DUST Search - Hotfix echo: shield nerfs.

Pokey Dravon wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Pokey Dravon wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Sometimes with what Spkr says I wonder if he even played the game in Chromosome........

60% shield hardeners is Chromo? Lol.

Right?

The highest a hardener of any type existed was Shield Hardeners immediately after the vehicle rebuild. They were 60% and running 3 of them allowed for permanent 60% hardening and were a far better alternative than using extenders. They were quickly nerfed to 40% to prevent this behavior. The highest hardener we saw prior to that point were shield hardeners at 30%, with armor running slightly below it at 25%. Aside from shield hardeners at the time being too short on duration and too long on cooldown, the balance between the two was actually quite good.

Although when you couple that with the old Shield and Armour adaptation skills you got an extra 10% passive hull resistance.

Considering that you were getting essentially 40% resistances.

Fair point.

So by that logic the Armor Hardener should be 35% and the Shield remain at 40%, unless of course they want to revert it back to 25% and 30% with the 10% resistance from skills, which would actually be even better since it guarantees 10% resistance all the time with the module pushing it up to 35%/40% when active.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7661	Posted - 2015.03.19 08:04:00 - [1] - Quote Rattati please consider reverting the changes made to nerf shield modules. When I was crunching the numbers of the new HAVs my conclusion was that with armor mildly buffed (hardener to 35%) and shield modules remaining the same, the madrugar and gunnlogi were in a remarkably excellent point of balance for receiving AV parity. The numbers myself and pokey crunched (before the buff to the PLC) showed that at approximately 1500 alpha on the plasma cannon and IAFG both AV options had a 6 shot solo average Kill rate solo versus their respective HAVs assuming maxed AV and optimal defensive fits on the HAVs. In my opinion making shield modules harder to fit is detrimental to the HAV balance and request that you reverse the changes To the modules. If you have any particular issues with these assertions I will be more than happy to show both my math and how myself and pokey did our work. Thank you for your time. AV
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 932	Posted - 2015.03.19 12:55:00 - [2] - Quote I personally wanted the fitting to be even more harsh (on both hardeners.) Something along the lines of the shield booster fitting, just to make sure if you have more than 1 at a time, it's going to be crap. Would be nice if not having a hardener was actually plausible.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7667	Posted - 2015.03.19 13:44:00 - [3] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: I personally wanted the fitting to be even more harsh (on both hardeners.) Something along the lines of the shield booster fitting, just to make sure if you have more than 1 at a time, it's going to be crap. Would be nice if not having a hardener was actually plausible. Hardeners at 40% are slightly more EHP than a plate or extender for a limited time. I recommended 35% armor hardener for a reason. 40% is only slightly higher than my projections and not enough to significantly throw a monkey wrench into the math. At worst it'll take one more shot. Whoop de do. But the way HAVs are set up if you don't use an active hardener you're not going to be crippled if you sub IN another extender or plate. in fact another extender gives better EHP than a hardener vs. The forge, swarms and AHMG. Vs. Plasma or a laser not so much. So it's a tradeoff either way. After AV parity then hardener vs extender as a choice will matter sharply because it will affect your recovery and likelihood of death vs 2 different AV profiles. AV
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2347	Posted - 2015.03.19 14:13:00 - [4] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: I personally wanted the fitting to be even more harsh (on both hardeners.) Something along the lines of the shield booster fitting, just to make sure if you have more than 1 at a time, it's going to be crap. Would be nice if not having a hardener was actually plausible. This kind of thinking really bothers me because increasing the fitting costs punishes those people like me the most that only use one hardener. Plus I always found an extender better over a second hardener. Your hardener is almost always inactive when any form of AV gets the first strike. You lose a smaller proportion of your EHP on that first hit with the hardener-extender combo. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7668	Posted - 2015.03.19 15:05:00 - [5] - Quote Nerfing harshly is usually the simplest answer, thusly the first demanded. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3083	Posted - 2015.03.19 15:25:00 - [6] - Quote Yes, number crunching. That's how to balance things. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7669	Posted - 2015.03.19 15:29:00 - [7] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Yes, number crunching. That's how to balance things. You'd rather I chant for nerfs and start basing my arguments entirely off of my anecdotal and otherwise unprovable "experience" in shooting at tanks? I can do that, but I don't give value to those statements anyway, so there's really no point. AV
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 935	Posted - 2015.03.19 15:41:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Yes, number crunching. That's how to balance things. You'd rather I chant for nerfs and start basing my arguments entirely off of my anecdotal and otherwise unprovable "experience" in shooting at tanks? I can do that, but I don't give value to those statements anyway, so there's really no point. I'd rather all the 'balance by numbers' people would stop ignoring the blindingly obvious problems, caused by 'forgetting' half the information. Breakin Stuff wrote: Hardeners at 40% are slightly more EHP than a plate or extender for a limited time. I recommended 35% armor hardener for a reason. 40% is only slightly higher than my projections and not enough to significantly throw a monkey wrench into the math. At worst it'll take one more shot. Whoop de do. But the way HAVs are set up if you don't use an active hardener you're not going to be crippled if you sub IN another extender or plate. The fitting cost is less PG/CPU combined than an extender... There is no downside to fitting a hardener, unlike an extender, which reduces speed or depleted recharge... Basic lasts the same length of time as a complex, so is always the first to be downsized (youy can always make it back to the redzone on these tiny maps!) The 40% ehp on armour hardener doesn't effect armour reps, which is why hardener > extender, congrats you're basically repping twice as much ehp during the hardener (which lasts long enough for you to blow everyone to hell & get safely back to the redzone.) Hardener needs more downsides, not less... Shorter duration, equal on both armour and shields, plus rep delays, heck I'd say no reps while active (although then there's no need for a shorter delay, lol.) Harpyja wrote: This kind of thinking really bothers me because increasing the fitting costs punishes those people like me the most that only use one hardener. Punishes you more than the guy fitting 2... Even I can do the maths on that one, 2x is more than 1x... Harpyja wrote: Plus I always found an extender better over a second hardener. Your hardener is almost always inactive when any form of AV gets the first strike. You lose a smaller proportion of your EHP on that first hit with the hardener-extender combo. Only if you aren't looking for danger, or are unlucky enough to find the many invisible swarms that are floating about.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 418	Posted - 2015.03.19 16:24:00 - [9] - Quote Unless swarms get a balancing pass the 40% reduction is a solid number for armor hardeners.. can shrug off one swarmer for 30 secs but 2 make you move.. shield hardeners are like the militia version of armor hardeners
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7669	Posted - 2015.03.19 16:27:00 - [10] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: ~~Unless swarms get a balancing pass~~ the 40% reduction is a solid number for armor hardeners.. can shrug off one swarmer for 30 secs but 2 make you move.. shield hardeners are like the militia version of armor hardeners corrected. 40% isn't bad. It just means the other AV option need tweaking. Even without considering the hardeners swarms need a balance pass. Their DPS is far too high for them to be balanced properly, and the damn mechanics they operate on make it hard to tone down that DPS. AV

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3085	Posted - 2015.03.19 19:02:00 - [11] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Yes, number crunching. That's how to balance things. You'd rather I chant for nerfs and start basing my arguments entirely off of my anecdotal and otherwise unprovable "experience" in shooting at tanks? I can do that, but I don't give value to those statements anyway, so there's really no point. You can do whatever you want with numbers, it doesn't translate for battlefield conditions. BS such as AV still being a better counter to tanks than a tank is exactly that, BS. Rattati's work doesn't really do much with that in mind, as AV is still incredibly powerful. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3085	Posted - 2015.03.19 19:04:00 - [12] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Unless swarms get a balancing pass the 40% reduction is a solid number for armor hardeners.. can shrug off one swarmer for 30 secs but 2 make you move.. shield hardeners are like the militia version of armor hardeners Shield should be bumped up to 50%. Armor used to be 40% or 45% at complex before the abomination that was 1.6, and shield was 60% at complex. Chrome was better in every way. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5509	Posted - 2015.03.19 19:42:00 - [13] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Yes, number crunching. That's how to balance things. Better than throwing darts at a board and hoping you hit the target It was also 'number crunching' that got armor HAVs into a far better place than they were before. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7674	Posted - 2015.03.19 20:19:00 - [14] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: BS such as AV still being a better counter to tanks than a tank is... a delusion perpetuated in your own mind. Now this is a thread requesting the fitting nerfs to shield tanks be reverted, it's not about AV. Go **** and moan elsewhere or contribute meaningfully. By the way, pokey's correct, the armor hardeners were 20/22/25 shields were 25/27/30 in chrome. If you're going to spew things out, make sure you're operating on factual data. Or is that something that doesn't matter in the face of your "experience?" AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17765	Posted - 2015.03.19 20:29:00 - [15] - Quote Sometimes with what Spkr says I wonder if he even played the game in Chromosome........ 60% shield hardeners is Chromo? Lol. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5510	Posted - 2015.03.19 21:34:00 - [16] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sometimes with what Spkr says I wonder if he even played the game in Chromosome........ 60% shield hardeners is Chromo? Lol. Right? The highest a hardener of any type existed was Shield Hardeners immediately after the vehicle rebuild. They were 60% and running 3 of them allowed for permanent 60% hardening and were a far better alternative than using extenders. They were quickly nerfed to 40% to prevent this behavior. The highest hardener we saw prior to that point were shield hardeners at 30%, with armor running slightly below it at 25%. Aside from shield hardeners at the time being too short on duration and too long on cooldown, the balance between the two was actually quite good. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17767	Posted - 2015.03.19 21:36:00 - [17] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sometimes with what Spkr says I wonder if he even played the game in Chromosome........ 60% shield hardeners is Chromo? Lol. Right? The highest a hardener of any type existed was Shield Hardeners immediately after the vehicle rebuild. They were 60% and running 3 of them allowed for permanent 60% hardening and were a far better alternative than using extenders. They were quickly nerfed to 40% to prevent this behavior. The highest hardener we saw prior to that point were shield hardeners at 30%, with armor running slightly below it at 25%. Aside from shield hardeners at the time being too short on duration and too long on cooldown, the balance between the two was actually quite good. Although when you couple that with the old Shield and Armour adaptation skills you got an extra 10% passive hull resistance. Considering that you were getting essentially 40% resistances. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5510	Posted - 2015.03.19 21:55:00 - [18] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sometimes with what Spkr says I wonder if he even played the game in Chromosome........ 60% shield hardeners is Chromo? Lol. Right? The highest a hardener of any type existed was Shield Hardeners immediately after the vehicle rebuild. They were 60% and running 3 of them allowed for permanent 60% hardening and were a far better alternative than using extenders. They were quickly nerfed to 40% to prevent this behavior. The highest hardener we saw prior to that point were shield hardeners at 30%, with armor running slightly below it at 25%. Aside from shield hardeners at the time being too short on duration and too long on cooldown, the balance between the two was actually quite good. Although when you couple that with the old Shield and Armour adaptation skills you got an extra 10% passive hull resistance. Considering that you were getting essentially 40% resistances. Fair point "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7681	Posted - 2015.03.20 14:28:00 - [19] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sometimes with what Spkr says I wonder if he even played the game in Chromosome........ 60% shield hardeners is Chromo? Lol. Right? The highest a hardener of any type existed was Shield Hardeners immediately after the vehicle rebuild. They were 60% and running 3 of them allowed for permanent 60% hardening and were a far better alternative than using extenders. They were quickly nerfed to 40% to prevent this behavior. The highest hardener we saw prior to that point were shield hardeners at 30%, with armor running slightly below it at 25%. Aside from shield hardeners at the time being too short on duration and too long on cooldown, the balance between the two was actually quite good. Although when you couple that with the old Shield and Armour adaptation skills you got an extra 10% passive hull resistance. Considering that you were getting essentially 40% resistances. Fair point. So by that logic the Armor Hardener should be 35% and the Shield remain at 40%, unless of course they want to revert it back to 25% and 30% with the 10% resistance from skills, which would actually be even better since it guarantees 10% resistance all the time with the module pushing it up to 35%/40% when active. Not a bad idea at all AV


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