|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon Plus
1517
   |
Posted - 2013.07.02 15:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Perhaps you should read the debate before complaining that there is one?
If you took the time to do that, you would understand that your points are misconceptions. Common misconceptions, but misconceptions nonetheless. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon Plus
1528
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 15:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Terra Thesis wrote:Cody Sietz wrote:Ok, lower my complex reppers CPU/Pg usage(so I can fit more then 2 on a proto suit without sacrificing everything else) or give my Gallente assault a rep bonuses like logis do. Everyone has to sacrifice. It's why putting together a build is interesting. You can't just dump in everything you want and walk away. Logis are supposed to be tougher to crack - they're about defense and Assaults are offense. I think Logis have too much offensive power, but that's an entirely different argument...
What do shield tanks sacrifice? |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon Plus
1548
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 15:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
DRDEEZENUTSZ TWOpointo wrote:Know what I support a ******* nerf to dam shields around half the hp they have right now is fair enough for how crappy armor is.
Nerfing shields is not a solution. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon Plus
1553
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 16:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Terra Thesis wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:I am sure that there is a lot of variation in the amount of thought put into Armour QQ posts, and some Armour QQ posts may be completely ridiculous, but lets consider the post [Feedback] Shields > Armour GÇô A continued imbalance as the gold standard when considering the Armour vs Shield debate. As a shield tanker, with no direct ties to armour tanking, I read this post very carefully and found it to be very reasonable and balanced. They have a valid point. Currently the benefits of Shields are greater than the benefits of armour, and the penalties for Shields are less than the penalties for armour. They should not be made the same, but they do need to be balanced. The current scenario is unbalanced. Currently if you go with armour you give up more for less benefit. That is an excellent post in that it is thorough and politely written. That should be a baseline. But that doesn't guarantee its correctness. It starts with the declaration that Shields are for skirmishing and Armor is for brawling. Based off of that initial assumption, OP concludes that armor is not suited for its role. My assertion is that if you consider that Shields are for brawling and Armor is for skirmishing, the way everything is designed makes much more sense, especially in Uprising 1.2 with the new ferroscale plates.
I'm afraid armour for skirmishing simply doesn't make sense.
The movement speed penalty should make that immediately clear, among other things. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon Plus
1558
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 16:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
RoundEy3 wrote:So no talk of armor repair tools or armor repairing nanohives here? Shields don't have this kind of support from what I've seen. Did anyone ever think this is part of the whole concept of armor support and logistics.
That is indeed the case.
The main issue that armour tankers have is that they're inferior in a great number of other ways. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon Plus
1580
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 21:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Terra Thesis, on your assumption that armour is, in fact, for skirmishing:
A movement penalty clearly flies in the face of that idea.
Biotic modules can't be fitted by armour tankers without compromising tank.
Assuming skirmishing is more hit and run warfare, that goes much better with shield tankers, who have a delay on their regen - essentially, they do their hit, duck into cover and regen.
One of armour's strong points is holding a position, as remote armour repair tools allow logistics to set up and help the others. This is much more difficult to move around - it's not feasible to 'skirmish' when carrying around a logibro. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon Plus
1583
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 21:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
Terra Thesis wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Terra Thesis, on your assumption that armour is, in fact, for skirmishing:
A movement penalty clearly flies in the face of that idea.
Biotic modules can't be fitted by armour tankers without compromising tank.
Assuming skirmishing is more hit and run warfare, that goes much better with shield tankers, who have a delay on their regen - essentially, they do their hit, duck into cover and regen.
One of armour's strong points is holding a position, as remote armour repair tools allow logistics to set up and help the others. This is much more difficult to move around - it's not feasible to 'skirmish' when carrying around a logibro. I'm not sure who you're responding to. You put my name on there, but I'm not talking about wearing slow plates and getting a logi. But sure, I agree, if you stack plates and have a logi following you, it's doesn't make sense to skirmish.
I am responding to your posts in general, and perhaps particularly the earlier post.
Remote armour repairers are one of the best things about armour - if actually attempting to increase your HP and/or using rep tools prevents you from skirmishing, why do you believe it's about skirmishing? |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon Plus
1586
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 22:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Terra Thesis wrote:
The key here is that shield users DON'T have better regen. You're forgetting again that armor dropsuits have a significant shield system as a baseline. Shield suits have slightly better regen if you only look at the shield system, but looking at the overall dropsuit, armor suits configured for reps have better overall regen.
Again - So armour tankers have to shield tank to work? |
|
|
| |
|