Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
384
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:35:00 -
[121] - Quote
Nikuno wrote: While I get the spirit of what you mean about active tanking it doesn't work that way in reality. Every active tank I run outside of pve relies on cap boosters.
Accepted, but I still hold ASBs are closer to LSEs in their dependence on cap, and much further away from true active tanks. Let me see if I can draw a continuum of tank features:
ACTIVE
a) HP gain unlimited in theory, but restricted in practice by cap charges and capacitor amount and regen rate b) Vulnerable to neuting; HP gain can be disabled by neuting
BUFFER
a) HP gain strictly limited, no modification possible b) Invulnerable to neuting; HP gain only overcome by moar DPS
ASBs
a) HP gain strictly limited to cap charges available; the true active option is prohibitively cap-intensive b) Invulnerable to neuting; HP gain only overcome by moar DPS
Or do people think I'm crazy for thinking that this puts ASBs closer to "buffer"? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
384
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:42:00 -
[122] - 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.
This can easily be accomplished at no harm to PVE by fiddling with the overload stats of both shield boosters and armour reppers. A new module in the form of the ASB was not necessary. |
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 21:47:00 -
[123] - Quote
Remove them. Fix the problems ASBs were meant to address in a different way. They're a blasphemy to balance and make idiots happy.
I like my idiots sad. |
Tatiana W1sla
Toxic Subprime Assets Inc. Yulai Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 09:05:00 -
[124] - Quote
with this fix we need the navy cap boosters 25/50, and maybe a little buff to the small ASB that at the moment is useless. Overall a good change as they were not supposed to be a permanent capless tank. This way you cannot chain 2 ASB until you run out of cap boosters |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 10:07:00 -
[125] - Quote
As others have iterated, all they needed to do was limit it to one per ship and here's why:
Ancils were designed to make active shield tanking viable without links+crystals (I have a maxed out boosting alt and ancils have made me leave her at home most occasions), the problem is when you have two and you can perma tank until your cargohold runs out of charges, the same as a regular booster, so there's no disadvantage at all.
Removing one booster creates a tension of having enough dps to finish the opposition before depleting charges, or fitting mobility or tackle mods to allow a "tactical retreat".
So many people have tried to explain this and nooooo one has said in ernest "no dual x-l ancils are a.ok. boss", and yet you just say well you know the story...
The only other adjustments that need to be made are bring xl cycle time back in line with other xl boosters and nerfing mediums a bit as well, as they are over powered on frigates, where fights are almost always over before charges become an issue (except when fighting dual td condor DAMN YOU!!!) |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
776
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:04:00 -
[126] - Quote
Akturous wrote: Removing one booster creates a tension of having enough dps to finish the opposition before depleting charges, or fitting mobility or tackle mods to allow a "tactical retreat".
The rest is also damn funny, but this is plain hillarious; I hope you realise the same is true for dual boosters, right - bring enough DPS to wear it down despite the healing power.
In reality, dual ASBs have never been a problem since all they provide is merely some improvement over conventional active tanking, which is aknowledged to be fine all over the board or even underpowered; problem is exactly with ASB stats allowing single ASB setups to outperform in comparison to passive tanking, already dominant in EVE. 14 |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 13:07:00 -
[127] - Quote
I understand what the dude above is and has been atempting to say for some time now. I also think there is some over analyzing of a simple issue on his part v0v back in the day that use to be a serious issue (over analyzing). Which lead to so many bad mechanics and just silly to begin with.
However, I don't fully agree and this issue can be delt with by simply limited these modules to 1 per ship.
Eve-online can be like the chinese game of GO, instead of chess. Simplistic in its design and complicated/difficult to play.
Another way might even be increasing the powergrid usage of xl to like 1500pg and mediums to 75pg and start NERFING boost amount or duration. |
Nicoli Voldkif
Legion of the Obsidion Star
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:50:00 -
[128] - Quote
Anyone toss around the possibility of leaving them like they with the exception of having them cost the current capacitor of an equal sized shield booster with charges? That way you have the trade off of a much higher active tank with a ASB but your limited on charges and can still be neuted. |
Kelleris
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:26:00 -
[129] - Quote
I really like the idea of a stacking penalty. If you used -33% boost amount for each ASB after the first, then pretty much only 1 or 2 would be viable. This would work out to 66% of one ASB's boosting amount continuously if you had 2 of them that you staggered, or 133% of one ASB's boosting amount if you ran them both at the same time. Maybe 25% would be more appropriate, that would give 75% / 150% for the two cases I mentioned above. CCP could tweak this to make dual ASBs (staggered) about the same as a regular shield booster + cap booster, but with the option to run them both at the same time if a bigger burst i needed (eg. the guy you are shooting is in hull and your are bleeding hull between reps). This would mean the second one would be far less effective without nerfing single ASBs and I don't really think anyone thinks the single ASB is unbalanced.
TL;DR = Don't nerf the thing that is working as intended in order to nerf your unintended consequences. |
FunkBoi69
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 19:52:00 -
[130] - Quote
Its simple, make it so that you can only fit one per ship. If you are going to reduce its capacity or even if you're not either make it so that it automatically reloads one charge every 10 secs - 20 secs or make it so that you can use the booster while it is reloading, this will atleast bring it more in line with active tanking and give a cool aspect to the module and make it slightly more stratgic while nerfing it. |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
776
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 20:26:00 -
[131] - Quote
Lol, there's a pharisee uprising or something? I find it utterly odd how passive tank apologists got yet another OP option (single ASB) and want to abuse it as long as possible while trying to bring the active tank option (dual ASB) down at the same time. No way this can be good!
It's like proposing to introduce a 99% web and then make it 'balanced' by limiting to one per ship. Insanity? Apparently, not for some. 14 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 07:58:00 -
[132] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Akturous wrote: Removing one booster creates a tension of having enough dps to finish the opposition before depleting charges, or fitting mobility or tackle mods to allow a "tactical retreat".
The rest is also damn funny, but this is plain hillarious; I hope you realise the same is true for dual boosters, right - bring enough DPS to wear it down despite the healing power. In reality, dual ASBs have never been a problem since all they provide is merely some improvement over conventional active tanking, which is aknowledged to be fine all over the board or even underpowered; problem is exactly with ASB stats allowing single ASB setups to outperform in comparison to passive tanking, already dominant in EVE.
Dual boosters lets you tank enormous dps until your cargo hold runs out and even longer if you use a hauler. One booster gives you 13 shots, that's it.
Your comparison to a 99% web proves that you are infact the result of a poor incest family that no doubt grew up next to Chernobyl, because there's no other way you could be that mong. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
777
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 08:24:00 -
[133] - Quote
Active tank allows you to tank enormous dps until your cargo hold runs out and even longer if you use a hauler. One plate gives you 4200 HP, that's it.
Nerf active tank, yeah. 14 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:16:00 -
[134] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Active tank allows you to tank enormous dps until your cargo hold runs out and even longer if you use a hauler. One plate gives you 4200 HP, that's it.
Nerf active tank, yeah.
So we agree? or are you seriously saying 1 plate is better than an xl ancil... |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
777
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 11:29:00 -
[135] - Quote
Nope, it's you saying 2-3 med reps plus a cap booster are better than 1600mm plate. In terms of tanking specifics, fitting and trade-offs that's pretty much the same comparison as dual ASB vs. single one. 14 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 01:46:00 -
[136] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Nope, it's you saying 2-3 med reps plus a cap booster are better than 1600mm plate. In terms of tanking specifics, fitting and trade-offs that's pretty much the same comparison as dual ASB vs. single one.
I never said any such thing, like I said, not only are you a mong, but you can't read.
3 reps on a myrm is certainly better than one xl asb, because you can tank for sooooo long. You really are being silly and ASBs are not balanced when you have two, the end. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
261
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:39:00 -
[137] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote: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.
Someone has a couple of thousand xl asbs stashed away huh. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
261
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:46:00 -
[138] - Quote
Single asbs are balanced, multiple asbs are broken, answer seems obvious tbh. I would even suggest buffing asb capacity while making them 1 per ship. |
FunkBoi69
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 20:34:00 -
[139] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Single asbs are balanced, multiple asbs are broken, answer seems obvious tbh. I would even suggest buffing asb capacity while making them 1 per ship.
I pretty much agree, i think they should reload a booster every 10 or 15 secs automatically whether active or not instead of one long 60 sec reload. |
Mixu Paatelainen
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:45:00 -
[140] - Quote
Scale boost with cap charge size. Break link with crystals, blue pill etc. |
|
Exer Toralen
Alpha Company
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 19:00:00 -
[141] - Quote
I concur with TheMaster42 that ASB is a problem in small gangs because fights there are often do not last as long as ASB's charges, so ASB essentially provide not a burst but sustained tanking there.
There are enough different ideas here on how to nerf ASB, but here is crazy one how to provide burst tanking (if that was the initial idea) in both small and large gangs.
Make it so that ship with such burst tanking module is invulnerable for module's duration. And make invulnerability countdown refresh if there are hostile actions agains the ship or make invulnerability duration proportional to number of enemy ships in your vicinity. And penalize invulnerable ship with inability to shoot or decreased speed or something else like with different "Now I'm invincible but useless" spells in different RPG games.
This way burst tanking would scale with number of your enemies. And it won't give you an edge that currently makes you are able to out-tank your single enemy (in small gangs like one-on-one) while still blasting him with burst damage.
There are different kinds of such invulnerability. You can make ship getting into something like POS reinforce mode. Or you can still allow lock on it, but make people miss by decreasing signature greatly (thus preventing new enemies from locking you effectively). You can provide one-time bonus to shields or greatly increase resistances temporarily with magnitude being dependent on number of enemies and disappearing after some time. Or you can leave it as shield booster but change amount of shield restored according to number of enemies.
Just make it purely survival module so it stops being an advantage in combat or make it's effect scaling with number of enemies or both.
Yes, it somewhat overlaps with Target Breaker. But that's a matter of another discussion. |
Dante KamiyaX
Blood RaiderZ. Disaster Strikes
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 13:08:00 -
[142] - Quote
A better solution is to give armor rep ships a similar ver of an ASB only it reps armor instead of shields
I hope you don't nerf every good thing that has come to solo pvp and make it just less solo pvp friendly
Thats what tends to happen |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 16:20:00 -
[143] - Quote
The thing that always bothered me about ASB's is the fact they seem like passive modules untill they run out of charges. These modules seem like a new category. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Cpt Arareb
Ideal Machine Academy The Ideal Machine
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 04:46:00 -
[144] - Quote
Make asb-¦s use cap charges and ur own ship capacitor at the same time at a ratio of 50/50 or something, if your ship get neuted and there is no more ship capacitor to feed the 50%(or whatever) that a cycle need, then the asb will only rep at 50% of maximum power due to the cap charges.
With this changes you get an active module that you can counter(neuts) that is dificult to be viable in dual asb fits cause it will be dificult to keep ur ship-¦s capacitor running all those cycles to 100% power w/o need of a cap booster(that means another slot need to be used), and you still get ur temporary tank cause the cap charges are still letting the asb run at 50% of is capacity(probably doing the same repping power of normal shield booster).
And if you dont have cap charges to help run those cycles you get the amount capacitor of those cap chargers taken from your ship-¦s capacitor as well. bam problem solved, you get a unique type of supper repping module but with real drawbacks this time. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 11:56:00 -
[145] - Quote
I too support the 1 module per ship solution.
Having flown single MASB frigates against MSE frigates, the ASBs give only marginally more EHP after 10 boosts (and by marginally I mean 2 boosts extra boosts worth or 400-600 more EHP). I'm fine with this advantage given that the disadvantage is that the ASB fit is more vulnerable to large alpha. If the MASB is reduced to only 7 boosts, I doubt they'll be used on any ship.
The XLASBs are also great as they provide a solution to a lot of ships that weren't viable active tankers before due to cap issues (or inadequate fitting to fit both a XL Shield Booster + Cap Booster). As others have mentioned, the issue is 2 XLASBs provide more sustained active tank than a Deadspace XL Shield Booster + Cap Booster (to cope with the cap). Deadspace XL Shield Booster fits were still vulnerable to cap warfare even with a cap booster as heavy neuting meant they could only boost for a few seconds after a cap injection before neuts shut the cap downa gain. Dual ASBs don't have this vulnerability and above it give more booster than their deadspace equivalent? No that's too much. However take away the 2nd ASB and the fit becomes beatable again since the 60 second reload factor will actually come into play (which if I'm not mistaken was CCPs intention to begin with).
As others have pointed out, the proposed nerf isn't tackling the issue of having dual ASBs which overcome the reload factor and provide more sustained active tanking than Shield Booster + Cap Booster, but instead unnecessarily nerfs the legitimate use of ASBs, which I believe is already balanced (Alliance Tournament clearly showed that single ASB fits were quite beatable and a lot of ships went down once they went into reload). |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 12:05:00 -
[146] - Quote
Dante KamiyaX wrote:A better solution is to give armor rep ships a similar ver of an ASB only it reps armor instead of shields
I hope you don't nerf every good thing that has come to solo pvp and make it just less solo pvp friendly
Thats what tends to happen Armor repping ships needed buffing before ASBs, this isn't an ASB related issue. The ASB issue (i.e. dual ASB fits) does need to be dealt with of itself, although it may have highlighted some significant weaknesses with active armor tanking. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
783
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 16:58:00 -
[147] - Quote
Cap is another reason why ASB itself is so borked - it makes ship capacitor pretty meaningless tanking-wise, allowing hacs to tank like command ships and cruisers like BCs. Sheer stupidity. 14 |
FunkBoi69
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 19:25:00 -
[148] - Quote
Well you need cap to hold point and lets face it if your not using an invuln u have no buffer. As for all these arguments regarding shield tank being OP compared to armor, thats bull. Armor tank can usually fit a mwd and web whereas shield tank usually sacrifices these to get bigger tanks, armor just doesnt give u that option so they always have both an MWD and WEB fit. Armor tanks can also usually fit dual boosters as well and are a lot more cap efficient and more cap stable. If u were to fit a Maelstrom with a MWD and WEB and DUAL CAP BOOSTERS you would have an inferior tank compared to a Hyperion even with hi grade crystals, so please stfu about armor tank needing a buff too. CCP can you please post some of your bloody thoughts so we know what direction your looking at going in... |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
144
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 14:51:00 -
[149] - Quote
I'm going to throw in my own opinion here, while I think that ASBs need looked at, I can honestly say that they have made Active tanking viable, without the massive support system behind pre ASB tanks, what I'm essentially saying is it means you no longer need Tengu links or billions of isk in implants to have a 'Bitchin' tank on you BS, I have been doing it with a T2 fit and some improved Blue.
Limiting to 1 ASB or even making it so Links/Implants dont effect ASBs I would be fine with, but dont nerf these modules into the ground ,plox CCP. |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
144
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 17:33:00 -
[150] - Quote
oops |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |