DUST Search - The "Shield Tanking vs Armor Tanking" balance thread

Mavado V Noriega wrote:

Shiro Mokuzan wrote:

One thing is to make shield extenders or other mods increase one's signature radius like in EVE. These do two different things in the two games, but in DUST it would make you more easily detectable.

Shield extenders need some kind of downside like armor plates have. If not signature radius, something else.

Another bonus is that infantry-portable repair tools exist, but not shield transporters. So your friendly local logistics guy can repair your armor, but not your shield, and the remote repair rate is pretty high.

this.
what ive come to realise in DUST is that remote reppin is far better for armor than it is for shields

@Caz boosting passive armor rep modules by a significant amount is bad imho because ppl already use armor reps and extenders

i made a thread on the feedback section asking for CCP to buff the armor of assault suits Type-I, A-Series, vk.0 suits to make it more competitive with the Type-II, upcoming B-Series and vk.1 variants.

Also heavies need an armor buff imho with the suit nerf they are way too easy to take down


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.12 08:04:00 - [1] - Quote Here's something i was discussing with some folks yesterday on IRC. Since the beta started, it's been clear that Shield Tanking is way more interesting and efficient than Armor Tanking in Dust 514. But in the current build, the difference is clearly more noticeable : With the high prices of the dropsuits and module, it is pretty obvious that tech II suits, with their enhanced base HP shield, regen rate and delay, and movement speed are the most interesting solutions. Even if you go for higher type of suits, you'll still have the same amount of HP in shield and armor. And you will always choose shield tanking for a few reason that have a massive impact on the battlefield : 1) Repair rate : Shield tanking offers a default repair rate that comes with the suits itself, a skill associated that can buff that rate by 15% and modules that will also allow for a pretty good raise. Armor tanking on the other hand requires a module to get even the slightest repair rate, that's mostly ridiculous. 2,3 or 5 per Sec. It also offers a skill that can boost by 15% this rep rate but it's mostly useless for those modules and serves only for the Rep Tool. => If this kinda makes sense regarding the EVE universe, it creates a huge gap between the self-healing efficiency of those two style of play. If i can understand that armor rep rate are made low to avoid Heavies being fully independant war machines that repairs themselves fast, i'd say armor rep is really really too low. => Only perk of the armor rep modules is that it never stops repairing. When you get hit, there is no delay unlike shields. But, is it better to have to wait less than 5sec to then rep 30HP\sec ? Or to rep 5hp\Sec even when sustaining fire ? Even worse, you can now shorten the shield regen delay with modules. 2) Movement penalty\bonus Choosing to tank shield can give you a speed bonus when using T2 where on the other hand, every armor plate will reduce your speed. The penalty has even been raised recently if i'm not mistaken. => Again it makes sense and it's the same in EVE, but it's another disadvantage for Armor Tanking. 3) Damage efficiency In EVE, one of the main difference between Shield and Armor is the difference of behavior they offer against various type of damage. Shield being better suited against kinetic (projectiles) and explosives (mostly) damage while armor are better suited to face heat and Em type of damage. In Dust, those difference are already supposed to be working. But let's face it, i dont feel like my shield is very efficient against explosive damage. Or my armor tanks being better suited to face EM forge guns. Or tank shield being more vulnerable against those same FG. => Maybe this part could help to create a real balance between shield and armor tanking. But at the moment, it doesnt. 4) Slots. One of the biggest advantage of Armor tanking is that it can free high slots so you can fit the damage mods. Thus armor tanking could lead to very powerfull units. Wich would somehow justify the need for more support regarding reparations, or transport ( heavies !). But when you get to fitting, there's no way you can achieve that. Damage mods, and armor plates are gready in CPU\PG and as you use the low slots to tank, you don't really have the space to fit a CPU or PG enhancer. Or you would have to sacrifice an armor plate, wich means your tank will be mostly inexistant as the bonus HP they offer still remains way less interesting than what shield modules can offer. Thus in the end, most people tend to choose the shield resilience and fast repair rate over the potentially high damage and so called resistance of an Armor Tank. Even when they use a class that's supposed to be armor tanked based. This problem also affects vehicles. While armor tanked HAV are nearly too fragile, shield tanked HAV can become pretty much undestructible. HAV are the most extreme example of how unbalanced those two type of defense are. So in the end, unless there are a lot of stuff to be added regarding shield and armor tanking that would balance this, i'd say that self armor repair module should receive a decent buff as well as armor plates. Or make it so that armor plates and rep are less CPU\PG consuming (wich would make sense imo) than equivalent shield modules. Also, we need to see a real difference of behavior against different damage types between shield and armor. And you guys, what's your opinion on this ?
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.12 08:04:00 - [2] - Quote reserved -- we never know ^^
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.12 09:39:00 - [3] - Quote Signature radius is already upped by shield modules in Dust 514. But due to the automatic detection when you're sighted by the ennemies, i guess nobody will trade its efficiency in regen and speed bonus for a slightly more discrete profile that will be weaker and slower. Armor should either get a buff or shield get nerfed. Personnaly, i'm more in favor of debuffing the shield's regen rate and efficiency. I may use it, but i found kinda ridiculous and annoying this very fast HP recovery.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.12 11:40:00 - [4] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Shiro Mokuzan wrote: One thing is to make shield extenders or other mods increase one's signature radius like in EVE. These do two different things in the two games, but in DUST it would make you more easily detectable. Shield extenders need some kind of downside like armor plates have. If not signature radius, something else. Another bonus is that infantry-portable repair tools exist, but not shield transporters. So your friendly local logistics guy can repair your armor, but not your shield, and the remote repair rate is pretty high. this. what ive come to realise in DUST is that remote reppin is far better for armor than it is for shields @Caz boosting passive armor rep modules by a significant amount is bad imho because ppl already use armor reps and extenders i made a thread on the feedback section asking for CCP to buff the armor of assault suits Type-I, A-Series, vk.0 suits to make it more competitive with the Type-II, upcoming B-Series and vk.1 variants. Also heavies need an armor buff imho with the suit nerf they are way too easy to take down I think we misunderstood. From what you say, it seems you understand that i suggest a boost to the base shield regen of the suits wich isn't at all what i meant. I'm talking about the armor repairers module regarding armor tanking. You guys mention that there is an equipment to repair armor of your teammates. It's all good and fun but basic shield regen of the suits with a few enhancement is equivalent to the amount of HP repaired to armors by a regular repair tool. And you dont need to rely on anyone to get those HP backs. It makes thing more than unbalanced between choosing armor tank or shield tank as you people will tend to choose the solution where they can self-heal. A guy that would decide to play assault and spec in armor tanking is clearly making a very wrong call atm. Regarding balancing the suits. The problem is exactly the same. When you compare T1 and T2 suits. They pretty much offer the same overall HP. Except one has more armor and the other one more shield. What makes the T2 much more interesting is that the shield modules that will enhance its shield amount, regen rate and delay are way more interesting than the ones you will find to do the same thing, armor side, on the T1. Basic suit stats are fine imo. The real problem is the difference in effectiveness between the shield and armor modules. Yes armor plates give more HP than their shield extenders equivalent but the speed penalty, the lack of a real difference in damage resistance and the very low self-rep rate you can reach makes too much of a difference. Having armor rep modules rate doubled : 4 / 7 and 10 Hp per sec would make armor tanking a way more viable options. Heavies would still need some logi with armor rep tool when their base HP will be restored as it would still be quite long for them to rep all of their armor on their own (and as they dont have that much low slot). As for as i know, i dont know anyone who plays Armor Tanked assault, scout or logi. Even heavies rely on shield atm. Thus there's clearly a problem and i really dont think that the sole problem is the base stats of the armor-oriented dropsuits. Also, as advanced and proto shield-oriented suits are incoming, the gap is only gonna grow bigger and bigger. There's clearly something to be done with the armor modules in general.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.12 11:42:00 - [5] - Quote Tyas Borg wrote: Sure the dropsuit side of things might need looking at, but by doing so your gonna seriously increase the potential of the armour vehicles, which tbh I think are already the better option at higher levels. Really ? the tanks that i tend to find difficult to blow are the ones based on shield tanking. Yet my knowledge of vehicles is limited so i can't really say. Even then, adjusting the infantry modules doesnt necessarily imply to change the spec of the armor vehicle modules.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.13 06:03:00 - [6] - Quote Sorry but how does the latest post link to the shield/armor tanking discussion ?!
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.13 08:50:00 - [7] - Quote Chris Gaechmoor wrote: In EVE, I was told PvP there is all about armor tanking. In Dust I see it this way: For Dropsuits, Shield tanking is superior to armor tanking, you can hide behind an obstacle pretty well, and if you use something better than militia modules, you dont have to wait very long till shield is regenerated For Vehicles, I think Amor tanking is slightly superior. On a surya for example, you can fit like 3 armor reps. Try that on a shield HAV Shield and Armor tanking should be both viable options for infantry and vehicles. At the moment, they clearly aren't. I'd love to have input from a dev on this. Just to see if CCP already spotted that difference between the two.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.13 09:30:00 - [8] - Quote Constable Jones wrote: Chris Gaechmoor wrote: In EVE, I was told PvP there is all about armor tanking. The difference is that in EVE you're going to mostly fight short sharp engagements. By having an armour based buffer tank you can have alot of HP that doesn't require using any of your capacitor, which means you can use all your cap to run ewar, nos, neuts, tracking computers and (if amarr or gallente) guns. You don't need to repair your armour during fights because either you have a logistics ship to do it for you, or you intend to go home and get it fixed after the fight. You don't have the second option in Dust. And currently the first isn't reliable for most folks. exactly. You can't really reach a much higher total HP than a shield tanked soldier. And you dont really win any PG\CPU consumption either.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.11.15 11:43:00 - [9] - Quote Velvet Overkill wrote: Also there's an active shield module that increases damage resistance and there isn't one for armor. Whoah you digged that one quite far mate ^^ And i think you're talking about vehicles when this thread was more about infantry :)