Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi all! As mentioned in this thorough post by CCP Fozzie, we're going to have Duality up and running for a few days to test some of the stuff we're doing in the winter expansion.
One of those things are making adjustments to the Ancillary Shield Boosters. There is a version now on Duality with different stats, we would love for you guys to test them out with us to give us a better indication of whether these adjustments are the right one or not.
The adjustments are:
- Reducing capacity in all four ASBs so they can now fit 7 normal ones (9 navy ones)
- Upping the duration of X-Large ASB from 4 to 5 seconds
- Adjusting the capacitor need of all four ASBs considerably
Again, we're still in the process of figuring out the best way to adjust the ASBs, so don't take the current stats as the final word on what will happen in the winter expansion. Hopefully this is just the first test of many with you guys.
Finally, there are a few other module adjustments we're contemplating, but are not testing right now, so more module testing is likely in the future.
Thanks in advance, CCP SoniClover on behalf of Team Super Friends |
|
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
keep them as they are and just limit it so you can only fit 1 per ship Two Step for CSM |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
Does this mean we will get navy cap booster 50s? 50s are what people use in medium ASBs. Maybe even navy cap booster 25s for small ASBs, even though they arent used much.
As well, i dont think increasing cap need of ASBs is necessary, they already are crippling in 1-2 rounds without charges
and no, limiting 1 per ship is a crappy idea. ASBs are a good concept and it helps active tanking as it should, it just needs to not be able to perma tank through reloads with 2 boosters. (While one is reloading, you should only have enough charges in the second booster to last 1/2 or 2/3 of the reload from the first, when receiving the full DPS that your ship can tank with a single ASB)
Out of interest however, i think they should not limit resistance shifting hardeners to a single one. Maybe 2 or 3 will make them more useful in more circumstances. |
Hoarr
RPS holdings
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Interesting balance pass. I think most people were expecting a 1 module limit. Should be interesting to try them out. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
James1122 wrote:keep them as they are and just limit it so you can only fit 1 per ship
That option is still very much on the table, but we want to explore a few other alternative as well. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Does this mean we will get navy cap booster 50s? 50s are what people use in medium ASBs. Maybe even navy cap booster 25s for small ASBs, even though they arent used much.
Most like not at this time. |
|
Matthew97
Pro Synergy ARK.
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Your link doesn't exist btw. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Does this mean we will get navy cap booster 50s? 50s are what people use in medium ASBs. Maybe even navy cap booster 25s for small ASBs, even though they arent used much. Most like not at this time.
So does that mean medium ASBs won't be able to fit 9 charges, only 7? Sorry if the cap booster sizes are messing me around here. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Does this mean we will get navy cap booster 50s? 50s are what people use in medium ASBs. Maybe even navy cap booster 25s for small ASBs, even though they arent used much. Most like not at this time. So does that mean medium ASBs won't be able to fit 9 charges, only 7? Sorry if the cap booster sizes are messing me around here.
Yes, until we do the navy 50 version. Which I think we're going to do at some point, I just don't think it will make it into the winter expansion. But I've been wrong before |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Yes, until we do the navy 50 version. Which I think we're going to do at some point, I just don't think it will make it into the winter expansion. But I've been wrong before
Ahhhhh my hawk becomes possible to kill for a couple of months!
:P |
|
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
You only need to change 1 thing about them: 1 size booster per ASB. Right now the XLASB gets the same boost no matter if it uses an 800 or a 400. So everyone uses the 400 to get more cycles off. Which means it takes longer to run out of charges and they can fit more charges in their hold. That's the only thing unbalanced about them.
I don't mind ships being able to fit more than 1 ASB. usually you have to gimp the fit somewhat to get the first on and majorly gimp to get the second one on. And no only does that usually involve more Co-pros in the low but faction equipment in other slots. And that adds up to nice kills. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Yes, until we do the navy 50 version. Which I think we're going to do at some point, I just don't think it will make it into the winter expansion. But I've been wrong before Ahhhhh my hawk becomes possible to kill for a couple of months! :P
You should try the quadruple-ASB Kitsune fit |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:You only need to change 1 thing about them: 1 size booster per ASB. Right now the XLASB gets the same boost no matter if it uses an 800 or a 400. So everyone uses the 400 to get more cycles off. Which means it takes longer to run out of charges and they can fit more charges in their hold. That's the only thing unbalanced about them.
The point behind it is to get people to use the smaller charges. You aren't supposed to use the larger ones, those are for cap boosters, not ASBs. They want cap booster 200s, 150s, 100s, 50s, and 25s to actually sell on the market, thats why they made the boost the same as long as you had the right size of cap booster in there. I thought it was a good way of getting those charges to be useful in PvP. The only cap charges people used for PvP prior to the expansion was navy 400s in small cap boosters, navy 800s in medium cap boosters, and 800s/navy 800s in large cap boosters. Now people use 25s in small ASBs occasionally, 50s in medium asbs, 150s/200s in large asbs, and standard 400s in XL ASBs. |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
Except it should have to use the largest sized booster to get the largest shield boost. These were designed to combine the shield booster and the cap booster in to 1 module that for balancing it would be to give it a 60 second reload time and high fitting requriements. Since, as you pointed out, most cap boosters use the largest booster because it gives the most benefit then the ASB should get the most benefit out of the largest booster and a reduced benefit from a smaller one.
And if it matters so much as to getting smaller boosters to sell then make the smaller booster the max size and reduce the amount boosted. My main point is you are getting too much shield boost for a smaller sized cap booster. |
Slighet
Perkone Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:59:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:James1122 wrote:keep them as they are and just limit it so you can only fit 1 per ship That option is still very much on the table, but we want to explore a few other alternative as well.
This would be the best fix IMHO. |
Rayge PVV
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Except it should have to use the largest sized booster to get the largest shield boost. These were designed to combine the shield booster and the cap booster in to 1 module that for balancing it would be to give it a 60 second reload time and high fitting requriements. Since, as you pointed out, most cap boosters use the largest booster because it gives the most benefit then the ASB should get the most benefit out of the largest booster and a reduced benefit from a smaller one.
And if it matters so much as to getting smaller boosters to sell then make the smaller booster the max size and reduce the amount boosted. My main point is you are getting too much shield boost for a smaller sized cap booster.
I like what you're saying here. It would be nice if you could choose between longer duration/less tank, shorter duration/ more tank based on the size of the cap mod. GÇÄ"Don't give yourselves to the unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men!" -Charlie Chaplin |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
397
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Quick to Nerf, and slow to boost. One would think only 2 modules were released last expansion... Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Natalia de Sade
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
Why not implement stacking penalty on multiple ASBs instead of imposing a hard limit of one per ship? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
Natalia de Sade wrote: Why not implement stacking penalty on multiple ASBs instead of imposing a hard limit of one per ship?
See I'm not the only one that thinks a stacking penalty is better.
Hopefully just to the capacity of the booster, really their boost amount should be left alone. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
You can adjust stuff all you want and the limitation of how many cap boosters in the ASB is a fine adjustment...
But if you don't want to hard limit it like damage control and that armor resist abomination you will risc to ruin the ASB instead of making it a balanced alternative.
Also 1 KEY feature I know you HAVE to adjust is the double overheat bonus. Currently you don't only get a bonus to cycle time which makes you tank more but also making you run out of cap boosters faster - But at the same time you get an 10% extra hitpoint pr cycle... You MUST remove this as long people use oversized ASB. I've seen people with oversized and double ASB master this to an advantage where the heat almost doesn't build up at all...
Pinky |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
864
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:27:00 -
[21] - Quote
You need to limit the ASB's to 1 booster per ship hard limit. Keep them as is and just do that.
The reason for this is simple, if you run a NORMAL booster and an ASB you can get some good tanking. If you run a BUFFER fit and an ASB you can get some good results. As the ATX showed, you can get some great results in a fleet with a Logistics ship supported by ASB fits.
Running 2 simultaneously is where the problem becomes a huge issue.
To comment on the current adjustments, I think that reducing the # of cap boosters is handicapping the module and not balancing it with the ACTUAL problems that they're facing. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Helen O'Malley
5th Battallion of Apocalypse
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:You need to limit the ASB's to 1 booster per ship hard limit. Keep them as is and just do that.
The reason for this is simple, if you run a NORMAL booster and an ASB you can get some good tanking. If you run a BUFFER fit and an ASB you can get some good results. As the ATX showed, you can get some great results in a fleet with a Logistics ship supported by ASB fits.
Running 2 simultaneously is where the problem becomes a huge issue.
To comment on the current adjustments, I think that reducing the # of cap boosters is handicapping the module and not balancing it with the ACTUAL problems that they're facing.
i quote everything....
+1 for the "one booster per ship" limit...
helen. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
864
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
Here's the problem with your "Fix".
It's that you're nerfing it for LEGITIMATE uses such as for ancillary (backup system, by definition) boosting for Logistics Reps, for a main Shield booster, for a buffer tank being used alone.
And in the process you've have made it even WORSE at being an ancillary system, and now the only way to use it is in DUAL SHIELD BOOSTING, and now even TRIPLE shield boosting setups. You're only enhancing the reason to put MORE dual shield boosters on, and not actually addressing the issue of why they are overpowered, and only exacerbating the problem.
I'm all for testing this out. But I think you're just nerfing the module and not the problem. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Fellblade
Octavian Vanguard
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:42:00 -
[24] - Quote
A limit of one per ship would seem to be sensible. Given the massive downsides (huge fitting reqs, massive reload time), and the natural limitations of active tanking the ASBs need to have a significant payoff if they are to remain being used.
It might help if CCP explained what the perceived issues are with the ASBs, and how they think their changes are addressing them. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
864
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:50:00 -
[25] - Quote
The only other idea I had for ASB's was that for larger cap boosters than needed (i.e. 100's instead of 50's for an MASB), you can get a cap boost while getting a shield boost simultaneously.
This would be a much smaller cap boost than a cap booster of course, but that's the only thing that has occured to me that would be cool, WITH a limit to 1 ASB per ship. But that's just a side thought. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2245
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:16:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Hi all! As mentioned in this thorough post by CCP Fozzie, we're going to have Duality up and running for a few days to test some of the stuff we're doing in the winter expansion. One of those things are making adjustments to the Ancillary Shield Boosters. There is a version now on Duality with different stats, we would love for you guys to test them out with us to give us a better indication of whether these adjustments are the right one or not. The adjustments are:
- Reducing capacity in all four ASBs so they can now fit 7 normal ones (9 navy ones)
- Upping the duration of X-Large ASB from 4 to 5 seconds
- Adjusting the capacitor need of all four ASBs considerably
Again, we're still in the process of figuring out the best way to adjust the ASBs, so don't take the current stats as the final word on what will happen in the winter expansion. Hopefully this is just the first test of many with you guys. Finally, there are a few other module adjustments we're contemplating, but are not testing right now, so more module testing is likely in the future. Thanks in advance, CCP SoniClover on behalf of Team Super Friends
This seems like it doesn't address any of the really critical failings of the ASB. But, I'll test it out.
/shrug
-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
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Also 1 KEY feature I know you HAVE to adjust is the double overheat bonus. Currently you don't only get a bonus to cycle time which makes you tank more but also making you run out of cap boosters faster - But at the same time you get an 10% extra hitpoint pr cycle... You MUST remove this as long people use oversized ASB. I've seen people with oversized and double ASB master this to an advantage where the heat almost doesn't build up at all...
Thats the case for all boosters, ASB or not. Making them cycle faster would nerf them by overheating, which is stupid, they are supposed to get better for a burst period while overheating, not worse. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:You need to limit the ASB's to 1 booster per ship hard limit. Keep them as is and just do that.
The reason for this is simple, if you run a NORMAL booster and an ASB you can get some good tanking. If you run a BUFFER fit and an ASB you can get some good results. As the ATX showed, you can get some great results in a fleet with a Logistics ship supported by ASB fits.
Running 2 simultaneously is where the problem becomes a huge issue.
This is why a stacking penalty to fitting multiple ASBs would be the best solution.
edit: crap doublepost |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
164
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
James1122 wrote:keep them as they are and just limit it so you can only fit 1 per ship
THIS ALL DAY Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |
Gorski Car
0utbreak Outbreak.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:04:00 -
[30] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Yes, until we do the navy 50 version. Which I think we're going to do at some point, I just don't think it will make it into the winter expansion. But I've been wrong before Ahhhhh my hawk becomes possible to kill for a couple of months! :P You should try the quadruple-ASB Kitsune fit
Someone has broken into my EFT lab! |
|
Celebris Nexterra
Lowsec Static No Remorse.
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:07:00 -
[31] - Quote
I honestly thought the 1 booster per ship change was going to be obvious, as in no one opposed and everyone else in favor.
I really think ASB's are just broken as a module in general. No one uses a standard shield booster anymore (for PvP), save for those who just came back to the game and don't know about the ASB yet. I think that alone says something. I am excluding the deadspace ones used on 100MNgus because the deadspace boosters are actually viable for PvP if cost isn't an option. But when an ASB gives the same tank as a normal deadspace booster, something is wrong. The #1 argument is always that a single ASB runs out of charges eventually and then you have to survive the reload, which is circumstantially impossible or easy; but a (cost effective) standard booster has the same problem in essence. Even though it doesn't have to reload, a t2 or basic faction booster doesn't have enough tank on a non-shield boost bonused ship to survive even mediocre DPS. Whereas any ship that can fit an XL ASB has a monster tank, even if it is for a short period of time. In fleet applications, this is a huge flaw, and an ASB ship will die easily. But in solo/small gang applications, an ASB ship is unstoppable. Also, it is invulnerable to neuting, something a standard booster can't say, even though both are subject to the alpha volley weakness.
I seem to stand alone on this, but those are my thoughts. Also, I hope this makes sense despite my terrible structuring. |
Jezs
Missions Mining and Mayhem Northern Coalition.
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:22:00 -
[32] - Quote
Can you have my babies? |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
669
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:28:00 -
[33] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Hi all! As mentioned in this thorough post by CCP Fozzie, we're going to have Duality up and running for a few days to test some of the stuff we're doing in the winter expansion. One of those things are making adjustments to the Ancillary Shield Boosters. There is a version now on Duality with different stats, we would love for you guys to test them out with us to give us a better indication of whether these adjustments are the right one or not. The adjustments are:
- Reducing capacity in all four ASBs so they can now fit 7 normal ones (9 navy ones)
- Upping the duration of X-Large ASB from 4 to 5 seconds
- Adjusting the capacitor need of all four ASBs considerably
Again, we're still in the process of figuring out the best way to adjust the ASBs, so don't take the current stats as the final word on what will happen in the winter expansion. Hopefully this is just the first test of many with you guys. Finally, there are a few other module adjustments we're contemplating, but are not testing right now, so more module testing is likely in the future. Thanks in advance, CCP SoniClover on behalf of Team Super Friends This seems like it doesn't address any of the really critical failings of the ASB. p much my view. Capacity, XL duration, and cap need werent really on my radar as a problem "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Onslaughtor
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:28:00 -
[34] - Quote
If you want to fix the ASB, just make a new modified one and seed it. At the same time stop seeding the old one. This was the original plan from what I remember. Economics will take care of the rest. |
Dunmer Orion
Aggressive Intentions
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
Well if we're voting...I'd say limit it to one per ship. Overall, I think it's a pretty effective module for solo PVP.
-DO |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
386
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:55:00 -
[36] - Quote
In all the threadnaughts about the ASB, nearly everyone suggested 1 per ship would fix it. CCP then decides to try and fiddle with it instead ... :CCP:
|
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:15:00 -
[37] - Quote
There is a strong case for only allowing one ASB per ship. It is a module that was designed to replace the typical shield booster with a cap booster. So getting two ASBs on a ship is like getting two free mid slots. Having two ASBs allows the pilot to alternate to allow them to always have one booster going and one reloading. There are some clever overheating tactics that allow the pilot to get more tank.
However, I think limiting the number of ASBs fit won't help as much as you think. Typically, those are fit to ships that have a rep bonus, with 20+% boost amount drugs, and offgrid boosts. The Hun. Reloaded Vargurs (with logi that was jammed and damped) proved one ASB or two won't make much a difference.
The issue isn't that people are fitting more than one of them. It's the issue that the module is overpowered. When a mod is overpowered you get people wiling to sacrifice almost anything to get more of it. This includes throwing several fitting mods and faction fitting their ships to get a ship that can tank a solo ship, but dies to a gang. Ex: Dead Sleipnir
In my opinion the main issues are the ASBs high shield boost and ability to sustain that shield boost. So you fix it by either make it hold less cap boosters, nerf how much it reps, or make the amount repped be based off of the booster put it (longer duration/less tank with smaller cap boosters vs. shorter duration/higher tank with larger cap boosters). Any of these changes will cause the ASB, rep bonus, drugs, and off grid boosters to be less effective. This in turn will make the pilot question if it is really worth it to make so many sacrifices to get a second ASB.
.....Another option is to ignore that the module is overpowered and just add a stacking penalty. However regular reps don't have a stacking penalty. I don't think this is a good solution.
.....Or you could go the easy way out and only allow one ASB per ship instead of balancing the module and allowing pilots to be creative with their fits and piloting. |
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:23:00 -
[38] - Quote
every now and then we have some ridiculous decisions being made and not changed for years. Hurricanes with their powergrid, tengus with who know what dps at >110k range and now we have xasb and we will have to live with it.
Welcome to
XASB Online |
Robert Lefcourt
Audentia et Artis E.B.O.L.A.
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
Allowing only one per ship won't fix ASB. We all saw AT, where only one was allowed - still everyone and their dog were fielding them - because they still rock. A good approach would be to match the fitting requirements of armor repairers /and/ allow only one per ship.
regards,
rob |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1249
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:44:00 -
[40] - Quote
No, this is not the fix.
All you need to do is bring the fitting requirements to a level that corresponds with their size (XLASB is a battleship module, please compare it with LAR, it's twice as strong and combines two modules in one, yet you can fit it on cruisers) and change the repping amount to be dependant on the booster charge size.
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
771
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:52:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:James1122 wrote:keep them as they are and just limit it so you can only fit 1 per ship That option is still very much on the table, but we want to explore a few other alternative as well. Please, get rid of this crappy idea altogether - you can't limit something to 1 per ship and consider it balanced.
Balance the mod itself rather than its proliferation! You're on the right spot now, keep it up! 14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
771
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:01:00 -
[42] - Quote
Gonna add, that your ultimate goal is making ASB as good as normal Shield Boosters of the same price range are, just with different applications.
Also, when ASBs are finally balanced, you may start considering adding ASBs of higher meta levels, which would be awesome. 14 |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
85
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:26:00 -
[43] - Quote
Can we also nerf buffer tanks so that normal injected/rep fits are actually viable without links and implants
Also does anyone know what the hell an "adaptive armor hardener" or a "target spectrum breaker" is? I see them on the market but I've never actually seen someone fit one. |
Tor'en
Rebel Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
No doubt ASB's need looking into, but I just hope that you guys don't nerf them into oblivion. I mean these modules made active tanking a feasible PVP option, which wasn't the case in ages.
The issue as some people have pointed out is fitting more than one which defeats the purpose of having 60s of glory followed by the agony of the reload, and it is possible to simply cycle them.
However, proposing any changes which nerfs the amount of boost (one reload) to less than a single shield extender, will render them effectively useless, which would be a pity.
I would hope CCP to take a less lazy option (to tweaking capacity/cycle time/boost amount), and simply correlate the boost amount with the charge size. So basically with XL you get 100% of the boost amount with 800's and 50% with 400's. Everything else could stay the same including option of fitting more than one (it already really affects the fitting).
Please don't take the easy to do option, but adjust them properly! |
Sard Caid
Gunpoint Diplomacy
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:03:00 -
[45] - Quote
After having flown a lot of the single and dual ASB setups, I really feel that the single versions are working as intended, while dual ASBs are pretty damn broke. Easing back on ASB effectiveness of rep duration and capacity negates the sacrifices in fitting putting on the typically over sized reps necessitates.
Really, just limit them to one per ship. As fun as the dual ASBs are, I'd like there to be a reason to use my T2 or meta shield boosters again. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
289
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:06:00 -
[46] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:This seems like it doesn't address any of the really critical failings of the ASB. But, I'll test it out.
/shrug
-Liang Seconded. Seems to be odd changes considering. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
442
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
I have a fix... make it so you can't reload a single ASB at a time, where if you have fitted two, you will have a better burst tank or more total boosts, but when you run out of charges in 1 or more of your ASBs, you can't reload one while running another (the problem with dual ASB fits being that people can run the one ASB and then reload other) Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:39:00 -
[48] - Quote
Regarding the question of what we're trying to accomplish with the ASBs, then (as has been stated by some in this thread) the goal is to allow for a temporary massive boost. The key word there is temporary, as this is a requirement for the module to not go out of hand. The current stats on the modules allow for too much sustained boost. The problem is not the boost amount per se, so we will almost certainly not touch that.
Restricting ASBs to one per ship is a solution, but we feel it's fixing things with a hatchet as opposed to a scalpel. What we're doing now is looking at other potential solutions. Some good ones have even be mentioned in this thread, and for that I thank you. The danger with adjusting the stats just to make dual-ASB fits less powerful is to nerf the single-fitted ASB too much, so we're trying to see if there is a sweetspot somewhere in between for us to fall into.
Thanks for your feedback so far! |
|
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
442
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the question of what we're trying to accomplish with the ASBs, then (as has been stated by some in this thread) the goal is to allow for a temporary massive boost. The key word there is temporary, as this is a requirement for the module to not go out of hand. The current stats on the modules allow for too much sustained boost. The problem is not the boost amount per se, so we will almost certainly not touch that.
Restricting ASBs to one per ship is a solution, but we feel it's fixing things with a hatchet as opposed to a scalpel. What we're doing now is looking at other potential solutions. Some good ones have even be mentioned in this thread, and for that I thank you. The danger with adjusting the stats just to make dual-ASB fits less powerful is to nerf the single-fitted ASB too much, so we're trying to see if there is a sweetspot somewhere in between for us to fall into.
Thanks for your feedback so far!
Perhaps my suggestion above? only being able to reload all the ASBs at the same time? (so you can't run 1 asb, and then reload it while using another) Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:51:00 -
[50] - Quote
Bubanni wrote: Perhaps my suggestion above? only being able to reload all the ASBs at the same time? (so you can't run 1 asb, and then reload it while using another)
That is a very interesting take on the problem. I'm going to look more closely at it. |
|
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:21:00 -
[51] - Quote
dont touch ASBs they are fine as they are! its the only viable thing we got for active pvp against active armor supremacy! |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
88
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:27:00 -
[52] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:dont touch ASBs they are fine as they are! its the only viable thing we got for active pvp against active armor supremacy! sofar with proposed missle changes and this.. good bye caldari state.. you will be missed.
WOOH! Active armor supremacy!
Wait? What? |
|
CCP Paradox
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:29:00 -
[53] - Quote
Has anyone, actually tested these? You know, provide feedback based on trying it out on Duality?
If not, try your ASB fits later today, when you get to shoot devs. Please, please test your ASB fits out, and see the differences!
CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
771
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:44:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: The danger with adjusting the stats just to make dual-ASB fits less powerful is to nerf the single-fitted ASB too much, so we're trying to see if there is a sweetspot somewhere in between for us to fall into.
Thanks for your feedback so far!
Current stats of single-ASB setups are so high that it's somewhat difficult to nerf the damn thing too hard.
My question is: why do you follow these ideas of having the same attitude towards single ASB and dual? At the moment single ASB is superior to passive tank setups, dual ASBs are too good in comparison to conventional active tanking. These setups have pretty different ideas and form 2 separate issues, which both come from sheer module stats.
I hope you won't argue that introducing, say, a damage mod which temporarily boosts damage output by 200% can hardly be balanced by definition, no matter wheather restricted to one per ship or not? Just don't create overpowered modules at all and you will be fine. 14 |
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:09:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Bubanni wrote: Perhaps my suggestion above? only being able to reload all the ASBs at the same time? (so you can't run 1 asb, and then reload it while using another)
That is a very interesting take on the problem. I'm going to look more closely at it.
Or another idea under a very similar concept:
You can't active a second ASB if another one is reloading.
That way dual setups are still viable as you can deplete all of one and then use your second one, and then reload them both together. Two Step for CSM |
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
"improved" xasb boosts for (980/5) = 196hp/s for 45 seconds (9seconds*5charges). Extending that to 60 seconds to catch reload time on second xasb, a single xasb boosts (980*9=8820 / 60 seconds) 147hp/second for full minute and then second xasb takes over, and first reloads. LAR II reps for 71.(1)hp/second on lvl V character. Did i mention that it uses over 4.5x more powergrid, and that it uses cap(so you'll need to compensate with cap booster)?
I also want to fit 2 LARII on battlecruiser. |
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:10:00 -
[57] - Quote
Reposted by accident Two Step for CSM |
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:11:00 -
[58] - Quote
Reposted by accident Two Step for CSM |
Inggroth
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:33:00 -
[59] - Quote
Just an idea how i would balance ASBs: Leave their stats as is and nerf fitting by a considerable amount, especially powergrid requirements. Dual-ASB setups should completely cripple any ship except when undersized which is a reasonable tradeoff in tanking ability for being neut-proof. Oversized ASBs should not be possible at all - make xl-asb require like 2k powergrid, like battleship size armor reps. |
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:37:00 -
[60] - Quote
I'm seeing a potential misunderstanding about why the ASBs are so spectacularly powerful right now.
SoniClover, you guys are talking about trying to make them a great "temporary" tank item. Unfortunately I believe that's not actually what ASBs are. In their current form, they need to be balanced as a buffer EHP item.
Why is it a buffer fit item? Well in small-gang situations, the rep amount on the ASB is so strong, that under ideal circumstances (the circumstances where ASBs are overpowered), you're virtually guaranteed to get off all the charges in your ASB. This is even more realistic on double ASB fits, or oversized ASB fits that push the rep per second well above the amount of damage the ship would normally fight against. There's also no way to stop the target from getting the shield boosts (i.e. neuting).
In such cases, the ASB literally behaves as well as LSEs or plates, but at a ridiculous slot economy.
Consider the following for "one" slot, even post-nerf: - Large Shield Extender II: +2625 shield, +sig - 1600mm T2 plate: +4800 armor, +mass - Large ASB (390 per charge * 7 charges): +2730 shield - X-Large ASB (980 per charge * 7 charges): +6860 shield - X-Large ASB (navy, overheated, cyclone - 1482.25 per charge * 9 charges): +13,340.25 shield
Now of course the fitting costs for an X-Large are much higher than an LSE. But on certain ships (ones that are good with ASB fits), you can get around this by only sacrificing a low slot and maybe a rig or two.
Think of the implications of this as a buffer fit item. Instead of spending 3+ mids on LSEs, you can spend one mid, a low, and a rig on a fantastically greater amount of "EHP," without the downsides of increased sig or mass to boot! And depending on the ship, a second ASB can be mounted without spending another low. 6+ mids for 2 mids and a low slot, essentially. With this slot economy, you can fit resist mids to further your shield economy even more, or damage mods to push your ship's DPS and EHP way, way out of its normal ranges.
People seem to have been looking at the reload as the way to balance the drawback. It really isn't. In the situations you'd be using ASBs, you only really need to get a handful of charges consumed for it to have been "worth it" compared to buffer fit. (So obviously, they're not a factor in large/fleet fights, like all active tanking.) Any time you reach the reload point on an ASB, it's already performed astoundingly well.
To properly balance ASBs, I believe you will need to instead look at the total shield given by all the charges in the ASB vs. other single slot buffer items. (Though this balance needs to be done in the context of ASB rep per second, because the current assumption is you get all or most of your charges successfully fed before you die.) |
|
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:56:00 -
[61] - Quote
The slot-economy savings vs. active tanking is even more ridiculous.
Active tanking: shield booster, boost amplifier, several capacitor mids/lows or rigs... ~5 slots and still vulnerable to neuts?
Yes, the ASBs only "active tank" for 35-45 seconds. But at the cost of 1 slot (plus fitting slots/rigs as I mentioned above) and invulnerability to neuts, it's "oh so worth it."
This is the error of ASBs. They're not even remotely an active tank item, but their stats are balanced against existing shield boosters. Double fits are so good on their own, they actually emulate an active-tank fit (for only 2~3 slots).
If you left current ASBs as-is, and made it so they could never reload, they would still be overpowered in small gangs.
Also think about this: there are actually no realistic small-gang PvP conditions where dual Large ASBs are better than a single X-L ASB.*
*: except theoretically fighting for multiple reloads under gate guns. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
442
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:06:00 -
[62] - Quote
James1122 wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Bubanni wrote: Perhaps my suggestion above? only being able to reload all the ASBs at the same time? (so you can't run 1 asb, and then reload it while using another)
That is a very interesting take on the problem. I'm going to look more closely at it. Or another idea under a very similar concept: You can't active a second ASB if another one is reloading. That way dual setups are still viable as you can deplete all of one and then use your second one, and then reload them both together.
Heh... that was actually what I meant
Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Lelob
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:16:00 -
[63] - Quote
Quote: Reducing capacity in all four ASBs so they can now fit 7 normal ones (9 navy ones) This kind of works, but it does not address the main problem.
Quote: Upping the duration of X-Large ASB from 4 to 5 seconds This has absolutely no impact. The amount boosted is so high that you are staggering the boosts anyways. You could make it a 6 second or even a 7 second delay and I still wouldn't care.
Quote: Adjusting the capacitor need of all four ASBs considerably Again, a completely useless measure. Nobody uses the capacitor side on them as it is now, because its so ineffecient unless they are doing a single asb, and even then it is used up after only a few boosts and so is largely useless and at great expense of capacitor (a pretty bad tradeoff as it is, so in this respect it is balanced).
The main problem with asb's is they are completely isolated from any external forces. Why don't you just make them dependent on both capacitor from the ship and the cap boosters so that they have a real weakness that can be exploited. At the very least, any changes you make that don't address the fact that they cannot be affected by other players actions will mean that they will continue to be unbalanced. They must have a weakness that an enemy can utilize.
Also, as a slight aside you are right in not wanting to limit the number of asb's per ship. Doing so would ruin it as an active tanking element almost completely, and the fititng requirements make it so that fitting 2 or more is a serious strain on your ships cpu. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
442
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:17:00 -
[64] - Quote
It should really be harder to fit x-l asb to anything below a battleship... it should require more pg... you could downgrade the high cpu requirement in return Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Lelob
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:21:00 -
[65] - Quote
There's nothing wrong with the fitting requirements, because the cpu makes you have to gimp your setups if you want an x-l booster on anything that is sub-bs. |
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:23:00 -
[66] - Quote
I think, for ASBs to remain as they are (free shields for "one" mid slot), their fittings and stats need to be adjusted to be in line with LSEs.
That is:
- Highly-reduced powergrid and CPU.
- Total health provided better than LSE, but not x3-x5 as much.
In addition I would reduce the amount healed per second (with charges) to be more like armor repping than shield repping. This will turn the fitting choice into, "do I think I'll survive long enough to get the higher EHP over the shield extender?" Currently, the choice is, "if the incoming damage is near or less than the ASB tank, then fit ASBs always."
This would probably also require the removal of X-Large ASBs. If they must remain, they should be comparable to 1600mm plates (but that raises the implication of adding an item that would essentially be like an X-Large Shield Extender in small gangs).
If the desire was to leave them like a "different kind of shield booster" I would make them like capacitor-efficient shield boosters while you had charges. I.E., they still take power even with charges, but are more efficient than normal shield boosters while the charges last. Once charges ran out, they could consume exorbitant amounts of capacitor (less efficient than normal shield boosters). The fitting choice would then become, "do I want to save slots on cap rechargers/power relays but have an "active" tank that gives out after a bit? (Even if I still have power.)"
You could probably safely make such ASBs last longer at that point, as long as the fitter is forced to spend slots on capacitor recharge or capacitor boosters. However, this solution probably requires new tech (module that uses different cap amount depending on availability of ammo) as opposed to simple numbers changes. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:28:00 -
[67] - Quote
No response to having both a logical cycle time overheat bonus AND a 10% hitpoint pr cycle overheat bonus?
Yes these things does adjust ASB in the right direction and shold be tested out a lot, however it doesn't look like adjustments adress the problem with oversized ASBs on high resist ships where the pilot doesn't have to boost continuously?
BTW. - Should it be impossible to run multiple shield boosters at the same time? That would also reduce the versatility of dual ASB however still be possible to benefit from...
Pinky |
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:33:00 -
[68] - Quote
Limiting ASBs to "1 per ship" isn't an actual fix to the ASB design.
It will have the side-effect of toning down ship setups that use ASBs, yes - but you will still fit one as long as you expect to die after getting a worthwhile number of charges off. You will start to see fits with an LSE or two, resists, and the biggest ASB you can fit.
Down the line it will likely make Amarr ships (and other low-mid-slot hulls) hard to balance for small-gang because you will have to compare a low slot 1600mm vs. a med-slot X-L ASB with ~double the EHP, no agility penalty, and room for damage mods (if the ASB will fit with just CPU rigs). |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
868
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:10:00 -
[69] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the question of what we're trying to accomplish with the ASBs, then (as has been stated by some in this thread) the goal is to allow for a temporary massive boost. The key word there is temporary, as this is a requirement for the module to not go out of hand. The current stats on the modules allow for too much sustained boost. The problem is not the boost amount per se, so we will almost certainly not touch that.
Temporary Massive Boost is not compatible with dual boosting, since it's obvious you can cycle them to keep a permanent repair ongoing as long as cap boosters are around, regardless of where you want to try and put the cap limit.
CCP SoniClover wrote: Restricting ASBs to one per ship is a solution, but we feel it's fixing things with a hatchet as opposed to a scalpel. What we're doing now is looking at other potential solutions. Some good ones have even be mentioned in this thread, and for that I thank you. The danger with adjusting the stats just to make dual-ASB fits less powerful is to nerf the single-fitted ASB too much, so we're trying to see if there is a sweetspot somewhere in between for us to fall into.
Thanks for your feedback so far!
I don't see why it fixes things "with a hatchet".
I can't activate more than 2 MWDs at the same time. I can't fit 2 Reactive Hardeners at the same time, I can't turn on a cloak with 2 cloaks on (presumably to avoid conflicting timers), I can't do a LOT of things with 2 modules at the same time. I can't use 2 Damage controls at the same time. I can't do a lot of things.
So...
Either rename the module to not be an ANCILLARY booster, specifically being a secondary component to a primary component of tanking so it's clear that it's not going to be a "massive" temporary boost. Or just set it to 1 module. Because there is no "sweet" spot without taking this back to the drawing board as it stands. If it isn't a dual boost setup, it will become a triple boost setup, with an offgrid Tengu + Blue Pill.
Restricting it to 1 ASB IS the elegant solution because then you will always accomplish the Massive Temp Boost because you could double the amount of cap boosters that can fit, and still have a 1 minute timer, etc.
The idea that they all have to be reloaded at the same time is respectable, and should be looked into carefully. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Hrett
Justified Chaos
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:26:00 -
[70] - Quote
Admittedly, I haven't tested the new versions yet, but:
I would lean toward the one per ship option too. After using them and fighting against them, those don't seem OP. limiting the charges will make them more 'vanilla' and they wouldn't really standout as much for certain situations.
Another option would be to increase the reload time to 120 seconds. That would be a good nerf to dual setups.
But thanks for looking at them. I'm probably typing on an iPad, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
|
Vixorz
Cabronazos
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:07:00 -
[71] - Quote
I don't know if someone said this before, but what about some kind of diminishing return. When you fit more than 1 module you get a penalty in X. Something like fitting 2 ASB will result in 30% less shield HP boosted per ASB. If you fit 3 50% less each. Or longer reloads, or anything... |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
443
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:14:00 -
[72] - Quote
Hmm, they could also pull the charges directly from the same pool... meaning you don't get twice as many boosts by having 2 or more fitted... but you get a higher burst tank for same duration basicly (both ASB would run out of charges at same time this way) Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
362
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:17:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:The adjustments are:
- Reducing capacity in all four ASBs so they can now fit 7 normal ones (9 navy ones)
- Upping the duration of X-Large ASB from 4 to 5 seconds
- Adjusting the capacitor need of all four ASBs considerably
Sooo... this doesn't prevent the definitely overpowered use of multiple/oversize ASB, while still nerfing the relatively balanced case of single normal ASBs.
In any case, the guy above had it right in Posts 60 & 61 - ASBs are, to all intents and purposes, buffer-tanking mods that simply add a set number of EHP. If the intention was to make active tanks more viable in neut-heavy environments, they failed, because they aren't really active-tanking mods. |
Javelin6
35
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:57:00 -
[74] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Restricting ASBs to one per ship is a solution, but we feel it's fixing things with a hatchet as opposed to a scalpel.
As Trebor likes to quote: Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
It looks like you guys already have a lot on the table with the sprints leading up to the winter expansion, why not save yourself the dev time and use the effective (if not ugly) solution and use it elsewhere.
Either way I'm looking forward to playing with your new toys. |
StevieTopSiders
Evolution The Retirement Club
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:43:00 -
[75] - Quote
One per ship, with slightly lower reload time.
If you watch Kovorix's dual-prop XLASB Vaga footage, that stuff is nothing short of awesome. But when you watch dual XLASB MAelstronks crash a gatecamp, that's just le dumb. |
Larloch TheAncient
Alpha Arms and Manufacturing
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:59:00 -
[76] - Quote
This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same.
[Myrmidon, New Setup 1] Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II True Sansha Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane True Sansha Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Armor Explosive Hardener II Damage Control II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
[empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump II Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump II Medium Nanobot Accelerator II
540 DPS Tanked. Permaruns on 1 cap booster.
[Cyclone, New Setup 1] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot]
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 200 Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 200 Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field EM Ward Field II
[empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
630 DPS Tanked. Perma runs with Cap charges.
The difference? The Dual Cyclone fit uses 200 CPU and 300 PG.
The dual Myrm fit only used ~50 CPU, and 340 PG.
Large ASB's are completely fine as is. The problem comes when people attempt to compare XL-ASB's to LAR II's which ofcourse you CANNOT DO.
XL-ASB aren't equivelent modules to LAR II's In the same way that LSE II's are = to 1600mm Plates.
Lets good at the XL-ASB on BC's now.
[Cyclone, New Setup 1] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot]
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field EM Ward Field II
[empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Tanks 1464 DPS . With 1 rep and fits with 40 CPU to spare without any guns/mods.
Each "load" of a XL-ASB on a cyclone gives you 20,212 Shields. (15 Charges)
so with 30 Charges (15 in each booster)
+ ~ 40 charges you can fit in your cargo hold, that would have you at a max rep of about.
~100,000 Shields. Giving you (if you live through all of your cap charges)
108,000 Total shields. While this may seem like alot. And given this Cyclones resists thats aprox.
~400,000 EHP.
Lets look at the armor's equivalent.
......
Yea OK, They're OP as hell.
Carry on. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
772
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:18:00 -
[77] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:ASBs are, to all intents and purposes, buffer-tanking mods that simply add a set number of EHP. If the intention was to make active tanks more viable in neut-heavy environments, they failed, because they aren't really active-tanking mods. That's right and that's what dual ASBs are for - to provide active-like performance. 14 |
Fellblade
Octavian Vanguard
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:54:00 -
[78] - Quote
TheMaster42 wrote:Consider the following for "one" slot, even post-nerf: - Large Shield Extender II: +2625 shield, +sig - 1600mm T2 plate: +4800 armor, +mass - Large ASB (390 per charge * 7 charges): +2730 shield - X-Large ASB (980 per charge * 7 charges): +6860 shield - X-Large ASB (navy, overheated, cyclone - 1482.25 per charge * 9 charges): +13,340.25 shield
I'd make the point that the headline figure could easily be brought more into whack by saying that the boost bonus is either not applied or fractionally applied to ASBs.
I'd also point out that due to the multiplying-up effect of Core Defence Field Extenders, you can't really look at ASBs vs Extenders on a single module vs single module basis, same with Armour and Trimarks
Thinking about how they currently work, I'd be interested to see what would happen if the number of charges that could be held in an ASB was increased by 50%, and the amount of boost that each generated was cut by 33%. So the total boost added is the same, but there's a better chance of ships breaking through the rep wall, and the total amount of extra EHP that can be stored in people's cargoholds in the form of cap charges is reduced.
|
Fellblade
Octavian Vanguard
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:02:00 -
[79] - Quote
Larloch TheAncient wrote:This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same. ...
You're saying that a fit that has 40 CPU spare when it doesn't have any guns or low slots filled is okay, and you're comparing a Myrm fit with ~100mil's worth of tank to a Cyclone that's spent ~910mil on it. And has no prop mod or tackle.
|
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:16:00 -
[80] - Quote
Fellblade wrote:Larloch TheAncient wrote:This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same. ...
You're saying that a fit that has 40 CPU spare when it doesn't have any guns or low slots filled is okay, and you're comparing a Myrm fit with ~100mil's worth of tank to a Cyclone that's spent ~910mil on it. And has no prop mod or tackle.
you need to use 3 slots on armor tank to tank like shield xasb is doing on 2 slots. Don't forget that. |
|
Larloch TheAncient
Alpha Arms and Manufacturing
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:29:00 -
[81] - Quote
nahjustwarpin wrote:Fellblade wrote:Larloch TheAncient wrote:This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same. ...
You're saying that a fit that has 40 CPU spare when it doesn't have any guns or low slots filled is okay, and you're comparing a Myrm fit with ~100mil's worth of tank to a Cyclone that's spent ~910mil on it. And has no prop mod or tackle. you need to use 3 slots on armor tank to tank like shield xasb is doing on 2 slots. Don't forget that.
True, but the cap booster helps everything on your ship, not just the Reps.
And the first comparison I did fit LARGE ASB's not XL-ASB'S.
Large ASB's are perfectly inline with medium armor repper II"s. (they should be on line with LAR II's.)
So Small - Large ASB's are perfect fine as they are.
However when I got to my XL-ASB calculations things got crazy.
If you live to use all your charges you get a 400k EHP tank. (granted you sacrifice any kind of damage/tackle with this setup)
Closest I could get a Prophecy to (the Armor EHP passive tanking equivalent) was around 250k EHP.
Although I may have messed up my calculations I thought that XL-ASB's could hold 15 charges at a time... if That is incorrect that changes my calculations considerably.
Plus of course, if your in a medium-Large sized gang, Passive armor tanking is going to always be superior because your guaranteed to get your full EHP.
If your doing more damage than your tanking with ASB's then you may only get around 80-100k EHP.
So maybe they're not as unbalanced as I originally thought. |
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:25:00 -
[82] - Quote
Larloch TheAncient wrote:nahjustwarpin wrote:Fellblade wrote:Larloch TheAncient wrote:This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same. ...
You're saying that a fit that has 40 CPU spare when it doesn't have any guns or low slots filled is okay, and you're comparing a Myrm fit with ~100mil's worth of tank to a Cyclone that's spent ~910mil on it. And has no prop mod or tackle. you need to use 3 slots on armor tank to tank like shield xasb is doing on 2 slots. Don't forget that. True, but the cap booster helps everything on your ship, not just the Reps. And the first comparison I did fit LARGE ASB's not XL-ASB'S. Large ASB's are perfectly inline with medium armor repper II"s. (they should be on line with LAR II's.) So Small - Large ASB's are perfect fine as they are. However when I got to my XL-ASB calculations things got crazy. If you live to use all your charges you get a 400k EHP tank. (granted you sacrifice any kind of damage/tackle with this setup) Closest I could get a Prophecy to (the Armor EHP passive tanking equivalent) was around 250k EHP. Although I may have messed up my calculations I thought that XL-ASB's could hold 15 charges at a time... if That is incorrect that changes my calculations considerably. Plus of course, if your in a medium-Large sized gang, Passive armor tanking is going to always be superior because your guaranteed to get your full EHP. If your doing more damage than your tanking with ASB's then you may only get around 80-100k EHP. So maybe they're not as unbalanced as I originally thought.
cap booster does help everything else on ship, but you can still be unlucky and inject at the same time as neuted.
I wouldn't say that medium asb is balanced either. one medium asb tanks for around 150 dps (on lvl Harpy with shield resistance bonus).Also let's say that there's only one asb, so you have about half of that as perma-tank. Now if you want to armor tank 75 dps on Vengeance (also with resistance bonus) you need four mods instead of one. small repper II, cap booster, and 2 rigs. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
443
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:27:00 -
[83] - Quote
I agree that Large ASB is fine
I think it might actually come down to the problem with people being able to fit oversized ASBs on smaller ships, giving them much stronger tanks than ever before
I really do believe they need an increase in PG required overall... specially with the new CPU rigs, it's not that hard to get the needed CPU maybe 10-20% increase in PG required Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Mjolnir Gost
Providence Directorate Kraken.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:41:00 -
[84] - Quote
ASB's work just fine the way they are currently and do not need these adjustments. I am firmly opposed to limiting them to one per ship as currently you simply need to await the "cap out" on these no matter how many the ship has fitted.
I am yet to find any ship unbreakable or OP due to these being fit.
Of course I realize that opinions vary on these but from my experience they work well and in many cases help with one pilot's willingness in attempting to take a larger gang, which is more fun for everyone. |
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:05:00 -
[85] - Quote
Mjolnir Gost wrote:ASB's work just fine the way they are currently and do not need these adjustments. I am firmly opposed to limiting them to one per ship as currently you simply need to await the "cap out" on these no matter how many the ship has fitted.
I am yet to find any ship unbreakable or OP due to these being fit.
Of course I realize that opinions vary on these but from my experience they work well and in many cases help with one pilot's willingness in attempting to take a larger gang, which is more fun for everyone.
Yes, for you they work well, because they allow you to tank whole gang.
And confirming that you sir have no clue about balance. |
Larloch TheAncient
Alpha Arms and Manufacturing
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:51:00 -
[86] - Quote
nahjustwarpin wrote:Larloch TheAncient wrote:nahjustwarpin wrote:Fellblade wrote:Larloch TheAncient wrote:This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same. ...
You're saying that a fit that has 40 CPU spare when it doesn't have any guns or low slots filled is okay, and you're comparing a Myrm fit with ~100mil's worth of tank to a Cyclone that's spent ~910mil on it. And has no prop mod or tackle. you need to use 3 slots on armor tank to tank like shield xasb is doing on 2 slots. Don't forget that. True, but the cap booster helps everything on your ship, not just the Reps. And the first comparison I did fit LARGE ASB's not XL-ASB'S. Large ASB's are perfectly inline with medium armor repper II"s. (they should be on line with LAR II's.) So Small - Large ASB's are perfect fine as they are. However when I got to my XL-ASB calculations things got crazy. If you live to use all your charges you get a 400k EHP tank. (granted you sacrifice any kind of damage/tackle with this setup) Closest I could get a Prophecy to (the Armor EHP passive tanking equivalent) was around 250k EHP. Although I may have messed up my calculations I thought that XL-ASB's could hold 15 charges at a time... if That is incorrect that changes my calculations considerably. Plus of course, if your in a medium-Large sized gang, Passive armor tanking is going to always be superior because your guaranteed to get your full EHP. If your doing more damage than your tanking with ASB's then you may only get around 80-100k EHP. So maybe they're not as unbalanced as I originally thought. cap booster does help everything else on ship, but you can still be unlucky and inject at the same time as neuted. I wouldn't say that medium asb is balanced either. one medium asb tanks for around 150 dps (on lvl Harpy with shield resistance bonus).Also let's say that there's only one asb, so you have about half of that as perma-tank. Now if you want to armor tank 75 dps on Vengeance (also with resistance bonus) you need four mods instead of one. small repper II, cap booster, and 2 rigs.
|
Larloch TheAncient
Alpha Arms and Manufacturing
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:52:00 -
[87] - Quote
Quote: cap booster does help everything else on ship, but you can still be unlucky and inject at the same time as neuted.
I wouldn't say that medium asb is balanced either. one medium asb tanks for around 150 dps (on lvl Harpy with shield resistance bonus).Also let's say that there's only one asb, so you have about half of that as perma-tank. Now if you want to armor tank 75 dps on Vengeance (also with resistance bonus) you need four mods instead of one. small repper II, cap booster, and 2 rigs.
Ok I"ll compare a hawk with say a vengeance.
[Vengeance, New Setup 1] Internal Force Field Array I Centii C-Type Small Armor Repairer True Sansha Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane True Sansha Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Coreli C-Type 1MN Afterburner Initiated Harmonic Warp Scrambler I 'Langour' Drive Disruptor I
Rocket Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Rocket Small Diminishing Power System Drain I
Small Nanobot Accelerator I Small Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Permatanks 197 omni dps. (227 against Kinetic)
Cap stable at 60% 140 dps with EM rage.
[Hawk, New Setup 1] Internal Force Field Array I Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50 Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50 Gistii C-Type 1MN Afterburner Gistum C-Type EM Ward Amplifier Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Rocket Launcher II, Scourge Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Scourge Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Scourge Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Scourge Rage Rocket [empty high slot]
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer I
tanks 272 dps, while cycling reps. (229 EM)
at 170 dps. (kinetic)
Yes, the tank is technically better, but unlike the vengence you sacrifice > 5 minute |
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:36:00 -
[88] - Quote
Larloch TheAncient wrote:Quote: cap booster does help everything else on ship, but you can still be unlucky and inject at the same time as neuted.
I wouldn't say that medium asb is balanced either. one medium asb tanks for around 150 dps (on lvl Harpy with shield resistance bonus).Also let's say that there's only one asb, so you have about half of that as perma-tank. Now if you want to armor tank 75 dps on Vengeance (also with resistance bonus) you need four mods instead of one. small repper II, cap booster, and 2 rigs.
Ok I"ll compare a hawk with say a vengeance. I"ll use the same # of tanking mods on both. which will be 3 tanking mods + rigs per ship. (not counting dcu) [Vengeance, New Setup 1] Internal Force Field Array I Centii C-Type Small Armor Repairer True Sansha Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane True Sansha Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Coreli C-Type 1MN Afterburner Initiated Harmonic Warp Scrambler I 'Langour' Drive Disruptor I Rocket Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Rocket Small Diminishing Power System Drain I Small Nanobot Accelerator I Small Auxiliary Nano Pump I Permatanks 197 omni dps. (227 against Kinetic) Cap stable at 60% 140 dps with EM rage. [Hawk, New Setup 1] Internal Force Field Array I Nanofiber Internal Structure II Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50 Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 50 Gistii C-Type 1MN Afterburner Gistum C-Type EM Ward Amplifier Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Rocket Launcher II, Scourge Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Scourge Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Scourge Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Scourge Rage Rocket [empty high slot] Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer I tanks 272 dps, while cycling reps. (229 EM) at 170 dps. (kinetic) Yes, the tank is technically better, but unlike the vengence you sacrifice fighting for longer than 5 minutes. IF these 2 ships went 1v1 in a belt, the vengence would win every time.
You know that your energy vampire will stop feeding you cap probably between 2nd and 3rd minute |
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:17:00 -
[89] - Quote
These fits are not particularly representative nor realistic comparisons of ASB tanking OR armor tanking... |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 10:15:00 -
[90] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:dont touch ASBs they are fine as they are! its the only viable thing we got for active pvp against active armor supremacy! sofar with proposed missle changes and this.. good bye caldari state.. you will be missed. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... hah.. hah aaahhh. HAHAHA.. oh lord... my stomach |
|
Angelina Joliee
Project Stealth Squad Initiative Mercenaries
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:04:00 -
[91] - Quote
Nooo. Do not change the stats of the ASBs! Limit the ASB-count to 1 - But leave the stats. Those are fine.
Yes - an ASB gives more hp than an shield extender before first reload but it has disadvantages too: - Micromanagement - Easier to alpha - Uses charges
Nobody uses ASBs in pve and nobody uses them in pvp-fleets. They are only used on some solo- and baitships. If you lower the stats, nobody will use them. Then you may just remove the item from the game. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:15:00 -
[92] - Quote
Frankly, removal of ASBs is the best "fix". The ASB experiment failed. Go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make existing active tanking modules work better in PvP and how to make people fit other things than neutralizers in their utility high slots. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
362
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:30:00 -
[93] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Frankly, removal of ASBs is the best "fix". The ASB experiment failed. Go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make existing active tanking modules work better in PvP and how to make people fit other things than neutralizers in their utility high slots.
I agree. Current ASBs, by being immune to neuting, aren't really active tanking mods at all. If the problem with active tanking was neuting, then we need modules to help protect against neuting. Making nos easier to fit and increasing their drain amounts would work well. The reflectance attribute on cap batteries was a good idea, but they aren't used because the effect is too weak (12.5% against neuts) and cap batteries are too hard to fit, both in terms of spare medslots and PG/CPU.
A better design for a neut-protector would be a relatively easy-to-fit highslot module that offered about 40%, subject to normal stacking penalties, resistance to incoming neuts and nos. |
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:04:00 -
[94] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:You only need to change 1 thing about them: 1 size booster per ASB. Right now the XLASB gets the same boost no matter if it uses an 800 or a 400. So everyone uses the 400 to get more cycles off. Which means it takes longer to run out of charges and they can fit more charges in their hold. That's the only thing unbalanced about them.
I don't mind ships being able to fit more than 1 ASB. usually you have to gimp the fit somewhat to get the first on and majorly gimp to get the second one on. And no only does that usually involve more Co-pros in the low but faction equipment in other slots. And that adds up to nice kills.
This is the reason they are overpowered. A cap booster will boost the same amount no matter what charge is loaded. The amount of shield repaired should be determined by the size of the booster. The duel fits are so bad because you can load a crap ton of small boosters in your cargo and in most situations only one ASB is needed. When the 1st runs out start boosting with the 2nd while the 1st one reloads.
A change in loading time or the amount of charges they can hold may open up windows between reloads but I doubt it unless you really go overboard and they become a duel fit only mod or gimped totally. Changing the shield boost amount to work with the cap booster size will work better because it will limit the total amount of reloads you can do while still leaving them a very nice mod for shield tanks. Capacitor booster mods are already limited in this way and it seems like it works well to limit duel armor reppers. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
466
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:49:00 -
[95] - Quote
ASBs were made immune to energy neutralizers because energy neutralizers are too common. This is the root of the problem. You need to take a very deep look into the causes of the energy neutralizer proliferation rather than trying to make the ASB fit into the game.
First of all, everything needs to have a counter. Energy neutralizers currently counter active tanking which is fine.
The problem is energy neutralizers also do many other things which is why they are the default utility highslot module.
1) They shut down cap using weapons, propulsion mods, tackle. 2) They are the only convenient and reliable frigate defense for many larger ships (drones can be killed). Even ships that don't need them for this purpose still benefit significantly from them.
I think number 2 plays a large role in the energy neutralizer proliferation. So how about adding some alternative anti-frigate modules? Here are some ideas:
- Drone Repairer: goes into a highslot. Repairs drones. The idea is that it reliably stops a tackler frigate from killing your drones and then being effectively unkillable by your medium or large guns unless neuted. How it should repair drones I'm undecided about (in the bay? drones out in space within x km range?) but testing should give the answer.
- Point Defense Module: highslot module. When activated, it decreases dps and range but increases tracking. It makes it so that a frigate can no longer get under your guns to become immune to turret dps.
- Make target painters a high slot module and make them more useful.
- Lower the fitting requirements of smartbombs or make them better in other ways. |
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:14:00 -
[96] - Quote
By the way, ASBs working with 400s equally well as 800s is not the fundamental cause of the problem at all. Yes, it's "weird" that 400s and 800s both have the same effect. But making the boost amount different for 400s and 800s by itself won't necessarily fix ASBs being overpowered at all.
Another note - Large ASBs are not really comparable to medium armor reps.
When you active-tank a ship, you are running the risk you will run into enough enemies that they will overwhelm your tank and kill you quickly before your reps have become worthwhile (i.e., you should have just fit buffer instead).
A realistic medium rep active tank (even on bonused ships) provides far less tank per second than an ASB fit does. Therefore with an ASB tank, you're far far less likely to run into a fight where your tank is overwhelmed, thus making it very safe to fit an ASB tank vs. a traditional buffer tank. |
Larloch TheAncient
Alpha Arms and Manufacturing
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:40:00 -
[97] - Quote
Quote: Another note - Large ASBs are not really comparable to medium armor reps.
When you active-tank a ship, you are running the risk you will run into enough enemies that they will overwhelm your tank and kill you quickly before your reps have become worthwhile (i.e., you should have just fit buffer instead).
A realistic medium rep active tank (even on bonused ships) provides far less tank per second than an ASB fit does. Therefore with an ASB tank, you're far far less likely to run into a fight where your tank is overwhelmed, thus making it very safe to fit an ASB tank vs. a traditional buffer tank.
This is true, Large ASB's are comparable to LAR II's.
The fact that dual medium reps can get a comparable tank to dual Large ASB's is a testament to the fact that they are indeed NOT overpowered.
However, your comment about ASB's being "immune" to large amounts of damage is completely false when compared to active tanking.
Infact, the danger is equal to both. If you do more dps then 1 shield repper can repair, you will HAVE to use both ASB's.
Therefore you will have a 60 second window (slightly lowered by staggering when possible) window of 0 reps going to your shields.
ASB's have the same disadvantages in this regard, that any other active tanking module has.
I think its this vulnerability that has any chance of XL-ASB's being ballanced with the 1600MM plates |
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:35:00 -
[98] - Quote
Larloch TheAncient wrote:Quote: Another note - Large ASBs are not really comparable to medium armor reps.
When you active-tank a ship, you are running the risk you will run into enough enemies that they will overwhelm your tank and kill you quickly before your reps have become worthwhile (i.e., you should have just fit buffer instead).
A realistic medium rep active tank (even on bonused ships) provides far less tank per second than an ASB fit does. Therefore with an ASB tank, you're far far less likely to run into a fight where your tank is overwhelmed, thus making it very safe to fit an ASB tank vs. a traditional buffer tank.
This is true, Large ASB's are comparable to LAR II's. The fact that dual medium reps can get a comparable tank to dual Large ASB's is a testament to the fact that they are indeed NOT overpowered. However, your comment about ASB's being "immune" to large amounts of damage is completely false when compared to active tanking. Infact, the danger is equal to both. If you do more dps then 1 shield repper can repair, you will HAVE to use both ASB's. Therefore you will have a 60 second window (slightly lowered by staggering when possible) window of 0 reps going to your shields. ASB's have the same disadvantages in this regard, that any other active tanking module has. I think its this vulnerability that has any chance of XL-ASB's being ballanced with the 1600MM plates
look at this post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1948681#post1948681
7 slots taken for dual medium armor tanking 5 for dual LASB.
while tanking the same dps. |
Fellblade
Octavian Vanguard
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:21:00 -
[99] - Quote
Another random idea;
How about making it so that the ASB cannot be pulsed as effectively? Once activated, it always executes at least, say, 2 cycles?
It would provide the burst tank ability, but it would mean that you could sucker people into activating and they would waste charges, and lean more towards the burst tanking that was the design goal? Might be some issues with interactions between that and jumping / cloaking, etc, mind. |
Larloch TheAncient
Alpha Arms and Manufacturing
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:48:00 -
[100] - Quote
nahjustwarpin wrote:Larloch TheAncient wrote:Quote: Another note - Large ASBs are not really comparable to medium armor reps.
When you active-tank a ship, you are running the risk you will run into enough enemies that they will overwhelm your tank and kill you quickly before your reps have become worthwhile (i.e., you should have just fit buffer instead).
A realistic medium rep active tank (even on bonused ships) provides far less tank per second than an ASB fit does. Therefore with an ASB tank, you're far far less likely to run into a fight where your tank is overwhelmed, thus making it very safe to fit an ASB tank vs. a traditional buffer tank.
This is true, Large ASB's are comparable to LAR II's. The fact that dual medium reps can get a comparable tank to dual Large ASB's is a testament to the fact that they are indeed NOT overpowered. However, your comment about ASB's being "immune" to large amounts of damage is completely false when compared to active tanking. Infact, the danger is equal to both. If you do more dps then 1 shield repper can repair, you will HAVE to use both ASB's. Therefore you will have a 60 second window (slightly lowered by staggering when possible) window of 0 reps going to your shields. ASB's have the same disadvantages in this regard, that any other active tanking module has. I think its this vulnerability that has any chance of XL-ASB's being ballanced with the 1600MM plates look at this post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1948681#post19486817 slots taken for dual medium armor tanking 5 for dual LASB. while tanking the same dps.
Not counting the DCU the same exact number of modules were used on both setups to tank. (5 and 5) not counting rigs.
Besides, the L ASB SHOULD tank more than MED AR's.
Yet they tanked nearly the same.
PLUS the L ASB's gimped the fit MUCH MORE than the 2 MAR II's did on the myrm. |
|
Caneb
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:03:00 -
[101] - Quote
Agreeing with everyone who said that the best fix is a modulelimit of 1 per ship.
Although changing the XLASB from 4 to 5s cycle time seems right, I always suspected that was just a bug, since the regular X-Large boosters have a 5s cycle time.
|
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:32:00 -
[102] - Quote
Again, the one module limit won't really fix the problem. In small gang warfare, it will give a huge EHP and damage boost (because of freed-up lows) to ships that can mount them effectively. Even the option of one ASB will marginalize and essentially nerf (through not buffing) any ship with few mid slots or certain amounts of CPU/PG (for instance, all Amarr armor ships) in small gang situations.
ASBs aren't really comparable to Large Armor reppers, either, by the way.
Armor reppers are restricted by powergrid - ASBs are balanced against shield boosters which are not. Cruiser-and-up-sized ships are able to mount XL ASBs or dual Larges if they desire. Large armor reppers cannot ever be effectively placed on smaller than Battleship-sized powegrids. Large armor reppers require a constant input of capacitor - ASBs do not. Large reppers can output a constant amount for the duration of the fight. If you cannot deal more damage than the repping amount (or neut), you cannot break the tank - ASBs run out eventually. The rep amount provided by large armor reps is always on a battleship-sized sig radius, therefore the incoming damage will be that much higher. Large and XL ASBs can be mounted on much smaller signatures, providing much higher effective reps in a combat situation.
Simply looking at the active-tank statistic in EFT and going, "these two numbers are similar, therefore they are comparable" is completely ignoring the mechanics of Eve Online as a whole, and thus simply misinformation. |
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 23:40:00 -
[103] - Quote
SoniClover, I also thought it was worth mentioning that the stats of ASBs will still be whack if they're balanced relative to shield boosters.
It seems safe to reason that ASBs were designed as an alternative form of shield booster - their PG requirements are the same, their cycle times will soon be identical, the scaling of their boost amount is similar, etc. However, ASBs have a distinct and different mechanic from shield boosters that needs to be considered.
Shield Boosters' main limiting/balance factor is capacitor need.
Active shield tanking is statistically way "better" than armor tanking. Consider:
X-Large Shield Booster II:
- Powergrid: 550
- CPU: 230
- Shield/Second: 120
Large Armor Repairer II:
- Powergrid: 2300
- CPU: 55
- Armor/Second: 53 1/3
At a glance, you can see that shield booster provides a ridiculously higher amount of tanking power than armor tanking does. You can even fit booster amplifiers to increase the shield booster's rep amount. Yes the CPU is higher on the booster but not so much higher that you can't get around it, unlike the battlleship-size PG requirements of the Large armor reppers.
But then why is active tanking never used?
Well classical shield boosting is restricted by its capacitor usage. Both boosters and reppers require 400 capacitor per activation, but shield boosters consume this 3x more frequently. This is a prohibitive amount of capacitor for all but battleship-sized batteries with multiple mids or rigs dedicated to capacitor gain, or two medium or one heavy capacitor booster (in the case of the XL shield booster). All of these slots also further eat into your mids for shield resist, tackle, etc., making active-tanking virtually unused in PvP.
So what advantage do ASBs have? They are shield boosters that don't require capacitor to use of course!
Suddenly you have all the advantages of shield boost modules, without their only size-limiting drawback: multiple support slots dedicated to making your booster run. Also whereas X-Large regular boosters typically required battleship-sized capacitors to run, now you can fit XL ASBs on many different sizes of ship. The fitting requirements alone simply weren't designed to be the limiting factor for active-shield-tanking ships.
For these reasons I believe any final balance solution for ASBs probably shouldn't have familiar numbers with shield boosters in any way. They are most similar to buffer EHP items, as I've outlined before. |
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 01:43:00 -
[104] - Quote
TheMaster42 wrote:By the way, ASBs working with 400s equally well as 800s is not the fundamental cause of the problem at all. Yes, it's "weird" that 400s and 800s both have the same effect. But making the boost amount different for 400s and 800s by itself won't necessarily fix ASBs being overpowered at all.
Yes, it will necessarily fix the weird way asbs are fundamentally flawed. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 10:44:00 -
[105] - Quote
Team Super Friends, now that we're talking about nerf ASBs (which were fitted on everything because they own), could you please take a look at this old thread of mine which just became relevant again ?
Active Tanking
When I heard about ASBs, I thought that "Well, okay, maybe it's not as good as the buff I expected and wrote about in my thread, but maybe it's a cool feature".
Nerfing ASBs is needed, but please, take a look at this suggestion. |
Sarah Moonshine
doMAL S.A.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 19:07:00 -
[106] - Quote
So you finally make shield tanking (other than shield buffer drakes) viable again and then proceed to nerf it. Guess it's back to 1600mm plates everywhere! |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
576
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 07:53:00 -
[107] - Quote
In order for me to decide to use an ASB over a shield extender, it has to produce enough shield points not only to replace what the extender would have given me, but also the hitpoints that would have come from the higher regeneration rate that comes from having more shields in the first place. Otherwise what is the point?
Let's assume that you're always going to use navy and you're always going to overheat - not exactly a stretch. A LASB will give you 3861 shield points back. (390 * 1.1 * 9) That seems alot more then a LSE's 2625. However the LASB will take 30.6 seconds to work. If your LSE fit provides a regen rate 40 hitpoints /sec higher then the LASB fit you will make up the difference during that 30.6 sec. Your choice then becomes alpha protection vs sig tanking.
Using the same math I would always choose an MSE over a MASB until navy cap 50's came out. They don't make it over the hurdle with only 7 charges. The problem is the X-LASB. It's a beast. |
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 18:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
Great post. Remember though that shield recharge is only the listed amount at peak recharge (33% if I recall). You unfortunately won't get even close to 40 health every second for the entire duration. It's true that Large ASBs are already much closer to LSEs. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
217
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:41:00 -
[109] - Quote
Belive me those ASB fits can be elusive... I had a few of them alphaed away under me and it's not fun.
Also I hope eventually that cap boosters will get looked into... No reason to have more than 4 variants anyhow? |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 23:58:00 -
[110] - Quote
Has any thought been given to increasing the fitting requirements of ASBs? In the old days, that is how we made it hard to fit things. :P Right now ASBs take the same fittings as a regular shield booster. Since it does twice the rep that hardly seems to make sense. It has its own drawbacks, so twice the CPU/PG does not seem in order, but it is clearly a better module and should require more fittings, I would think.
I really hope you don't make it a one module per ship thing. A ship should be able to choose two lower powered ASBs. Increased fittings would make going on size or lower a more tempting option.
Alternatively, has any thought be put into a drawback like a CPU penalty for active hardeners? This would reinforce the fitting dilemma and scale it to larger ships. Adding more than one would also discourage using more than a couple. I would even give larger modules larger penalties in this regard. |
|
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Intrepid Crossing
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 08:32:00 -
[111] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:dont touch ASBs they are fine as they are! its the only viable thing we got for active pvp against active armor supremacy! sofar with proposed missle changes and this.. good bye caldari state.. you will be missed.
did you really just say that?
|
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 14:54:00 -
[112] - Quote
What about disallowing to reload an ASB while another is active to balance them against conventional shield boosters ?
ASBs would keep their nifty short time boost and conventional boosters have the advantage as soon as the fight takes longer than the ASB duration (which could also be nerfed, to be fair) |
Ager Agemo
Saturn Reaper
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 22:43:00 -
[113] - Quote
its actually quite a dilema, without ABSs shield tanking is useless in pvp, with them, shield tanking is the only choice for pvp.
i think the 1 second change itself would be already a good balancing factor, it would make them 20% less powerfull, as someone mentioned, they are sort of like an EHP module more than active tanking, so cutting the ammount of charges by a small ammount and adding that 1 second to their cycle time, should be enough to balance them.
7 charges, and 5 seconds keeping the other stats seem to be a good middle point, allows the future T2 version to have 9 charges and some extra boost, and the navy versions to have 10 charges and 1 less seconds.
on the capacitor side i think they can be changed to consume somewhere around 1000 capacitor. ships like my maelstrom right now can hold a ASB for like 7 or more cycles, wich along with resistances means by the time the capacitor is dead, the other XLASB is already reloaded. AND this is the point that really needs to be adressed. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
159
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 22:58:00 -
[114] - Quote
Sarah Moonshine wrote:So you finally make shield tanking (other than shield buffer drakes) viable again and then proceed to nerf it. Guess it's back to 1600mm plates everywhere!
You've got to be trolling... Shield nano and active shield ships have dominated the small scale arena since like forever...
There is a reason xlsb cyclones and sleipnirs were dime a dozen prior to the introduction of the ASB. Now with asb, we have every ship of almost every size fitting as many oversized mods as possibly resulting in active tanks that put even the extremely powerful dead space tanks of the past to shame...
|
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 07:36:00 -
[115] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:its actually quite a dilema, without ABSs shield tanking is useless in pvp, with them, shield tanking is the only choice for pvp.
i think the 1 second change itself would be already a good balancing factor, it would make them 20% less powerfull, as someone mentioned, they are sort of like an EHP module more than active tanking, so cutting the ammount of charges by a small ammount and adding that 1 second to their cycle time, should be enough to balance them.
7 charges, and 5 seconds keeping the other stats seem to be a good middle point, allows the future T2 version to have 9 charges and some extra boost, and the navy versions to have 10 charges and 1 less seconds.
on the capacitor side i think they can be changed to consume somewhere around 1000 capacitor. ships like my maelstrom right now can hold a ASB for like 7 or more cycles, wich along with resistances means by the time the capacitor is dead, the other XLASB is already reloaded. AND this is the point that really needs to be adressed.
Personally I love the fact that active tanking suddenly became good with the ASBs. Whilst toning them down a little is not a bad thing I'd hate to see active tanking thrown back into the dark ages. What's needed now is to bring active armour tanking up to the same standard; do this and suddenly we have speed, armour and shields all as truly viable options for tanking in the smaller sized fights. Scaling will never allow active viable local tanking versus blob alpha, but this would make it king of somewhere at least and get us away from the ehp mentality we've all been forced into for fights of any size. |
Sard Caid
Gunpoint Diplomacy
49
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 05:37:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Bubanni wrote: Perhaps my suggestion above? only being able to reload all the ASBs at the same time? (so you can't run 1 asb, and then reload it while using another)
That is a very interesting take on the problem. I'm going to look more closely at it.
That is a very cool suggestion, one which would probably mean you wouldn't have to nerf ASBs much more from their current stats. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
26
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:29:00 -
[117] - Quote
Right now small ASB's suck meds are meh larges are good XLASB's are OMGWTF!
I'll put stats for med here.
Considering 2x em 1x Therm rigs and Overheating. Non bonused ship.
Medium ASB case 10 cap booster 50's => 25.5 seconds Considering 2 devoted tank slots => 1 SBA 1 MASB Obtained EFT tank 157 Obtained extra EHP before reload = 25.5*157= 4003.5
t2 medium shield Booster Case 2 tank slots = 1 MSB 1 capbooster Obtained EFT tank 73 Time required to reach ASB EHP= 4003.5/73 = 54 sec So any frig fight that gets longer than 54 sec favors the t2 medium shield booster.
t2 medium shield extender case 2 tank slots = 1 Medium Shield Extender 1 Invul Obtained Extra EHP (1 em 2 extender rigs invul OH) 4452 (around 10% better than ASB for a single magazine)
After proposed changes small ASB's will suck more, meds will suck, larges will be meh and XLASB's will be good. I'm not sure if this is a good trade-off. I'd prefer all of them balanced around med level: Fast good burst tank for 25-30 seconds only, but ultimately somehow in-line with other tanking options. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:13:00 -
[118] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Personally I love the fact that active tanking suddenly became good with the ASBs. Whilst toning them down a little is not a bad thing I'd hate to see active tanking thrown back into the dark ages.
I don' t think ASBs are an active tank mod, they're just another buffer tank mod. They are a mechanism of gaining HP that can only be overcome by excessive DPS, just as a LSE is.
True active tanks are able to tank an infinite amount of lowish DPS because of cap regen. This doesn't really apply to ASBs, because they are mainly limited by cap charges, with the cap drain when out of charges being prohibitive. The shield HP that can be acquired from an ASB is therefore limited to a small, predictable range - just like buffer tanking. ASBs' immunity to neuting is another feature shared with buffer tanks, yet absent from true active tanks. If CCP intended ASBs to make active tanking more viable in neut-heavy environments, then they failed, because ASBs are closer to buffer tanks than active tanks.
A better solution for active tanking would be to remove penalties from active-tanking rigs, reduce the fitting requirements and increase the cap drain of Nos, fiddle with booster/repper cycle times to better synchronise them with cap booster cycles and introduce a highslot module that offers, say, a 40% resistance to hostile neuting. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:41:00 -
[119] - Quote
There are far to many off the wall suggestions in this thread that seem to be off the wall for the simple sake of being off the wall.
The obvious solution is to just restrict 1 module per ship and up the fitting req. ASB should be a suplimental mod stacked onto an existing shield tank incase of overwhelming focus fire... It should not be this form of active tanking that has been proven to be far superior to all other forums.
My advise would be to not just make the module "different" for the sake of being "different". |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:31:00 -
[120] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Nikuno wrote:Personally I love the fact that active tanking suddenly became good with the ASBs. Whilst toning them down a little is not a bad thing I'd hate to see active tanking thrown back into the dark ages. I don' t think ASBs are an active tank mod, they're just another buffer tank mod. They are a mechanism of gaining HP that can only be overcome by excessive DPS, just as a LSE is. True active tanks are able to tank an infinite amount of lowish DPS because of cap regen. This doesn't really apply to ASBs, because they are mainly limited by cap charges, with the cap drain when out of charges being prohibitive. The shield HP that can be acquired from an ASB is therefore limited to a small, predictable range - just like buffer tanking. ASBs' immunity to neuting is another feature shared with buffer tanks, yet absent from true active tanks. If CCP intended ASBs to make active tanking more viable in neut-heavy environments, then they failed, because ASBs are closer to buffer tanks than active tanks.
While I get the spirit of what you mean about active tanking it doesn't work that way in reality. Every active tank I run outside of pve relies on cap boosters. The idea of an infinte tank for pvp has been laughable for years now and is the least efficient way of operating a tank that is designed to be highly effective for only a few minutes at a time. ASBs on the other hand do exactly this, but also come with an immunity to neutralisers which is a massive advantage and one not often raised in this discussion.
Gypsio III wrote:A better solution for active tanking would be to remove penalties from active-tanking rigs, reduce the fitting requirements and increase the cap drain of Nos, fiddle with booster/repper cycle times to better synchronise them with cap booster cycles and introduce a highslot module that offers, say, a 40% resistance to hostile neuting, subject to normal stacking penalties (although (super)capitals could probably do horrible things with these).
All of these are nice suggestions, but even if all were enacted it would still leave active armour tanking behind ASBs and shield tanking in general. I do want active tanking to become viable equally for shield and armour, what I really don't want is for this to happen by dragging the ASBs down to the point when we're back to square 1 pre-ASB. |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
384
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:35:00 -
[121] - Quote
Nikuno wrote: While I get the spirit of what you mean about active tanking it doesn't work that way in reality. Every active tank I run outside of pve relies on cap boosters.
Accepted, but I still hold ASBs are closer to LSEs in their dependence on cap, and much further away from true active tanks. Let me see if I can draw a continuum of tank features:
ACTIVE
a) HP gain unlimited in theory, but restricted in practice by cap charges and capacitor amount and regen rate b) Vulnerable to neuting; HP gain can be disabled by neuting
BUFFER
a) HP gain strictly limited, no modification possible b) Invulnerable to neuting; HP gain only overcome by moar DPS
ASBs
a) HP gain strictly limited to cap charges available; the true active option is prohibitively cap-intensive b) Invulnerable to neuting; HP gain only overcome by moar DPS
Or do people think I'm crazy for thinking that this puts ASBs closer to "buffer"? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
384
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:42:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the question of what we're trying to accomplish with the ASBs, then (as has been stated by some in this thread) the goal is to allow for a temporary massive boost.
This can easily be accomplished at no harm to PVE by fiddling with the overload stats of both shield boosters and armour reppers. A new module in the form of the ASB was not necessary. |
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 21:47:00 -
[123] - Quote
Remove them. Fix the problems ASBs were meant to address in a different way. They're a blasphemy to balance and make idiots happy.
I like my idiots sad. |
Tatiana W1sla
Toxic Subprime Assets Inc. Yulai Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 09:05:00 -
[124] - Quote
with this fix we need the navy cap boosters 25/50, and maybe a little buff to the small ASB that at the moment is useless. Overall a good change as they were not supposed to be a permanent capless tank. This way you cannot chain 2 ASB until you run out of cap boosters |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 10:07:00 -
[125] - Quote
As others have iterated, all they needed to do was limit it to one per ship and here's why:
Ancils were designed to make active shield tanking viable without links+crystals (I have a maxed out boosting alt and ancils have made me leave her at home most occasions), the problem is when you have two and you can perma tank until your cargohold runs out of charges, the same as a regular booster, so there's no disadvantage at all.
Removing one booster creates a tension of having enough dps to finish the opposition before depleting charges, or fitting mobility or tackle mods to allow a "tactical retreat".
So many people have tried to explain this and nooooo one has said in ernest "no dual x-l ancils are a.ok. boss", and yet you just say well you know the story...
The only other adjustments that need to be made are bring xl cycle time back in line with other xl boosters and nerfing mediums a bit as well, as they are over powered on frigates, where fights are almost always over before charges become an issue (except when fighting dual td condor DAMN YOU!!!) |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
776
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:04:00 -
[126] - Quote
Akturous wrote: Removing one booster creates a tension of having enough dps to finish the opposition before depleting charges, or fitting mobility or tackle mods to allow a "tactical retreat".
The rest is also damn funny, but this is plain hillarious; I hope you realise the same is true for dual boosters, right - bring enough DPS to wear it down despite the healing power.
In reality, dual ASBs have never been a problem since all they provide is merely some improvement over conventional active tanking, which is aknowledged to be fine all over the board or even underpowered; problem is exactly with ASB stats allowing single ASB setups to outperform in comparison to passive tanking, already dominant in EVE. 14 |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 13:07:00 -
[127] - Quote
I understand what the dude above is and has been atempting to say for some time now. I also think there is some over analyzing of a simple issue on his part v0v back in the day that use to be a serious issue (over analyzing). Which lead to so many bad mechanics and just silly to begin with.
However, I don't fully agree and this issue can be delt with by simply limited these modules to 1 per ship.
Eve-online can be like the chinese game of GO, instead of chess. Simplistic in its design and complicated/difficult to play.
Another way might even be increasing the powergrid usage of xl to like 1500pg and mediums to 75pg and start NERFING boost amount or duration. |
Nicoli Voldkif
Legion of the Obsidion Star
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:50:00 -
[128] - Quote
Anyone toss around the possibility of leaving them like they with the exception of having them cost the current capacitor of an equal sized shield booster with charges? That way you have the trade off of a much higher active tank with a ASB but your limited on charges and can still be neuted. |
Kelleris
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:26:00 -
[129] - Quote
I really like the idea of a stacking penalty. If you used -33% boost amount for each ASB after the first, then pretty much only 1 or 2 would be viable. This would work out to 66% of one ASB's boosting amount continuously if you had 2 of them that you staggered, or 133% of one ASB's boosting amount if you ran them both at the same time. Maybe 25% would be more appropriate, that would give 75% / 150% for the two cases I mentioned above. CCP could tweak this to make dual ASBs (staggered) about the same as a regular shield booster + cap booster, but with the option to run them both at the same time if a bigger burst i needed (eg. the guy you are shooting is in hull and your are bleeding hull between reps). This would mean the second one would be far less effective without nerfing single ASBs and I don't really think anyone thinks the single ASB is unbalanced.
TL;DR = Don't nerf the thing that is working as intended in order to nerf your unintended consequences. |
FunkBoi69
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 19:52:00 -
[130] - Quote
Its simple, make it so that you can only fit one per ship. If you are going to reduce its capacity or even if you're not either make it so that it automatically reloads one charge every 10 secs - 20 secs or make it so that you can use the booster while it is reloading, this will atleast bring it more in line with active tanking and give a cool aspect to the module and make it slightly more stratgic while nerfing it. |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
776
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 20:26:00 -
[131] - Quote
Lol, there's a pharisee uprising or something? I find it utterly odd how passive tank apologists got yet another OP option (single ASB) and want to abuse it as long as possible while trying to bring the active tank option (dual ASB) down at the same time. No way this can be good!
It's like proposing to introduce a 99% web and then make it 'balanced' by limiting to one per ship. Insanity? Apparently, not for some. 14 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 07:58:00 -
[132] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Akturous wrote: Removing one booster creates a tension of having enough dps to finish the opposition before depleting charges, or fitting mobility or tackle mods to allow a "tactical retreat".
The rest is also damn funny, but this is plain hillarious; I hope you realise the same is true for dual boosters, right - bring enough DPS to wear it down despite the healing power. In reality, dual ASBs have never been a problem since all they provide is merely some improvement over conventional active tanking, which is aknowledged to be fine all over the board or even underpowered; problem is exactly with ASB stats allowing single ASB setups to outperform in comparison to passive tanking, already dominant in EVE.
Dual boosters lets you tank enormous dps until your cargo hold runs out and even longer if you use a hauler. One booster gives you 13 shots, that's it.
Your comparison to a 99% web proves that you are infact the result of a poor incest family that no doubt grew up next to Chernobyl, because there's no other way you could be that mong. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
777
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 08:24:00 -
[133] - Quote
Active tank allows you to tank enormous dps until your cargo hold runs out and even longer if you use a hauler. One plate gives you 4200 HP, that's it.
Nerf active tank, yeah. 14 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:16:00 -
[134] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Active tank allows you to tank enormous dps until your cargo hold runs out and even longer if you use a hauler. One plate gives you 4200 HP, that's it.
Nerf active tank, yeah.
So we agree? or are you seriously saying 1 plate is better than an xl ancil... |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
777
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 11:29:00 -
[135] - Quote
Nope, it's you saying 2-3 med reps plus a cap booster are better than 1600mm plate. In terms of tanking specifics, fitting and trade-offs that's pretty much the same comparison as dual ASB vs. single one. 14 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 01:46:00 -
[136] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Nope, it's you saying 2-3 med reps plus a cap booster are better than 1600mm plate. In terms of tanking specifics, fitting and trade-offs that's pretty much the same comparison as dual ASB vs. single one.
I never said any such thing, like I said, not only are you a mong, but you can't read.
3 reps on a myrm is certainly better than one xl asb, because you can tank for sooooo long. You really are being silly and ASBs are not balanced when you have two, the end. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
261
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:39:00 -
[137] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote:If you want to fix the ASB, just make a new modified one and seed it. At the same time stop seeding the old one. This was the original plan from what I remember. Economics will take care of the rest.
Someone has a couple of thousand xl asbs stashed away huh. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
261
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:46:00 -
[138] - Quote
Single asbs are balanced, multiple asbs are broken, answer seems obvious tbh. I would even suggest buffing asb capacity while making them 1 per ship. |
FunkBoi69
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 20:34:00 -
[139] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Single asbs are balanced, multiple asbs are broken, answer seems obvious tbh. I would even suggest buffing asb capacity while making them 1 per ship.
I pretty much agree, i think they should reload a booster every 10 or 15 secs automatically whether active or not instead of one long 60 sec reload. |
Mixu Paatelainen
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:45:00 -
[140] - Quote
Scale boost with cap charge size. Break link with crystals, blue pill etc. |
|
Exer Toralen
Alpha Company
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 19:00:00 -
[141] - Quote
I concur with TheMaster42 that ASB is a problem in small gangs because fights there are often do not last as long as ASB's charges, so ASB essentially provide not a burst but sustained tanking there.
There are enough different ideas here on how to nerf ASB, but here is crazy one how to provide burst tanking (if that was the initial idea) in both small and large gangs.
Make it so that ship with such burst tanking module is invulnerable for module's duration. And make invulnerability countdown refresh if there are hostile actions agains the ship or make invulnerability duration proportional to number of enemy ships in your vicinity. And penalize invulnerable ship with inability to shoot or decreased speed or something else like with different "Now I'm invincible but useless" spells in different RPG games.
This way burst tanking would scale with number of your enemies. And it won't give you an edge that currently makes you are able to out-tank your single enemy (in small gangs like one-on-one) while still blasting him with burst damage.
There are different kinds of such invulnerability. You can make ship getting into something like POS reinforce mode. Or you can still allow lock on it, but make people miss by decreasing signature greatly (thus preventing new enemies from locking you effectively). You can provide one-time bonus to shields or greatly increase resistances temporarily with magnitude being dependent on number of enemies and disappearing after some time. Or you can leave it as shield booster but change amount of shield restored according to number of enemies.
Just make it purely survival module so it stops being an advantage in combat or make it's effect scaling with number of enemies or both.
Yes, it somewhat overlaps with Target Breaker. But that's a matter of another discussion. |
Dante KamiyaX
Blood RaiderZ. Disaster Strikes
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 13:08:00 -
[142] - Quote
A better solution is to give armor rep ships a similar ver of an ASB only it reps armor instead of shields
I hope you don't nerf every good thing that has come to solo pvp and make it just less solo pvp friendly
Thats what tends to happen |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 16:20:00 -
[143] - Quote
The thing that always bothered me about ASB's is the fact they seem like passive modules untill they run out of charges. These modules seem like a new category. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Cpt Arareb
Ideal Machine Academy The Ideal Machine
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 04:46:00 -
[144] - Quote
Make asb-¦s use cap charges and ur own ship capacitor at the same time at a ratio of 50/50 or something, if your ship get neuted and there is no more ship capacitor to feed the 50%(or whatever) that a cycle need, then the asb will only rep at 50% of maximum power due to the cap charges.
With this changes you get an active module that you can counter(neuts) that is dificult to be viable in dual asb fits cause it will be dificult to keep ur ship-¦s capacitor running all those cycles to 100% power w/o need of a cap booster(that means another slot need to be used), and you still get ur temporary tank cause the cap charges are still letting the asb run at 50% of is capacity(probably doing the same repping power of normal shield booster).
And if you dont have cap charges to help run those cycles you get the amount capacitor of those cap chargers taken from your ship-¦s capacitor as well. bam problem solved, you get a unique type of supper repping module but with real drawbacks this time. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 11:56:00 -
[145] - Quote
I too support the 1 module per ship solution.
Having flown single MASB frigates against MSE frigates, the ASBs give only marginally more EHP after 10 boosts (and by marginally I mean 2 boosts extra boosts worth or 400-600 more EHP). I'm fine with this advantage given that the disadvantage is that the ASB fit is more vulnerable to large alpha. If the MASB is reduced to only 7 boosts, I doubt they'll be used on any ship.
The XLASBs are also great as they provide a solution to a lot of ships that weren't viable active tankers before due to cap issues (or inadequate fitting to fit both a XL Shield Booster + Cap Booster). As others have mentioned, the issue is 2 XLASBs provide more sustained active tank than a Deadspace XL Shield Booster + Cap Booster (to cope with the cap). Deadspace XL Shield Booster fits were still vulnerable to cap warfare even with a cap booster as heavy neuting meant they could only boost for a few seconds after a cap injection before neuts shut the cap downa gain. Dual ASBs don't have this vulnerability and above it give more booster than their deadspace equivalent? No that's too much. However take away the 2nd ASB and the fit becomes beatable again since the 60 second reload factor will actually come into play (which if I'm not mistaken was CCPs intention to begin with).
As others have pointed out, the proposed nerf isn't tackling the issue of having dual ASBs which overcome the reload factor and provide more sustained active tanking than Shield Booster + Cap Booster, but instead unnecessarily nerfs the legitimate use of ASBs, which I believe is already balanced (Alliance Tournament clearly showed that single ASB fits were quite beatable and a lot of ships went down once they went into reload). |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 12:05:00 -
[146] - Quote
Dante KamiyaX wrote:A better solution is to give armor rep ships a similar ver of an ASB only it reps armor instead of shields
I hope you don't nerf every good thing that has come to solo pvp and make it just less solo pvp friendly
Thats what tends to happen Armor repping ships needed buffing before ASBs, this isn't an ASB related issue. The ASB issue (i.e. dual ASB fits) does need to be dealt with of itself, although it may have highlighted some significant weaknesses with active armor tanking. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
783
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 16:58:00 -
[147] - Quote
Cap is another reason why ASB itself is so borked - it makes ship capacitor pretty meaningless tanking-wise, allowing hacs to tank like command ships and cruisers like BCs. Sheer stupidity. 14 |
FunkBoi69
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 19:25:00 -
[148] - Quote
Well you need cap to hold point and lets face it if your not using an invuln u have no buffer. As for all these arguments regarding shield tank being OP compared to armor, thats bull. Armor tank can usually fit a mwd and web whereas shield tank usually sacrifices these to get bigger tanks, armor just doesnt give u that option so they always have both an MWD and WEB fit. Armor tanks can also usually fit dual boosters as well and are a lot more cap efficient and more cap stable. If u were to fit a Maelstrom with a MWD and WEB and DUAL CAP BOOSTERS you would have an inferior tank compared to a Hyperion even with hi grade crystals, so please stfu about armor tank needing a buff too. CCP can you please post some of your bloody thoughts so we know what direction your looking at going in... |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
144
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 14:51:00 -
[149] - Quote
I'm going to throw in my own opinion here, while I think that ASBs need looked at, I can honestly say that they have made Active tanking viable, without the massive support system behind pre ASB tanks, what I'm essentially saying is it means you no longer need Tengu links or billions of isk in implants to have a 'Bitchin' tank on you BS, I have been doing it with a T2 fit and some improved Blue.
Limiting to 1 ASB or even making it so Links/Implants dont effect ASBs I would be fine with, but dont nerf these modules into the ground ,plox CCP. |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
144
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 17:33:00 -
[150] - Quote
oops |
|
Rose Roses
Blue-Fire Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 11:24:00 -
[151] - Quote
Why don't you add the target painter's stacking penalties (the harsh ones) to the shieldboostamount instead of -- with the current planning -- totally nerf single ASB out of this game.... honestly, with 9 charges instead of 13, I won't mount that thing to any hull. Just the obscene fitting requirements aren't justified if the module itself isn't really that good anymore.
In the case of the more usual dual large cruiser/bc setups, I doubt they give a **** if they need to reload after 9 or 13 times the diference is way less aggravating. (Assuming that most dual-ASB ships more than sufficiently tank on one booster already, afaik) [recently fought a dual-large ASB tengu with SBAs instead of invulns as part of a gangfight, still took ashimmu, loki and ~5 other factioncruisers/battlecruisers 3 minutes to kill that tengu t.T]
So dual ASB still works kind of equally with less sustained maxtank, single ASB-setups (the one that this module was intended to support) will receive a hard nerf. YAY. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
784
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 12:27:00 -
[152] - Quote
As someone who actually PvPs and has experience of using both single and dual ASB I don't see how current changes nerf either of these options into ground. I'd still be using both, unless conventional tank receives a buff at the same time, which is unlikely to happen and is not even needed in the first place. The only reason why active tank is underused is cause passive/buffer tank is absurdly good, we shouldn't be delusional about that. ASB is even more OP than buffer tank, deal with it getting fixed.
As for testing particular things, I for one do think that test servers and artificial environment don't provide proper ground for all-around testing, excluding 1 on 1 fights which on the other hand are only a tiny part of actual PvP and hardly proove anything.
CCP, just release the changes and keep your mind open for further adjustments. 14 |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:53:00 -
[153] - Quote
I'm not sure about these changes. They have reduced some of the values. So, we'll see how things go if implemented. If these modules are still superior to regular shield boosters. Then that's not a really a fix. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 18:35:00 -
[154] - Quote
Can we at least know why it is perfectly fine to have more than 1 asb in game but not in tournaments? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
427
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 07:56:00 -
[155] - Quote
Honestly can you guys just bite the bullet and cast ASBs back into the fiery chasm from whence they came already? On a theoretical level they're just profoundly silly modules-- there's a reason all active tanking schemes were cap-dependent prior to their introduction.
Remove ASBs, rebalance historical shield boosters to provide more rep and consume less cap. Proper shield boosters can't practically be stacked like ASBs and leave the user vulnerable to heavy neuting (small amounts of neuting can be countered by cap injection, but large amounts can't, which is as it should be).
ASBs are a silly concept, whereas normal boosters are a good concept that suffers from poor implementation. Toss out the silly and fix the good. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
785
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 10:36:00 -
[156] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Honestly can you guys just bite the bullet and cast ASBs back into the fiery chasm from whence they came already? On a theoretical level they're just profoundly silly modules-- there's a reason all active tanking schemes were cap-dependent prior to their introduction.
Remove ASBs, rebalance historical shield boosters to provide more rep and consume less cap. Proper shield boosters can't practically be stacked like ASBs and leave the user vulnerable to heavy neuting (small amounts of neuting can be countered by cap injection, but large amounts can't, which is as it should be).
ASBs are a silly concept, whereas normal boosters are a good concept that suffers from poor implementation. Toss out the silly and fix the good. Agreed, even though it's unlikely to happen.
But the idea to remove or reduce commitment factors from underpowered stuff instead of introducing those to overpowered one is dubious. Active tanking was tied with cap and that was good, just like 10-minutes siege mode was good for making dreads balanced - but instead of creating something simular for other capitals (titans and moms) they just cut siege timers in half. Apparently, the same was true for ASB, but even to a bigger extent. Nerfing commitment and reducing vulnerability instead of developing them... meh...
Given this weird logic, I wonder how CCP managed to come up with turret tracking back then - evidently, tracking is also 'bad' the same way siege and cap dependancy are. 14 |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1069
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:18:00 -
[157] - Quote
I like the idea of the no reload while one is running. However if you do this, I'd suggest buffing the reload time, potentially in half.
I'd further reduce the capacity of them so that they can only hold 9 charges.
During the spring sometime you can begin to introduce the higher meta ASB's which would give varying bonuses to reload time, cycle time and capacity (not boost amount).
The highest meta would be in line to what is currently out and while having two of these equipped it would function exactly how they do right now but would just be really rare and potentially cost prohibitive outside people pimping out things like Nightmares. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 22:25:00 -
[158] - Quote
I think limiting the module to one per ship is not a good idea. PG/CPU are here for that, and if the problem is the number, then make the fitting cost prohibitive if you use more than one. And if, then, the module is not effective enough for its cost, then you need to boost the effect. But the reverse is also possible : lower the effect of one and keep it's cost. If one is still worth fitting and two are not OP anymore, then it's balanced too.
But I think these changes are good : with a shorter lifespan, then the off time is longer,and that leave more time to kill the ship. The off time also come sooner, solving the problem of longer fights. |
Straahl
House of Dying Laggers
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:10:00 -
[159] - Quote
nahjustwarpin wrote:Can we at least know why it is perfectly fine to have more than 1 asb in game but not in tournaments?
Same reason why you can't field 4 of any given ship, have only 1 logistic, can't fit faction/officer mods, only field a maximum of 12 pilots, intentional pod killing is illegal, can't leave the arena, etc.. Tournament matches Gëá the in-game environment. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10079
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 12:41:00 -
[160] - Quote
Another vote for 1-module limit (regardless of size GÇö no mixing sizes).
Also, make them match the size of the ship and cap charges: XLSBs shouldn't fit on anything smaller than battleships; LSBs should be a tight squeeze below BCs; MSBs fit on cruisersGǪ and have each accept one und only van cap charge size.
If you don't like the charge size limitation, how about this for a brainfart: revamp the module almost completely. Give them zero cycle time, but make the shield rep amount directly proportional to the cap charge used. Yes, you can blow 800x HP back in your shield as quickly as you can press the button, but you also expend 800-cap charges that fastGǪ so you'll run out in 3 seconds flat and then you have to face that 60-second reload (and you can still only fit one of them). Thus, it doesn't matter what charge you use GÇö they're all equally valuable for the purpose of filling your shield. Instead, you're weighing your ability to rapidly tap a button (and hope the server keeps up) against your wish to not waste charges on over-boosting the shield against making the most use of your available cargo space against what you might need for your regular cap booster. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 15:56:00 -
[161] - Quote
Straahl wrote:nahjustwarpin wrote:Can we at least know why it is perfectly fine to have more than 1 asb in game but not in tournaments? Same reason why you can't field 4 of any given ship, have only 1 logistic, can't fit faction/officer mods, only field a maximum of 12 pilots, intentional pod killing is illegal, can't leave the arena, etc.. Tournament matches Gëá the in-game environment.
That still doesn't explain why you are allowed to fit only one ASB. Why is the ASB the only standard mod that is restricted? Because it was OP. |
Spurty
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
524
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 16:03:00 -
[162] - Quote
It's a great module!
Should be like the damage control unit though. Strictly one per ship!
Please listen to the posters here. They really have their fingers on the pulse.
Dual (or more) ASB is just silly.
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
789
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 17:15:00 -
[163] - Quote
Spurty wrote:It's a great module!
Should be like the damage control unit though. Strictly one per ship!
This comparison is quite telling - we surely need more must-have modules in the game. 14 |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
711
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 19:35:00 -
[164] - Quote
James1122 wrote:keep them as they are and just limit it so you can only fit 1 per ship
^this. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
862
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 19:51:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Again, we're still in the process of figuring out the best way to adjust the ASBs...
Quite simple, pick a Megathron active armor tanking and run after a double XL-ASB Sleipnir.
If you need me to help you with fittings, please be my guest to convo/mail me in game. brb |
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:29:00 -
[166] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1943688#post1943688
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Yes, until we do the navy 50 version. Which I think we're going to do at some point, I just don't think it will make it into the winter expansion. But I've been wrong before Ahhhhh my hawk becomes possible to kill for a couple of months! :P You should try the quadruple-ASB Kitsune fit
really? there are more players than you, and they want this game somewhat balanced |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1429
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:12:00 -
[167] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2093180#post2093180
To quote from my post in that thread:
"If they really wanted a complex but efficient rebalancing of the ASBs, they would make them use both cap charges and ship capacitor for power, albeit independently of each other so that you could still get shields even without cap (let's say 70% comes from the batteries, and the rest from ship capacitor). That would be an interesting design, since it would bring back cap injectors and neutralizers into fitting considerations without fully nerfing the capless boosting concept." (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:48:00 -
[168] - Quote
My personal preference on 'fixing' ASBs would be to make them a one-shot activation.
You activate it, it cycles through ALL its loaded charges.
You would still get the amazing burst tank, but now dual ASBs aren't enough to cover the reload time. You have to commit to your ASB tanking, it's all or nothing.
This maintains the power of the module against big-number incoming dps, but balances it with a set, short, tanking time. The upshot of this would be that against targets over time, or against lower dps it is far less efficient and more vulnerable than a normal booster. It is no longer a 'best choice always' module.
Engage a gang with serious dps or need to tank enough to gatecrash or de-aggress = ASB would be better. Engage at a celestial and in it for the duration = repper / buffer / passive is a better choice.
Paper, scissors, stone =/= EVE It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
400
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:41:00 -
[169] - Quote
One thing I never got my my head around about ASBs... Given that shield is utterly dominant in the solo/small-gang-skirmish environment, and that armour is utterly dominant in the capital environment, why did CCP think it was a good idea to reinforce that awful imbalance even further by introducing the ASB which has skewed solo/small-gang even further towards shield, and the reactive armour hardener which, thanks to prohibitive cap drain and its innate reaction time, only approaches usefulness on heavy ships with abundant lowslots and EHP such as capitals.
I mean, in what crazy world was it decided that further accentuating the already severe tanking imbalance was a good idea? |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
711
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:26:00 -
[170] - Quote
The amount of people in this thread supporting a '1 ABS max' solution is rather overwhelming and coming from many people that are not simply theory-crafting, but have a lot of first-hand experience.
Wanna bet CCP SoniClover is going to ignore them all anyway to implement his own original ham-fisted 'solution'?
It seemed to be pretty much his m.o. when working on the wardecs, ignoring expert input except for some tiny details, so to show he 'listened'. And there were also plenty of players already warning against the current ABS problem when it was still being tested on SiSi months ago...
The suggested decrease in charge capacity isn't going to solve imbalance, nor is it going to restrict the use to short skirmishes. And on top of that it also further reinforces the shield dominance in non-capital warfare. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
Capqu
Love Squad
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:47:00 -
[171] - Quote
plz 1 per ship & no other changes
tia http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:47:00 -
[172] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2093180#post2093180
To quote from my post in that thread:
"If they really wanted a complex but efficient rebalancing of the ASBs, they would make them use both cap charges and ship capacitor for power, albeit independently of each other so that you could still get shields even without cap (let's say 70% comes from the batteries, and the rest from ship capacitor). That would be an interesting design, since it would bring back cap injectors and neutralizers into fitting considerations without fully nerfing the capless boosting concept."
This is a cool idea and a potential way to go. We've been toying with a similar concept, which is very simple to implement - currently the cap booster charges reduce cap need 100%, but we can easily have them reduce it by less than that. The main difference here is that if the capacitor doesn't have enough cap then the shield boosting will not work at all. This change is not in the version on Duality over the weekend, as we feel adding it will nerf the ASBs too much. So if we introduce this we would most likely revert some of the other changes already made.
Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet. |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:53:00 -
[173] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Just do stacking penalties!! (Pleaaaaaase)
just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount.
or maybe less drastic, like 85% and 65% |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:15:00 -
[174] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Does this mean we will get navy cap booster 50s? 50s are what people use in medium ASBs. Maybe even navy cap booster 25s for small ASBs, even though they arent used much. Most like not at this time.
This is great news, i hope people stop flying fkin frigs now and fly a real ship. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:24:00 -
[175] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Just do stacking penalties!! (Pleaaaaaase) just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount. or maybe less drastic, like 85% and 65%
I'm not sure stacking penalties would do much, as they would only really affect ASBs if you have two or more active at the same time. Stacking penalties do not check how many modules are fitted, only how many things are affecting the same stat (that has been flagged to use stacking penalty) at any given time. So you could still get maximum efficiency out of dual-ASBs as long as you only use one of them at a time, which is the normal case anyway.
It would be possible to do some pseudo-stacking penalty based on number of modules fitted, but it would be a dirty hack. |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:52:00 -
[176] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Just do stacking penalties!! (Pleaaaaaase) just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount. or maybe less drastic, like 85% and 65% I'm not sure stacking penalties would do much, as they would only really affect ASBs if you have two or more active at the same time. Stacking penalties do not check how many modules are fitted, only how many things are affecting the same stat (that has been flagged to use stacking penalty) at any given time. So you could still get maximum efficiency out of dual-ASBs as long as you only use one of them at a time, which is the normal case anyway. It would be possible to do some pseudo-stacking penalty based on number of modules fitted, but it would be a dirty hack.
Possible future version then if it requires a bit of a new method for coding. Doesn't have to be for retribution, but I really think just reducing total boost amount based on how many boosters are fit is a good way to do it. The real problem is the fact that they can run so powerfully no matter how many boosters are fit. Having a single one run powerfully for a period isn't all that broken. On bonused ships, it gets a bit ridiculous, but it's not impossible to fight. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
527
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:16:00 -
[177] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Just do stacking penalties!! (Pleaaaaaase) just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount. or maybe less drastic, like 85% and 65% I'm not sure stacking penalties would do much, as they would only really affect ASBs if you have two or more active at the same time. Stacking penalties do not check how many modules are fitted, only how many things are affecting the same stat (that has been flagged to use stacking penalty) at any given time. So you could still get maximum efficiency out of dual-ASBs as long as you only use one of them at a time, which is the normal case anyway. It would be possible to do some pseudo-stacking penalty based on number of modules fitted, but it would be a dirty hack.
as you point out yourself, that people normally use 1 ASB at a time, even when fitting two, because that will give them enough time to reload the first asb while the second one is tanking,
I really think the main problem is that people can reload their ASB while still using another ASB..., I think I suggested it before, but what if the charges from ASBs where considered the same "pool", so when you have 2 ASB, you pull the charges from the same total pool (thus you run out on both ASBs at the same time) it would then be impossible to reload 1 ASB while using another, as they should both reload at the same time then....
Alternatively, make ASB unable to activate if another ASB is reloading (but you should be able to cancel reload then) another idea is to make a set maximum of charges that can be used at the same time, (lets say 14 or whatever) if you fit 1 ASB, it will have 14 charges, if you fit 2 ASB, each asb will have 7 charges... (or 3 asb = 14/3)
or as a last resort, simply limit to 1 ASB per ship... if people really want "dual ASB", they can just fit 1 ASB, and 1 normal shield booster :D Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Tarmageddon
Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:29:00 -
[178] - Quote
I understand that CCP wanted a TEMPORARY massive boost to shield, and at the moment it's just not temporary enough.
I think as has been mentioned before that the ASB works more as a giant buffer than an active tank in that if you KEEP shooting an ASB fitted ship it will eventually run out of charges and die, as opposed to an active tank system which will tank a certain amount of DPS indefinitely. The problem is that at the moment the buffer is just too big.
For example, a corp-mate has a dual ASB Sleipnir which can tank something like 5.5k DPS until he runs out of charges, which unfortunately is several minutes, and as any PvPer will testify seconds and minutes become mini-lifetimes when you are in the heat of battle. The ASB has not robbed any of the Sleipnir's hitting power, so whilst my regular buffer-tanked ship is not out-gunned it is simply a matter of whose timer runs out of first, and at the moment due to the power of the ASB it's always going to be mine.
My solution to the problem would be to make the ASB non-reloadable, and in order to give the same initial boost but make it wear off more quickly I would make it so the actual boost given by the ASB reduced with each cycle until it was empty, for example (based on the module's current stats):
Cycle 1: 100% Cycle 2: 98% Cycle 3: 94% Cycle 4: 88% Cycle 5: 80% Cycle 6: 70% Cycle 7: 58% Cycle 8: 44% Cycle 9: 28%
So you can see, for the first three cycles they get pretty much the same whack as they do from the current module, for the 4th and fifth it's still no laughing matter for the enemy but after that it really starts to wear off until it runs out of charges and the buffer is spent.
After that, well, you better hope you killed them in time! |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
403
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:09:00 -
[179] - Quote
If CCP wanted to give active tanks the ability to temporarily tank massive DPS, then this could have been easily achieved simply by increasing the bonuses to boost/rep amount associated with overheating. There was simply no need to introduce a new module, the mechanic already existed. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
794
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:39:00 -
[180] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:If CCP wanted to give active tanks the ability to temporarily tank massive DPS, then this could have been easily achieved simply by increasing the bonuses to boost/rep amount associated with overheating. There was simply no need to introduce a new module, the mechanic already existed. True.
The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how CCP time and time again refused to give us any reasoning on why they had introduced this new module. Cause, frankly, only two options are possible:
1) ASB is balanced in line with conventional tank, but since conventional tank is aknowledged to be somewhat overpowered why introduce yet another module of that sort
OR
2) ASB is overpowered - and then why the hell do we need conventional tank at all in the first place 14 |
|
Ogopogo Mu
O C C U P Y Test Friends Please Ignore
98
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 20:21:00 -
[181] - Quote
I have not been playing a lot for the past couple of weeks. RL is one reason. ASBs are another. I loved flying small gang/solo active shield ships, even though they were quirky and niche. The introduction of the ASB just made everything boring regardless of which side of the engagement the ASB was.
I thought the ASB was a sort of well-intentioned but terribly misguided attempt to address the awfulness of active shield tanking outside of a very narrow window of engagement types. When you compare the slot requirements and burst tanks of a fairly typical active shield booster ship with cap injector versus an ASB setup, the ASB wins every time. As far as the "weaknesses" of the ASB, "waiting until the guy loses his ASB charges" is pretty much saying, "to counter this module you just have to do a shitton of extra damage while also handling return fire and sitting around waiting for backup," which is ridiculous. As already pointed out, multiple ASBs counter this as well. The loss of the utility of a cap booster in a standard setup is nothing at all compared to the staying power of a dual setup.
An ASB is not strictly analogous to a buffer tank either, although people do treat them that way. It's not the same because while ASB-boosting you aren't subject to the vagaries of peak recharge rate. You cannot slowly burn through the top 2/3 of the buffer and then overheat like crazy to chew past the peak. You just have to keep shooting.
ASBs also invalidate the Shield Compensation skill, which is the only skill that focuses only on active tanking.
As for the idea that, "We wanted a module that would give a gigantic emergency burst tank"... why? Was there a glaring need for a massive cap-free neut-immune repair system that runs for just under a minute solid? I don't get it, but based on this and the highly questionable idea of the lockbreaker module, I think someone is spacemad about blobs. If massive focus fire bothers people a lot, the best solution (possibly tough to implement) is to put a much smaller than normal stack penalty on incoming damage. The math is tricky on it, though.
Removing the ASB is probably not a practical corrective action at this point, although if this change were thoroughly tested it should have probably been drawing-boarded by doing exactly this before release to Tranquility. I suppose if the goal is to actually fix active tanking, then fix active tanking... standard active tanking... and reduce the desirability of the ASB's burst tank so that it's an option, not the only option.
|
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
16
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 13:49:00 -
[182] - Quote
I realize I'm way late to this party, but I'd like to sneak one suggestion in:
As an alternative to the limit-1 popular suggestion, how about allowing as many ASBs as the pilot wants, but linking them together such that they all reload at the same time. It's a little stickier implementation-wise as you have to deal with what to do when a reload is requested on one while another is still cycling (not impossible, though... just have the rest automatically go into reload as soon as their current cycle completes), but it would enforce the reload vulnerability phase without having to institute another hard limit on a module. |
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 03:58:00 -
[183] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount.
75% * 2 = 150%
50% * 3 = 150%
I lol'd. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
416
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:13:00 -
[184] - Quote
here's my .02 ISK on the different solutions:
- one ASB per ship: solid solution, albeit a little awkward, because it looks like a band-aid fix (which it isn't imo).
- capacity/cycle time nerf: ok solution but smells even more like a band-aid fix.
- ASBs use charges AND cap: good solution. ASBs being immune to neuts seems a little over to top to my mind. if you can implement it so that the ASB provides a little boost for a little cap or big boost for a little cap + a booster charge, but cannot be activated when you have no cap (even if it is loaded), that would be pretty awesome. so if you have an XL ASB, you are effectively running a gist X-Type XL as long as you have charges. after you run out of charges, the boost per cap ratio goes down to 1:1, so you are basically running a T1 large booster, or no booster if you choose to reload.
- all other solutions: meh.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
227
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 20:32:00 -
[185] - Quote
What I don't like is that neither the original concept or the solution put forward to nerf address the fact that it's literally a waste to use the bigger cap charges available for the module. When using a capacitor booster, I have the option to use different sizes and they have their pros and cons - it should work the same for ASBs.
An example could be that bigger charges give a few bigger boosts while smaller charges give many small boosts, giving you the option between a shorter but more powerful burst tank or a weaker, yet more sustained one.
Whatever the exact mechanics are, it shouldn't be a nobrainer to just go for the capacitor charges that you can fit the most in the ASB. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Denson022
Defiance LLC
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 12:06:00 -
[186] - Quote
Well a dual XL ASB myrm is better than triple armor ... just make this kind of fit impossible on unbonused ships For the dual asb fits.... i used the underdog Cyclone way before the asb came out, and i like my dual LASB fit
with normal charges (10 in LASB) you get 40 sec of perma run then 60 sec reload, the second asb covers 40 sec
so my cyclone is vulnerable 20 sec and only 8 sec with navy charges. The 20 sec hole is ok, i'd say i ll accept even a 30 sec one, you have to gamble on shields and armor buffer to get to reload but with Navy charges the 8 sec will be covered most of the time by the ships shields alone
Now the new charge count on duality seems a little better.
7 charges = 28 sec of permatank / with a second asb the vulnerability hole is 32 sec 9 navy = 36 sec of permatank / --------------------------------------------------------------- 24 sec
What i want to point out is that Navy charges are not making ASB OP, the vulnerability hole is quite significant in both cases. The only problem i see is the big price difference in normal charges and navy for a 22 % longer continous tank. Still needs testin to see if it's woth it.
The increased cap need of ASB while out of charges is a mistake IMHO, if i have some cap left in my ship i can get 2-3 cycles more (with actual stats), without charges ASB is as efficient as meta 1 SB.
For the XLASB problem i think that the cyclone should be the only T1 BC to be able to fit it. It's Minmatars tanking BC, it has a role shield boost bonus, it's supposed to be able like other races tanking BC get oversized tanking modules. Maybe increasing CPU requirement a little and giving bonused ships cpu reduction could fix the problem.
The other idea given here is that ASB uses some portion of ships cap, while that % should be set wisely i like that idea too. That way NOSFERATU would make a comeback on my cyclone fit, NOS ensures i can activate ASB few more times but still the ships is vulnerable to neuting, NOS gives me a chance (gamble) to survive or not, like cap injected at the moment you are neutet.... That should also be tested on Duality.
Thats my 2 cent feel free to comment. |
Meldorn Vaash
State War Academy Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 20:53:00 -
[187] - Quote
1st... Leave the boosted amounts alone. They are fine. 2nd... Limit the number of ASB on a ship to 1. If you want more shield boost, add an amp or a standard shield booster. 3rd... INCREASE the capacity of the ASBs to hold 20 charges... removes the need for dual ASBs. 4th... CHANGE the cap booster requirement to the largest size it can hold. IE XL takes 800s, Lrg takes 400 etc etc... 5th... Cargo bay size is now the hard limit to the number of "reloads" you get. 6th... CHANGE reload time to 30 seconds. 60 seconds is insanely long. Done
*Puts on fire suit*
Go........ |
Mars Theran
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
408
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 21:33:00 -
[188] - Quote
My first reaction to ASBs was, "Why do the cap booster charges have less cap than this thing takes from your ship?;" "Why doesn't your ship supply the excess Capacitor?; Does it?;" "Why are there different ones, when obviously the smallest is better given it doesn't matter how much cap it supplies?"
Those were the questions I asked myself in relative sequence as I fit and tried one out. There is an issue with not needing to supply that extra cap, and also with the cap boosters being interchangeable with no impact on the modules performance.
Also, increasing cycle times only makes them less useful in PvP. It could negate their usefulness entirely as time is of the essence.
This is the problem with active modules, and I don't truly understand why nobody sees it. It's pretty obvious. Incoming DPS in PvP is fast and furious, and you need a fast, furious response from an active module to make it feasible to use.
You can expect it to operate that way and not OP a ship for PvE use, which is a balancing issue for PvE vs. PvP playstyles if the amount boosted isn't adjusted to bring it in line with incoming damage and NPC effectiveness to retain a challenging PvE environment.
Here's my thought:
Adjust Armor and Shield Active Repair modules down in terms of time between Reps.
A 5 second Duration Module for example, should be adjusted to half that, or just marginally more than as a base. Make it a 3 second module, with player skills reducing it further. Take the 12 second armor modules and make them 6 second modules.
Reduce the amount Repped per cycle by ~35% and multiply by 2. This increases the overall effectiveness of the module, while improving its effectiveness in PvP with reduced cycle durations. This might save a ship subject to multiple high alpha strikes.
Reduce the Capacitor requirements by ~ 65%, then multiply by 2. Active Modules on ships require far too much capacitor, depleting even the most Capacitor Heavy ship of appropriate class quite easily for little gain.
Multiply the Powergrid and CPU requirements by 2.15 and 1.95 respectively.
Now you have a more fitting module that Reps better, and cuts the module requirements by half to get a decent amount of Repping out of it. Most players fit one size up for a reason, taking a heavy Powergrid and CPU hit for the sake of a much needed boost to rep amount.
We're fitting large Shield Extenders, XL-ASBs, XL-SBs, and the like on Cruisers and BattleCruisers because the appropriate sized module is for all intents and purposes useless for that class of ship.
My numbers above are non-specific, (more appropriate to Armor Reps than SBs), and sort of random, but I think it is a general idea with final implementation up to you, (the Devs), anyway.
ASBs are just a symptom of a larger problem. Active modules are pathetically inappropriate for PvP in most cases. The ASB itself is the opposite because it doesn't have to be balanced for missions with the 60 second duration to reload. It's very poor reasoning that lands us with modules like these.
They all need to be fixed. Balanced to provide a good boost to effectiveness in PvP, while not making them stupidly powerful for use in PvE. They also need to be adjusted so fitting an XL SB on a Cruiser isn't possible without flying gunless. Bring them in line with their appropriate classes.
ASB could suffer the following:
~ Increase to fitting requirements ~ Bring Cap use and Rep amount in line with Cap Booster charges used ~ Adjust cycle duration time downwards ~ Adjust other specs for reduced cycle duration time ~ Increase capacity ~ Either allow only one booster charge type, or have different rep amounts depending on booster charge used.
None of this throwing in the smallest charge which provides half the cap requirement and having it rep the full amount per cycle with more available cycles. That just means everyone is going to use that charge exclusively.
Navy Cap boosters are not expensive, though they have less types available.
Disclaimer: I did absolutely no research on this, but generally just dropped this from memory of the issues I've seen with these modules. Personal experience and otherwise. I don't feel like individually calculating each one and various changes at this time.
Suffice to say, the result should be that a Active booster fit can provide the same or similar effect as a buffer fit of same approximate fitting requirements over a certain period of time. It should be able to handle sustained incoming DPS, and even some amount of High Alpha DPS.
So if you take a 30 second period of PvP, an active fit should manage to Rep maybe 80% of what a Buffer fit of same PG + CPU cost can sustain in that period. 80% because it is subject to high Alpha as a weakness, requires Capacitor, but can be managed indefinitely depending on capacitor management.
That's just an estimate, comparable benefit aside. These are all just ideas, as my only intent is to offer a variety of ways to look at changing this system in general. Currently, it is completely fubar, with some active fits being extremely good, and 98% of them being utterly useless in PvP, aside from ASBs which dominate everything.
It's ridiculous that the expectations for fitting are limited to Either buffer tank or ASB, and mostly buffer tank regardless, except for solo and small gangs.
The whole thing as it is, just makes me go, "Aaaggghhhh!!!" zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub |
Maggeridon Thoraz
Reconfiguration Nation Transmission Lost
32
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 00:14:00 -
[189] - Quote
Meldorn Vaash wrote:1st... Leave the boosted amounts alone. They are fine. 2nd... Limit the number of ASB on a ship to 1. If you want more shield boost, add an amp or a standard shield booster. 3rd... INCREASE the capacity of the ASBs to hold 20 charges... removes the need for dual ASBs. 4th... CHANGE the cap booster requirement to the largest size it can hold. IE XL takes 800s, Lrg takes 400 etc etc... 5th... Cargo bay size is now the hard limit to the number of "reloads" you get. 6th... CHANGE reload time to 30 seconds. 60 seconds is insanely long. Done
*Puts on fire suit*
Go........ this will inbalance and overpower the asb even more. |
Denson022
Defiance LLC
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:01:00 -
[190] - Quote
Just a feedback on LASB and XLASB cap use when out of charges. They are out of target.
LASB needs 528 Gj for activation and reps 390 HP XL SB needs 400 Gj for activation and reps 450 HP
Now ASB has a 4 sec cycle while XL SB has 5 sec
So i ll compare them on a 20 sec basis
XL SB nets 4 rep cycles : 4 x 450 = 1800 HP and 4 x 400Gj = 1600 Gj needed LASB nets 5 rep cycles : 5 * 390 = 1950 HP and 5*528Gj = a staggering 2640 Gj
ratio: XL SB has a 1.125 HP per Gj LASB has a 0.738 HP per Gj
The only thing i ask is to bring ASB Cap need a little closer to meta 1 SB level... I thing a 435-450 GJ would be a good choice for this module. Compared to XL SB meta1 the LASB get 150 HP (8% more tha XLSB) more in 20 sec and if i m out of charges it needs 10% more cap than the standard Shield Booster. |
|
Gabriel Braun
Astraea Rising Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 19:47:00 -
[191] - Quote
Well after exhaustive testing of the ASBs on Buckingham in different scenarios with our corp I can give my impressions:
Using 2x aSB was found to be insufficient when used in both 1v1 and 4v4 and had a significant disadvantage over constant active when trying to cycle because of reload; no fallback after caps run out means these are best deployed (in our opinion) on either commands or ecms to provide group time to deal with focus and really should not be fitted at all when soloing unless you have an EXTREME dps output and pick your victims carefully or you know help isn't far away.
Using 1x aSB+SB is a difficult one to call we found but agreed that this is much better for both scenarios. The booster provides constant hp regen and the asb can be fired in an emergency. Probably the intended purpose actually :)
Using an armour tank > asb! The sheer reistances that an armour tank can provide negated the benefits of the asb burst hp in every test that took more than a few minutes.
Our opinion: Asb should not be a limited module, reload time is crippling if not times correctly; Charges should be module size based not capacity. Untested in fleet fight as pointless, alpha will remove and perceived benefit at the same time it removes the plating and structure |
Mars Theran
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
412
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 06:51:00 -
[192] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2093180#post2093180
To quote from my post in that thread:
"If they really wanted a complex but efficient rebalancing of the ASBs, they would make them use both cap charges and ship capacitor for power, albeit independently of each other so that you could still get shields even without cap (let's say 70% comes from the batteries, and the rest from ship capacitor). That would be an interesting design, since it would bring back cap injectors and neutralizers into fitting considerations without fully nerfing the capless boosting concept." This is a cool idea and a potential way to go. We've been toying with a similar concept, which is very simple to implement - currently the cap booster charges reduce cap need 100%, but we can easily have them reduce it by less than that. The main difference here is that if the capacitor doesn't have enough cap then the shield boosting will not work at all. This change is not in the version on Duality over the weekend, as we feel adding it will nerf the ASBs too much. So if we introduce this we would most likely revert some of the other changes already made. Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Maybe having the ASB function as a Cap Booster and Shield Booster at the same time. When it cycles, whatever Booster charge is in it will reload cap as the AB drains it. This would mean a Cap Booster 100 charge would Boost 100 Cap while the ASB was draininbg 153, leaving a drain of 53 cap per cycle. Swapping to a 150 charge would of course leave 3 drain per cycle.
Improving your skills and such might mean the 150 charge actually boosts your cap beyond the shield boosters drain amount of course.
Purely numbers off the top of my head, but the function makes sense. It's a bit like having a fuel overflow that pushes excess fuel back to your gas tank, or the alternator refilling your battery as you draw on it with other parts of the vehicle.
Anyway, that sort of thing would be a good start to getting these things balanced. zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
254
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 14:40:00 -
[193] - Quote
Just make sure that when overheating an ASB that you do NOT get a double bonus, but EITHER +10% boost amount OR +10% cycle time... |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |