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)

Can't tank when all I have is a buffer.

If it were up to me to fix the balance between active tanking and buffer tanking, I'd say that the more elegant solution would be to move about 80% of a mindlinked T3's bonus into the active tank modules themselves. Then I'd try to address the mobility problems Gallente face when active tanking (Brutix, Myrmidon, Hyperion really). I think the best choice there is to change the penalty on aux nano pups and accelerators.

Holy Crap, lemme get a 55 gallon drum, your tear ducts are in overload

...

The core problems with ASBs:
- Multiple ASBs allow you to sidestep the drawback of an ASB: reload time.
- Oversized ASBs allow you to sidestep the traditional drawbacks of oversized active tank modules: capacitor and tank volatility
- ASBs are immune to the traditional counter to active tanking: neutralization.

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.

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.

I'm not too opposed to that, but I think they'd need to adjust the reload time on it if they did that.

-Liang

Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.

I'm not too opposed to that, but I think they'd need to adjust the reload time on it if they did that.

-Liang

Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.

The core problems with ASBs:
- Multiple ASBs allow you to sidestep the drawback of an ASB: reload time.
- Oversized ASBs allow you to sidestep the traditional drawbacks of oversized active tank modules: capacitor and tank volatility
- ASBs are immune to the traditional counter to active tanking: neutralization.

From my perspective, shield tanking just wasn't hurting in small gang PVP before the ASB. It was even dominant for both buffer and for active tanking. I know you said something about .001% of PVP with "super expensive setups", but the truth of the matter is that all of my Harpy videos were done with a meta 4 named shield booster (feel free to check my loss history).

If it were up to me to fix the balance between active tanking and buffer tanking, I'd say that the more elegant solution would be to move about 80% of a mindlinked T3's bonus into the active tank modules themselves. Then I'd try to address the mobility problems Gallente face when active tanking (Brutix, Myrmidon, Hyperion really). I think the best choice there is to change the penalty on aux nano pups and accelerators.

But the creation of a shield tanking module so compelling that the only realistic answer in small gang combat is to fit as many as realistically possible - even if your bonuses are for armor tanking? No, obviously this module is overpowered as hell.

-Liang

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.

My Bhaalgorn had 250 K EHP, 850 gun + 200 drone DPS, dual web, dual NOS, one neutralizer, one tracking computer with tracking scripts, one target painter, one warp scrambler and 4 T2 pulses with COnflagration L crystals.

Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.

Armor also need some very short term overpowered active tank. BOTH cases must be adjusted so thtat drawbacks cannot be sidestepped, like the multiple modules.

Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.

...

I think it'd be a shame to have introduced content that'll never really be used. The armchair game designer in me says to increase fittings cost and make it always cost some capacitor. This solves:
- Dual/Triple ASBs
- Oversized ASBs (to an extent)
- Neut immunity

-Liang

Actually, that is pretty common method of solving trend problems in some communities. When you are having troubles remaking something, you have to draw people's attention to the matter first, otherwise getting feedback on changes will be problematic.



It would be nice if it won't be a carbon copy of ASB, only for armour. Speaking of approaches we see ATM though, armour is used as a playground for reactive hardener, not really the same thing. With T2 version of it and some tweaks though we'll probably see following picture: mostly "active-like" shield module that provides buffer-like effect due to burst boost (without increasing passive tanking ability, so not really substitute for SE modules) and an armour module which is mostly other way round (not that good for anti-burst buffer, better for prolonged fights though, in some cases at least).

Still, application of additional aspects (minor cap costs, quantity restrictions etc.) should be taken into consideration.

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...

Yeah, that was where I was going with it. Though I was leaning more towards 80/20 or 75/25. Enough that it provides a meaningful but not horrific drain on the capacitor. Something that I can prevent with neuting, really.

-Liang

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