| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
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.) |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |