DUST Search - [CPM Feedback] Shield Stats (version two)

All Channels

General Discussions

[CPM Feedback] Shield Stats (version two)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.18 13:29:00 - [1] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: For a more in depth analysis at the numbers, you can check out this screenshot of the spreadsheet with my considerations/notes on the nuances: http://i.imgur.com/eshWaQK.jpg Big buff to Gal Assault? Didn't see that one coming. Do you really think that today's GalAssault needs a buff to shield performance? A simple Yes/No will suffice.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.18 14:19:00 - [2] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: For a more in depth analysis at the numbers, you can check out this screenshot of the spreadsheet with my considerations/notes on the nuances: http://i.imgur.com/eshWaQK.jpg Big buff to Gal Assault? Didn't see that one coming. Do you really think that today's GalAssault needs a buff to shield performance? A simple Yes/No will suffice. There's an additional proposal (that would have to come after standardization of course) to change the Caldari Assault and Gallente Assault's base HP values to correlate more with their combat philosophy. More specifically, taking away subsidiary tank HP and giving it to primary tank HP. Caldari shields are 275 and armor is 155, with Gallente being a mirror of this in it's respective areas. So, you'd more likely see a Gallente Assault with 330 armor and 100 shields after that change. This is just one additional proposal, of which there are many that are being considered. However, regardless of what proposal it is, it would be something that would have to come after standardization took place as it would be chaotic to balance otherwise. There are going to be some oddities and outliers in this system that will need more refined work but the baseline/foundation must first be established. "Unified Theories" sound good, but I can't get behind the proposed buffs in the HP department. These will only lead to a widening of the performance gap between both Vet & Newbro and HP-oriented & Non-HP-oriented playstyles. Both of these are bad for Dust, and I can't see how the benefits of this proposal will outweigh the drawbacks. Chromosome had its flaws, but it was a good time to be a newbro. They bumbled about, just like today. They dropped like flies, just like today. But when a newbro got the drop on a vet, he had damn good odds of killing that vet. Prototype or not. HP tanked or not. I fell in love with this game as a newbro in Chromosome. Call it nostalgia, but in my opinion, that is the direction we should be heading in if we want better NPE, higher retention rates and a healthier playerbase: * Higher odds of success when outplaying/outpositioning one's opponent * Fewer get-out-of-jail-free cards afforded by HP tank * A better balanced playing field for non-HP-oriented playstyles Player thinking, planning and skill should play a part in any shooter. And in a shooter with as many loadout options as Dust, different playstyles and configurations should be encouraged rather than marginalized in the wake of King HP. When a newbro gets the drop on one of us and manages to keep his shots on target, we owe that newbro good odds of success. Spin-and-win is an NPE killer, and reinforcing the predominant meta by slowing TTK will ultimately amount to another free pass for vets (and another kick-in-the-teeth for those of us who don't stack HP). That's my two cents, at least. PS: The correct answer to my question, was "No. GalAssaults are not in need of a shield buff."
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 01:48:00 - [3] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Booby Tuesdays wrote: I agree that the shield numbers need to be refined, as they're all over the place now. However, why on God's green earth would we buff armor tanking suits at all? Repping a few more HP per second, sure. Like 5 HP more max. I do not understand why the armor based suits need any type of shield buff what so ever. Armor suits would have no weakness with these proposed numbers. If anything it would encourage dual tanking and King HP even more... Explain how, don't just make the statement. Pretend this is college and you're being graded on an essay because right now you're not including supporting arguments or backing for your statements. That generally results in an F, btw. I'm in complete agreement with Booby. If armor tankers are outperforming shield tankers, and nerfs are for whatever reason off the table, then the obvious solution is to buff shield tankers. "Let's buff armor tankers while we're at it" doesn't make much practical sense.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 01:52:00 - [4] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: For a more in depth analysis at the numbers, you can check out this screenshot of the spreadsheet with my considerations/notes on the nuances: http://i.imgur.com/eshWaQK.jpg Big buff to Gal Assault? Didn't see that one coming. Do you really think that today's GalAssault needs a buff to shield performance? A simple Yes/No will suffice. No The gallente do not need any sort of shield buff.. nor do Amar, all around Nerf to both classes shields IMHO. My thoughts exactly. "Shield tankers are being outperformed by armor tankers. Let's buff 'em, but while we're at it let's also buff armor tankers." Does not compute. Flowery unified theory or not.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 02:40:00 - [5] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: "Unified Theories" sound good, but I can't get behind the proposed buffs in the HP department. These will only lead to a widening of the performance gap between both Vet & Newbro and HP-oriented & Non-HP-oriented playstyles. Both of these are bad for Dust, and I can't see how the benefits of this proposal will outweigh the drawbacks. Chromosome had its flaws, but it was a good time to be a newbro. They bumbled about, just like today. They dropped like flies, just like today. But when a newbro got the drop on a vet, he had damn good odds of killing that vet. Prototype or not. HP tanked or not. I fell in love with this game as a newbro in Chromosome. Call it nostalgia, but in my opinion, that is the direction we should be heading in if we want better NPE, higher retention rates and a healthier playerbase: * Higher odds of success when outplaying/outpositioning one's opponent * Fewer get-out-of-jail-free cards afforded by HP tank * A better balanced playing field for non-HP-oriented playstyles Player thinking, planning and skill should play a part in any shooter. And in a shooter with as many loadout options as Dust, different playstyles and configurations should be encouraged rather than marginalized in the wake of King HP. When a newbro gets the drop on one of us and manages to keep his shots on target, we owe that newbro good odds of success. Spin-and-win is an NPE killer, and reinforcing the predominant meta by slowing TTK will ultimately amount to another free pass for vets (and another kick-in-the-teeth for those of us who don't stack HP). That's my two cents, at least. PS: The correct answer to my question, was "No. GalAssaults are not in need of a shield buff." 1. As a re-iteration, HP would be re-assigned, not necessarily buffed. The suits would still have the same EHP but more focused and consolidated into their specialized areas of tank, meaning that weapons that work better against them will be enhanced in their performance rather than having to chew through the subsidiary tank. The numbers aren't set in stone, more of a spit-balled example but total HP would remain the same, in either case. (2A) Nothing about the shield proposal affects TTK either as there are not direct HP buffs. Does it open up for more opportunities to fit Shield Extenders in the wake of increase regen? Perhaps. (2B) One thing that many of the CPM are hesitant to do is further reduce TTK further. (2C) I apologize if you don't like this but this is the state of Dust 514 design, which has been developed consistently as a high-TTK Tactical Shooter. (3) EDIT: Players like being able to react to situations and there is a strong desire to maintain that. When a player gets killed faster than they can reasonably react, they feel cheated, and while there is merit in a newer player getting a kill because he got the jump on a veteran that can be accomplished in other areas and (4) it is not a justifiable reason why shields should not be standardized/balanced. 1. I'm looking at your numbers. Looks like you're proposing a buff for anyone and everyone who tanks HP. Not just the underperforming shield-tankers; you've somehow managed to squeeze in a substantial buff for armor tankers as well. 2A. There's more to TTK than base HP values. Otherwise, folks wouldn't run ferro or reactive plates. 2B. Sure. But I doubt that any member of CPM would knowingly support changes which would worsen overall balance or detrimentally impact NPE. I imagine that most CPM would agree that "grow the player base" should rank among our top priorities. Reinforcing the predominant, proto-friendly meta will not help in that cause. I include you in this assessment of CPM. I believe you mean well, even when you're dead wrong. I don't think that you recognize King HP for the problem it is. 2C. I agree that Dust isn't and shouldn't become a twitch shooter, but I also believe that there should be consequence to making mistakes, being caught unaware and being out-positioned/out-played. Stacking brick and shields should not be made a substitute for smart play. 3. A vet fails to check his surroundings, advances from cover, and is gunned down from behind by a newbro. A newbro gets the drop on a vet, watches as he advances from cover, guns him down from behind ... and dies to spin-and-win. Which player should feel cheated? Which player is more likely to quit Dust and play other games? 4. 100% in favor of better armor-v-shield balance. Always have been. I'm simply opposed to solutions which will further entrench King HP.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 02:52:00 - [6] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: For a more in depth analysis at the numbers, you can check out this screenshot of the spreadsheet with my considerations/notes on the nuances: http://i.imgur.com/eshWaQK.jpg Big buff to Gal Assault? Didn't see that one coming. Do you really think that today's GalAssault needs a buff to shield performance? A simple Yes/No will suffice. No The gallente do not need any sort of shield buff.. nor do Amar, all around Nerf to both classes shields IMHO. My thoughts exactly. "Shield tankers are being outperformed by armor tankers. Let's buff 'em, but while we're at it let's also buff armor tankers." Does not compute. Flowery unified theory or not. Over-simplification with absolutely nothing provided as far as feedback besides infantile repetition. You're welcome to propose changes with rational and reasonable backing, but parroting "Armor is bad" over and over isn't going to accomplish much. How exactly does a significant buff to the GalAssault shield regen/delay translate to better armor-v-shield interplay?
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 02:58:00 - [7] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: What does any of this have to do with Shield Standardization and design methodology? Everything. I'm openly opposed to further entrenching King HP, I believe it'd bad for the game, and I've explained precisely why. Negative feedback and concerns are absolutely constructive feedback, whether you want to hear them or not. There are other ways to fix armor-v-shield interplay. I'd encourage you to explore alternatives. Even those that -- god forbid -- might take a toll on your personal playstyle.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 03:08:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: It's a good thing that decisions aren't dictated by you or Doc DDD, isn't it? Adipem provide alternative values and math or quit shtposting. We realize you're salty that you're not on the CPM and none of us are on board with Scout Master Race. Get over it already. I didn't run for CPM, cupcake. And I never will. No salt there. As for "Scout Master Race", here's the part where I remind you that I personally proposed and/or supported a dozen or better different Scout nerfs back when Scout nerfs meant better overal balance. This is clearly documented here in the forums for anyone to read. If reading isn't a strong suit of yours, just ask Rattati. Fundamentally disagreeing with an idea is not shtposting. Not everyone is on board with HP > All Else. That's to be expected. Get over it already. Better yet, tighten that CPM chinstrap, do your job and fix it already.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 03:13:00 - [9] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: How exactly does a buff to the GalAssault regen/delay translate to better armor-v-shield interplay? Again, you're welcome to propose your own system that provides a baseline/foundation for shield balancing and I wish you the best of luck in trying to fix it. However, I think this little back-and-forth has gone on long enough as there is nothing useful being gained from this and it is almost entirely non-sequitur to what this entire thread is trying to accomplish. I apologize if that effort is not clear to you and I will try to make future proposals as clear cut as possible. Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: What does any of this have to do with Shield Standardization and design methodology? Everything. I'm openly opposed to further entrenching King HP, and I've explained precisely why. Negative feedback and concerns are absolutely constructive feedback, whether you want to hear them or not. There are other ways to fix armor-v-shield interplay. I'd encourage you to explore alternatives. Even those that -- god forbid -- might take a toll on your personal playstyle. Shield Stats 3.0 will include all Gallente suits having 0 HP, 0 Recharge/Repair. My assurances. I've given you my two cents. That's all I can do. I know you mean well, and I wish you luck with your proposal. But that doesn't mean I won't hold an "I was right. You were wrong. I told you so." over your head down the road. Again. For what now seems the hundredth time. Edit: This is one of those times I actually hope I end up being wrong. It'd be better for the game if what I expect to happen doesn't happen. I guess we'll see.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 11:40:00 - [10] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Booby Tuesdays wrote: I agree that the shield numbers need to be refined, as they're all over the place now. However, why on God's green earth would we buff armor tanking suits at all? Repping a few more HP per second, sure. Like 5 HP more max. I do not understand why the armor based suits need any type of shield buff what so ever. Armor suits would have no weakness with these proposed numbers. If anything it would encourage dual tanking and King HP even more... It's not intended as a buff or nerf overall...it's designed as a proposal to standardize the design on shields in general, in similar line to what happened with Speed/HP. This proposal is about making sure we have a standardized framework to work around when proposing buffs and nerfs in the future. Without a change like this, we don't have the proper context with which to propose buffs or nerfs to shield or armor. This part I get. Everyone likes logical patterns. The parts I don't get are (1) the proposed improvement to the shield stat performance of armor tankers and (2) what appears to be a general buff to already predominant high-hitpoint play. I'm of the opinion that we should be looking for ways to shake up the predominant meta rather than reinforce it. Here's what I'm thinking: Google Doc It is a spreadsheet, just like Aeon's. It follows logical patterns, just like Aeon's. Unlike Aeon's, it doesn't include unwarranted buffs to assaults or armor tankers.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 11:57:00 - [11] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: I initially had a very long drawn out post about the concepts and principles of design but I think those of you who are smart enough to use illustrations and context clues can easily understand how frustrating some of these comments are once I provide you something to look at. Those of you who can't... Well, let's just say that god loves all of his children. http://discoverdesign.org/files/images/general/design_process_0.gif We're in between the Brainstorm and Analyze and Feedback portions, respectively. I'll let you figure out what that means for why getting bent out of shape over the numbers presented in this proposal is just downright silly. If it is anything I've learned from this experience it is that my proposals, from now on, will simply not include numbers or values (at least not publicly) because the Dust 514 community has shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that they cannot remain objective when numbers - even conceptual and placeholder - are presented and will don Prototype Tinfoil in an effort to destroy a perceived threat while completely ignoring the entire premise of a proposal. Run on sentences aside I'm starting to understand very clearly why CCP simply doesn't talk 90% of the time. Right. Because you're smarter than us, Aeon. Keep telling yourself that.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 12:03:00 - [12] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: I initially had a very long drawn out post about the concepts and principles of design but I think those of you who are smart enough to use illustrations and context clues can easily understand how frustrating some of these comments are once I provide you something to look at. Those of you who can't... Well, let's just say that god loves all of his children. http://discoverdesign.org/files/images/general/design_process_0.gif We're in between the Brainstorm and Analyze and Feedback portions, respectively. I'll let you figure out what that means for why getting bent out of shape over the numbers presented in this proposal is just downright silly. If it is anything I've learned from this experience it is that my proposals, from now on, will simply not include numbers or values (at least not publicly) because the Dust 514 community has shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that they cannot remain objective when numbers - even conceptual and placeholder - are presented and will don Prototype Tinfoil in an effort to destroy a perceived threat while completely ignoring the entire premise of a proposal. Run on sentences aside I'm starting to understand very clearly why CCP simply doesn't talk 90% of the time. Right. Because you're smarter than us, Aeon. Keep telling yourself that. I'd like to thank you, specifically, for keeping this thread on the front page for as long as you have. No prob, breh. And as you lead us toward the "optimal path" that only you are clever enough to see, don't be distracted or discouraged by facts. Facts like your having a consistent track record of being wrong far more often than not when it comes to anything about balance. That's all ancient history. I realize that you've somehow and suddenly figured out how to be right. Fascinating. I'm excited for you. Obviously, you won't be needing us anymore to question, QA, stress test or flesh out your ideas. That's unfortunate for us, but I can grasp why. I always knew you were too clever for Community work. You're too good for us, Aeon. Now more than ever.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 14:09:00 - [13] - Quote Devadander wrote: If all caldari suits had a shield module fitting reduction, this thread would not exist.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 15:24:00 - [14] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: @Thread, this is an open invitation to any participants in this thread, please give me your input here. o/ Cross Here's an alternative method: Google Doc Despite what the bubble chart on Page 1 suggests, there is in fact a clear progression in current shield stats. Present values were not assigned at random. The Google Doc above attempts to clean up the existing progression to make it more clear (labeled Step 1), and then it achieves the target inverse relationship between Recovery and HP potential (labeled Step 2). This model diverges most evidently from Aeon's in that a more logical framework is established without substantial buffs to shield performance of Armor Tankers. This isn't a comprehensive solution, rather (like Aeon's model) this is a framework upon which to build.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 15:38:00 - [15] - Quote Devadander wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Cross Atu wrote: @Thread, this is an open invitation to any participants in this thread, please give me your input here. o/ Cross Here's an alternative method: Google Doc Despite what the bubble chart on Page 1 suggests, there is in fact a clear progression in current shield stats. Present values were not assigned at random. The Google Doc above attempts to clean up the existing progression to make it more clear (labeled Step 1), and then it achieves the target inverse relationship between Recovery and HP potential (labeled Step 2). This model diverges most evidently from Aeon's in that a more logical framework is established without substantial buffs to shield performance of Armor Tankers. This isn't a comprehensive solution, rather (like Aeon's model) this is a framework upon which to build. The 8 second depleted on calmando needs to go away. I did notice that shield delays were abnormally high for the Commando class. If there isn't a good reason to keep them high, I'd absolutely support moving them closer in line with that of Assaults.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 17:36:00 - [16] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Much like in Eve Online, the only way to assuredly nyx dual-tanking is to make it simply not worth doing. To quote Breakin, Dual Tankers should die in a fire. I couldn't agree more. Kirk is right, and we should be thinking about ways to circumvent the problem before it gets a chance to take hold post-shield-buff. Arguably the best to accomplish this would be by ensuring that the fitting requirements of plates (all types) and shield extenders are too high to run both simultaneously without making substantial (potentially crippling) sacrifices elsewhere. This would likely require increasing the fitting requirements of plates, which I'm aware Aeon and other Armor Tankers are opposed to on account of TTK. I believe impact on TTK would be slight, as it'd likely amount to mixing in an Advanced Ferro/Reactive or two instead of running a straight rack of Complex. Armor Tankers would only lose a handful of hitpoints; I believe there's plenty of room for that, and I don't believe that their doing so would result in any meta shift. Shield tankers have to make sacrifices on account of extender's high resource requirements; I see no reason why we should not ask the same of armor tankers. * Exceptions would need be made for Heavy Frames. This could be accomplished any number of ways.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 18:11:00 - [17] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: Dual tanking can be reduced by making non-tank related mods more relatively effective compared to tanking mods, either by buffing other mods or nerfing tanking mods. This is effectively the carrot approach Aeon describes. Other than non-tanking mods, regen mods are very important for reducing dual tanking. This is because they produce synergy between modules of the same tanking type, encouraging you to focus on one type. Shield regulators and shield delay are crucial as they are shield modules that compete with armour modules. They have to be more worthwhile than armour on a shield suit. This is why I caution against reducing base delays too much as it diminishes the effectiveness and value of regulators. If they delays are deemed too long, better to buff the regulators to give people the tools to reduce them if they give up on dual tanking. Buffing other mods = carrot Nefing tank mods = stick True. That's a lot of modules to buff. Think we'll ever get there? Does CPM even have a plan yet? I can think of a more efficient path to balance with fewer moving parts, less room for error, lower odds of unintended consequence, and zero chance of widening the hitpoint gap which separates the protos from the newbros.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 20:58:00 - [18] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Ratatti spent months with all the spreadsheet guys in the forums balancing vehicles by the numbers. This led to 50% of the vehicles being useless along with 80% of the modules. There is more to this game than trying to say 4 apples = 4 oranges, writing that out on a spreadsheet and arguing that anyone that doesn't support you is counterproductive. We have a baseline tfor shield stats right now and it is garbage.. has always been garbage.. Balance what we have or we will see the same thing we see in the current iteration of vehicles. The player base will not survive. Pilots with spreadsheets? Pilots are ... different from the rest of us.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.19 22:05:00 - [19] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: Starting with the conceptual macro here's what I'm seeing, please correct me if that is not representative of your intent. Varoth Drac Race: Cal > Min > Gal/Am Role: Scout > Assault/Logistics/Commando/Sentinel Adipem Nothi Race: Cal > Min > Gal/Am Role: Scout > Logi > Assault/Commando > Sentinel Now, considering the discussion we've had of margins and how important they can be I am interested if either of you are completely dedicated to the hard and fast X=Y or if marginal degrees would address your inclinations, something along the lines of W>>X>Y>Z If so what degrees of separation, at a conceptual level, are desired/acceptable and why. If not please elaborate on why in your view the aspects listed as equal must retain identical state profiles to maintain a conceptually sound method. Numbers are wonderful for illustrative purposes, so please feel free to keep them coming, but also bear in mind that we're addressing the conceptual macro level right now not specific stat profiles so please frame your input accordingly @Thread, I'd love to renew my invitation for anyone to jump in and participate here, generally speaking the more constructive feedback the better. o7 Cheers, Cross Looks like you've read my framework correctly. Glad you were able to make sense of it. I'm not sure that I have specific opinions on margins beyond those already expressed, namely high reserves + high recovery = trouble. I will say that I see a clear pattern in present shield stat values and the margins between those values, and I don't know that an overhaul is necessarily called for. Perhaps some small adjustments here and there would be fine, like those demonstrated in the above Google Doc as well as perhaps to Commando recovery. But I'd probably advise against a sweeping overhaul to base stats, especially if the basis of said overhaul were focusing only on one component of the hitpoint equation. I'll explain ... It is OK to treat armor tankers of a given class like stepchildren when it comes to shield recovery/delay stats, even to the extent that members of a given class don't form a pretty line on a graph. The lack of a pretty line (i.e. normalization) in this case is acceptable and in-fact by design, as we're only analyzing one variable in a multi-variable hitpoint equation. If we wanted a pretty graph proximating normalization we'd need to "remove the filter" and incorporate Armor into our analysis. Other components, like availability of external recovery via triage and even damage profiles should also be accounted for. How one might put all that into one pretty chart, I haven't the slightest idea. But I imagine Rattati does. Analyzing the Shield Component of the hitpoint equation on its own is different than analyzing the simple, inverse relationship between HP Potential and Speed. On the Speed/HP Curve, class members are neatly clustered. On the Shield Stat Performance curve, members of a given class will absolutely not be clustered, and that is completely OK. Shield tankers will occupy one space on the curve and armor tankers a space far removed.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.20 15:05:00 - [20] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I'm all for supporting a thread to start a dialogue for establishing shield regen principles... but if we are at 8 pages and have so far concluded that Caldari>Min>Gal/Amar.... why not just set up shields as - Caldari stats (x=1) Min stats (x=0.5) Gal/Amar stats (x=.25). Remove all stacking penalties from Caldari stats. Add 2% efficacy per level to all shield modules to all caldari suits. Give all Caldari shield suits the same native regen stats as the Sentinel AND MOVE ON. Real easy to balance shields now that every shield in the game is based off of one suit. Make minmitar shield regen stats 4xs worse and gal/amar 10xs worse. If we try and set up all these stats the same way they set up all the vehicle stats we will fail.. we are not in a vacuum, there are too many moving parts to pretend we are... I guess you could buff Caldari shield regen to 40hp/s for all suits, except for scouts that could stay at 50hp/s. Would that be more in line with your thinking? This would mean a Caldari assault would have 2 x the base shield regen of Gallente or Amarr. I think more of a discrepancy than that would be too much. Does anyone recall what the specific recovery/delay stats were of the early Uprising CalLogi? My thinking is that high hitpoint reserves combined with quick recovery could lead to trouble.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.20 18:23:00 - [21] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Can we get back to the topic at hand? The proposal Aeon drew up? If there are potentially better ideas out there, why would we opt not to discuss them?
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 00:37:00 - [22] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: you dont outright penalize dual tanking. you make it impossible to make a viable fit. meaning the pg and cpu cost of a dual tank would leave you running sidearms with no equipment. that would solve everything naturally. ^
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 00:39:00 - [23] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: "King HP" and "Spin and win" are both (1) anecdotal, (2) deliberately inflammatory and (3) irrelevant. 1. False 2. False 3. False Because you say so? What does Rattati say? CCP Rattati wrote: King HP is in for a surprise ...
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 01:22:00 - [24] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: "King HP" and "Spin and win" are both (1) anecdotal, (2) deliberately inflammatory and (3) irrelevant. 1. False 2. False 3. False Because you say so? What does the market data say? What does PC usage say? What does Rattati say? CCP Rattati wrote: King HP is in for a surprise ... market data without any other comparative data means... Nothing. PC usage is, as I understand it, shifting to point-blank speed meta rather than heavy HP meta. I am informed that sentinels are getting their asses pasted left and right. And Rattati? I'll ask. Your rattati quote is cute, so where is the quote from, so I can read the full context? Your snippet means jack. Of course , Breakin. Everyone else's observations, experiences and concerns can be freely dismissed. Market data doesn't matter; frankly, it means nothing. Nothing matters except for your own anecdotal experience and observations because (A) you aren't a non-competitive player performing poorly enough to fluctuate between Hi and Lo Mu queues, (B) you know exactly what's going on with competitive meta because you participate in PC regularly and (C) you know all about every suit and every playstyle because you run them all regularly and run them well; you're an expert in all things, which is why you do not bounce back-and-forth between Hi and Lo Mu queue. Your anecdotal observations count, and only your anecdotal observations count. Am I getting this right? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2492622#post2492622
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 01:33:00 - [25] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Of course , Breakin. Everyone else's observations, experiences and concerns can be freely dismissed. Market data doesn't matter; frankly, it means nothing. Nothing matters except for your own anecdotal experience and observations because (A) you aren't a non-competitive player performing poorly enough to fluctuate between Hi and Lo Mu queues, (B) you know exactly what's going on with competitive meta because you participate in PC regularly and (C) you know all about every suit and every playstyle because you run them all regularly and run them well; you're an expert in all things, which is why you do not bounce back-and-forth between Hi and Lo Mu queue. Your anecdotal observations count, and only your anecdotal observations count. Am I getting this right? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2492622#post2492622 Bravo adipem. I'm not going to shut up. Ever. But Carry on Adipem Ad Hominem https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2492622#post2492622 ^ Click the link and read the post. It is the one you requested. How do you think Vitantur predicted the future with such precision? Could it be that other people with views different from your own might be right from time to time? I don't want you to shut up, Breakin. Yours is a necessary part of a larger process. Do keep being passionately wrong.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 01:55:00 - [26] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Right. Data from a near-year-old post from last december. Bravo. Done with you adipem, You don't entertain a dissenting opinion, ever, for any reason. I see no reason to do so with you or entertain your conversation further. Later. That's the post you asked for, Breakin. It is the context you requested behind Rattati citing "King HP" ... if you read it, you'd see that his quote appears in the very next post. By "in for a surprise", do you think Rattati might have been referring to the Speed-HP Curve which would come a few months later? The Speed-HP Curve which was implemented, as it were, in spite of Aeon's repeated and passionate protests. The Speed-HP Curve which ended up working quite well, in direct contradiction to Aeon's assessments. Anyone keeping score will tell you Aeon is wrong far more often than he is right when it comes to anything about balance. Call it Ad Hominem if you'd like, but this is a clearly documented pattern. That, of course, does not mean we should dismiss Aeon's ideas out-of-hand. He means well (or at least I believe he means well) and sometimes he has good ideas. And for the record, I don't dismiss opinions I believe to be wrong; I challenge them. Is there something inherently wrong with debate? Is it not a fundamental function of the Forums to facilitate debate?
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 02:18:00 - [27] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 1. I have never seen you challenge an idea without attacking the character of the person with the idea. 2. Your attempts at character assassination aren't seen in a positive light. 1. Then you aren't paying close enough attention. Visit the Triage Ward, for instance, and check out my exchanges with El Operator or Cross on Active Scans. Or read through a sample of pages from the Barbershop; we routinely challenge (often vigorously) one other's observations, suggestions, opinions and ideas. As it's fresh on the mind, you can also reread the Speed-HP Curve thread. If you need more examples, let me know. They aren't hard to find. 2. Are yours? I can't count the number of times you've dismissed my accurate and factual feedback with nonsense like "scout master race". It is what you've attempted to do in this very thread twice now (or is it three times?) and is precisely what brought about the conversation at hand. "Breakin's anecdotal experience counts; others' does not. Breakin can call into question player bias; others cannot. Breakin can express opinion as to who is right and who is wrong; others should not. Breakin can make claims about other player's post histories; others better not. Would it be seen in a positive or negative light if I pointed out a rather fascinating and well-developed double standard? PS: I could be wrong, but I believe we've derailed the thread, Mr. CPM. I'm ready to get back on topic whenever you are.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 13:28:00 - [28] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Then once we have shields stabilized at a competitive level and the TTK averages in the game are settled, we can begin looking at the oft-misidentified "secondary" module options. I know I'm not happy about precision and range enhancers. High slots have a grand total of what, three useful module types? Kincats and cardiac regs work great, but those are low slots. High slots are pretty much Damage mods, shields, shield regen. The rest are either niche items or nearly exclusively used by a few scouts (precision mods). Honestly once we can put the tank imbalance behind us I want to figure out what can be used to increase high slot variety. FYI: Usage rates over the past year or so would suggest that low-slot variety is in need of more attention than high-slot variety. Per dust.thang.dk's "tryhardmeter" ... Frequently Used, Non-HP Related High-Slot Modules 1. Damage Amps 2. Myofibs 3. Precision Enhancers Frequently Used, Non-HP Related Low-Slot Modules 1. KinCats Infrequently used, Non-HP Related Low-Slot Modules 1. Codebreakers 2. CardRegs 3. Dampeners 4. Range Amplifiers 5. CPU Upgrade Infrequently used, Non-HP Related High-Slot Modules 1. PG Upgrade * Frequently Used = Consistently Ranked in Top 10 (by module sales) * Infrequently Used = Not Ranked in Top 10 Prediction: Pre-Shield Buff Meta HP > All Else Post-Shield Buff Meta HP >> All Else
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 13:33:00 - [29] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: faster regen on lower HP suits? why? when we rebalanced the armor regen rates, the gal scout had the best. then we all found out how that actually turned out in the field, and nerfed it. Quick fact check: The GalScout's regen had little if anything to do with it being OP/FoTM following 1.8. Assault Lite was able to pack on the HP and still beat scans thanks to cloak's active damp bonus. This was pre-Assault buff, so Assault Lite HP levels weren't far removed from Assault. Also, Scout passive scans were much stronger pre-falloff and they remained strong even while cloaked (cloakblind came later). Further, cloak operation was much different then; not only did it afford a higher damp bonus, but it also had higher reserves and could be toggled on/off near instantly, which brought about fire-from-cloak problems. In a nutshell, Assault Lite was able to pull-off Assault-like HP levels and still beat scans, while also benefiting from superior mobility & wiggle, far better passives and 2 EQ slots. Not to mention, fire-from-cloak. There were lots of problems w/Assault Lite. Regen might've been among them, but it certainly wasn't a big one.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 14:12:00 - [30] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: faster regen on lower HP suits? why? when we rebalanced the armor regen rates, the gal scout had the best. then we all found out how that actually turned out in the field, and nerfed it. Quick fact check: The GalScout's regen had little if anything to do with it being OP/FoTM following 1.8. Assault Lite was able to pack on the HP and still beat scans thanks to cloak's active damp bonus. This was pre-Assault buff, so Assault Lite HP levels weren't far removed from Assault. Also, Scout passive scans were much stronger pre-falloff and they remained strong even while cloaked (cloakblind came later). Further, cloak operation was much different then; not only did it afford a higher damp bonus, but it also had higher reserves and could be toggled on/off near instantly, which brought about fire-from-cloak problems. In a nutshell, Assault Lite was able to pull-off Assault-like HP levels and still beat scans, while also benefiting from superior mobility & wiggle, far better passives and 2 EQ slots. Not to mention, fire-from-cloak. There were lots of problems w/Assault Lite. Regen might've been among them, but it certainly wasn't a big one. the arguement aginst the regen was that it was high enough that you didnt need a rep mod, and so you could simply stack plates which led to the HP being much higher than desired. when you add everything else in it just painted a picture of this OP suit. I remember the regen rate was one of the first things they changed on the suit though before all the other stuff. I don't recall when regen was tuned; I'll have to find it. Meanwhile, here's the first round of scout/cloak nerfs in HF Alpha. Also a few relevant plate changes: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2173250#post2173250 Rattati: Thinkin' about Biotic Efficacy for AM Scouts as early as Alpha!? Edit: Glanced over patchnotes from Alpha, Bravo and Charlie. Also 1.1. Didn't see it. I believe you're right though. Regen was initially higher, and I too believe it was nerfed early on. Still stand by my earlier points though; GalScout regen was small potatoes compared to other major factors which brought about the Scoutocolypse. Which is why the Scoutocolypse persisted after regen was reduced.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 16:33:00 - [31] - Quote Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: Will the base shield amounts be altered? Specifically, the sentinel? With only one low available, how can it be last and be competitive? Again I only ask because this is my all day every day. I've already lost my two oldest friends to caldari being easy bait... Calsent isn't being changed. It's shield regen stats are staying as they are now. Currently a calsent with a low slslot regulator can get about a half secondd depleted delay and under 2 sec recharge delay. That's not changing. So "worst regen stats" are actually taking the current best and using them as a baseline. Calsents will retain the best depleted delay. The only reason IMHO that the calsent is even playable right now is because it recovers so fast after eating damage. Sounds good. Probably not. Shield Stat strength is relative. If you hold one unit constant and buff everything else, the relative strength of the unit held constant is lessened. Nothing inherently wrong with a standardized framework, but buffing shield stat performance of armor tankers won't work out to anyone's advantage except for armor tankers. I understand that "Step 2" will involve improving shield modules, which will help shield tankers, but make no mistake. Aeon's angling for a buff for armor tankers (unless he has since changed his mind). What I expect we'll end up is more HP Module utilization, less loadout variety, a widening of the Assault performance/usage gap and best-in-class (potentially OP/FoTM) Dual Tankers.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 17:05:00 - [32] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: . I understand that "Step 2" will involve improving shield modules, which will help shield tankers, but make no mistake. Aeon's angling for a buff for armor tankers, unless he has since changed his mind. . This is where you are entertainingly wrong. Tell ya what. If you excise this rediculous premise from your head I'll lay off the "scout master race" taunting. you're letting your distaste for aeon cloud your perception of intent. http://i.imgur.com/eshWaQK.jpg ^ That's from Aeon. Page 1, Post 1. Note how the CalScout and CalSent are held constant. Now note the following shield buffs to armor tankers: GA Sent - Buff to recharge. GA Scout - Buff to recharge. GA Logi - Buff to recharge and delay. GA Commando - Buff to recharge and delay. GA Assault - Buff to recharge and delay (This one receives the biggest buffs of all. Anyone surprised?). AM Logi - Buff to recharge and delay. AM Commando - Buff to recharge and delay. AM Assault - Buff to recharge and delay. I'm just looking at the numbers, and it looks to me like Aeon's angling for a buff for Armor Tankers. Unless, as I said above, he has since changed his mind. What am I missing here, Breakin?
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 17:17:00 - [33] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Now go rearrange all of the dropsuits in the following order with in order of lowest HP to highest. Calscout, calassault, calogi, calmando, calsent Then do the same for minmatar, then gallente, lastly amarr. Notice a pattern, or does it need to be spelled out in crayon? Accusing aeon of angling for an armor buff is disingenuous and deceptive or it's being blind and willfully ignorant. Either way it's an attack on aeon's motives and thus his character. In any case as long as you cling to that absurdity I have no further use for your input adipem. I'm not being willfully ignorant or disingenuous. I'm looking at his numbers. Explain to me how buffing shield recovery and recharge delay of armor tankers, while holding those values constant for shield tankers, isn't a direct buff to armor tankers? Use the crayon if you need. I'm not following. Hypothetical: If shield tankers were outperforming all else, would it be wise to increase their base armor and armor regen values, while holding those values for armor tankers constant? PS: Your double standards are showing again. I'm speaking to the numbers. I'm not calling anyone's character into question. Why are you calling my character (and intelligence, of all things) into question?
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 18:24:00 - [34] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The calscout and calsent are held constant because they are arguably the best performing in the race. They are the baseline. The assault, logi and commando each receive significant buffs to put them in line with the two actual performing suits. The fact that the calsent is one of the poorest performing sentinels due to raw Hp isn't part of the equation. Then we take the caldari regen valuse and apply a lesser to minmatar. Also scaling from scout to sentinel. But then we get to the gallente and amarr. The shields are paper thin and only last a heartbeat under any fire. The idea that it should take more than 4-5 seconds out of combat to BEGIN recovering as some kind of balance metric is amusing. The only two armor suits with significant shielding are the sentinels. The commando base shields are ok. In neither the case of the sentinel or the commando do they have the slot layout to put forward a shield buffer and regen to be anything but a poor cousin to rhe minmatar but doing so would open low slots for things like damps, range mods (if they didn't suck) and other sundries that might work on an armor suit if they didn't have to completely and utterly sacrifice durability. The 198 HP of a max core galassault isn't going to be the thing that makes or breaks the suit in a fight. It's ability to rock reps and kincats to get in close faster than you can stop him will. Put one shield extender on that GalAssault and he has more hitpoints in his "paperthin" shield reserves than the total base HP of 3 of 4 Scouts. 198HP may mean nothing to a Heavy, but compared to any Scout's base shields or armor, 198HP is a significant sum. Standardizing shield stats for easier tuning, I get and support. But further entrenching "King HP" by making shield modules more attractive and beneficial for all units raises concerns. I'm concerned about a widening of the MedFrame performance gap over other frames on account of their higher slot count. I'm concerned about dual tanking becoming a serious problem. I'm concerned about the weakening of what few relative strengths shield users possess over armor users. I'm concerned about impact on performance gap between veterans with significant HP tank and newbros without. I'm concerned about further marginalization of those who dare try to keep up with low or no HP modules. I (for one) would like to see someday a Dust where glass-cannon loadouts might compete again and where newbros might once again stand a chance if/when they outplay the protos. I don't believe these to be unreasonable or unfair, and it seems to me that we're moving in the opposite direction. CCP Rattati wrote: ... I want to balance the game so all roles and dropsuits can flourish. Even those who don't stack HP modules? I'd like to think so, but I'm beginning to wonder if and how we'll ever get there.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 15	Posted - 2015.09.21 21:58:00 - [35] - Quote With all those benefits, it's a true wonder that Assaults are outselling Scouts by a margin of 2:1. Or is it 3:1 now? Curious to see how low they can go before CPM2 recognizes that there might be a problem.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.