EVE Search - Sticky:Testing ASB adjustments on Duality

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Sticky:Testing ASB adjustments on Duality

» 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 - 10 post(s)
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

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.