EVE Search - ASB (Ancillary Shield Booster) Mechanics

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

ASB (Ancillary Shield Booster) Mechanics

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Swiftstrike1 Swiftstrike Incorporated 482	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:06:00 - [1] - Quote ASBs can use more than 1 size of cap booster charge, but at the moment there is no advantage in using the larger of the available charges. In fact, there is a distinct disadvantage in using them because you can't fit as many in the module and thus get fewer rep cycles before you have to reload (which takes 60 seconds and often results in your fiery death). I suggest changing the ASB mechanics in such a way that there are viable reasons for choosing larger cap booster charges. I don't think "bigger = better" would be a good solution because we'd still have the same situation where there is only 1 good choice of cap booster charge. Here are a few potential ideas I was toying with: Bigger charges have a faster reload time e.g. with an XL-ASB: Cap Booster 400 has a 60s reload time, but Cap Booster 800 has a 40s reload time Bigger charges provide better overload bonuses e.g. with an XL-ASB: Cap Booster 400 provides 10% Overload Shield Boost Bonus, but Cap Booster 800 provides 20% Overload Shield Boost Bonus Using bigger charges reduces the activation cost of running the module without any charges e.g. with an XL-ASB: Cap Booster 400 leaves the default activation cost of 1,320 GJ but Cap Booster 800 reduces this to 1,000 GJ Those are just a few ideas from the top of my head. Does anyone in the audience have any ideas about how to make other cap booster charge sizes viable for use with ASBs? Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1241	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:07:00 - [2] - Quote My ony problem with the ASB's, you can fit more then one of them on ships. The Tears Must Flow
SIrera Artrald Titans Rising 20	Posted - 2014.02.18 00:21:00 - [3] - Quote Vaju Enki wrote: My ony problem with the ASB's, you can fit more then one of them on ships. This is a problem? I like this idea OP I've always wondered about it myself. . . But I still think if you use a bigger cap charge it will give you a higher shield rep amount. if you can still fit less but it heals roughly the same amount after the full payload is used then you could use larger charges to rep more over less time or smaller charges to rep less over an extended amount of time. Also why not open it up to all sizes just that a cap booster?
Arthur Aihaken Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 2916	Posted - 2014.02.18 00:27:00 - [4] - Quote Vaju Enki wrote: My ony problem with the ASB's, you can fit more then one of them on ships. Yeah, that is a tad unfair. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kimmi Chan Tastes Like Purple 1181	Posted - 2014.02.18 00:29:00 - [5] - Quote The OP brings up a good point. Currently, there is no advantage to using the larger charges. In fact, the advantage is to use the smaller booster charge as you can fit more in the module as well as carry more in the cargo hold. These attributes apply to the Ancillary Armor Repairer as well I believe. Perhaps, and this is just speculation, the purpose of the larger booster charges is for actual cap boosters where the larger charges apply a greater effect and the smaller ones are intended for use with the ASB and AAR. "Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game!
Edwin McAlister Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC 25	Posted - 2014.04.18 15:52:00 - [6] - Quote I will use the Medium Ancillary Shield booster as an example... the same can apply to the large and extra large ie. Medium Ancillary Shield Booster.. Can use Cap Booster 50, 75, and 100 as fuel The amount boosted is the same no matter what fuel is used, however the quantity of boosters that can be loaded is still limited by the module itself A medium ancillary shield booster will hold X x cap booster 50, and X x Cap booster 75 and X x cap booster 100 yes, folks will say "just use the smallest one and get the most boosts" i would suggest that the booster scale with the size of cap that is loaded... the end result of the total quantity boosted will be the same, because the quantity loaded will scale down based off size of the booster... the 60 second reload would still be in effect... so a Medium loaded with Cap 50 will boost 146 shield hp / 3.00 s (base stats) w/ 7 standard charges... 1022 shields boosted over 21 seconds for 48.7 shp/sec a medium loaded with cap 75 will boost 146 x 1.5 = 219 shield hp / 3.00 s w/ 4 standard charges .. 876 shields boosted over 12 seconds for 73.0 shp/sec a medium loaded with cap 100 will boost 146 x 2.0 = 292 shield hp / 3.00 s w/ 3 standard charges ... 876 shields boosted over 9 seconds for 97.3 shp/sec Advantage... quicker bigger boosts over shorter period of time... Disadvantage... out of caps sooner and roll into the 60 second reload
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 763	Posted - 2014.04.18 16:01:00 - [7] - Quote i just think 60 seconds is an excessive reload time... for any module 800's are just unfeasibly large for most ships too have a decent amount for reloads even if you managed too find a use for them in ASB's although i don't see how.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 2177	Posted - 2014.04.18 16:08:00 - [8] - Quote Kimmi Chan wrote: These attributes apply to the Ancillary Armor Repairer as well I believe. The armor ones use nanite paste.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1367	Posted - 2014.04.18 16:33:00 - [9] - Quote pretty sure it was made this way for a good reason. ASB's were designed as burst tankers, with a large boost but short life span. Now normal shield boosters are barely used outside of missions because burst tanking is that much better in PvP. This takes it to an even greater extreme and is probably overpowered, which is why CCP chose to make it this way in the first place. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 549	Posted - 2014.04.18 17:29:00 - [10] - Quote The only reason I can see having the option to use various sized boosters is to allow flexibilty on long deployment. It may have changed, but last time I was in nullsec the rats dropped charges of various sizes all the time. ASB's need some attention, but any sort of buff is out of the question. Perhaps a nerf to repair amount when using smaller charges. I always thought the idea was good, but the module should be a true ancillary, rather than superior alternative to regular boosters. They should have been a seperate module that when active provided buffs to the standard booster. It would be simpler to balance as the cycle time on the ancillary module could be adjusted seperately from the booster itself, while preserving whatever passes for balance among faction/deadspace/officer boosters.

Hopelesshobo Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade 200	Posted - 2014.04.18 17:38:00 - [11] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: They should have been a seperate module that when active provided buffs to the standard booster. Already exsists: Shield Boost Amplifier Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 3870	Posted - 2014.04.18 17:47:00 - [12] - Quote In their current form, I like the fact that small charges are preferred over larger charges. If using cap boosters, you almost always use the largest charge that fits well. The ASB mechanic, where you fit the smallest charge to get the most boosts helps balance the demand for cap charges of various sizes. While we can toy with ASB's to make larger charges do something interesting, I certainly don't consider it a priority. At the moment, ASB's are pretty nicely balanced, offering excellent boosts without too much. Also, I don't have an issue with multiple ASB's on the same ship, as their fitting requirements usually results in a gimp in other ways, and they can still be destroyed.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 549	Posted - 2014.04.18 18:05:00 - [13] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: They should have been a seperate module that when active provided buffs to the standard booster. Already exsists: Shield Boost Amplifier Yes, but those do not lend themselves to the burst tanking that was the goal in creating the ASB. The ASB could have granted faster cycles, reduced or removed cap use, and greater hp return to standard boosters when active just as an ASB does, but would have been better balanced in its use by not replacing current boosters. It would also have been nice if the acillary armor rep had been comparable. The current situation is goofy.


Pages: [1] :: 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.