The other day I had this guy in a MERLIN tank SIX GUYS in CA 1 in PVH for 8 consecutive minutes using ASB.

I don't do math, but how many raw hp can an XL ASB boost with a full cap booster load? I would bet It's an obscene amount - probably the equal of quite a few LSE....

It takes an armor tank quite a bit of time to rep the amount of 1 1600RTP. How long does it take for an ASB to boost the amount of an LSE? How many LSE equivilants can it boost before it runs out of charges? I don't know the answer, but I would suspect that math is pretty telling. It's possible I'm wrong, but given the anecdotal evidence, I doubt it.

Thanks.

I am travelling, so I dont have eft here to make my own test fits, but people are reporting ~1600 dps tanks (with heat but no pills I think) on Cyclones and Ferox with one XL and one L ASB.

Its silly, IMHO.

LSE compares to 800mm plates, not 1600mm. Just as LAR2 compares with LSB2, and not the X-LSB2. Armor setups are given extra large plates, shield setups are given extra large reps. You should know this. ASB doesn't really compare to either setup.

Current shield boosters (not ancillary) are playtoys of the rich. You need crystal implants and a Tengu alt AND drugs to make them work in the first place. Balancing something to an obsolete, niche module is borked on many levels.

Interesting numbers...

After 40 seconds (when the large and X-large ASBs run out of charges) you see the following:
LASB: 3900 repped.
LSB: 2400 repped
X-LASB: 9800 repped
X-LSB: 4800 repped.

After 100secs (at the end of reload) you see this:
LASB: 3900 repped.
LSB: 6000 repped
X-LASB: 9800 repped
X-LSB: 12000 repped.

MASB only hold 10 charges. Dual MASB frigate fits are gimped on outgoing DPS as each booster requires 50 CPU to fit - that can eat into possible damage mods. MASB are fine.

LASB can hold 13 charges. I've only heard of these being dual fitted on Cyclones or Feroxes. You really need the shield bonuses of the ships to make them shine. It doesn't take alot of firepower to run these into the ground. More prevalent is the oversized X-LASB fits. A simple, elegant solution would be to crank up it's fitting requirement.

The 'max' numbers being thrown out are a hoot. I live in low sec. If someone is flying around in cyclones with a Tengu alt and crystal implants word is going to get around. He either won't get engaged OR will get blobbed. If you want to bring 4 billion in isk to the party I have no qualms about doing the same.

Sure he is. Keep doing damage while he's unable to hurt you (he's sacrificed an awful lot for his 2 X-L ASBs), and he will eventually run out of charges.

I tried fitting it on a Drake, it was pretty tight. Needed quite a few fitting mods.
Then again, a battleship fit would be considerably more lenient.

It takes a lot of balls to admit you've had that many lovers.

(BTW, properly Cycled, a Cap Booster+SB tank is very resistant to neuts)

It'll **** your ASB's day up, too (no hardeners). With a Cap booster you might get some cap to run your prop mod and maybe escape.

and with one xl asb I can tank 1300 dps (1600 with crystals).

Prevent crystal implants from affecting ancillary shield boosters. Make them unaffected by the active tanking aspect of an off grid booster.

On the day they nerf off-grid boosting I'll have a big smile on my face.

Nooooooooo
Stupid guys with "orbit 40km+F1" tactic will not be able to keep 100% isk efficiency if this happens.

Gangs with arazus and rapiers are still better then just N Drakes and a T3 booster sitting somewhere safe. It requires actual pilots, and weaknesses in the gang. I killed badly piloted Rapier / Arazu support often enough, because of pilot failure, and then the gang doesn't have longrange webs or disruptors anymore. Nearly duplicating that by just using boosting T3 somewhere safe is comparatively much worse.

Anyway, you could actually boost on grid. A Claymore can do it just fine in a speedy gang. Damnation can do it just fine for a tanky gang. Except... you want actual pilots in them and not alts. I remember going around in, eg. RR BS gangs with a Damnation just fine back in the day, and it added a lot to the gang at cost of losing one damage BS.

The T3 booster nonsense was a bad idea, as was boosting the already powerful gang boosts.

Yes, yes.

Any ship on grid with sufficient numbers present on grid can be oneshot. That is admittedly a problem which is nontrivial. Everything else isn't a problem except in the heads of people who are used to using alt boosters... or don't care to bring a specialist ship now and then. It is more or less a basic principle that all key ships in a pvp gang should have some risk in a fight and should be actually piloted instead of relegated to alt role. Everything else is just purely bad design.

That said, knowing CCP... meh. They seem to think farming a billion+ per day using a gunless frigate is good game design, so I don't expect anything.

Problem #3 is something which is largely "in your head", a half million ehp 100 dps Damnation may not be sexy exciting, but some pilots do like flying them and it is an ideal FC's ship (since it's not going to get primaried). Flying in a kiting gang with a boosting Claymore or something isn't boring "activate boosts, press f1 to get on KM somewhere" gameplay.

Problem #4 is again something which is "in your head" because you can use a single Claymore for interdiction boosts (or Loki, for that matter) and that's basically sufficient gang boosts for various kiting tactics. It hits your gang somewhat, of course, since ships on grid have to be piloted, which would be quite hard to dualbox (although possible to some extent because of :range:), so you in effect have one less ship. However, it's not decisive. If that larger gang does not have ranged guns, boosters and so on, you can still harass it.

If it does have all those, you can't really harass it anyway. At any case, the argument reminds me of the "don't nerf Falcon because it enables you to fight larger gang without Falcon" argument of people who actually use it to gank smaller gangs.

Problem #5 is not really that much of a problem, and has more to do with lag (and happens at the scale where basically any ship can be one-volleyed, which is a sadly unavoidable problem which however impacts both the attacker and the defender).

From ship balancing section of CSM minutes.

'Moving over to Command ships, CCP Ytterbium addressed the concern of off grid links and simply stated GÇ£off grid boosting should not existGÇ¥, with much of the CSM nodding in agreement. With regard to Tech-2 command bonuses and Tech-3 CCP Ytterbium stated that Tech-2 are supposed to be more specialized than Tech-3, which are supposed to be more generalized.'

Ship Balancing

I would not mind seeing tech 1 BCs and the tech 2 counter parts simply get a passive bonus to gang mates while they are on grid. requiring no special modules. The best bonus takes affect, and if the best bonus giver dies, the next best takes over. Each of the two types of BCs gives a particular bonus, and the T2 variants give a better bonus, but have the combat capability of a field command ship.

For T3,s that sub now gives a passive bonus while on grid at some rate similar to the T2. Eliminate leadership entirely and refund the SPs.

Solves the issue of 'on grid' boosters, because in a fleet with 20 BCs, they ALL could potentially give a bonus. And it makes CS more entertaining to fly because its not a boring role to play with the tank and DPS that could be available on them. Eliminates non-active alt game play (which apparently is going to happen anyway in regards to boosters), and encourages combat and targets.

...How did we get this off topic?

Well i figure the point of leadership is to hold the skills to use links (and perhaps links could still exist, but this presumption is that they are gone), and to limit fleets sizes in regards to if they receive bonuses from links/boosters. I don't really see a point to how fleets are managed (as a hierarchy) aside from handling the availability of booster effects. If the fleet was made 'flat' with people given roles to do things, like warp the fleet such, and the only determinate to bonuses was "am I on grid with a BC". It would make most leaderships skills pointless.

I could see the re-distribution of SP into general skills to improve strength. But while I only have ~2.5 mil in leadership myself, the links currently have two tiers of skills. Not sure how you could roll that SP into a single set of skills that would not make them take outrageously long to train for new comers. I don't see them as comparable to the other support skills as they have a very narrow scope of effect. And I won't think there would be anything wrong in allocating SPs to those that trained it.

Of course I would not mind seeing the ability to re-allocate SP once a year as a game mechanic with a 20% penalty. So have have a bias as well I suppose.

--edit to add--
Most fleets have BCs anyway, so I don't think its particularly harmful to give them a bonus role that does not stack by numbers.

I get amazed how many Stupid people complain about anythign that changes a bit the game into soemjthign better! THis is the first time in years that some game changes PROMOTES small scale warfare and active tanking and tactics a bit different.

Use your brain isntead of your EFT numbers only.

Other dayin this same tes servers you did your test I defeated a navy scorpion using Double ASB with my SACRILEDGE.. yes even a pathetic sacriledge. I simply kept orbiting with my AB and doigna bit of damage.. Eventually he ran out of charges...

Just use your brains.!! And stop complainign about the best thing that happened in this game in last 4 years!

No the sacriledge was using armor reps... and You know very well that a ship defeatign the other does nto mean one is better than the other. I am not the average puny poster you liek to play your mind games with.


ASB are a great adition to this game. The only thing that might need to be looked at is the capacity of fitting 2 of them.

Again.. tank can be broken without massive dps when its not sustainable! ASB are not sustainable for more than 60 seconds if you can fit only 1.

Yes it prevents fast ganks, but that is EXACLTY the intention of the module!

And no active tanks were NOT overtanked at all. Super expensive setups do not count sicne they are less than 0.001% of pvp in eve. Active tanks outside carriers and dreads have been JOKE for years!

ASB are MUCH less hard to deal than the old HUGE passive buffer tank drakes of past (when they coudl reach 700 dps passive tank)

...

Are these modules something that you want to see fixed in the game? Or should CCP simply stop seeding them so they are a sought after rarity in years to come?

There's only so many ways to balance them.

• Their rep amounts could be reduced to match conventional shields. Nuet immune boosters with a long reload vs. conventional boosters.

• You could drastically increase their fittings so that oversized and multiple are not solid options.

• You could reduce their charge capacity so that you get the same tank for a shorter time.

• You could have a hard limit of one per ship.

They should also just have the boost amount straight up reduced. They're good enough due to the fact that they provide a cap free and neut-proof booster before you run out of charges, they hardly need drastically increased tankability to go along with that. If I had it my way, you'd see these nerfed down to the point where they provide roughly similar boosts to regular shield boosters, and the reason you might want to fit them is to forego a cap booster and have added resiliency to neutralizers.

...

Overpowered on some ships with multiples - no question OP

However, im seeing alot of deserve trail setups on just about anything with 4 mids or more, and this experimentation makes a very nice change from the 90% change of a cookie setup every time. I dont remember the last time a new module made these sort of waves.

+1 overall

You mean something like 90% of the capacitor cost is payed by the charges and like 10% by the ship? That could work indeed...

These proposed changes would mean my shield boosting options are

XL Booster w/ injector
XL ASB w/ injector

Except of course, that in the second example 80% of the capacitor generated by my injector is simply feeding the enemy gangs neuts, as the tank doesn't use that cap.

Why would anybody choose the second option?

Lets be real.. normal shield boosters were also always fitted in oversized fashion anyway on the rare ships that used them :P

[
With the proposed changes will the booster reload faster, or will you allow them to draw 100% from the capacitor while still reloading?

That's really the only way I can see it working. If anything you are more vulnerable to neuts than a normal booster as you have to ensure two sources of capacitor are supplied instead of the traditional one, and deaspace grade boost is utterly useless when you're reloading for 60 seconds.

I am being real anyway, I know that dual ASB are the way to go, but we're talking about your proposed 'fix' here, which incorporates among other things a nerf to fitting dual/oversize ASB

The people who want ASB to use capacitor obviously don't fly the main race that ASB was intended for...Minmatar. Minnie ships are often lacking mid slots, and that is the very reason you cannot be forced to fit a cap booster and an asb.

Also doubly hilarious that its "not a drawback" to have two modules using booster charges.. Maybe if you have a badger following you everywhere you go in case you plan on getting into more than one engagement.

Nerf the boost amount if you must, give it a reduced reload time if you do, but do not make it vulnerable to neuts. That negates the entire purpose of the mod.

First off, single oversized ASB boosters really isn't a major issue. Yes, ships can carry boosters bigger than their class, but that happens with both buffer shield and armor modules as well, so if you are going to penalize oversized XL ASBs, you should penalize 1600mm plates and Large Shield Extenders. I've countered the oversized ASB matter plenty on the blog and in the forums and it isn't a concern.

Dual-ASB setups and Triple-ASB setups, however, and as a small reversal of my previous position, can be overpowered. But that LARGELY depending on the ship, and in most cases, you were sacrificing actual combat effectiveness for tank. Most of the fits I've seen were little better than Procurers with guns. However, in putting together a Triple-ASB Maelstrom fit, I would have to agree that this particular configuration is overpowered.

My thinking is that we already have a "diminishing returns" mechanic in the game that could effectively limit over ASB usage. I think that reducing the ASB effectiveness to say 60-70% for the second one, and 20 to 30% for the third one should make multiple ASB configurations more in line with small PVP needs.

I actually tested this when I went head to head against a Hurricane in multiple engagements.. and only barely defeated a Hurricane (no pills, AC implants, etc.) using that X-Large ASB. The Cyclone's tank SHOULD be on par with the Prophecy's and the Drake's tanking ability because it IS the Minmatar's Tanking BC (every race gets one). In addition, both the Prophecy and the Drake use modules intended for Battleship class ships. So, in that regard, your argument doesn't hold weight. Testing AND comparisons with other tanking Battlecruisers put the Cyclone with one X-Large ASB at exactly where it should be.



I proved this NOT to be the case with actual combat testing. They aren't overpowered, they just require a change in tactics to defeat. They have multiple weaknesses and also require better overall ship management to run effectively.

Cyclone is definately better on a 1v1 BC fight.. Now ... Put 2 tornados with arties firing at those.. and see who survives longer...

Dude.. in what world you live? Peopel will always go for the most powerful alternatives. Before ASB there was 1.. buffer tank. Now there are 2. What is so hard to grasp 2 >1 ?

Make a data mining on killboards and get number of ships that were using BUFFER tank vs active tank on last 4 years.... I would get VERY surprised if 10% of the ships had active tank!

Before, active shield tanking was only for rich boys with pills and implants. Not to mention booster alts.

Aaa sure you know everything.. jsut like back then at that huge thread where we 2 discussed about the changes to arti where I supported an increase of alpha strike (that ended up being part of the solution that ccp chose) whiel you adamantly ensured that no one would even take advantage of alpha strike because your math prooved that always the larger dps groups would win regradless of alpha damage and that no one would think of using maelstroms with 1400mm arties ina fleet because tha alpha strike would bring absolutely nothing...

yeah.. we know how that ended up.. I could continue to recite failures on your annalysis for months.. but I don't have time to write an essay every day just for that...

Active tanking wa so prevalent htat your own fits with cyclones were using EXTENDERS!!! Your OWN FITS!

Fixed that for you.

The comparisons that do not count the reloads are stupid and shouldn't even be mentioned. They prove nothing in a real PvP scenario. When the reload comes up , you will die if you are using a single shield booster. You will never be able to tank your theoretical "138k ehp". So like I said, Unless you found an exploit that you are using to not reload these boosters.. Half of your post is basically worthless. It is a bunch of theory crafting that will never ever happen.

Moving on.

"dual ASB is stronger than active armor tanking." Ok so what? And armor buffer is stronger than shield buffer. This how CCP keeps shield and armor as two different things. If you are suggesting to make armor and shields perfectly the same then you should stop posting, because that is a terrible idea that will dull the game.

Plus a 480dps tank isn't even impressive. It will die to a single hurricane or drakes dps.

Also: An active tank being able to tank more than a buffer over a period of time is work as intended. So at this point you are arguing with the developers. Slaves or not, this is how the game is intended to be. And it is fine.


Also make your posts more clear so people can actually understand what you are saying. Currently it is a mess.

Just to point out, 800 DPS is about what 2 BCs put out. Traditional active Tanking is great for limited sized engagements (with the ability to operate in said small engagements for a long time), and not very good for larger engagements. The ASB extends the envelope of Active Tanking usefulness in engagement size at the cost of engagement length.

480 DPS is a great tank when it keeps going, so the person trying to kill the Myrm has to keep breaking through that rep until the Myrm finally dies.

With the ASB, you just have to put enough damage on to keep them repping, then kill them on the reload. Or with the dual ASB, either force them to run both (if Dual Large), or kill them when they run out of charges since, if they're Sub-BS, they're not going to be doing all that much with the rest of their fit (if Dual X-Large). If they're in a BS, keep them tackled with something small and keep swatting drones while you whittle away at their ASB charges, then kill them when they're out.

Dual Oversized ASB fits do make great Bait though.

The ASB is different and powerful. It's going to take some time to get used to. I don't think you can really call it OP yet, since there are already very effective counters to it, and it's only been available for a short time.

Or to extend the engagement until he runs out of charges. Not an option really for Buffer tanked fits, but perfectly valid for Active Tanked ships.

*cough* sorry.

I hope you don't mean this kill: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14391358, cuz it looks like you fitting up two additional T2 Frigs and a Ruppy along with your ASB.

But that is the whole point isn't it. How long did the battle actually last? Did you tank him for a while or just for the few moments that it took for your fleet to arrive? That Vexor's drone DPS was likely poor (no drone damage mods? Really?), and he didn't have any other weapon system available to him so, that is all he could rely on. Second, look at that Vexor config. No speed mods coupled with a 9k scram? Defense Field Purger Rigs? Shoot, considering how there were only five medium drones in the bay, he probably was trying to kill ya with his first flight of Medium drones (or did take the first flight of light drones out?).

A bad fit doesn't prove that ASBs are overpowered. If he had dropped in some short range blasters in place of the salvage gear and chased you with light drones instead of mediums, he probably would have ended your trip in short order, ASB or no.

I'm not going to lie - I hated the ASB at first as I thought it was a broken mechanic. I complained about it in the forums and cursed CCP for its ignorance. In fact, I think i did so in this very thread.

I was wrong.

Except that you can't. As we detailed above, an X-L ASB Cyclone will hold off 2 BCs for ~5m, and 3 until it's first reload.

A Double X-L Maelstrom can tank about 1500 DPS (though you have to drop to 650s to fit) cold, which is about 4 BCs running both. Heated, it'll tank ~2k DPS, which will keep it alive against about 5 BCs, but only until reload, at which point it's 60k EHP buffer will disappear in 30s (45s to the 4 BCs it can hold off unheated).

So you can't tank 5-7 BCs for a couple of minutes.

You are saying that a Cyclone with a single XL ASB running can tank 3500 dps? I presume that is max boosted and drugged and whatever else? Perhaps, but the Cyclone will cap out before the 5 mins and lose its hardeners I would guess. Id love to see this everyday fly around low-sec fit. ;)

Even if true, there are already armor and shield BS that can approach that number with longer cap stability I am pretty sure, but I dont do boosting alts, so Im not certain.

Even if true, there are already armor and shield BS that can approach that number with longer cap stability I am pretty sure, but I dont do boosting alts, so Im not certain.

Post that fit up. Id love to see it. If you want get them nerfed, spreading that fit around will do it.

But it sounds like to me that you are making an argument to nerf off-grid boosting though. At least that is my interpretation.

I dont have a problem with links. I just have a problem with offgrid links. They can be powerful if they are at risk. Right now they are not at risk.

I havent PvEd in years, I dont think, but I wouldnt use an ASB for pve because you simply dont need it, and the cap boosters take up cargo space. Sure, you could, but why?

But yeah - other boosters/reps are pretty useless now. Its why armor needs a similar-ish module.

Active tank revival is a good thing. They need to tweak it, but I am glad for the new options. Its been a while since we had a paradigm shift.

Welcome.

With Strong Blue Pill and both ASBs going heated, I get a 3500 dps tank. Drop the prop mod, and you get another 1000dps of tank, but even assuming that pulsing your 2nd ASB could get you through the reload, the 2300dps tank one ASB gets you will only last about 45s to that 3500 dps incoming before you go Boom.

That just barely tanks those 7 BCs. Since it's heated, the ASBs last 45s before needing a reload (they might get 2 cycles of cap using boosts, for another 7s). Then the 3500 damage will go through the 35k Buffer in about 10s. So a Dual X-L ASB (Gimpy as its fit is), can tank those 7 BCs for 1m, then it dies.

It will not get the reload off. At all.

Discussion of tanking imbalances:
So some people have been asking if we care about some of the design problems inherent in our current tanking situation, and if we're going to redesign these ships to compensate for these problems.
Firstly, we are very aware of the many problems we're facing in tanking design at the moment. The balance between active and passive tanks, and between armor and shield (and honour) tanking are both in need of work. ASBs have made parts of this problem better (adding new interesting gameplay and making "active" tanking more popular) while making other parts worse (too good in many circumstances, and skewing the meta further towards shield). Armor and shield tanking balance suffers because mass (and velocity) penalties are far more severe than signature radius penalties in most circumstances, and to a lesser extent because of the difference between shield hitting at the start of a cycle and armor hitting at the end. This is especially harmful for active tanking Gallente blaster ships that need that speed to get within range.
These problems are real and we are working on them, but the solution isn't to skew the ships themselves too far in the opposite direction. Our goals are to hit the problems at their source.
That being said there may be things we end up doing to these ships to help smooth things out, such as reducing cycle times and/or tweaking the mass of the armor tankers down a bit. We're going to keep working on these ships up to and beyond release in the Winter.

ASB fits, especially dual ASB fits, usually dont have secondary tanking mods. They NEVER have secondary cap mods. The Cyclone fit that Liang posted earlier is all well and good, but once a single neut turns off its two Invulns, its hosed. Neuts still work. They just arent all-powerful. Even without neuts, its cap only lasts 2 mins. Then it dies. Even a "normal" repper/booster fit should win 1 v 1 against an ASB fit because ASB dps is generally gimped it it fits an oversized booster (Liang's does ~451 dps - my dual rep thorax with standard exile can tank that). Now, you might have an issue with multiple ASB fits, but as I said - those might need tweaking.

But ASB is not all powerful in all situations and it cant always tank gangs of 6-7 BCs. As I was typing in this thread last night and not paying attention, I derped into a gate camp in my (allegedly) all-powerful ASB Brutix. The result? Webbed, scrammed, neuted, alphaed because I had no buffer and my invuln was off. To be fair, I might have made it back to the gate if I had turned on my MWD before I was scrammed instead of just overheating it and not turning it on (dont play when you are tired and arguing or the forums kids )

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14399984

Are ASBs powerful? Yes. Was active tanking before them lackluster and/or limited? Yes. The ASB revives it. But they arent all-powerful. People will have to adapt. It will actually be "less of the same" buffer buffer buffer setups and we will see a different dynamic in small gangs. Thank the stars. I really hope this is the start of a paradigm shift for small gangs.

Now if they would just give us a good armor module that is similar.

IMHO, of course.

EDIT: I agree with CCP Fozzie. ;)

You mean this guy? or Or this one?

You tanked the AML caracal for 70 seconds? Or less than 54? Whatever it was, it wasnt long enough. I presume he drove you off because he isnt on your killboard. Working as intended.

And you have lost 3 ASB frigates in 1 v 1s this month. They are not invincible, even solo.

Im not attacking your ability or your killboard. I have lost lots of ships this month, many in derpage fasion. The point is that people are saying that ASBs make ships near invincible, and they simply dont. They are not an iWin button.

The ASB bought you time, yes.. but as one of your own lossmail brings out.. the ASB isn't the force of invincibility you maintain: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14391295

You don't seem to understand this simple fact:

The Ancillary Shield Booster, is a DIRECT counter to the neutralizer. What do you not understand about that?

In fact, I think I may know of a way to test that might actually prove me wrong. Fly your ASB Executioner and compare its combat survivability against buffer shield tanked interceptors and AFs in 1 vs 1 combat. Both of those Tech 2 ships should easily outclass your Executioner. If they don't, then yes.. you would be correct that ASBs at the frigate level are overpowered.

Edit: Just make sure those T2 Frigates aren't failfits.

But they are not a direct counter to small gangs. A single Hurricane with dual neuts can cap out Liang's single-booster fit posted earlier. With both invulns turned off it tanks a whopping 32dps during reload. Even with its invulns ON, it tanks 44 dps. It will die during its first reload probably. It will die during its second for certain.

In fact, I would bet money that a regular XL shield booster Cyclone or Blaster Dual Rep+1600 plate Myrm or Armor Cane or Ham Drake (or perhaps even armor buffer Myrm) can solo one (the buffer ships will be close). Maybe a Dual Rep Brutix (but not sure because of the lack of a neut). I am pretty sure that each of these ships will kill it during its first reload with the addition of a single T1 combat frigate like an Incursus or a Merlin, if you really want to test the "counter to small gang" thing. The frig just needs to stay out of range until reload and then come in and apply dps.

even if it tanks 5000dps during its cycle - its what it tanks after that first 54 seconds that will make the difference.

Again - I will keep an open mind. Perhaps you are right. Test and settle it. I would come do it myself tonight, but I am pretty sure my wife will be having a baby by then, and I will have other things to do. :)

Are you talking solo with no boosts? I don't think so. Either use boosts for both ships, or use boosts for neither, but don't use them for just one. Let's compare apples to apples here.

I understand the theory - do the 1 v 1s and test it. It will prove you are right.

ASBs are fine.

Ill use the Cyclone because it has these obscene theoretical numbers being thrown around.

They can be soloed, despite claims to the contrary.

http://pinkiepie.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14290526

Even dual XLASB are not invincible because of alpha.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14444795

Say it out loud: "54 seconds."

That is how long they are awesome for. 54 Seconds. They might need a fitting increase to discourage dual oversized fits, but otherwise:

54 seconds.

Pardon me, but I must have missed it. I have yet to see a single kill board link or pvp video that shows a single ASB setup is op. They are vulnerable every 54 seconds (or whenever your DPS forces them to reload). If the attackers survive (~500ish dps in your example) past 54 seconds (or whatever the reload time becomes) and have enough dps, the ASB ship dies. If you don't have enough dps (800 in your example) the ASB ship will live. Sounds ok to me.

Post examples. CCP still appears to have an open mind. (at least about the multi setups). I have an open mind. Our theory crafting and EFT warrioring is fun, but evidence rules. Post kill mails or pvp videos that prove single setups are op (and don't look like other pvp mails/videos where normal armor/shield boosting ships eat entire gangs - Nerf Kessah Domis and Kil2 Megas and Geddons and Triple rep Myrms and pwnage Maelstroms and Hypes!). I'd love to see them. If they show what you guys are claiming, Ill post it in Test server feedback myself.

I read that part and I did ignore it. "It shouldda had links and implants and god knows whatelse" didnt seem to be something I needed to respond to (because we arent talking about the need to nerf boosts right now). Anyway - I guess you are taking me hyper-literally and I am being a bit hyperbolic. I think you understand my point though, as I detailed in the above post and others before it, that I am saying they are weak whenever they have to reload. That is a balancing factor. Admittedly, that reload may not take place at exactly 54 seconds. It might be longer depending on the incoming dps. It might be shorter depending on if you have to overheat it. It might be exactly 54 seconds. Regardless, when it reloads, it is vulnerable. It can be alphaed too. It has weaknesses. That is the point. My point still stands, I havent seen any linked evidence that shows that single ASB setups are OP. (And no, the honor tanked Typhoon kill doesnt convince me. )

First, I know for a fact that the Talos was also XL ASB fit. So take from that what you will. But damage is the ultimate issue here, because we are talking about tank, right? So, regardless if it was eleventy-billion seconds, or 5 seconds, the ultimate point is that it took 39k raw damage. Then it died. Even if it had not run out of boosters, that Ion Talos would have finished eroding its buffer during the second reload, and the Cyclone would have died then (or the Cyclone would have eroded the Talos' buffer and killed it during its reload - which is the same point). If there were any second ship with the Talos of cruiser size or above, the Cyclone would have died during its first reload. If it was linked and boosted up the wazoo, and took multiples of 39k damage, if that was compared to a similarly boosted armor or shield fit, I suspect those numbers wouldnt be OP either, relative to the others.

Regardless, Im not going to argue any more, though I might come back to post some kill mails that may support either position. We have shouted the theory craft. We have beat the horse. Lets look for evidence (either way).

So lasers were balanced because they had high damage on hit countered. by all their huge downsides, fair enough. Then projectiles and hybrids were buffed to match. And how exactly is that still balanced? Aren't all of the detriments of lasers outdated then?

Their buffer is terrible, and they can be broken by 1-3 similar sized ships, even before their charges run out (depending on the situation).