|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
14
   |
Posted - 2015.09.08 13:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
https://trello.com/c/hXCkMe0b/532-shield-tanking-buff-armor-nerf
Preferably the latter over the former. Down with King HP! |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 22:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:A lot of requests for cap reduction of extenders. I think that will benefit armor as well.
I think you're right.
All else held constant, a simple buff to shield mechanics or shield extenders would (I strongly suspect) be accompanied by a meta shift from Armor > All Else to Dual Tank > All Else. Further, I'd anticipate a widening of the performance gap between HP oriented and non-HP oriented loadouts. Hence my recommendation, simply nerf Armor Plates by making them tougher to fit. If Shield Extenders and Armor Plates were both resource intensive, units seeking to run both simultaneously would need make significant sacrifice elsewhere.
My two cents. o7 |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 20:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
BARAGAMOS wrote:... run speeds are way out of line.
How so and since when? |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 02:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Stormblade Green wrote:K...if so then. buff cpu/of on sentinels.... only fair...no joke.
Or give them a class-wide fitting reducing to vanilla plates. Fine by me. It is absolutely not a goal of mine to see sentinels nerfed in pursuit of better armor-v-shield interplay. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 02:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
HOLY PERFECTION wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Stormblade Green wrote:K...if so then. buff cpu/of on sentinels.... only fair...no joke. Or give them a class-wide fitting reducing to vanilla plates. Fine by me. It is absolutely not a goal of mine to see sentinels nerfed in pursuit of better armor-v-shield interplay. you can slightly nerf my heavys ehp only if you allow me to run at 10m/s
There's another idea ...
Increase fitting requirements of ferro and reactive plates. Increase movement penalty of vanilla plates, then give Heavy Frames an offset to the increased movement penalty such that it doesn't affect them. This would bring armor closer into balance with shields while ensuring that the status quo is maintained for Heavies, Sentinels & Commandos ... meaning their fitting capacity, hitpoint levels, intra-class parity, etc would not be affected. Sample figures:
Cmp Ferro/Reactive CPU/PG = Cmp Shield Extender CPU/PG
Enh Ferro/Reactive CPU/PG = Enh Shield Extender CPU/PG
Bsc Ferro/Reactive CPU/PG = Bsc Shield Extender CPU/PG
Cmp Armor Plate Movement Penalty = 5% when equipped by Heavy Frame, otherwise 10%
Enh Armor Plate Movement Penalty = 4% when equipped by Heavy Frame, otherwise 8%
Bsc Armor Plate Movement Penalty = 3% when equipped by Heavy Frame, otherwise 6%
* Heavy Frame = Heavy, Sentinel, Commando |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
15
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 12:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yaerus Steel wrote:Opposite of this. Bring shield fitting requirements down. Look at the shield recharge delay and buffer to make them slightly more durable. Weapons balanced in a separate patch from the sheild/armor balance.
Thoughts on dual tanking? |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
15
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 21:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Yaerus Steel wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Yaerus Steel wrote:Opposite of this. Bring shield fitting requirements down. Look at the shield recharge delay and buffer to make them slightly more durable. Weapons balanced in a separate patch from the sheild/armor balance. Thoughts on dual tanking? Add more movement reduction to armor and have sheild light up like a light house on all scans passive and active. Your losing either mobility or stealth. This would balance it out. Dual tankers would gain survivability but lose any ambushing ability they may have had. On a separate subject ewar needs some love again.
Two compound questions:
1) Assuming the above were introduced as presented, what modules would you run on a competitively fit MinScout? Why?
2) Do today's hp-tanked units make it a priority to avoid scans? If so, what specific actions do they take to do so? If not, how would a penalty to profile affect them? |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
15
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Yaerus Steel wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
Please pardon the delayed response; two compound questions:
1) Assuming the above were introduced as presented, what modules would you run on a competitively fit MinScout? Why?
2) If hp-tanked units are already accustomed to being scanned, how would an increase to scan profile affect them? In what way are they "penalized" if they were going to be scanned with or without the penalty?
1) Running a Min scout I would run as a Hacker or NK'r. This being the case a Hacker with extenders, damp, code breaker, kinkats to scoot by under most passives, and get to the point quickly. As a NK'r about the same thing but with damp, green, red bottle. I am not in anyway a competitive scout though. 2) It would affect them in two ways slow them down further and increase the range they are seen even on passives. Allowing for people choosing the non-tanked route to get a greater tactical advantage. If you can see your enemy and they cant see you yet, you could get that jump on them to cancel out any advantage they have in a head to head fight. But then again that takes thinking on part of the player. As a dedicated nova knifer with years experience now, I can say that dampening on a minscout is only good up to a certain point. I am just too use to being spotted on scans so I adapted in some ways to counter that. The hills, or any part of the terrain that is not a man-made structure, have a negative impact on the passive scans of players. Once a knifer hides in the hills, you are no longer able to utilize passive scans and thus forced to go in after them unless you happen to have active scanners fitted on you. If you don't you are then fighting on my terms where I have already adapted to listening for footsteps (thanks to my headset) and being all fast and dodgy on rolling hills. Even if I am forced to fight in a city where passive scans can see me, the structures provide enough cover against bullets. A crate* and a wall offer more EHP than any shield extender I could fit. In many case, I just stack nothing but kincats and damage mods for my knives and hope for the best. * - shameful typo spotted
With respect, the opinions above fail to account for the effects of the GalLogi. Adding a scan profile penalty to shield extenders would without question move EWAR interplay (and with it, Scout performance) further away from balance than toward it.
In competitive play and in a high percentage of High Mu pubs today, you're either below 21dB or you are always (at minimum, almost always) active scanned. This has made moot any effort to dampen by non-Scouts. Further, always-up 21dB active scans wholly override middle and outer ring passive scans in a wide range of settings, including (but not limited to) small-to-medium sized sockets, large areas surrounding contested objectives, and all but the outskirts of most Ambush, Dom and Acq matches.
All else held constant, it is my opinion that adding a scan profile penalty to shield extenders would (1) go largely unnoticed by the high-profile dual tankers whom the penalty is supposed to discourage and (2) would detrimentally impact Scout performance as well as intra-class parity and (3) would worsen an already poor state of EWAR interplay. |
|
|
| |
|