Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
73
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:16:00 -
[361] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Obviously they have weaknesses and CAN be beaten, but that's hardly justification for them "not being overpowered." They are a straight upgrade over regular active tanking, and that is wrong.
Considering how utterly terrible regular active tanking is in PVP, tengu boosts and crystals notwithstanding, this is not a bad thing.
Buffer tanks have had huge buffs over the years while local tanking has slipped further and further away from viability, people screaming "OP!" about ancil boosters should've seen "regular active tanking" before the plate/extender buff and introduction of rigs. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
115
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:24:00 -
[362] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Eternal Error wrote: Or you didn't prove anything and are just bad at Eve.
Obviously they have weaknesses and CAN be beaten, but that's hardly justification for them "not being overpowered." They are a straight upgrade over regular active tanking, and that is wrong.
Pfft.. you're a troll and your point about "They are straight upgrade over regular active tanking, and that is wrong." is pretty much proof positive because active tanking was rarely used in even small PVP conflicts until the release of ASBs. And the configurations that WERE used often were either dual or triple reppers. For Active Tanking to be serious again, there NEEDED to be drastically upgraded because the regular active tanking could never cut it. Yea... active tanking was rarely used... now it is... therefore it is a straight upgrade over regular active tanking. I am all in favor of active tanking being seriously rebalanced, but the ASB is OP compared to all other current methods of active tanking, period.
Orakkus wrote:
Confident? No, in fact my testing put me at only BARELY able to outtank a typically fit Hurricane (one using Neuts). The battle was close enough that had I carried tackle, or if he had assault missile launchers, then it would have been a 30/70 chance that I would have lost. My skills for flying and arming the Cyclone are all topped out except for missiles, which are almost topped out. As it was, going against a Hurricane solo, I ran out of navy cap charges and was in cap.
And let's review what you said here. It wasn't just any module, it was a module DESIGNED to work with the Cyclone's defensive bonus. On a shield tanking ship. A ship that was ALWAYS MEANT to be the Minmatar's tanking Battlecruiser. As far as your Typhoon.. that thing couldn't hold its own against an exhumer, much less an ASB Cyclone. On top of that, none of the kills you listed are solo! If (and yes, it is a big "IF") the killmails are right, your damage varied greatly between 0% to 70% of the overall damage.
So.. No, that doesn't show they are overpowered at all. You just simply used better tactics than your enemy.
Cool. You did one battle in one ship against what is arguably the best BC for this particular job, and are now convinced that the ASB is in no way overpowered. Also, if your cyclone fit was such that you had no tackle and your tank was barely able to hold against a cane with just ACs and neuts, then I don't even know what to tell you.
Delucian wrote: Which is fine if there is a commensurate armor mod. A single repper needs to be buffed to provide a larger (not 100%, but 50%?) repair per cycle so that they are in line from an active tanking role.
No, it's not fine. Power creep is never OK, and it's not OK to buff active tanking by just saying **** it and introducing new modules while leaving the old ones to rot. |
Orakkus
The Fancy Hats Corporation
74
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:31:00 -
[363] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
In pvp, as it stands, very few people fit active armor tanking (I hope the day comes where it is more viable, love my active tanking). So its buffer tanked for the prophecy.
Damage its looking like Cyclone > Prophecy. Tanking for the first minute or so Prophecy > Cyclone. Tanking past the first minute or so =/= Tanking past a few minutes Cyclone > Prophecy Tanking multiple targets Cyclone > Prophecy. If Neuts are involved? Cyclone >>>>>>Prophecy.
Im not sure where you get 'on par with' from, but I see it as simply superior with ASB's. I did not bring up the Drake for comparison, because it also benefits from ASB, if maybe not as much, and Drake is kind of in a category of its own. Hurricanes are up their with them in popularity due to their versatility.
Saying you have to click a button to maintain it makes it more complicated ... not sure why that was brought up.
Im with Liang on this one.
ASB management requires more than just pushing a button. I detailed it already above. As far as your list goes, however, it is incorrect. As a side note, the only reason why anyone is thinking the ASB Cyclone is overpowered is because the Shield Boost bonus does work on ASBs.
For the Cyclone to be that effective in damage, you need to have spent considerable SP to train up both missiles and projectile weapons, whereas the Prophecy needs only to use lasers to be effective. Lasers have an excellent damage to range ratio, so while EFT may say that the Cyclone can do X amount of damage, in actual practice it is far less because fighting usually occurs in falloff, which lowers actual damage (as well as shot types) so the damage will be far less. So, this puts typical Cyclone pilot using five Autocannons that he has to fight with along with three weapons modules that he likely won't be well skilled in. As such, it will be rare that you would come against a pilot who is skilled optimally for the Cyclone.
Tanking multiple targets is also a very grey area, as it is possible for damage to outcycle a single ASB. Usually, ships that use ASBs tend not to have as good of resists and the Dual-ASB setups that are common, often sacrifice resists modules to their peril. On the flipside, the Cyclone is a much faster BC and without the penalties that buffer ships have, would be a much harder target to hit. |
Delucian
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
38
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:34:00 -
[364] - Quote
Quote:No, it's not fine. Power creep is never OK, and it's not OK to buff active tanking by just saying **** it and introducing new modules while leaving the old ones to rot.
I said buff armor reppers. Power creep has already occured. ASB's are not a balancing act when you can load two or three that all rep 100% damage.
However, I agree that is not Power Creep that is Power Slam! |
Orakkus
The Fancy Hats Corporation
74
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:52:00 -
[365] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote: Cool. You did one battle in one ship against what is arguably the best BC for this particular job, and are now convinced that the ASB is in no way overpowered. Also, if your cyclone fit was such that you had no tackle and your tank was barely able to hold against a cane with just ACs and neuts, then I don't even know what to tell you.
Actually, no. I did about five 1 vs 1 battles, at optimal/close falloff ranges for both ships. Basically a face to face brawl, with no tactical advantages to either, but still manually orbiting each other within optimal and close fallout. Since both ships used the same class of gun (Short-Range Autocannons), any advantage going to one would serve the other.
My testing removed all the non-tangible advantages one pilot may have over another, simply because testing such things is difficult to get accurate. An inferior ship configuration could get the jump on a superior configuration and get a few better shots in, or a pilot with a certain style might fly a particular configuration better than another pilot just as a matter of skill. The first four tests came out with the Hurricane on top. Basically the last test was the best possible configuration at the best possible scenario, without having any of the typical advantages that either an aggressor or defender might have (i.e. friends, timing, warp stabs, etc.)
|
Saul Elsyn
State Protectorate Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 22:14:00 -
[366] - Quote
I do think the ASBs need tweaked, right now they deal as much reps as a T2 Shield Booster with less fitting requirements (Though the actual mechanics of ASBs are fine... it's an emergency use module)... I'd rather see ccp include a whole range of ASBs with the current one lowered to T1 shield boost levels and Meta 1-5 versions added to the game. Perhaps a penalty for fitting multiple ASBs or a 1 module limit would be a good idea as well.
But crying about it doesn't help anyone. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
116
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 04:30:00 -
[367] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Eternal Error wrote: Cool. You did one battle in one ship against what is arguably the best BC for this particular job, and are now convinced that the ASB is in no way overpowered. Also, if your cyclone fit was such that you had no tackle and your tank was barely able to hold against a cane with just ACs and neuts, then I don't even know what to tell you.
Actually, no. I did about five 1 vs 1 battles, at optimal/close falloff ranges for both ships. Basically a face to face brawl, with no tactical advantages to either, but still manually orbiting each other within optimal and close fallout. Since both ships used the same class of gun (Short-Range Autocannons), any advantage going to one would serve the other. My testing removed all the non-tangible advantages one pilot may have over another, simply because testing such things is difficult to get accurate. An inferior ship configuration could get the jump on a superior configuration and get a few better shots in, or a pilot with a certain style might fly a particular configuration better than another pilot just as a matter of skill. The first four tests came out with the Hurricane on top. Basically the last test was the best possible configuration at the best possible scenario, without having any of the typical advantages that either an aggressor or defender might have (i.e. friends, timing, warp stabs, etc.) I'm still skeptical about your "experiments," but we can't really discuss that without de-railing the thread or posting all the fits.
The bottom line is, we're not discussing the hurricane vs. the cyclone. We're discussing ASB vs. regular shield boosters or regular armor repairers. Go repeat your experiments with an ASB fit vs. a regular t2 (or x-type for all I care) shield booster, and watch what happens. |
XZemlja
Anonymous Operations Gypsy Band
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 10:40:00 -
[368] - Quote
all super skilled players use asb. thats why u lose! |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 10:42:00 -
[369] - Quote
I think people fail to realize basci logic. Old standard shield boosters were NOT USED in PVP. CCP wanted a active tanking PVP module.. therefore the new modules MUST BE STRONGER than the old ones or NO ONE WILL USE THEM!
SIMPLE!
CCP had an objective, an important one, and to achieve that they had 2 options, nerf buffer tank or boost active tank in a way that its better than old options in PVP (but not usable in PVE0.
They succeeded!!! Peopel complain that the fight takes longer.. well for damm 7 years ccp has been TRYING TO MAKE IT TAKE LONGER!! THat is why our hit point counts are more than 3 times what they used to be at release of the game. |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 10:43:00 -
[370] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Orakkus wrote:Eternal Error wrote: Cool. You did one battle in one ship against what is arguably the best BC for this particular job, and are now convinced that the ASB is in no way overpowered. Also, if your cyclone fit was such that you had no tackle and your tank was barely able to hold against a cane with just ACs and neuts, then I don't even know what to tell you.
Actually, no. I did about five 1 vs 1 battles, at optimal/close falloff ranges for both ships. Basically a face to face brawl, with no tactical advantages to either, but still manually orbiting each other within optimal and close fallout. Since both ships used the same class of gun (Short-Range Autocannons), any advantage going to one would serve the other. My testing removed all the non-tangible advantages one pilot may have over another, simply because testing such things is difficult to get accurate. An inferior ship configuration could get the jump on a superior configuration and get a few better shots in, or a pilot with a certain style might fly a particular configuration better than another pilot just as a matter of skill. The first four tests came out with the Hurricane on top. Basically the last test was the best possible configuration at the best possible scenario, without having any of the typical advantages that either an aggressor or defender might have (i.e. friends, timing, warp stabs, etc.) I'm still skeptical about your "experiments," but we can't really discuss that without de-railing the thread or posting all the fits. The bottom line is, we're not discussing the hurricane vs. the cyclone. We're discussing ASB vs. regular shield boosters or regular armor repairers. Go repeat your experiments with an ASB fit vs. a regular t2 (or x-type for all I care) shield booster, and watch what happens.
Its not suposed to be any discussion about tat. They were made and MUST BE better than previosu active tanking. BEcause that is what CCP had as an objective.. make people active tank.. not only passive tank!
There is no argument to be made on T2 SHield booster vs ASB! You want discuss balance, discuss how to make armor active tanks as good... or compare ASB with BUFFER TANKS! |
|
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 10:47:00 -
[371] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Damage its looking like Cyclone > Prophecy. Tanking for the first minute or so Prophecy > Cyclone. Tanking past the first minute or so =/= Tanking past a few minutes Cyclone > Prophecy Tanking multiple targets Cyclone > Prophecy. If Neuts are involved? Cyclone >>>>>>Prophecy.
Im not sure where you get 'on par with' from, but I see it as simply superior with ASB's. I did not bring up the Drake for comparison, because it also benefits from ASB, if maybe not as much, and Drake is kind of in a category of its own. Hurricanes are up their with them in popularity due to their versatility.
Saying you have to click a button to maintain it makes it more complicated ... not sure why that was brought up.
Im with Liang on this one.
What ? In what world are you? Since when the 1600 plate on the prophecy is more affected by neuts than the ASB in the cyclone?
And The more targets firing the better for the buffer thak when comapred to the active tank.
Cyclone is definately better on a 1v1 BC fight.. Now ... Put 2 tornados with arties firing at those.. and see who survives longer... |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
288
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 11:05:00 -
[372] - Quote
People who defend ASBs on the basis that it was introduced to improve ALL active tanking have some explaining to do because this theory doesn't hold much weight at all:
- Why was active armor tanking not improved?
- Why were regular shield boosters not improved?
- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?
- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?
You see where I'm going with this. There is a big difference between trying to improve active tanking in general and introducing something like the ASB that ***** on all existing tanking modules and has no counter except to bring your own ASB or your friends.
At this point I'm more inclined to believe the Liang Nuren "conspiracy" that CCP introduced the ASB solely to get people to start posting feedback on active tanking. As an attempt to "improve" acting tanking, there are so many other things that would be more logical and better. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Nathan Ernaga
Applesauce Brigade Windowlicking Ninja Turtles
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 13:49:00 -
[373] - Quote
Is it viable in PvE ? |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 15:03:00 -
[374] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:People who defend ASBs on the basis that it was introduced to improve ALL active tanking have some explaining to do because this theory doesn't hold much weight at all:
- Why was active armor tanking not improved?
- Why were regular shield boosters not improved?
- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?
- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?
You see where I'm going with this. There is a big difference between trying to improve active tanking in general and introducing something like the ASB that ***** on all existing tanking modules and has no counter except to bring your own ASB or your friends.
At this point I'm more inclined to believe the Liang Nuren "conspiracy" that CCP introduced the ASB solely to get people to start posting feedback on active tanking. As an attempt to "improve" acting tanking, there are so many other things that would be more logical and better.
I can easily answer:
- Why was active armor tanking not improved?- They hoped the new resist module could do that.. but they know they failed. Probably we will see another try soon.
- Why were regular shield boosters not improved? - BEcause PVE cannto become even MORE EASY
- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?- They are as immune as normal Shield boosters with cap injector. The ASB was introduced as a way to give a better boost while at same time freeing a middle slot from shield tankers that usually lack enough mids to have tackle AND good tank , and speed module AND cap injector.
- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?- Because you already need minimum 4 modules for a small scale PVP fit even without the injector. THe injector need basically made active shield tanking somethign unfittable on anything with less than 6 mids. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
116
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:10:00 -
[375] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote:
Its not suposed to be any discussion about tat. They were made and MUST BE better than previosu active tanking. BEcause that is what CCP had as an objective.. make people active tank.. not only passive tank!
There is no argument to be made on T2 SHield booster vs ASB! You want discuss balance, discuss how to make armor active tanks as good... or compare ASB with BUFFER TANKS!
Yes, it is supposed to be about that, because that's how people with brains balance video games. CCP wanted ASBs to be an alternative, not a hilarious all-around upgrade. Also, see Takeshi's post.
Seishi Maru wrote: I can easily answer:
- Why was active armor tanking not improved?- They hoped the new resist module could do that.. but they know they failed. Probably we will see another try soon.
- Why were regular shield boosters not improved? - BEcause PVE cannto become even MORE EASY
- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?- They are as immune as normal Shield boosters with cap injector. The ASB was introduced as a way to give a better boost while at same time freeing a middle slot from shield tankers that usually lack enough mids to have tackle AND good tank , and speed module AND cap injector.
- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?- Because you already need minimum 4 modules for a small scale PVP fit even without the injector. THe injector need basically made active shield tanking somethign unfittable on anything with less than 6 mids.
1. No. 2. Buff active tanks, buff NPC dps by the same amount, give them neuts, etc.. Problem solved. 3. You basically explain why it's overpowered here, although it's obviously more immune since the boost/cap is better with charges and there is zero chance that some of your boost can get neuted out before pressing the SB button. 4. Seriously?
You're having the wrong argument. Again, you do not balance active tanking by bringing in a new module that completely eclipses the old ones, and you certainly don't do it to only one tank type. Additionally, while I think active tanking needs a buff, I do not think it should ever reach ASB boost levels without being able to be neuted. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 16:21:00 -
[376] - Quote
I think we can also safely say that the Reactive Armor Hardener was not meant to improve active armor tanking, because it improves buffer and active armor tanking equally.
If I had to guess, the RAH was meant to make 4+ slot armor tanks better in PvE because that's what it does. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 17:04:00 -
[377] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Seishi Maru wrote:
Its not suposed to be any discussion about tat. They were made and MUST BE better than previosu active tanking. BEcause that is what CCP had as an objective.. make people active tank.. not only passive tank!
There is no argument to be made on T2 SHield booster vs ASB! You want discuss balance, discuss how to make armor active tanks as good... or compare ASB with BUFFER TANKS!
Yes, it is supposed to be about that, because that's how people with brains balance video games. CCP wanted ASBs to be an alternative, not a hilarious all-around upgrade. Also, see Takeshi's post. Seishi Maru wrote: I can easily answer:
- Why was active armor tanking not improved?- They hoped the new resist module could do that.. but they know they failed. Probably we will see another try soon.
- Why were regular shield boosters not improved? - BEcause PVE cannto become even MORE EASY
- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?- They are as immune as normal Shield boosters with cap injector. The ASB was introduced as a way to give a better boost while at same time freeing a middle slot from shield tankers that usually lack enough mids to have tackle AND good tank , and speed module AND cap injector.
- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?- Because you already need minimum 4 modules for a small scale PVP fit even without the injector. THe injector need basically made active shield tanking somethign unfittable on anything with less than 6 mids.
1. No. 2. Buff active tanks, buff NPC dps by the same amount, give them neuts, etc.. Problem solved. 3. You basically explain why it's overpowered here, although it's obviously more immune since the boost/cap is better with charges and there is zero chance that some of your boost can get neuted out before pressing the SB button. 4. Seriously? You're having the wrong argument. Again, you do not balance active tanking by bringing in a new module that completely eclipses the old ones, and you certainly don't do it to only one tank type. Additionally, while I think active tanking needs a buff, I do not think it should ever reach ASB boost levels without being able to be neuted.
YOu are the one witht he wrong argument! I payed attention on the development of tank balance during the years and hitns of what CCP wanted and all the feedback they gave about the subject. THey for a logn time stated exaclty the things that I posted. Too bad you did not payed attention. Too bad you lived in a world where 1600mm plates did not tanked more damage than all other forms of tanks in PVP by several factors... because THAT IS THE REALITY!
CCP DID WANTED ASB to be an UPGRADE! Active shield tanking was useless for PVP therefore what they needed was an UPGRADE.. not an alternative!!!
IF it boosted same as normal boosters and did not saved you from usign na injector it would be 100% useless!!! |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
636
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:14:00 -
[378] - Quote
sometimes i complain when losing ships on TQ, I also think ASB works forever and doesn't need cap boosters. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:19:00 -
[379] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote:
YOu are the one witht he wrong argument! I payed attention on the development of tank balance during the years and hitns of what CCP wanted and all the feedback they gave about the subject. THey for a logn time stated exaclty the things that I posted. Too bad you did not payed attention. Too bad you lived in a world where 1600mm plates did not tanked more damage than all other forms of tanks in PVP by several factors... because THAT IS THE REALITY!
CCP DID WANTED ASB to be an UPGRADE! Active shield tanking was useless for PVP therefore what they needed was an UPGRADE.. not an alternative!!!
IF it boosted same as normal boosters and did not saved you from usign na injector it would be 100% useless!!!
Logical answer to this is adding a low slot cap injector clone, not giving these ships the equivalent of a free mid slot. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
630
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:28:00 -
[380] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote:I think people fail to realize basci logic. Old standard shield boosters were NOT USED in PVP.
They were.
Not at fleet scale or large gangs (+10 or 15 dudes) but active shield tanking was already very good. ASB's just made it FOTOM atm including armor ships being better with shield modules for a long while now, and ASB's rather than armor modules witch is the proof those are way too powerful.
The initial idea is awesome, the fact you can fit more than one and how charges work is bad, it's really really bad as game design or whatever balance argument.
Edit: notice the difference in the fact this module brought to the field ships that weren't almost never used (like cyclones). What is plain wrong is the fact you can fit more than one and oversized ones. brb |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1794
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 23:32:00 -
[381] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote: Cyclone is definately better on a 1v1 BC fight.. Now ... Put 2 tornados with arties firing at those.. and see who survives longer...
The cyclone because it'll tank the volley and then go face **** a pair of Tornados before they can fire again. Also, active tanking was used in small gang warfare.
-Liang
Ed: And to be clear: YOU are the kind of person that makes CCP have to introduce amazingly mindbogglingly OP modules in order to shake your cage hard enough to realize that active tanking has ALWAYS been viable. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
374
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 23:38:00 -
[382] - Quote
The cyclone is the most broken atm hands down, its got speed, sig, dps and those dual large ASB or X-L ASB which makes it practically invincible against most small gangs - for the cost of the ship this is totally nuts. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
Veronica Kerrigan
Hand Of Midas My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 06:23:00 -
[383] - Quote
SO a module designed to be a counter to energy neutralizers was about to beat out the premier neuting ship in the game? Sounds like working as intended to me. One ship fit to counter another, both in the same class, pirate faction BS. Pit the same rattler against any machariel fit, and it wont deal a bit of damage , and will die once it runs out of booster charges. Fly the right ship for the job mate. |
Sitreba Oonchevkii
CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 10:00:00 -
[384] - Quote
i too can fight solo in a bhaalgorn Blod-red skies, strange beings, and the number 514, often written in blood. |
Mattadore
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 16:38:00 -
[385] - Quote
Lmao. Dude, if he's active tank and you're just buffer, he's gonna slowly wear you down and kill you. 250k EHP vs well known tanking ship? Come on bro. |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 10:35:00 -
[386] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote:CCP DID WANTED ASB to be an UPGRADE! Active shield tanking was useless for PVP therefore what they needed was an UPGRADE.. not an alternative!!!
Having active local tank only being viable in PvE is already broken concept, to begin with. You argument is revolving around postulate that there are PvP modules (which are actually just plain better) and PvE ones (worse, but with no need for maintenance), which is not how it's done in a good game for the exact reason of avoiding situations when you don't need to make decisions between existing alternatives. You know that something's wrong when you have to think like "PvP? 1600 or ASB, period!"
What I posted this is oversimplified and I'm aware that some statements here are overgeneralizations, but I hope you'll understand what I mean.
P.S. And since you place so much emphasis on 1600mm plate, well... I don't really think that someone here will agree on how armour tanking is so OP just because of 1600mm plate. |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 10:56:00 -
[387] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Seishi Maru wrote:CCP DID WANTED ASB to be an UPGRADE! Active shield tanking was useless for PVP therefore what they needed was an UPGRADE.. not an alternative!!! Having active local tank only being viable in PvE is already broken concept, to begin with. You argument is revolving around postulate that there are PvP modules (which are actually just plain better) and PvE ones (worse, but with no need for maintenance), which is not how it's done in a good game for the exact reason of avoiding situations when you don't need to make decisions between existing alternatives. You know that something's wrong when you have to think like "PvP? 1600 or ASB, period!" What I posted this is oversimplified and I'm aware that some statements here are overgeneralizations, but I hope you'll understand what I mean. P.S. And since you place so much emphasis on 1600mm plate, well... I don't really think that someone here will agree on how armour tanking is so OP just because of 1600mm plate.
Dude.. in what world you live? Peopel will always go for the most powerful alternatives. Before ASB there was 1.. buffer tank. Now there are 2. What is so hard to grasp 2 >1 ?
Make a data mining on killboards and get number of ships that were using BUFFER tank vs active tank on last 4 years.... I would get VERY surprised if 10% of the ships had active tank! |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1801
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:14:00 -
[388] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote: Dude.. in what world you live? Peopel will always go for the most powerful alternatives. Before ASB there was 1.. buffer tank. Now there are 2. What is so hard to grasp 2 >1 ?
Make a data mining on killboards and get number of ships that were using BUFFER tank vs active tank on last 4 years.... I would get VERY surprised if 10% of the ships had active tank!
That doesn't mean that active tanking wasn't viable. You continually assert that it wasn't, but I know better.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 00:46:00 -
[389] - Quote
Armor whiners want armor active to be as good as shield active.
If so then give me an x-large shield extender and make shield buffer similar to armor buffer.
Also I want shield slave set and higher base shield resists.
...
Exactly, so STFU and HTFU already :P. |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 00:46:00 -
[390] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Seishi Maru wrote: Dude.. in what world you live? Peopel will always go for the most powerful alternatives. Before ASB there was 1.. buffer tank. Now there are 2. What is so hard to grasp 2 >1 ?
Make a data mining on killboards and get number of ships that were using BUFFER tank vs active tank on last 4 years.... I would get VERY surprised if 10% of the ships had active tank!
That doesn't mean that active tanking wasn't viable. You continually assert that it wasn't, but I know better. -Liang
Before, active shield tanking was only for rich boys with pills and implants. Not to mention booster alts. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |