DUST Search - Shield Bias (Shields >> Armor)

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Shield Bias (Shields >> Armor)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tupni 27	Posted - 2012.09.23 00:31:00 - [1] - Quote To summarize, it feels like shields are overall much better than armor in almost every way that matters, that shields are more deciding in combat than armor, and that ultimately armor is substantially inferior while running for an equivalent cost and providing no real general or specific advantage. This strikes me as especially odd since the advent of space mining should provide for a considerable influx of materials that would be highly effective in dealing with radiation and kinetic damage, not to mention the inevitable and necessary advances in metallurgy that should have taken place relative to common space travel and general technological advancement. Further still that all sensible shield technology would be much more power intensive and fragile compared to solid armor. Anyway, here is a comparative list of things I've noticed. Shields: + Automatically recover + Have modules to increase recovery, shield strength. + Suffer no low health penalty (compared to armor's burning damage) + Can equip multiple Power Diagnostic Systems (low powered modules to specifically and significantly optimize shields) + Have a lower PG/CPU cost total + Have Buffer modules (shield extenders) + Do not affect movement + More CPU intensive, but CPU extenders have no CPU/PG cost (despite the logical wattage requirement for use and cooling), use the less necessary low powered slot, and is otherwise balanced. - May have a larger sensor signal - Have no means of recovery from infantry -/+ Suffer from Flux weapons (however these also shut down low powered modules which are not as important in shield heavy fittings but can leave amour units bare) + Are otherwise equal or relative to armour in every way (same slot total, similar SP cost, market cost, damage absorption) with these advantages. Armour: + Generally higher health + Can be repaired by infantry - Must be away from combat or the healer is often extremely vulnerable - Requires exiting the craft - Requires having the pilot get out or to have someone else on board who can, meaning a higher organization requirement in a low communication environment. - Requires special equipment to recover - Manual - Recovers more slowly, cool down penalty - Has no slot/PG advantage to compensate - Suffers burn damage when low - No specific High powered modules to aid armor strength - Only HPM that helps armor (Damage control unit) can only be equipped once and does as much for shields - Shield equivalent is superior, helps more, no limit. - Slower - Has equivalent cost in ISK, SP for inferior quality - PG intensive, PG extenders have a CPU cost, use primary slot set for armor craft - Is not significantly more resistant to damage (as far as I can tell) despite physics. This is mostly from a vehicular perspective, but a lot of this translates over to dropsuits as well and is partially why heavies often have a hard time of it. Here are some requests to balance things out, any two or three would go a long way to that end. Increased slots on armor heavy vehicles/suits (more armor, bigger frame, more power, more space) Lower SP/ISK cost given availability of materials/less tech heavy development Anti-grav high powered modules implementing technology similarly available in any standard drop suits to decrease movement penalties. Swap armor recovery and PG expansion modules to the high powered side, or create a high powered armour recover module with a higher CPU cost that is automatic and constant Power Diagnostic System equivalent module for armor HPM Make armor more resistant to damage than shields to compensate for lower recovery and other disadvantages Armour resistance modules 2-5% more effective than shield counter-parts and/or suffer no stacking penalty (since shields by their nature are designed to be more resistant and the tech is more redundant or something) Give advanced tier armor units some integrated armor recovery (automatic or manual), or at least on Logistics dropships and Special Ops tanks. Extend armor shielding to provide better cover players in LAVs/Dropships
Jexct Doc Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2012.09.23 06:38:00 - [2] - Quote I really think they should just remove the movement penalty from armor plates in dropsuits. Using them as a slot does more harm than good, especially if they are proto and you use more than one. You can negate more damage from fast strafing than any armor plate can afford. I hope this gets worked out.
G Torq ALTA B2O 88	Posted - 2012.09.23 07:23:00 - [3] - Quote Armor should make you slower - you're carrying more stuff - it should have less CPU usage than shields - it should have comparable PG usage to shields (compensate for drain on movable parts) Shields should light you up on the battle field (radar) - its a big EM(?) field - it should be CPU heavy, for maintaining a stable field - it should have decent PG usage to power the shield
Azmode Deamus Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 28	Posted - 2012.09.23 20:12:00 - [4] - Quote No! Just NO. G Torq. So Armor Plates should have comparable PG usage because the suite will require more power to compensate for the extra weight? THEN WHY SHOULD THERE BE A MOVEMENT PENALTY SPEED, because obviously the suite is compensating for the extra weight with extra power. DUH.. Jesus! You condradicted your own argument! Low Power Slots are almost useless just about already. What is there to put on them? Stuff that increases CPU for better high power slots? Melee increase slots? Whiipeee! Armor plates that kill mobility? Oh YEAH... THAT's fun! What about Sprint Enhancers? WELL, they are great! I'll take ten! However they require massive CPU and PG.... Oh... Damn.... PG increase items? Oh yeah, but they lower CPU! Oh... Damn! [Sarcasm off] So Armor Plates? They lower sprinting speed significantly, while giving minimal armor boost. What's the point? Armor doesn't have natural repairing mechanics like shields do. That in it's self is A HUGE disadvantage... This is unacceptable from a game balance stand point. So how to give Armor Plates a significant advantage? It's simple! Make it so they give superior amount of set HP. While making them require less PG/CPU. There should also be some type of difference in armor plates... How about one type of plate that does decrease mobility but at the cost of superb increase in armor hit points. And then one that doesn't effect speed, but relatively doesn't have as much Armor Point gain. On top of it... Armor Plates should have some type of resistance on it to compensate. Armor should always take less damage compared to shields, IMO. That's the benefit of it... If not? Then add self repair kits. In an age where there are devices that can materialize ammo supplies and grenades then there are definitely nano bots that can self replicate and repair a damn drop suite.
Brumae Verres 24	Posted - 2012.09.24 00:21:00 - [5] - Quote Even if the armor rep mods were high power slot and ripped for higher amounts when activated would make heavy DSs much happier. That said, if you wanted to buff the resistances and overall hps, I won't complain. Maybe the next patch will have a fx, but the current armor repers are roflbad. (5hps/sec? Who wants to sit for 2 min waiting for their armor to rep?)
Longshot Ravenwood Algintal Core Gallente Federation 680	Posted - 2012.09.24 01:24:00 - [6] - Quote Damage Booster Modules use mid level slots. Balance found. Although I wouldn't mind having supply depots automatically repair infantry armor.
Velvet Overkill 104	Posted - 2012.09.24 03:37:00 - [7] - Quote Longshot Ravenwood wrote: Damage Booster Modules use mid level slots. Balance found. Although I wouldn't mind having supply depots automatically repair infantry armor. Supply depots already already repair infantry armor. Also I use armor and wouldn't want damage boosters to take up my low slots. On my Type 1 logi suit has 2 low slows and 3 highs. I use the 2 lows for armor rep and armor plates and 1 high for a complex damage mod. What I also want is a gallente logistics suit so I can have more low slots and armor.
Constable Jones Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 22	Posted - 2012.09.24 13:46:00 - [8] - Quote Change armour reps to 2/3/5% per second. Done.
XINERA XIOS ZionTCD Legacy Rising 14	Posted - 2012.09.24 14:44:00 - [9] - Quote Constable Jones wrote: Change armour reps to 2/3/5% per second. Done. That could be hard, if a heavy is using this armour reps. My t1- heavy dropsuit has ~760HP in Armour if i remember that right. and that would be 15,2/22,8/38 HP/s for a heavy compared to the 2,5/3,75/6,25 for a t1- Triage. It wouldn't be fair. On the otherside if we think about a "living" armour which is closing it's "wounds" automaticly, the bigger one would be faster. But the armour on it's self isn't repairing the Modul is repairing so stick to the old system.
G Torq ALTA B2O 88	Posted - 2012.09.24 17:16:00 - [10] - Quote Azmode Deamus wrote: No! Just NO. G Torq. So Armor Plates should have comparable PG usage because the suite will require more power to compensate for the extra weight? THEN WHY SHOULD THERE BE A MOVEMENT PENALTY SPEED, because obviously the suite is compensating for the extra weight with extra power. DUH.. Jesus! You condradicted your own argument! If penalties are measured in absolutes, i.e. either there IS or IS NOT a given penalty, then yes - I would be contradicting myself. Since they are relative values, i.e. n% increases or m% decreases, you can in fact have both. Think of it as strapping on an heavy backpack: You will spend more energy and you will be slower. But besides that, the spelling errors, the silly attempt at humor and sarcasm, your post probably made a point...

Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming 2283	Posted - 2012.09.24 21:09:00 - [11] - Quote Jexct Doc wrote: I really think they should just remove the movement penalty from armor plates in dropsuits. Using them as a slot does more harm than good, especially if they are proto and you use more than one. You can negate more damage from fast strafing than any armor plate can afford. I hope this gets worked out. movement penalty needs to stay otherwise everyone will just dual tank what they could do is make the fitting requirements cheaper
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.24 21:20:00 - [12] - Quote i support this thread as i made the same remark a week ago about how shield tanking is way OP compared to armor tanking. At the moment, there's no debate on wich option to choose between the two as an infantry guy. The shield recharge rate, even if you need not to sustain fire for it to start, is still way too efficient compared to the max rep rate you can get for armor. In order to balance the two, i would rather see a decrease in shield regen rate than a massive boost of armor rep. Or, make it so that armor plating is way more interesting in term of HP increase. At the moment, movement penalty is not worse the 100 hp you can get compared to the 66 Hp a complex shield extender will offer you as it's basically one bullet difference to take it down. Big work needed on that part clearly.
Azmode Deamus Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 28	Posted - 2012.09.24 21:41:00 - [13] - Quote G Torq wrote: Azmode Deamus wrote: No! Just NO. G Torq. So Armor Plates should have comparable PG usage because the suite will require more power to compensate for the extra weight? THEN WHY SHOULD THERE BE A MOVEMENT PENALTY SPEED, because obviously the suite is compensating for the extra weight with extra power. DUH.. Jesus! You condradicted your own argument! If penalties are measured in absolutes, i.e. either there IS or IS NOT a given penalty, then yes - I would be contradicting myself. Since they are relative values, i.e. n% increases or m% decreases, you can in fact have both. Think of it as strapping on an heavy backpack: You will spend more energy and you will be slower. But besides that, the spelling errors, the silly attempt at humor and sarcasm, your post probably made a point... "Armor should lower penalty speed, you're carrying more stuff". It's a game. Right now, armor plates are just about useless. They don't self repair, and they decrease movement speed which is a significant disadvantage. Most people that use them seem to do so because they can't find anything else to fit in the Low Power module slots. If you're going to use lore or reality to discuss something than at least use them for both and not be biased. The shield modules would have to weigh something as well, no? ? Is that figured in it as well? I'm no science fiction genius but I'm positive that shields would require a MASSIVE amount of Power and CPU power to operate relative to a static material... The armor isn't even a type of "smart material". It cannot repair it's self... And as far as I know it has no special properties. It's just a material... I just don't think it's fair that out of everything in the game - only armor plates have some type of penalty due to weight. If they are going to continue with the penalty to speed. Then everything in the game should... When I wear a heavy backpack I DO have to use more energy than normal. However I can also spend more energy and keep the same pace. So again, why do armor plates require any PG/CPU usage at all? I'm giving up extra PG in theory to compensate for the extra weight, am I not? Also, these are just armor plates, and not smart materials. So what's the theory behind them using CPU on top of PG? Either way the bonuses need to be greater. They either need to compensate for the disadvantages of armor plates or give armor it's on unique advantage. I personally feel there should be no reason to make armor self repair by default anyway. Scientists today are already making smart materials that revert to their original form with some type of heat. "Memory Materials" if I remember... There's no reason for such a unbalanced game mechanic for a Fictional Universe full of nano technology and space travel.
RedBleach 50	Posted - 2012.10.01 03:50:00 - [14] - Quote This may have been mentioned. We have various types of body armor and armor plate for vehicles. Light cloth like material that stops a bullet as well as steel plates so the argument of weight is null - I will say that one is super expensive compared tot he other. This is the future, new elements, new technology, honestly this stuff is available now so there should be a similar exhange in the eve universe... or do they still rely on steel plates for everything? (hint: the answer is no)
Hiseki Lionel Algintal Core Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2012.10.01 05:05:00 - [15] - Quote ((If you don't want to read all this bull, then drop down to the last two paragraphs to skip the poop ton of ranting.)) As a fan of Gallente vehicles, I agree with a lot on here. As it stands, I'm gonna be going into Caldari vehicles simply because the decrease in shields that Gallente vehicles have makes them just about worthless. I love the design of them though and want to use them. But being unable to repair my armor automatically makes it very hard. Cause I don't know if anyone knows it, a dropship pilot can't just walk out their vehicle and repair it. Setting it down is also an instant death sentence cause every enemy in the freaking match will suddenly teleport right to where you are to gang **** you then steal your ride... They didn't even leave a number when they were finished. It's annoying, and worse it breaks a game balance. As it stands, there's no reason to have a Gallente vehicle, no reason to use it either. Caldari beats it out in every way shape and form. What will happen when they release Amarr and Minmatar vehicles? Unless one of them have superior shields, then Caldari will of course be what all others use. The other vehicle choices will be redundant and with people not buying them or training in skills for those vehicles they become something that players won't want, they'll get annoyed at having to scroll through them to get to their Caldari and demand their removal. Armor has to be fixed before such a thing happens. One of the best ways was of course what has been talked about on here and I agree with it one hundred percent. Auto reparing armor, at the least make a fire suppression system that kicks in automatically when a fire breaks out. If need be make it to where it will only activate so many times before becoming inactive. After that a player has to go out and repair it themselves. What would also be nice would be to have the manual repair, repair more and faster than just auto repairing. As it stands, it's a big effing risk with little result to repair your vehicle. Best thing would be to combine the two, auto repair and fire suppression system kicks in the moment a fire starts. This will repair a little armor points at a time but won't repair past 50%. When it starts repairing it flashes a warning so the pilot of the vehicle can know to get the HELL out of the hot zone so they can repair their vehicle. When they do so, they don't have to leave but they do have to stand their vehicle still while the repair works. As it does so, it works a hell of a lot faster than the auto repair and will speed up shield recovery. Catch is, the moment you move is the moment it ends.
Shijima Kuraimaru WarRavens 168	Posted - 2012.10.01 08:55:00 - [16] - Quote As it sits, all I can say is that if they're not there in CODEX, I hope they bring in the various damage types and armor/shield resistance mods much like they have fro ships in Eve. Armor is good against EM and thermal but vulnerable to Explosive and kinetic. The shields are the opposite. So passive and active resistance plates/fields and active hardeners will make a larger difference as will the hopefully implemented ammo types. BTW... Meta zero and Tech 2 plates are still steel, at least with the ships. LOL
HK-40 120	Posted - 2012.10.01 09:56:00 - [17] - Quote Welcome to the world of EVE, I guess. When I started (EVE) I had a Caldari character, but didn't care for the Caldari Cruisers and Battleships (T1 BC Ferox was not bad though, others didn't exist then). So, I switched to Gallente as they looked really good, Thorax was all the rage, for everything. I struggled for over a year trying to get decent performance out of armour tanking, Dominix was pretty good but armour couldn't do what I wanted to. Always running out of capacitor and so on. Eventually got fed up and went back to Caldari, Rattlesnake in fact. I could suddenly, with not 1 active module, passively tank every level 4 mission. No active hardeners, no active shield boosters, just passive hardeners, extenders and a couple of passive recovery units (thingamajigs ) whatever they were called. I see CCP making the same mistakes in DUST and its not a good feeling. Many times in EVE it has been the case that the only way to travel was Missile spamming Shield Boats. I'm sure Caldari HAV drivers can relate to this. CCP, please put some thought into it this time!
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.10.01 14:06:00 - [18] - Quote i realy hope CCP takes a crack at balancing the two i dont think there is an easy and logical fix though maybe by setting the two up differently like for example leaving shields as raw damage type protection and abilitys and have armor deal with special things such as small damage round(shot and SMG fire) or fragmention or heavy fire instead of focusing armor on damage type resistance build it around types like that. i would also suggestion make the suits natural armor naturally more resistance to one or two things then allow them two fit more resistance to it.
Azmode Deamus Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 28	Posted - 2012.10.02 15:40:00 - [19] - Quote If armor doesn't self repair, then it should have a ton more HP to compensate. Enough said... Shields should be better at short term tanking in a quick battle and be able to restore themselves after every quick encounter. Armor should have MUCH greater HP, but at the cost of not being able to self repair. This would allow armor to suceed at a few single fights until it gets whittled down.
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation CRONOS. 191	Posted - 2012.10.02 18:44:00 - [20] - Quote Unfortunately shiled are WAAAAAY better than armor in EVE too, and have been for years, but CCP still don't know how to balance them. GIVE SOME LOVE TO ARMOR. NOW.

Aq'sa L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 44	Posted - 2012.10.02 19:16:00 - [21] - Quote You forget that armor regens constantly with a repper module- effectively negating incoming damage. This means you have 11.5 armor points /s gaining at all times with 2 complex mods. If I only do 11.5 DPS to you, there is no change to your total hit points- whereas shields only repair after all incoming damage has ceased for their rep delay timeframe. Seems like only a small '+' mark to armor on your list, but in effect - a huge advantage.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.10.03 14:40:00 - [22] - Quote still the comparsion between shields and armor needs to be looked at and resigned maybe give armor more HP and better resistance and make armor resistance focus on things like small bullets(shot pellets and smg) or AR rounds or AP explosives or shrapnel or what ever else you could think of for example a resistance module for CQC could have higher resistance for shotguns and SMGs while a standard could have higher resistacne to AR things like that would be cool way to make the differnce more noticable between what the two provide shields would be unspecific all around armor would be hardier at its task.
Tupni Bragian Order Amarr Empire 7	Posted - 2012.11.12 00:46:00 - [23] - Quote Aq'sa wrote: You forget that armor regens constantly with a repper module- effectively negating incoming damage. This means you have 11.5 armor points /s gaining at all times with 2 complex mods. If I only do 11.5 DPS to you, there is no change to your total hit points- whereas shields only repair after all incoming damage has ceased for their rep delay timeframe. Seems like only a small '+' mark to armor on your list, but in effect - a huge advantage. I don't know of a single weapon that does less than 11.5 points of damage. I do know that regardless of armour or shields it's more advantageous to duck behind something for cover rather than get shot, and that even innate recovery for a suits' shields is, I believe, more than double that number or even greater. Also, last I checked vehicles still don't have any passive/automatic armour recovery. But I think the notion stands concerning vehicles, that maybe with a few high level modules you could endure damage where a shield heavy vehicle would have to retreat. Though then again I forgot until this last line that shields have the very same kind of module. I guess I'm bumping this because it doesn't feel like the issue was fixed in this patch and I believe almost all of these points still stand.
Sytonis Auran Valor Coalition RISE of LEGION 52	Posted - 2012.11.12 03:17:00 - [24] - Quote I agree as things stands the balance isn't perfect, but, I would rather add the missing elements before balancing both. Some have been mentioned already but: Damage types Resistance mods Electronic warfare Commander suits and leadership benefits Shield tanked infantry will have really difficult decisions when electronic warfare mods are introduced, if as in Eve Online they take up the same slots, whereas armour tankers will need only worry about fitting requirements.
ugg reset ZionTCD Legacy Rising 234	Posted - 2012.11.12 03:21:00 - [25] - Quote Anti armor > anti shield. nuff said
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 385	Posted - 2012.11.12 03:41:00 - [26] - Quote All that needs to be done us lowering shield moduleless regen to what is now the armour standard module regen and the armour regen buffed to be equal with shield regen with modules
Bhor Derri Legion of Eden 95	Posted - 2012.11.13 10:37:00 - [27] - Quote Look at all the people asking you to fix this imbalance CCP YOU CAN'T IGNORE THEM shields should not be resistant to missiles direct damage only splash Also shields should be weak against kinetic because as far as I know shields stop or absorb incoming damage So a faster projectile would be harder to stop/absorb And armor should become more resistant should it have more hp , the thicker it is the harder it is to damage. And more anti-shield weps please Don't make armor for Noob shield tankers (not all are noobs) You know I keep posting in theese threads but I doubt CCP will get off their blindness for a minute to see the unbalance in their game Might be moving on to planetside 2 after all.
Blind BlueDot Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2012.11.13 12:36:00 - [28] - Quote Hey guys, can I get you to comment on this idea as a possible shield/armor balance solution? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=396683
EnglishSnake Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 1012	Posted - 2012.11.13 13:24:00 - [29] - Quote Tupni wrote: To summarize, it feels like shields are overall much better than armor in almost every way that matters, that shields are more deciding in combat than armor, and that ultimately armor is substantially inferior while running for an equivalent cost and providing no real general or specific advantage. This strikes me as especially odd since the advent of space mining should provide for a considerable influx of materials that would be highly effective in dealing with radiation and kinetic damage, not to mention the inevitable and necessary advances in metallurgy that should have taken place relative to common space travel and general technological advancement. Further still that all sensible shield technology would be much more power intensive and fragile compared to solid armor. Anyway, here is a comparative list of things I've noticed. Shields: + Automatically recover - I wouldnt say automatically recover but they do recharge shield hp at about 24-30hp a second + Have modules to increase recovery, shield strength. You mean shield boosters, armor tanks also have armor reppers + Suffer no low health penalty (compared to armor's burning damage) Actually if they get into low armor they will also have the burning armor but its more of a threat for armor tanks because it uses armor + Can equip multiple Power Diagnostic Systems (low powered modules to specifically and significantly optimize shields) + Have a lower PG/CPU cost total + Have Buffer modules (shield extenders) armor tanks have armor plates + Do not affect movement + More CPU intensive, but CPU extenders have no CPU/PG cost (despite the logical wattage requirement for use and cooling), use the less necessary low powered slot, and is otherwise balanced. - May have a larger sensor signal - Have no means of recovery from infantry eh? -/+ Suffer from Flux weapons (however these also shut down low powered modules which are not as important in shield heavy fittings but can leave amour units bare) + Are otherwise equal or relative to armour in every way (same slot total, similar SP cost, market cost, damage absorption) with these advantages. Armour: + Generally higher health + Can be repaired by infantry - Must be away from combat or the healer is often extremely vulnerable you use the armor repper on the tank - Requires exiting the craft [no it doesnt/b] - Requires having the pilot get out or to have someone else on board who can, meaning a higher organization requirement in a low communication environment. no it doesnt - Requires special equipment to recover no it doesnt - Manual what? armor tanks have armor reppers you can use, you dont need a man with a remote armor repper - Recovers more slowly, cool down penalty armor reppers heal more armor per pulse than shield boosters do, also both suffer the same cooldown period - Has no slot/PG advantage to compensate depends on setup - Suffers burn damage when low shield does suffer the same, all tanks are effected by this - No specific High powered modules to aid armor strength no because high slots are for shield and lows are for armor - Only HPM that helps armor (Damage control unit) can only be equipped once and does as much for shields - Shield equivalent is superior, helps more, no limit. - Slower - Has equivalent cost in ISK, SP for inferior quality - PG intensive, PG extenders have a CPU cost, use primary slot set for armor craft - Is not significantly more resistant to damage (as far as I can tell) despite physics. This is mostly from a vehicular perspective, but a lot of this translates over to dropsuits as well and is partially why heavies often have a hard time of it. Here are some requests to balance things out, any two or three would go a long way to that end. Increased slots on armor heavy vehicles/suits (more armor, bigger frame, more power, more space) what more slots? learn to fit it up right Lower SP/ISK cost given availability of materials/less tech heavy development wont happen Anti-grav high powered modules implementing technology similarly available in any standard drop suits to decrease movement penalties. Swap armor recovery and PG expansion modules to the high powered side, or create a high powered armour recover module with a higher CPU cost that is automatic and constant you already have an armor repper why do you want one that perma reps? Power Diagnostic System equivalent module for armor HPM Make armor more resistant to damage than shields to compensate for lower recovery and other disadvantages Armour resistance modules 2-5% more effective than shield counter-parts and/or suffer no stacking penalty (since shields by their nature are designed to be more resistant and the tech is more redundant or something) [b]you are giving the advantages to armor now Give advanced tier armor units some integrated armor recovery (automatic or manual), or at least on Logistics dropships and Special Ops tanks. Extend armor shielding to provide better cover players in LAVs/Dropships So so far i dont think you are a HAV driver tbh because ther are some basics in the list which are currently wrong which i will correct next to yours in bold 1st So after all them correction lets get down to it Currently shield tanks are better simply because the coummunity cried because armor tanks and railguns were quite popular so when the railgun got nerfed the armor tank died a little but also it didnt help that tanks across the board got nerfed in general and AV got a buff Cont in next post
Vallud Eadesso Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 63	Posted - 2012.11.13 13:25:00 - [30] - Quote Azmode Deamus wrote: It's a game. Correct, but it's based in the EVE Universe. If these things apply to the ships in orbit, they should apply to the infantry using the game tech... perhaps to a lesser degree, but CCP are at least known for consistency. If I recall, the more you tank your ship in EVE you either sacrifice your ability to move out of the way of the bad pew pew coming your way (Armour tanks) or you make your sig radius nice and FAT, making you easier to hit (Shield). This may not be EVE-O, but it's connected to it, a part of it, and essentially an expansion to EVE. Look at them as one game connected via their markets and interaction.

EnglishSnake Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 1012	Posted - 2012.11.13 13:30:00 - [31] - Quote So AV got an extra 30% damage against armor meaning SL hurt armor tanks so much more, the resistance mods/DC and power diagnostics all got nerfed which effect both armor and shield tanks but overall hurts armor tanks more because they take more damage in general and cannot auto heal like shields even at a slot pace meaning they need to run a repper or even a logi if need be Shields also got an extra mod, active shield hardners which offer 30% more resistance to damage for 10sec and is activated so timing is key Also add in that missiles hurt armor more and that shield tank Sagaris gets a bonus to missiles damage meaning that vs an armor tank armor tank will lose Add in low armor burns meaning if you dont have a repper or even a logi that armor burn could kill your tank and tbh that sucks for armor tankers Currently its a cause of circumstance that armor HAVs suck compared to Shield HAVs, CCP nerfed and buffed tanks and AV because community cried as usual and the balance between armor and shield is well out of whack now
Bhor Derri Legion of Eden 95	Posted - 2012.11.13 15:16:00 - [32] - Quote Vallud Eadesso wrote: Azmode Deamus wrote: It's a game. Correct, but it's based in the EVE Universe. If these things apply to the ships in orbit, they should apply to the infantry using the game tech... perhaps to a lesser degree, but CCP are at least known for consistency. If I recall, the more you tank your ship in EVE you either sacrifice your ability to move out of the way of the bad pew pew coming your way (Armour tanks) or you make your sig radius nice and FAT, making you easier to hit (Shield). This may not be EVE-O, but it's connected to it, a part of it, and essentially an expansion to EVE. Look at them as one game connected via their markets and interaction. Well because DUST514 is an fps you don't get auto aim or something so shield tanks could have larger hitboxes.
DarkShadowFox Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 238	Posted - 2012.11.13 17:49:00 - [33] - Quote What about nanofibre armor thats all nanites and as if not lighter than air... why should something as light as air drain PG/CPU, what if all nanites are self powering and have their own battery what if the armor has an armor healthbar like when you used to pick up bodyarmor in GTA it had its own healthbar...
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 775	Posted - 2012.11.13 22:07:00 - [34] - Quote im-+bal-+ance /im-êbal+Öns/ Noun: Lack of proportion or relation between corresponding things: "imbalance of power". If we have Shields > Armor, or Armor > Shields then something has to change. At present armor is on the weak side, Scouts know it, Heavies know it, Assaults know it, Pilots know it, and most HAV drivers know it as well (tho it's a little harder to convince someone that a Tank shouldn't have very much Armor). I run in pickup games with players from many corps and those still in NPC corps, I have yet to hear someone even attempt to make that case that Armor is the equal of Shield, much less that Armor is superior to shield. However I have frequently heard from Mercs running everything from Heavies to Dropships that you must develop your shield skills and focus your fit on shields if you want to keep yourself alive. I'm sure there are still players out there who armor tank but I've yet to see someone dominate a match (within their battle field field role, they don't have to be #1 on the leaderboard) and have them confirm their fit is armor based. The only thing I've heard debated as a rival for shields when making a fit would be damage mods. 0.02 ISK Cross
Boss Dirge Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 71	Posted - 2012.11.14 01:45:00 - [35] - Quote Well one thing I could mention is that there will be specific damage types for orbital bombardments, which means shield tankers might have a bad time one emp strikes start happening. It won't be the end of the world for shield tankers obviously, but it will make choices pretty easy for squad commanders if the entire enemy team is using hardeners and extenders.
Talos Alomar Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 391	Posted - 2012.11.15 04:56:00 - [36] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: im-+bal-+ance /im-êbal+Öns/ Noun: Lack of proportion or relation between corresponding things: "imbalance of power". If we have Shields > Armor, or Armor > Shields then something has to change. At present armor is on the weak side, Scouts know it, Heavies know it, Assaults know it, Pilots know it, and most HAV drivers know it as well (tho it's a little harder to convince someone that a Tank shouldn't have very much Armor). I run in pickup games with players from many corps and those still in NPC corps, I have yet to hear someone even attempt to make that case that Armor is the equal of Shield, much less that Armor is superior to shield. However I have frequently heard from Mercs running everything from Heavies to Dropships that you must develop your shield skills and focus your fit on shields if you want to keep yourself alive. I'm sure there are still players out there who armor tank but I've yet to see someone dominate a match (within their battle field field role, they don't have to be #1 on the leaderboard) and have them confirm their fit is armor based. The only thing I've heard debated as a rival for shields when making a fit would be damage mods. 0.02 ISK Cross I am an Armor tanker on my heavy for a couple reasons. 1. to make room for mods. damage mods are essential for laser rifles, as adding an extra bonus on to a heated up beam is utterly devastating. having room to run sensor modules is great, as well. 2. if i'm running with a squad that has a rep tool (remember the good ol' days?) my HP can be kept higher in the middle of a fight than if i were relying on shield tanking. stacking armor plates with a mechanics at 5 gives just crazy base hit points as well, just a little under 1,100 IIRC. with a logi repping me it's very hard for most people to get the DPS to take me down. as i clear a room with a HMG. 3. constant passive regen is amazing. armor automatically repairing in the middle of a fight has saved my bacon more times than i can remember. i know this isnt limited to armor tankers and shield users can use this as well, but it requires taking a slot/cpu away from the shield mods which isn't always feasible. 4. I'm usually out of range of the damage types that have bonuses vs armor. I usually run a laser, so i'm well out of reach of anything besides the AR which deals 100% vs both so armor being weak to certain damage types doesnt come into play as often. 5. Shield tanking costs more SP. Getting up to a type-B heavy suit costs ALOT of sp. I'd rather use the sp i'd spend on that and the other shield skills on other things. having more capabilities is worth the drawbacks of relying on armor with it's weaknesses. granted my use of the LR changes what i need out of the heavy suit when you compare it to how most others run a heavy suit but I am entirely happy with the way an armor tank for my heavy has been treating me. the only buff armor needs is for armor plating to be made more practical and for logi's to get WP for repping again.
Governor Odius Doomheim 177	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:08:00 - [37] - Quote Pet peeve. This Quote: >> does not mean "much greater than". It means "bitwise right shift". The world would be such a better place if everyone thought in C++.
Reimus Klinsman BetaMax. 320	Posted - 2012.11.15 06:17:00 - [38] - Quote More armor love.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.