is more efficient on the Maddy its the that weapon is not designed to engage armour tanks and in endurance base battles where both tanks have 40% resistances then modified by their weapons innate attributes these values add up. The CQC suit/vehicle is also better at range. Might as well take proto tag off all shield suits and just have them as some wierd standard suit/vehicle variant to use as a joke. I have no idea what point you are trying to make, shield blaster tanks should have a short window where they can beat an armor blaster tank, but what we have is shields being stuck in the redline or insta popping to one clip of a blaster. There is no ' madrugar out lasting gunlogi hardeners ' .. there is only ' madrugar out reps, out hardens, out damages, out nitros, out eHP's the gunlogi' Nerfing gunlogi shield reps was a mistake Not fixing shield boosters functionality and fitting costs was a mistake not having shield regulators also act as rechargers was a mistake the insane fitting costs on regulators is a mistake Armor > Shields
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 415	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:20:00 - [3] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I have no idea what point you are trying to make, shield blaster tanks should have a short window where they can beat an armor blaster tank Exactly why I want active armour reppers and not passives. If armour HAV can repair at 305 every section as soon as they take damage and this does not stop until they are fully repped they effectively have no weakness in that regard. But if those repair values were short duration with a cool down or broken into two module activations shield HAV would have windows of opportunity. Yeah I'm fine with this alteration but I feel that buffing the gunlogi to be competitive should happen first, nerfing armor repairers is just going to have the effect of armor tanks ducking into the redline at cooldown.