EVE Search - Ancillary Shield Booster: WTF?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Ancillary Shield Booster: WTF?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Munchmi Coochi Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2012.07.01 20:03:00 - [1] - Quote Maybe pilots should be limited to fitting only one Ancillary Shield Booster. The modules do seem overpowered and have messed with the solo and small gang dynamics of the game. If CCP does limit these modules in the way I described above. Reducing the modules Cycle time - 30 or 45 seconds seems optimum.
Lin-Young Borovskova Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 396	Posted - 2012.07.01 20:07:00 - [2] - Quote I'd say those modules bought to the field in solo/small gang pvp ships that were almost never used before, so it's a good module. However I agree those rep a little bit too much. brb
Major Killz State Protectorate Caldari State 21	Posted - 2012.07.01 20:13:00 - [3] - Quote I suppose I should support my ALT. I like how I decided to complain about a module with another character. Complaining about things goes against my principles. I tend not to do it seriously, but in this case I've surprised myself. I guess this module must be really overpowered then... Deal with it, move on and adapt or die (this sounds like me). - end of transmission.
Lin-Young Borovskova Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 396	Posted - 2012.07.01 20:17:00 - [4] - Quote Major Killz wrote: I suppose I should support my ALT. I like how I decided to complain about a module with another character. Complaining about things goes against my principles. I tend not to do it seriously, but in this case I've surprised myself. I guess this module must be really overpowered then... Deal with it, move on and adapt or die (this sounds like me). - end of transmission. Dude, your pills. brb
Drew Solaert Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 188	Posted - 2012.07.01 22:48:00 - [5] - Quote I love the module, I think its opened up a lot of solo options, and interesting fits. Some better than others (I saw a killmail from a XLASB Rupture the other day) I lied :o
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 511	Posted - 2012.07.02 00:08:00 - [6] - Quote 100MN LASB Curse. Yeah, it's bad.
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant 63	Posted - 2012.07.02 01:24:00 - [7] - Quote Given that fitting more than one of them is banned for ATX, I would say there is an incoming nerf.
Garviel Tarrant Aces -N- Eights Excuses. 12	Posted - 2012.07.02 01:47:00 - [8] - Quote A dual LSAB Phantasm can almost outbrawl an Ishtar. That is ******* amazing. These modules are game changers that is for sure, the only ships i hate them on are frigs.. A hawk tanking 200 dps easily makes me and my vengeance sad.. They do Exactly what they were intended to do, they give a massive burst tank and after that is over you die. Can you completely loltank with them.. Yes.. But due to the burst nature of the module that is a bit gimped. Maybe they are overpowered, but not by much. I'd say they work as intended.
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 512	Posted - 2012.07.02 01:59:00 - [9] - Quote Eternal Error wrote: Given that fitting more than one of them is banned for ATX, I would say there is an incoming nerf. Yeah, gonna ban the ability to have 2x logis in fleet and faction fit your Cynabal too! (You are unintelligent)
God's Apples The Tuskers 16	Posted - 2012.07.02 02:04:00 - [10] - Quote I think dual ASB fits are OP for 1 v 1 scenarios, but.... they make: A) Active tanking for solo more viable than it was before and making it so many ships which were strictly buffer tanked before able to active tank. B) Make active tanking with shields no longer require crystals to have success with.
Maeltstome Caldari Deep Space Ventures Intrepid Crossing 28	Posted - 2012.07.02 07:56:00 - [11] - Quote My sleipnir can fly again \o/ Also fitting 2 of them is nowhere near as powerful as fitting a larger 1 with another resist module/SBA So yea, ban 2 on one ship if you like: It only effects the maelstrom.
Zarnak Wulf The Roaches 400	Posted - 2012.07.02 09:22:00 - [12] - Quote Maeltstome wrote: My sleipnir can fly again \o/ Also fitting 2 of them is nowhere near as powerful as fitting a larger 1 with another resist module/SBA So yea, ban 2 on one ship if you like: It only effects the maelstrom. The Rokh as well.
Lin-Young Borovskova Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 398	Posted - 2012.07.02 09:27:00 - [13] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: Eternal Error wrote: Given that fitting more than one of them is banned for ATX, I would say there is an incoming nerf. Yeah, gonna ban the ability to have 2x logis in fleet and faction fit your Cynabal too! (You are unintelligent) Very much this, the problem someone can find about this is not how much you can fit but probably the huge boost amount that requires some adjustment and also fix the the rep amount depending on the size of cap boost charges used. This module helped a lot of ships never or rarely used to become viable and strong options, how can this be bad for the game? Answer: it isn't Needs some tweaks but it's an awesome module, hope we get same thing with armor reps some day, that would be simply awesome. brb
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 4197	Posted - 2012.07.02 09:39:00 - [14] - Quote Munchmi Coochi wrote: Maybe pilots should be limited to fitting only one Ancillary Shield Booster. The modules do seem overpowered and have messed with the solo and small gang dynamics of the game. That was more or less the intention behind introducing them, I believe. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Paikis Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 35	Posted - 2012.07.02 09:39:00 - [15] - Quote Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: hope we get same thing with armor reps some day, that would be simply awesome. That would be simply silly. That would make armor better at buffer tanking, and as good at active tanking. Shields are better at active tanking and got cap-free active tanks with some severe downsides. Armor tanks are better at buffer tanking, so tell you what, you can have Ancilliary Armor Plates. Put cap boosters into them and your plates wont use cap. Deal?
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 9	Posted - 2012.07.02 09:59:00 - [16] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Munchmi Coochi wrote: Maybe pilots should be limited to fitting only one Ancillary Shield Booster. The modules do seem overpowered and have messed with the solo and small gang dynamics of the game. That was more or less the intention behind introducing them, I believe. this... before release pvp shield tanking in 1 easy step... fit biggest SE you can fit, 1 cdfe. Armour tank ans its options AR + plates DAR DAR + PLates plates varied. the "fast" 200mm frig or the chew on this 400 for example. Shield tank frigates were about as random as a dice with all sides the same number. might get your rich peeps using ds boosters....but usually not outside of frigates.
Maeltstome Caldari Deep Space Ventures Intrepid Crossing 28	Posted - 2012.07.02 10:53:00 - [17] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Malcanis wrote: Munchmi Coochi wrote: Maybe pilots should be limited to fitting only one Ancillary Shield Booster. The modules do seem overpowered and have messed with the solo and small gang dynamics of the game. That was more or less the intention behind introducing them, I believe. this... before release pvp shield tanking in 1 easy step... fit biggest SE you can fit, 1 cdfe. Armour tank ans its options AR + plates DAR DAR + PLates plates varied. the "fast" 200mm frig or the chew on this 400 for example. Shield tank frigates were about as random as a dice with all sides the same number. might get your rich peeps using ds boosters....but usually not outside of frigates. Both DAR and DAR with plates options don't exist in real PVP - outside of officer fit vindicators.
Copine Callmeknau Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns 247	Posted - 2012.07.02 11:09:00 - [18] - Quote Maeltstome wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: Malcanis wrote: Munchmi Coochi wrote: Maybe pilots should be limited to fitting only one Ancillary Shield Booster. The modules do seem overpowered and have messed with the solo and small gang dynamics of the game. That was more or less the intention behind introducing them, I believe. this... before release pvp shield tanking in 1 easy step... fit biggest SE you can fit, 1 cdfe. Armour tank ans its options AR + plates DAR DAR + PLates plates varied. the "fast" 200mm frig or the chew on this 400 for example. Shield tank frigates were about as random as a dice with all sides the same number. might get your rich peeps using ds boosters....but usually not outside of frigates. Both DAR and DAR with plates options don't exist in real PVP - outside of officer fit vindicators. Buy less officer Buy moar exile There should be a rather awesome pic here
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team 165	Posted - 2012.07.02 11:30:00 - [19] - Quote I agree those shield boosters should be limited to one pr ship... Luckily they are still test modules and they give small scale pvp a lot of flavour :-) I still think CCP should focus on boosting regular shield boosters insetad of introducing a new module. Shield boosters could easily boost out an additional 25-50% hitpoints balanced with the removal of crystal sets... People using crystal sets always had fun with shield boosters but people without rather wanted to do buffer tanks... This should clearly indicate what is necesary to save shield boosting in pvp
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 215	Posted - 2012.07.02 15:12:00 - [20] - Quote They are "ancillary", but come complete with their own built-in cap injector .. make charges used determine how much is boosted and draw half the cap from ship as indicated by the name. Another way would be to give them a single cycle timer like that of cyno's and Burst ECM (think its single timer anyway) so that a second module cannot initiate its cycle if another similar module is currently active .. still benefit in using two as you can drain first, drain second, die horribly. CCP appear a bit naff, but at least they are trying now which is a tremendous leap forward!
Major Killz State Protectorate Caldari State 24	Posted - 2012.07.02 15:27:00 - [21] - Quote The whole "active shield setups need crystals" isn't factually correct. While In the past I could be quoted many times as saying; "active shield tanking is terrible without crystals" - proxyyyy I was WRONG @ the time and you're WRONG now. I often used the Cyclone and Brutix comparatively as an example. Clearly I wasn't aware of a Cyclone with a XL shield booster and 2 capacitor booster. The aforementioned IS able to replicate the Brutix in performance, with active armor repair. @ the time I stated otherwise. Which was clearly ignorance. I wasn't aware of the aforementioned Cyclone setup for a long time. What!? Let me explain further. Not to long ago. Something changed players perception of the Drake. I once quantified the event as the "Drake meta a priori". Players classified the Drake as useless for anything other than defense. Untill! Someone theory crafted a heavy assault missile-Drake. The ship was then viewed as superior to all other battlecruisers. Was the ship bad or was players perception of the ship incorrect? The Drake was viable since its inception. Although most were unaware of the ships most viable setups @ the time. Untill someone theory crafted an optimal setup. Which has been improved even more since the introduction of Ancillary Shield Booster. Like most things on tranquillity. Players tend not to innovate or very few do. Most players don't like to waste time figuring out a problem... LETS WRAP THIS UP. Shield boosters are unique. I'm not able to put together a viable Brutix setup with a single large armor repair. Comparatively, I am able to fit a Cyclone with a XL shield booster; Same with all ships that rely on shields for denfense. The Jaguar and Harpy are capable of fitting a medium shield booster. Which replicates the preformance of using 2 armor repairs on a Ishkur, without the need of Crystals. So no. Anyone using the whole "active shield setups need crystals" argument is ignorant and behind the times (adapt). Clearly I was. After I started using the aforementioned Cyclone setup. I never roamed in a Mrymidon again. Mainly because the Cyclone was superior to dealing with ships @ range (frigates, Vagabond) and good in balls deep range. A better ship for guerilla style warfare and roaming. - end of transmission...
Bouh Revetoile The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva 27	Posted - 2012.07.02 15:56:00 - [22] - Quote This module is exactly what active tanking should be. Though standard active tanking right now is too module intensive and too hard to fit compared to buffer. To achieve the performance of this ancillary shield booster, you need your three rigs, the cap booster, and the module (two for armor). Capacitor active tank effectiveness need to be boosted.
X Gallentius Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 300	Posted - 2012.07.02 16:14:00 - [23] - Quote Where's my anciliary armor repairer? I'm tired of wasting one or two midslots on capacitor boosters to keep the reps up on my Myrm.
Strider Hiryu ICEBOX. Negative Ten. 9	Posted - 2012.07.03 10:06:00 - [24] - Quote Paikis wrote: Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: hope we get same thing with armor reps some day, that would be simply awesome. That would be simply silly. That would make armor better at buffer tanking, and as good at active tanking. Shields are better at active tanking and got cap-free active tanks with some severe downsides. Armor tanks are better at buffer tanking, so tell you what, you can have Ancilliary Armor Plates. Put cap boosters into them and your plates wont use cap. Deal? Worst post ever. If you want to make stupid generalizations about the diffrences between armor and sheild tanking, well ok then. 1. Give armor a passive regen 2. Armor gets repped apon docking 3. Remote + Local armor repairers repair at start of cycle instead of end 4. Midslot Damage mods for armor tankers. Deal?
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team 165	Posted - 2012.07.03 11:20:00 - [25] - Quote How about armor having a higher base resistance? How about armor repairing using less capacitor? How about armor tank free up vital medslots on most ships? How about armor plates giving out more hitpoints than shield extenders? How about armor having passive omni resist modules that benefits 100% from compensation skills? How about that new hardener module that doesn't work yet but has huge potential? no deal!!
Lili Lu 302	Posted - 2012.07.03 14:05:00 - [26] - Quote Paikis wrote: Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: hope we get same thing with armor reps some day, that would be simply awesome. That would be simply silly. That would make armor better at buffer tanking, and as good at active tanking. Shields are better at active tanking and got cap-free active tanks with some severe downsides. Armor tanks are better at buffer tanking, so tell you what, you can have Ancilliary Armor Plates. Put cap boosters into them and your plates wont use cap. Deal? But shield buffer and logi remote gangs are doing fine. This module was not introduced because of any shortcomings in logi supported shield gang/fleets in pvp. It was obviously meant as a support for solo/ very small gang pvp where no logi would be present and you have a ship with an active tanking bonus. Not that there weren't other methods to make use of the active tanking bonuses. Eternal Error wrote: Given that fitting more than one of them is banned for ATX, I would say there is an incoming nerf. Quite possibly. It is not the same as Mfume's retorts about more than one logi and faction fits. Here they limited a specific module. Quite a different thing. However, based on past performance, and it not being a gallente ewar which of course must be nerfed into the stone age right away, I doubt the nerf whatever form it might take will come very quickly. Pinky Denmark wrote: How about armor having a higher base resistance? How about armor repairing using less capacitor? How about armor tank free up vital medslots on most ships? How about armor plates giving out more hitpoints than shield extenders? How about armor having passive omni resist modules that benefits 100% from compensation skills? How about that new hardener module that doesn't work yet but has huge potential? no deal!! Your list is a sorry summation of a tired old argument, except for the last question in your list. The tanks and tanking are different. It appears with the introduction of the ASB and the adaptive hardener CCP was trying to give each tank a new goodie. Unfortunately they were not of equal use. Surprise? No, it's CCP. The "huge potential" which would require a buff for the new armor hardener will take as long to materialize as the nerf/tweaks on the new shield booster. Which is to say, a rather long time.
Coolsmoke State War Academy Caldari State 13	Posted - 2012.07.03 15:24:00 - [27] - Quote The ASB's are certainly making a difference to my Nightmare & Mach pulse-shield mission fits. Interestingly - in the context of pulse-boosting - while the medium ASB won't boost anything like as well as a Pithum C-Type, the Large ASB boosts exactly the same amount of shield as a Pith A-Type of the same size. And the XL version beats the XL Pith X-Type hands down. So for pulse-shield fits it appears to make sense to switch. I'm now using an X-L ASB on my Nightmare, with a Boost Amp & LSE's for plenty of EHP. The fit is easily 600m cheaper and gives me a 2,800 ehp boost every time I pulse..
Hatsumi Kobayashi Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 84	Posted - 2012.07.03 15:31:00 - [28] - Quote If anything needs to be looked at it's making the size of the charges used actually matter. As it is it's just a no-brainer to use the smaller charges, using the bigger ones actually hinder you. CAUTION SNIGGS
Alticus C Bear University of Caille Gallente Federation 55	Posted - 2012.07.03 15:55:00 - [29] - Quote Overpowered, even without the shield boost bonus you seem to be able to strap these things to any ship and improve its performance for the duration of most PVP engagements. If nothing else they need to be changed so that they do not receive additional bonuses from other mods, implants etc. As for Armour. It would be nice to see a repper with the fittings between Medium and Large repairers. Perhaps a Repper itself that provides resistance bonuses when online. Lets face it the reactive hardener still needs an overhaul.
Dread Pirate Pete Tribal Core Defiant Legacy 14	Posted - 2012.07.03 16:12:00 - [30] - Quote ASB's are still vulnerable to alpha, and the larger an engagement is the worse the module gets. That said they do seem to need a bit of adjusting. Perhaps make it so it can only be used with overheating (simulating the stress you put on the shield generator by flooding it with cap), this would not overburden the player but still make it a bit less tempting to fit.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.