Armor Penetration Needs a Nerf

[ToMyMa]

did you really just quote a gigantic wall of text only to prove that you misread t4 as t5

 

Well, I'm on my Ipad... so yes, I just did. Too damn lazy to delete all of the other text x)

 

Besides, SOMEONE has to be that guy - and I was that someone

[-Streven-]

Well, I'm on my Ipad... so yes, I just did. Too damn lazy to delete all of the other text x)

 

Besides, SOMEONE has to be that guy - and I was that someone

 

lol

[Armonddd]

Well, I'm on my Ipad... so yes, I just did. Too damn lazy to delete all of the other text x)

 

Besides, SOMEONE has to be that guy - and I was that someone

 

Alright, that's fair.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I don't think it needs a nerf per se but it should be removed from some weapons. IMO the problem with armor penetration isn't that it is too good, it's that it's on too many weapons. We don't need to make damage reduction the new evasion by nerfing everything across the board so that even weapons designed to counter heavily armored targets are no longer decent counters.

 

Concussion Missiles, rocket pods, thermite torpedoes, and Protons make sense since one of their possible uses is for destroying heavily armored objectives. In some cases their descriptions indicate that they are designed primarily for use against heavily armored objectives so it would be weird to nerf their ability to perform their designed role. Likewise heavy cannons having armor penetration make sense since they're clearly designed to excel against heavily armored targets. So in these cases reducing armor penetration across the board would just be nerfing their ability to perform one of their intended uses.

 

Now personally I could live without concussion missiles having armor penetration (and I'm not sure anyone even uses that upgrade). I'm not sure how much thermite torpedoes would suffer loosing armor penetration but since most (all?) ships that have them also have rocket pods as an option I don't think it would cripple ship's abilities to take out heavily armored targets. I do think that rocket pods, Protons, and heavy cannons need to keep their armor penetration since being used against heavily armored targets is one of their primary uses.

 

Burst laser cannons having armor penetration I don't think makes sense. They're already the best close range blaster for dogfighting so making them less useful for taking out armored objectives I think would be a fair trade off. I think it would make them less of a BiS weapon for ships that can equip them.

 

Likewise I kinda feel iffy about the slug railgun's armor penetration. When the best railgun for shooting down starfighters and one of the main threats scouts/strikers face having armor penetration makes damage reduction a bad armor choice. However, removing the armor penetration from the weapon would make, IMO, damage reduction more appealing as a means to mitigate the threat of railguns.

 

I'm not certain what the deal is with bomber mines and drones but if they have armor penetration I'd say that should be removed.

 

Overall I think if weapons were rebalanced so only rocket pods, proton torpedoes, and heavy cannons had armor penetration it would dramatically improve the usefulness of damage reduction without needlessly nerfing weapons clearly designed to be used to counter heavily armored targets.

[Kuciwalker]

I think you could reduce every instance of 100% armor pen to 50% armor pen without introduce any balance issues at all.

 

(Maybe protons should get to keep 100% pen. Maybe.)

[Ramalina]

Well the real issue is an interaction of design vs balance. GSF has been mathematically very well balanced right from the outset, provided that whatever assumptions the people made in the math model hold true in actual combat.

 

The problem is that long term average balance, can be circumvented by mechanics to create severely unbalanced play.

 

Burst damage and evasion both got nerfed a bit because while the math said (quite correctly) that they averaged out the same as flat dps and shields in the long term, in practice GSF consists of many very brief engagements, so in practice the long time period that flat dps and shields would need to catch up simply doesn't exist.

 

They got fixed quickly, because when something is unfairly advantageous and only available on some ships, it generates a torrent of complaints.

 

Things that are brokenly under-par, mostly just aren't equipped, and only generate a trickle of complaints. Bioware does respond to that trickle, see ion missile upgrades, but underwhelming choices are more likely to slip through the cracks for a long time.

 

Armor penetration is as a means of increasing damage is fine as a mechanic, and the percentage is a value that should be tunable.

 

The problem is in the armor component slot. There are some armor choices that always have value, such as evasion and hull strength. Even against counters such as accuracy and damage increases, they still provide an increased measure of protection compared to not having evasion or extra hull strength. In contrast, against armor penetration having damage reduction provides no advantage whatsoever compared to an empty slot. Players don't have enough accurate information to determine if the protection that damage reduction offers in cases where it works is good enough to offset the cases where it doesn't work at all. So they make the sensible choice and choose armors that they know will always offer at least some benefit.

 

I consider the interaction of the damage reduction armor components and armor penetration to be incredibly bad game design. The value of damage reduction is too dependent on the flavor of the moment team composition in regards to ships and weapons, and even if the math model says it's fine or even overpowered, the information available to the player says you can chose this thing that sometimes doesn't work or something that always works.

 

Unsurprisingly, those players that read the descriptions overwhelmingly choose the option they know will always provide some value instead of the one that they know will be completely useless sometimes, and that they can't quantify how often it will be useless, other than that the popularity of slug railguns and burst laser cannons bodes poorly for damage reduction armor.

 

I'd rework the design so that armor penetration provides a buff to damage against both stock hulls and hulls with some degree of damage reduction.

 

Then let damage reduction armor apply damage reduction to all hull damage.

 

Given the existing bad mechanic design, you might also have to add something along the lines of making armor penetration ignore half (or some other value) of the damage reduction provided by armor, otherwise the mathematical balance might get out of whack with the change.

 

Basically get it so that both armor penetration and damage reduction are mutual counters, and also offer some benefit outside of countering each other. Then they're in line with the other armor options and their counters.

 

So the best summation I can offer: The real problem is that some Armor Components always give defensive benefits even against their counters while Damage Reduction as defensive measure gives no benefits at all against its counter (and its counter is fairly common). Most sensible people choose the defenses that they know will work so damage reduction is drastically devalued as a component and crew choice.

 

The deficiency is due entirely to poor design, but it's probably fixable. I hope they come up with a way to do it.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Ramalina

[Kuciwalker]

Your above solution is far more mathematically complex and requires a new mechanic. Armor and armor pen currently work exactly like the ground game. This is a virtue because it means people don't have to learn a second system. Reducing 100% armor pen to 50% armor pen preserves the current mechanics while ensuring armor is still always somewhat valuable.

[Altheran]

What if Ignore armor would be tuned like Increase hull damage is tuned for now ?

 

I mean, weapons that get Increase hull damage as a bonus, have that bonus' "strength" depend on which tier the said bonus is put on. As a tier 5 upgrade it is "increase damage done to hull by 16%" while as a tier 3-4 it's "increase damage done to hull by 8%"

(Edit : same goes with Shield Piercing. If it's a tier 5 upgrade it bypasses 15%, if it's a lower tier upgrade, it's a 8% bypass.)

 

So, could not Ignore Armor be similar, and be "ignores 100% of ennemy armor" if a tier 5 upgrade and "ignore 50% of ennemy armor" if it's a tier 3-4 upgrade ?

Edited March 2, 2014 by Altheran

[Gavin_Kelvar]

What if Ignore armor would be tuned like Increase hull damage is tuned for now ?

 

I mean, weapons that get Increase hull damage as a bonus, have that bonus' "strength" depend on which tier the said bonus is put on. As a tier 5 upgrade it is "increase damage done to hull by 16%" while as a tier 3-4 it's "increase damage done to hull by 8%"

(Edit : same goes with Shield Piercing. If it's a tier 5 upgrade it bypasses 15%, if it's a lower tier upgrade, it's a 8% bypass.)

 

So, could not Ignore Armor be similar, and be "ignores 100% of ennemy armor" if a tier 5 upgrade and "ignore 50% of ennemy armor" if it's a tier 3-4 upgrade ?

 

That would make sense.

 

I think the main thing the devs need to do is not make a blanket nerf but carefully examine the intended use of individual weapons. It would make zero sense to do a blanket nerf that affects something like proton torpedoes that are meant to be highly effective against armored targets and in that regard are performing as intended with their 100% armor penetration because BLC had too much armor penetration.

 

I don't object to the idea of nerfing the armor penetration values of some weapons that may be performing too well against armored targets. I just object to the idea of a blanket nerf that nerfs both the weapons that are performing too well as well as the ones that are performing as designed.

[Gerfaut]

A lot of things would have to be changed if armor penetration was nerfed. Currently, damage-reduction loadouts can be extremely powerful situationally (for instance, they can be used to detonate an enemy minefield without taking damage), but they are very rarely used because of the counters. If the counters were weakened, these builds would become more common and weapons with no armor pen, such as quads, would become too weak. Which means that damage reduction would need to be nerfed and/or every weapon would need to be given some amount of armor pen.

 

At this point, the only weapon that I would like to see lose its armor penetration (or part of it) would be the slug railgun. The plasma railgun should keep it. That way, gunships would have to make a more meaningful choice between the 3 types of railguns: ion for the aoe and energy drain, slug for sheer damage/burst against lightly armored targets, and plasma for high damage against heavily armored targets.

[-Streven-]

A lot of things would have to be changed if armor penetration was nerfed. Currently, damage-reduction loadouts can be extremely powerful situationally (for instance, they can be used to detonate an enemy minefield without taking damage), but they are very rarely used because of the counters. If the counters were weakened, these builds would become more common and weapons with no armor pen, such as quads, would become too weak. Which means that damage reduction would need to be nerfed and/or every weapon would need to be given some amount of armor pen.

 

At this point, the only weapon that I would like to see lose its armor penetration (or part of it) would be the slug railgun. The plasma railgun should keep it. That way, gunships would have to make a more meaningful choice between the 3 types of railguns: ion for the aoe and energy drain, slug for sheer damage/burst against lightly armored targets, and plasma for high damage against heavily armored targets.

 

I think I'd be happy if armor pen were simply removed from all lasers.

[Armonddd]

I think I'd be happy if armor pen were simply removed from all lasers.

 

I honestly think they're ok on heavy lasers. They kind of lack a point otherwise.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I honestly think they're ok on heavy lasers. They kind of lack a point otherwise.

 

Not to mention it'd be a serious nerf to Type 1 strikes to remove the armor penetration. Rapids aren't really that great, so that leaves Quads and Heavies for damage dealing. Make it so heavies don't really have a distinct strength to given them a purpose and Type 1 strikes would really only have Quads as decent damage dealing blasters.

[okiobe]

I think I'd be happy if armor pen were simply removed from all lasers.

 

I would be happy if they removed shield piercing from all weapons. But that's never going to happen.

[DEATHICIDE]

What about a buff to the charged plating ability that negates shield piercing while active for a few seconds?

 

This could bring charged plating back into play without screwing all the weapons around.

 

Seems like a fix to me, but the full coffee staring back at me does make me question my current state of mind...

[Armonddd]

What about a buff to the charged plating ability that negates shield piercing while active for a few seconds?

 

This could bring charged plating back into play without screwing all the weapons around.

 

Seems like a fix to me, but the full coffee staring back at me does make me question my current state of mind...

 

Wouldn't make deflection armor or non-scout base armor any more valuable.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

What about a buff to the charged plating ability that negates shield piercing while active for a few seconds?

 

This could bring charged plating back into play without screwing all the weapons around.

 

Seems like a fix to me, but the full coffee staring back at me does make me question my current state of mind...

 

If you made the active ability temporarily remove the shield penetration effect that charged plating has by default it might make it more viable shield choice against armor penetration builds. You'd effectively make builds that have both armor penetration and shield penetration do the same damage to your ship that would happen if you were running with directional or quick charge shields. IMO that's currently the problem with charged plating against an armor penetration build it's inherent bleedthrough makes it distinctly inferior to the other shield choices.

 

It wouldn't solve the larger problem of damage reduction being a less useful stat than evasion or buffing hull HP of course.

[Bleeters]

At the very least, playing minesweeper with a charged plating+deflection armour bomber and shrugging off a dozen mine explosions with barely a scratch is amusing sometimes.

[Yndras]

If you made the active ability temporarily remove the shield penetration effect that charged plating has by default it might make it more viable shield choice against armor penetration builds. You'd effectively make builds that have both armor penetration and shield penetration do the same damage to your ship that would happen if you were running with directional or quick charge shields. IMO that's currently the problem with charged plating against an armor penetration build it's inherent bleedthrough makes it distinctly inferior to the other shield choices.

 

It wouldn't solve the larger problem of damage reduction being a less useful stat than evasion or buffing hull HP of course.

 

If the active ability worked against the armour pen lasers it would be a great shield as is. Unfortunately this is not so, and until its either fixed or buffed, it will remain poor.

[Verain]

I really like the armor ignoring items, but I'm thinking that ignoring ALL the armor on ALL of them is too much. It's also silly that very good guns have it as well with no real tradeoff.

 

 

Here's what ignores armor:

 

Missiles:

Concussions with a talent.

Protons always does.

EMP always does.

 

Lasers:

Burst Laser cannon has it as a talent.

Heavy Laser cannon has it as a talent.

 

Railguns:

Slug has it as a talent.

 

 

Now, first of all: Proton and EMP clearly are intended to ignore armor. They should be left unchanged. Both have very small hit numbers and dps compared to the others, and the armor/shield ignore is a huge part of them.

 

Second: Two of these are probably too good, specifically, slug and burst. Both of these weapons could likely use a small nerf. Alternatively, the armor pen could be moved to plasma. I definitely believe that a sniper needs to be able to ignore armor- but I don't think that every sniper needs to be able to ignore armor with their general purpose weapon. Burst could keep armor pen and be made weaker, or it could have a partial armor pen. As it is, the combination is too strong.

 

Third: Heavy Lasers seem to be about the armor ignore. They should keep it in greater measure than burst laser cannon.

[Sindariel]

You forgot about Seismic and Interdiction mines. They ignore armor, too. Edited March 5, 2014 by Sindariel

[Armonddd]

I really like the armor ignoring items, but I'm thinking that ignoring ALL the armor on ALL of them is too much. It's also silly that very good guns have it as well with no real tradeoff.

 

Tell me what you think of this design:

 

-Slugs do high hull damage but low shield damage and lose their armor and shield piercing.

-Ions do high shield damage but low hull damage and lose their aoe, power drain, and debuffs.

-Plasma does debuffs but loses almost all damage.

 

The debuffs could be whatever combination of what's already out there, i.e. armor ignore, energy drain, snare, and/or evasion ignore -- but not accuracy reduction or ability disabling because **** that.

[Verain]

You forgot about Seismic and Interdiction mines. They ignore armor, too.

 

They do not.

[Armonddd]

You forgot about Seismic and Interdiction mines. They ignore armor, too.

 

That's a funny way of spelling railgun sentry.

[Verain]

Tell me what you think of this design:

 

-Slugs do high hull damage but low shield damage and lose their armor and shield piercing.

-Ions do high shield damage but low hull damage and lose their aoe, power drain, and debuffs.

-Plasma does debuffs but loses almost all damage.

 

The debuffs could be whatever combination of what's already out there, i.e. armor ignore, energy drain, snare, and/or evasion ignore -- but not accuracy reduction or ability disabling because **** that.

 

I dislike this plan a lot. It's just a massive gunship nerf. Gunships need mild nerfs, and they definitely don't need things like "low shield damage" on a component. Railguns are not thermite torpedos- railguns are very reasonably the primary weapon on gunships.

 

 

Slug is a bit too strong. Plasma is maybe a dash weak on utility. Ion could be rebalanced to have a higher based damage, scale the debuff with the charge amount, and possibly even reduce the debuff powers on secondary targets. Certainly Ion is too good at its job currently with the 25% taps, a nerf that had a good effect but probably could use a bit more.

 

Slug is just all around too good. It's clearly supposed to be the one that you can always kill someone with, but maybe it doesn't also need to have the utility to go through all the armor so well etc.