Much like in Eve Online, the only way to assuredly nyx dual-tanking is to make it simply not worth doing. And that does not mean making it so that dual-tanking is impossible or counter-intuitive through penalties, it simply means providing modules in both high and low slots are just better to run.

Look at Armor Tanking in Eve Online and it opens up your mid-slots for a plethora of EWAR opportunities, like tackle and mobility.
Look at Shield Tanking and it opens up for damage amplification, tracking enhancement, mobility, and cargo space.

Players can dual-tank in Eve but they choose not to because the options available provide for much more diverse and generally just better fittings than you'd get if you tried to brick down. We need to consider that for Dust 514, I feel. Carrot, not the stick.

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.

Much like in Eve Online, the only way to assuredly nyx dual-tanking is to make it simply not worth doing.

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 with fewer moving parts, less room for error, lower odds of unintended consequence, and zero chance of worsening the veteran/newbro gap.

True.

I guess the carrot would be buffs to damage mods, biotics, EWAR mods and codebreakers. Though I suspect buffing damage mods and myofibs would be bad.

If we refrain from buffing assault and logi base shield regen and delays we should avoid a rise in dual tanking. Buffs to shields should come from the modules that encourage synergy in a dedicated tanking type. Modules such as energisers (% based so less effective on armour tanks) and regulators (which compete with armour and synergise with energisers) are what should be looked at.

We have a baseline tfor shield stats right now and it is garbage.. has always been garbage..

What baseline is that?

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.

Mina if you have specific, and I do mean specific, concerns please do itemize them for me with examples.
I've spoken at length on the forums and occasionally in squads you know I'm inclined to discussion rather than dogma.

If your critique of the method is that some of the particular numbers aren't where you'd like them to be then I would say two things.
1) The method is not about particular numbers, it's about having a functional context and is needed in that way.
2) Since the method is macro not micro, the particular numbers are much more negotiable and any specific cases of concern you have are certainly something that could be taken into account, please provide them.

Show me for example the points of concern regarding the application of the method.

• Cal Assault vs Gal Assault pre and post change and why post change is a downgrade for the Cal
• Cal Sentinel vs Gal Sentinel (or Min vs Am if you'd rather) and why/how the situation post change is a down grade compared to present.
• Calmando vs Minmando and how the method weakens Cal post change vs Min, relative to current suit stats.

If your concern lies in the role to role balance rather than race to race, that's murkier due to there being shield and armor tankers within every role, but if roles are your concern would you outline Commando vs Scout to show me where the proposal weakens one vs the other in a detrimental and undue fashion, or Sentinel vs Assault with the same case.
The key thing to remember in this case is that when comparing roles we must not mix and match, the comparison of roles needs to remain within the same race. If there's a racial concern then use method one from above.

@Thread, this is an open invitation to any participants in this thread, please give me your input here.
A reminder in this context however, we are working on a shield balance method so things like rifle balance (which likely could use some polish) are not part of this assessment. Further the assessment is not meant as a short term/stop gap tweak to stats in response to the current player meta (i.e. use trends) but rather a foundation context, as such anecdotal evidence regarding frequency of use of X vs Y isn't relevant here because that's a transient micro view and while useful and relevant for various things we're not at the stage where it is useful here (that would come later once a workable foundation is built).

Cheers,
Cross

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

Getting into a discussion of the modules themselves, while in theory HP should = HP shield dropsuits pay much more in terms of fitting costs for their individual points of hp (and take much more damage from anti-shield weaponry)... and the existence of modules that provide 'cheap hp' and functionally don't have drawbacks like reactives or ferroscales complicates matters a great deal. I know you guys don't want to discuss armor modules here, but I think that's somewhat wrong because in truth they ARE part of the issue. Lower health pools with higher proportional damage intake plus higher fitting cost per point of hp and it's easy to see why people find them weak.

When comparing shield tanking to armor tanking, often the biggest issue is that armor NEVER stops repping and with some of the buffs to armor repairers their reps can often be in the 20-30hp/s range, which is as good as or better than some shield recharge values if shield isn't interrupted: and as I've demonstrated with numbers in a previous thread discussing inhibition values almost everything stops shield recharge even well outside of its optimal.

Just wanted to say -

Props to Cross and Aeon. This might be getting a bit heated in here but you two are sticking with it and fighting back. Best CPM interaction ever I think.

Much rather have disagreements with people who will actually give a damn and post stuff rather than agree with a load of yes men who barely do anything for the community.

Varoth Drac

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

Cheers,
Cross

Nerfing a Caldari shield stat in anyway?

Am I reading this right?

Buff the other Caldari shield stats to match the Cal Sentinel, we are trying to fix shields, I am hoping, in this thread.

Caldari suits should not suffer the stacking penalties incurred when stackig shields, and shield module efficacy should be added.

If a caldari scout wants to have more ehp at the cost of shield regen how is this a problem? it has 2 low slots? Are we going to see a bunch of slow caldari scouts running around with 300 armor and slowly regening shields? The caldari Assault should be on the same native level as the scout and sentinel, the logi should be able to stack plates and still carry equipment but have a slow regen, and the commando should feel like it is part of the caldari race instead of amar with how terrible the shields function.

Of equal skill - One logi with a rep tool in a room full of amar sentinals stacking HP is going to win every time versus a room full of caldari sentinels.. especially if even one has basic flux grenades.

We are not trying to fix shields in this thread.

We are trying to establish a set of shield regen design principles which will make later balancing easier.

I made two proposals. One buffed Caldari sentinel regen a little, one results in nerfing the delay by 1 second. Both result in buffing commando regen. Neither proposal aims to bring balance to shield tanking.

For balancing I propose buffing energisers and rechargers.