DUST Search - do armor plates need mobility penalties?

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

do armor plates need mobility penalties?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Buzzwords Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 416	Posted - 2012.07.22 19:15:00 - [1] - Quote as is, the low slots feel pretty weak sauce. shield extenders have no specific penalty, why do armor plates need to reduce movement speed? i understand that armor plates give more armor than shield extenders give shield, but 1 point of shield is more valuable than 1 point of armor by virtue of it automatically recharging. alternately, the armor bonus could be reduced if the movement speed penalty went away. 30 for a standard, 50 for an advanced, and 80 for a complex? i mean really, every module already has the built in penalty of not being some other module, right? why are armor plates the only thing that has an extra penalty?
Bo Tracta Celtic Anarchy 56	Posted - 2012.07.22 20:33:00 - [2] - Quote Armour is more resistant to damage than shields I believe.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.07.22 20:36:00 - [3] - Quote The easy answer is this. More armour means more weight. More weight means slower movement. There really isn't much more to it.
Buzzwords Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 416	Posted - 2012.07.22 20:40:00 - [4] - Quote it's impossible to tell in dust atm, but in eve armor is generally not really MORE damage resistant, it just has the opposite resistances and weakness' of shields. in eve different weapons and ammo types can deal different types of damage. electromagnetic, thermal, kinetic, and explosive. or often a mix of different types. shields are generally very resistant to explosives, while very weak to electromagnetics. armor being the opposite, highly resistant to EM, but very weak to explosive. the same is true of thermal and kinetic damage, though less extreme. we can't see resistance stats or damage types in dust, but if it works like eve then no, armor is not significantly more resistant to damage.
Buzzwords Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 416	Posted - 2012.07.22 20:41:00 - [5] - Quote Grit Breather wrote: The easy answer is this. More armour means more weight. More weight means slower movement. There really isn't much more to it. yes, but from a BALANCE perspective... why? i get the "excuse" but i don't see the REASON. you see what i'm saying?
RolyatDerTeufel D3ath D3alers RISE of LEGION 1648	Posted - 2012.07.22 20:48:00 - [6] - Quote I don't really see why anyone would use the plates currently anyways. From what i've heard heavies have more slots for shield modules. but could be wrong
Velvet Overkill 104	Posted - 2012.07.22 21:06:00 - [7] - Quote Buzzwords wrote: the same is true of thermal and kinetic damage, though less extreme. That explains why my armor tanks and dropships take far less collision damage, take less damage from forgeguns, EM weapons like the ARs, and are beast at ramming things and squishing people.
Fivetimes Infinity Immobile Infantry 1086	Posted - 2012.07.22 21:27:00 - [8] - Quote Grit Breather wrote: The easy answer is this. More armour means more weight. More weight means slower movement. There really isn't much more to it. It's a video game. Maybe shield extender means more very dense space magic shield-generating components which means more weight. Or maybe the alloy they use for the armor is really light. Or any other fairy tale answer. It's science fiction, they can do whatever they want. That said, yeah, I think it's to offset the fact that armor soaks some damage. Certainly with vehicles you can shoot them and damage their shields with any old weapon, but the same assault rifle that depleted a tank's shields won't scratch its hull.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.07.22 21:50:00 - [9] - Quote Buzzwords wrote: Grit Breather wrote: The easy answer is this. More armour means more weight. More weight means slower movement. There really isn't much more to it. yes, but from a BALANCE perspective... why? i get the "excuse" but i don't see the REASON. you see what i'm saying? There was a post bouncing around the other day. It filled in some gaps I had about shields and armour. I can't find it right now (ok, I'm lazy and won't even look...) but the essence is as follows. Shields, due to their recharge rate are good at tanking prolonged lower DPS. Armour is good a tanking high DPS for a short time. Armour is also able to be modded to be more resistant to damange in general and has the trade-off of being slower to regenerate. It's basically a matter of planning what type of damage you're going to sustain. There is a LOT of planning in Dust/EVE. Learn to live with it. The more you know and plan, the better you'll do.
Fuma Centuri Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 107	Posted - 2012.07.22 22:27:00 - [10] - Quote If armour plates will forever have penalties to movement, shield extenders need a penalty to stamina regeneration. That's because space-magic that makes more shields possible causes your clone to be more fatigued because of extended shield-field thing magics.

Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming 2283	Posted - 2012.07.22 22:38:00 - [11] - Quote Buzzwords wrote: Grit Breather wrote: The easy answer is this. More armour means more weight. More weight means slower movement. There really isn't much more to it. yes, but from a BALANCE perspective... why? i get the "excuse" but i don't see the REASON. you see what i'm saying? because then everyone would dual tank i agree armor plates might need a slight decrease in penalty BUT not remove it for infantry shields > armor vehicles are where armor tanking might be more useful if the movement penalty is reduced slightly we might see more armor plates being used , that said ppl will prob just dual tank them
Buzzwords Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 416	Posted - 2012.07.22 22:46:00 - [12] - Quote Grit Breather wrote: There was a post bouncing around the other day. It filled in some gaps I had about shields and armour. I can't find it right now (ok, I'm lazy and won't even look...) but the essence is as follows. Shields, due to their recharge rate are good at tanking prolonged lower DPS. Armour is good a tanking high DPS for a short time. Armour is also able to be modded to be more resistant to damange in general and has the trade-off of being slower to regenerate. It's basically a matter of planning what type of damage you're going to sustain. There is a LOT of planning in Dust/EVE. Learn to live with it. The more you know and plan, the better you'll do. i'd like to see this post, because i don't think you are conveying it quite right. shields don't regenerate until you stop taking damage for a couple seconds. so in dust they cannot tank any level of CONSTANT dps. (in EVE it's different, shields are ALWAYS regenerating, though for most ships, slowly. there are exceptions however and some pilots do bank on that regeneration stat, buffing it and buffing it into something called a "passive tank" the drake is a good example of a common passive tank ship.) also, in dust at the moment, there is no difference in resistance modules between shields and armor. they give the same blanket effect. we also don't yet know how large damage types play in, or where the starting resistances are for armor and shields. or even to what extent damage types are implemented. also there are no damage resistance modules for dropsuits at ALL. only vehicles. even what damage types different weapons deal is still iffy. i mean we can make some educated guesses. - ARs are supposed to be blasters. in eve all blasters deal a mix of thermal and kinetic damage, with the ratio varying by ammo type. - SMGs are minmatar projectile weapons, and in eve projectiles weapons are capable of dealing ANY damage type. the only constant is that they always do at least a small portion of their damage as kinetic. - mass drivers are probably dealing explosive damage because... they explode.. but a direct hit is likely to include a large portion of kinetic damage as well. - sniper rifles are railguns, railguns also always deal kinetic and thermal, but again how much of each varies by ammo type. -swarm launchers are missiles, in eve missiles can deal any damage type, but only ever 1 type per missile. i'm gonna guess kinetic in dust because they have strong direct damage and weak splash damage. - i believe the description for scrambler pistols refers to them as lasers, lasers in eve always deal EM damage and most ammo types add some mix of thermal. but even if you are completely correct, you say the tradeoff for armor is that it is slower to regenerate. i agree with you. so why does it also lower movement speed? it seems to me like armor and shields "were" moderately well balanced. shields being better for multiple skirmishes in rapid succesion thanks to natural recharge, armor better for single drawn out gun fights thanks to a deeper buffer. but then they just tacked on a mobility penalty? "yes yes these 2 things are quite fairly balanced. lets nerf one!"?
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.07.23 04:45:00 - [13] - Quote All good points. I guess we'll just have to wait.
STB-stlcarlos989 EV Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 936	Posted - 2012.07.23 06:33:00 - [14] - Quote Only read the title and the answer is YES
Superluminal Replicant 40	Posted - 2012.07.23 06:39:00 - [15] - Quote Yeah I would never use armor plates on heavy EVER. its already really slow. Only choice is Armor repairers.
Arpentis 28	Posted - 2012.07.23 07:21:00 - [16] - Quote [/quote] It's science fiction, they can do whatever they want.[/quote] Exactly and they chose to go the more realistic route and have the extra armor come with a decrease in speed. Equivalent Exchange.
Buzzwords Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 416	Posted - 2012.07.23 07:32:00 - [17] - Quote Arpentis wrote: Exactly and they chose to go the more realistic route and have the extra armor come with a decrease in speed. Equivalent Exchange. i would argue that the equivelant exchange on armor is that it doesn't recharge. alternately, what is the equivelant exchange for a shield extender?
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.23 07:40:00 - [18] - Quote Shields would have the penalty of being much harder to hide on scanners and tac net as well as more suspectable to aoe damage and electronic warfares if it where to follow eve online's footprints and weapons like scrambler pistols and laser rifles DO FULL DAMAGE against shields unlike armor which resists everythign partially. Also possible EMP grenades will sap shields as well.
Buzzwords Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 416	Posted - 2012.07.23 08:08:00 - [19] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Shields would have the penalty of being much harder to hide on scanners and tac net as well as more suspectable to aoe damage and electronic warfares if it where to follow eve online's footprints. while this relies REALLY heavily on stuff not implemented, or at least not fully implemented yet. it does raise an interesting point. i assume you are reffering to signature radius? in eve, shield extenders increase signature radius. that is bad. but in dust, they do not. but maybe they just don't "yet" or maybe they do and they don't show it in the stats page. so this COULD be a way ccp intends to balance shield tanking vs armor tanking in the future. but i'd still like to disect that. in eve, increased signature radius makes you easier to lock up (most weapons need to be locked to fire in eve) and makes you easier to hit in that your signature radius is compared against an enemy turrets target resolution. if your smaller he automatically misses a % of shots relative to how much smaller. but in dust... nothing locks onto dropsuits? though this could play into the detection system? it's a difficult connection to make since the only stealth thing eve has is cloaking, and if you're cloaked you are ALL the way stealthy. there are no levels of it, it's an on/off thing. even if people KNOW you're there, they can't do **** about it. then how would you replicate the signature radius VS target resolution comparison? increaing the hitboxes of the dropsuit? as the game stands now, i still think armor tanking is needlessly gimp relative to shields. and until CCP weighs in on what they intend to do, we can only really discuss as it stand now. we can't say something is balanced because we imagined the counter, right? but signature radius as the counter to shields does have precedent.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.23 19:10:00 - [20] - Quote Well if I where to translate signature penalty to dust 514. Shields are not effective in blast damage reduction in comparison to armor is. Vehicles that shield tank can get locked onto by electronic warfare, logistical warfare, and swarm launchers faster. Then you have a much harder time hiding on tac net, an armored or untanked scout wont be easy to keep track on the icon map than a shield tanked one even at dropsuit command 5. This should counter shields advantage of being able to take a short breather and recharge, which means anyone who knows you're taking short breather knows where you are and have more vareity to tools to fish you out with.

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.23 22:39:00 - [21] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Well if I where to translate signature penalty to dust 514. Shields are not effective in blast damage reduction in comparison to armor is. Vehicles that shield tank can get locked onto by electronic warfare, logistical warfare, and swarm launchers faster. Then you have a much harder time hiding on tac net, an armored or untanked scout wont be easy to keep track on the icon map than a shield tanked one even at dropsuit command 5. This should counter shields advantage of being able to take a short breather and recharge, which means anyone who knows you're taking short breather knows where you are and have more vareity to tools to fish you out with. They mention Signature Radius already in DUST, but no clear confirmation of what it does in the current build. Are you basically saying increased shields should mean an increased signature radius so there's a penalty there like the one for armour? If so, I agree. If not, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say, and would appreciate it if you try to explain again.
Rhadiem Algintal Core Gallente Federation 496	Posted - 2012.07.23 22:50:00 - [22] - Quote in EVE, armor = less agile shields = easier to lock onto I'm not sure if the "easier to lock onto/notice" is true in Dust, but I suspect it will be as things become more fleshed out. My main issue is that currently if you're a shield oriented pilot (like myself) once you take any damage to your armor, it's gone "forever" Where armor tanking gets their shields back, albeit at a slower rate. Therefore, on some of my experimental fits, I put a small armor repper on my vehicles and fit my shields with resist and buffer. They take a pounding, and can come back from a nearly-dead situation.. but generally require a lot of downtime. Works ok with dropships, but not ideal for tanks. ;)
Ten-Sidhe Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 414	Posted - 2012.07.24 02:15:00 - [23] - Quote Signature radius in EvE is used in the formula for turret(laser,rail gun blaster, artillery, autocannons) hit/miss, and damage from aoe weapons(rocket, missile, torpedo, smart bomb, bombs). So, a translation to dust would be a bigger hitbox, and a signature increase. This makes sense if the stronger shield doesn't hug the suit, so a near miss still hits the shield. It wouldn't make sense once the shield was down, in EvE the penalty stayed once the shield was down. If the signature radius for sensors stayed, but the larger hit box only lasted while the shield was up it would still be a good penalty. The other defense mods would help, if ever added. Invulnerability fields, energized plating, shield relays, ect.... Could be in future expansions, not needed at release, just would be nice. Resistance modules for dropsuits would be nice, give armour tanks a option besides repair without penalty. Maybe add a skill to reduce the penalties, Armour Weight Adaption and Shield Masking maybe. I think it shouldn't remove the penalty, maybe cut it in half at level five.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.24 02:30:00 - [24] - Quote Signature Radius shouldn't affect hitboxes (at least not for armour hits) in FPS gaming. You could MAYBE have the "strong shield = wider shield = larger hitbox while shield active" part, but not a larger hitbox for armour. What you CAN do, though, is (as many of us suspect is happening already) make signature radius affect the range at which the red "enemy" arrow appears over your head when an enemy is looking at you - which ALSO affects the range at which they broadcast your location to their allies. It will also presumably affect Active Scanners, which aren't in the game yet, but are confirmed by at least one skill description.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.24 03:32:00 - [25] - Quote I dont think shields should increase hit boxes. Also signature resolution and scan resolution are both in the game now and are mostly working. Scouts with dropsuit command 5 are like ninjas soon as they turn a corner they're gone on the tac net and before you know it the same scout is behind you wiht a shotgun to your head and tac net never picked them up again until it was too late. Increasing scan resolution makes it harder to hide and things further out appear on tac net much quicker.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.24 08:58:00 - [26] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Also signature resolution and scan resolution are both in the game now and are mostly working. Scouts with dropsuit command 5 are like ninjas soon as they turn a corner they're gone on the tac net and before you know it the same scout is behind you wiht a shotgun to your head and tac net never picked them up again until it was too late. Increasing scan resolution makes it harder to hide and things further out appear on tac net much quicker. Good to hear more support for that. I've seen a few claims that those stats do nothing, but my personal experience suggests the same as you're describing, and I'm sure I've seen a few others saying the same. I'm one of those ninja scouts, by the way, but usually not with a Shotgun (I'm considering giving them another run soon, though).
Criest Pyrkin ZionTCD Legacy Rising 16	Posted - 2012.08.27 15:36:00 - [27] - Quote Somehow I believe that if a car is hevier they would put stronger engine in it, so if heavy gets stronger / more armor they should get penalized in a way PG is. Armor extenders increase the weight and so motors in legs need more charge to keep up. I say nerf the way armor extenders use PG (lets lower max stamina) or slower stamina recharge and slower shield recharge while moving due to increased use of PG from armor extenders.


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

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.