These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ancillary Shield Booster: WTF?

Author
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#81 - 2012-07-05 09:39:50 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Cambarus wrote:

Between buffer tanks yes, not so much for active tanks.


Hey let me quote what you were saying before:

Cambarus wrote:

I would have gone with the much more obvious question: Since when is armor buffer tanking inherently better than shield buffer tanking?


In case you missed it:

Cambarus wrote:

when is armor buffer tanking inherently better than shield buffer tanking?


Armor giving more buffer with shield being better active is fine with me.

This is plain wrong !!!
Armor buffer use more slot to be better than shield buffer, and your huricane comparison is the silliest possible one ! Huricane is an *armor* tanker by design ! If the huricane is a shield tanker, then the harbinger is a shield tanker too. Problem is that shield is so superior to armor in so many ways that any ship with more than two med slots can be shield tanked !

Your 78kehp armor cane use at least 7 modules for this, probably more ; your shield huricane don't use more than 6 with the damage controle. Consider too that you can easily fit 2 LSE for one plate and 2 LSE give more hp than the plate for less drawback (signature augmentation is less than mass augmentation in proportion). Add the fact that speed is way more important than signature, and you cannot say that armor and shield are balanced.

As I said, seing even amarr ship shield tanked is an evidence of the superiority of shield over armor. If you don't consider rigs, shield and armor buffer are balance ; but shield and armor rigs are not, and active shield and armor are not either because you need way more slot for PG intensive modules to active armor tank.

Though, about the ASB, I think it exactly is what active tank should be : you shouldn't have to think so much to choose between active tank or buffer when going for small gang (up to 5) because this is the only area where active tank can be used. When numbers rise, then a remote rep is needed, and then a buffer is better ; but even in small number, a remote rep is very effective and a buffer is better. Right now, no matter what, unless you use a very tight fit, a buffer is better ; and unless you have a bonused ship, you cannot tank more than two ships while you have capacitor.

Capacitor active tank need a buff to be on line with ASB ; maybe a little behind to compensate for the "no reload of death", but too far because of the neut vulnerability.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#82 - 2012-07-05 09:46:05 UTC
At the end of all these points more or less interesting or objective, I'd still like to see Ancillary Armor repairers, specially if those are balanced in terms of rep with XL-ASB and be able to fit them on my battlecruisers.

That new plate is good for capital ships, for BS/BC/Cruiser bofff +cap hungry, no thx.

Besides what's the point of armor tanking when you can shield tank most armor ships, make them faster/agile and get much higher dps?
Shield Talos, Shield Megathron, Shield Brutix, Shield Thorax, Shield Deimos, Shield Myrmidon, Shield Dominix, Shield Hyperion, absolutely all of them despite number of slots and provided you have logistics are better shield tanked than armor tank.

Yes please guys, keep saying armor tanking is fine, please beg for more drawbacks because indeed shield tanking is in need of more buffs and mods. Poor shield ships...

Please buff Shield tanking, give us modules not using cap and rep close to double amount regular SB

brb

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#83 - 2012-07-05 10:13:23 UTC
I once proposed an idea for a different active armor tank : an active buffer tank (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=395903#post395903).

The Idea was that the module would use cap to absorb incoming damage. Damage, instead of taking only armor hp out, would take a proportion of capacitor and armor hp. That can also be seen as an hardener which use cap proportionaly to the damage taken.

That would give a useful flavor to active armor tanking instead of the slow as hell and less effective than shield it have now.
Shaen Vesuvius
Redcoats
#84 - 2012-07-05 10:15:06 UTC
Strider Hiryu wrote:


If you want to make stupid generalizations about the diffrences between armor and sheild tanking, well ok then.

1. Give armor a passive regen
2. Armor gets repped apon docking
3. Remote + Local armor repairers repair at start of cycle instead of end
4. Midslot Damage mods for armor tankers.

Deal?



Deal,

Imagine a Drake that can do that?

oh and one of the flaws in your reasoning is u think a ship that has better armor resists has no shield regen.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#85 - 2012-07-05 12:39:12 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
Shield buffer tanking is just as good as armor buffer tanking because you're trading raw tank for other, equally useful attributes.


What is and is not useful is situational. You could fairly say that speed matters a lot solo, but elsewhere it doesn't really mean ****. Sometimes your individual DPS doesn't even matter, just the ability to tank and that's when you look at armor.


Absolutely, that's my point. One is not better than the other, they've both got their uses, and as such, for buffer tanking, shields and armor are more or less on par with each other.

But what about active tanking? Active tanked ships have a small range in which they are effective, and this range is always a small number of ships, so why would anyone want to use armor tanks when their advantages are more geared towards larger engagements? It's not a tradeoff, armor is just plain worse.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#86 - 2012-07-05 16:26:26 UTC
Cpt Branko wrote:
Oh hi I'm back again (for a while, anyway).

The new ancilliary boosters seem quite sweet for shield-bonused ships, esp. using crystals/pills. 60 seconds of essentially not receiving damage from a single ship (or even two less ganky ships) is quite damn powerful, and probably enough to make many ships win pointblank even vs slaved buffer-fits. At least, i can see a ancilliary-boosted Cyclone killing a slaved Hurricane (pills might be required, or not).

That said, it again missed the point when it comes to tanking and solo/small gang use. Instead of making active tanking modules take less slots and have less fitting requirements and cap consumption to make them comparable to buffer tanks when it comes to DPS (and speed, regarding armour rigs), they made a improved shield tank fueled directly off cap boosters.

The main problem of active tanks for solo / small gang stuff was not that the amount of tanked vs ehp lost is so low. Even a dual-MAR BC tank which tanks 350 ehp/s or so is not that bad in actual tanking ability, it beats the 3-slot (+3 rig slot) plate fit in survivability when taking less than 800 DPS (comparing two Hurricanes). If all other parameters were equal, I would often opt for an active tank, especially for solo work.

The problem is however very simple, the 3-slot tank takes 3 lowslots, and the dual-MAR takes 5 lowslots and a midslot, and ends up eating more PG and CPU, so you lose two gyrostabs and have to use smaller guns, resulting in a massive DPS loss. It is also equally slow, since trimark rigs have the same penalties as repair rigs. The huge DPS loss just makes it pointless to use the active tank, not the loss in survivability.

Boosting tanking outright is hardly helpful to the solo PVP-er; soloers (and small gangs, where a small gang is 2-5 people at most, not 50 BS) always benefited from DPS and the ability to quickly kill their targets.

The reason is simple, the sooner you can kill the other ship(s), the smaller the chance of the greatest counter to any solo ship appearing - namely, the other guy's gang/blob (or falcon alt), and the easier it is to exploit the mistakes others make, like bad positioning, gang/blob arriving piecemeal, etcetera.

Now off to actually install EVE and shoot someone, enough moaning from an oldtimer :)


Welcome back. It's a very long time and you've covered it all in one post. I think I'll cross post this.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ![/u]

Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2012-07-05 17:51:18 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

This is plain wrong !!!
Armor buffer use more slot to be better than shield buffer, and your huricane comparison is the silliest possible one ! Huricane is an *armor* tanker by design ! If the huricane is a shield tanker, then the harbinger is a shield tanker too. Problem is that shield is so superior to armor in so many ways that any ship with more than two med slots can be shield tanked !


People get away with 2 slot + 2 or 3 rig shield tanks because most people playing EVE are unwilling or unable to bring bonused webs to their gangs. Also years of nerfing unbonused EWAR made shield tanking more and more desirable because midslots are less valuble if you can't damp, 90% web or multispec people to death.

Quote:
Your 78kehp armor cane use at least 7 modules for this, probably more ; your shield huricane don't use more than 6 with the damage controle. Consider too that you can easily fit 2 LSE for one plate and 2 LSE give more hp than the plate for less drawback (signature augmentation is less than mass augmentation in proportion). Add the fact that speed is way more important than signature, and you cannot say that armor and shield are balanced.


Even if I used an equal number of slots or no trimarks, it'd have an advantage.

I could use 3 slots + 3 rigs and still get more EHP out of a Cane. Like I said, it's the one of the few ships that comes up as armor or shield tanker and certainly the most common.

Quote:
Though, about the ASB, I think it exactly is what active tank should be : you shouldn't have to think so much to choose between active tank or buffer when going for small gang (up to 5) because this is the only area where active tank can be used. When numbers rise, then a remote rep is needed, and then a buffer is better ; but even in small number, a remote rep is very effective and a buffer is better. Right now, no matter what, unless you use a very tight fit, a buffer is better ; and unless you have a bonused ship, you cannot tank more than two ships while you have capacitor.

Capacitor active tank need a buff to be on line with ASB ; maybe a little behind to compensate for the "no reload of death", but too far because of the neut vulnerability.


The downside ofc is that you have two active tankers meeting each other and neither can break the other, which is the situation everyone wants to avoid.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2012-07-05 17:53:26 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
But what about active tanking? Active tanked ships have a small range in which they are effective, and this range is always a small number of ships, so why would anyone want to use armor tanks when their advantages are more geared towards larger engagements]? It's not a tradeoff, armor is just plain worse.


Because it's hard to active shield tank a Myrm or a Megathron.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#89 - 2012-07-05 18:39:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
NVM, Armor tank sucks.

(wrong topic)

brb

Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#90 - 2012-07-05 18:56:08 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
But what about active tanking? Active tanked ships have a small range in which they are effective, and this range is always a small number of ships, so why would anyone want to use armor tanks when their advantages are more geared towards larger engagements]? It's not a tradeoff, armor is just plain worse.


Because it's hard to active shield tank a Myrm or a Megathron.

So basically because certain races have no choice.
Ava Starfire
Khushakor Clan
#91 - 2012-07-05 19:00:02 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Munchmi Coochi wrote:
Maybe pilots should be limited to fitting only one Ancillary Shield Booster. The modules do seem overpowered and have messed with the solo and small gang dynamics of the game.


That was more or less the intention behind introducing them, I believe.




this...

before release pvp shield tanking in 1 easy step... fit biggest SE you can fit, 1 cdfe.

Armour tank ans its options
AR + plates
DAR
DAR + PLates

plates varied. the "fast" 200mm frig or the chew on this 400 for example.

Shield tank frigates were about as random as a dice with all sides the same number. might get your rich peeps using ds boosters....but usually not outside of frigates.


Both DAR and DAR with plates options don't exist in real PVP - outside of officer fit vindicators.


Stabber Fleet Issue disagrees with you.

"There is no strength in numbers; have no such misconception." -Jayka Vofur, "Warfare in the North"

DeadPool MercWithAMouth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#92 - 2012-07-08 21:20:22 UTC  |  Edited by: DeadPool MercWithAMouth
I've agreed with CCP's improvements to eve since Incarna. They have tried very hard to improve the quality of the game and removed a tremendous amount of annoyances from the game to redeem themselves; That is until now. The Ancillary Shield Booster must go. This module has completely skewed ship balancing in a way that is inconsistent with roll based ship design. How many assault frigs should it take to kill a cyclone? 10 with this module?, perhaps more. Many armor tank ships fail because they can't muster the dps to overcome the ASB fits due to the lack of low-slot availability for increased damage. Good armor tanks require many low slots, a mid slot or two (if active) and rig slots. They almost always tank less (active); require more cap; are slow; lack power grid for long rage weapon system and generally have lower dps than shield counter parts. Any objective person can see how the alliance qualifiers has demonstrated how overpowered this module is. I hope CCP fixes this issue, and at some point I would like to see Armor tanked Dominix win in the tournament. Please fix ships that need fixing, don't boost wining cyclones and sleipnirs to the point of absurdity.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2012-07-08 22:03:54 UTC
DeadPool MercWithAMouth wrote:
How many assault frigs should it take to kill a cyclone? 10 with this module?, perhaps more.


The same number as before, it's not like your typical ASB Cyclone has a web. Just run him out of charges and he dies. It's not like a Cyclone couldn't tank a bunch of AFs while de-aggressing before.

Quote:
Many armor tank ships fail because they can't muster the dps to overcome the ASB fits due to the lack of low-slot availability for increased damage. Good armor tanks require many low slots, a mid slot or two (if active) and rig slots. They almost always tank less (active); require more cap; are slow; lack power grid for long rage weapon system and generally have lower dps than shield counter parts. Any objective person can see how the alliance qualifiers has demonstrated how overpowered this module is.


It's made active tanking more viable in small gang (6v6) situations. And by more viable I mean without links, blue pill and crystals. Clearly this should be nerfed because FHGHKLSAFHAKJF

Quote:
I hope CCP fixes this issue, and at some point I would like to see Armor tanked Dominix win in the tournament. Please fix ships that need fixing, don't boost wining cyclones and sleipnirs to the point of absurdity.


You won't see an armor Domi win in the tournament for a variety of reasons, the main one being that the marauder (and arguably pirate BS) are too close in points to regular BS, making them a no-brainer for most setups. That being said, using the AT for an example of OP on TQ is fairly silly given that there are goofy rules in the AT (no faction mods, only 1 logi, no pirate implants, . limited team sizes, etc.). How many Cyclones and Sleipnirs do you actually see on TQ? I'm willing to bet you see 10x as many Hurricanes and Drakes.

Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#94 - 2012-07-08 22:18:38 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
Shield buffer tanking is just as good as armor buffer tanking because you're trading raw tank for other, equally useful attributes.


What is and is not useful is situational. You could fairly say that speed matters a lot solo, but elsewhere it doesn't really mean ****. Sometimes your individual DPS doesn't even matter, just the ability to tank and that's when you look at armor.


For buffer this is true, but for active it is not, and that's the problem. Even with buffer tanks, shields seem get more use than armor, at least going by eve-kill's top 20, more than half of which are shield buffer ships and only 2 of which are armor buffered (excluding logis, ships that tank both, and tier 3 BCs which often field no tank).

The point is, shield buffer tanking is every bit as good as armor buffer tanking, whereas active shield tanking is MUCH better than active armor tanking. There's an imbalance in active tanking that just doesn't exist for passive tanks, though I would MUCH rather see a buff to armor than a nerf to shields, as buffer tanks have been the norm for far too long, even in most smaller gangs, which is a pretty damn good sign that they need looking into, and given the ability to change something I'd undoubtedly work on their cap use.
GreenSeed
#95 - 2012-07-08 23:49:23 UTC
Are you seriously arguing that a module with ONE minute of downtime is op?

You people are demented.


op active repping is as old as charges. tripple rep myrm anyone? takes forever to kill em since you have to empty the charges they carry. with asbs you dont, you just have to play the 1 minute reload. and if you meet a double asb ship that times one or the other, well **** it, you just meet a ship that will eat charges 2x as fast and will NOT have as much resists/buffer to stay healty without overloading the asbs.


stop charging into fights with all weapons overloaded please, learn to read your opponent.
Secluse
Jaguar Jamboree
#96 - 2012-07-09 00:22:26 UTC
Personally I never want to see EvE 100% balanced - balance is stagnant. I quite enjoy changes being made to modules that results in people flying new ships (I actually see cyclones now), new fits, new gang compositions, new tournament teams, whatever.

I do think that EWAR should be more valuable; for a non-specialized ship the mid slot choice is tank or tackle (leaving you with damage and speed from the lows). The low slots are damage or tank (leaving you with tackle and ewar). The moment you get in even a small gang, I know which one I will default to.
DeadPool MercWithAMouth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#97 - 2012-07-09 03:18:25 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:


The same number as before, it's not like your typical ASB Cyclone has a web. Just run him out of charges and he dies. It's not like a Cyclone couldn't tank a bunch of AFs while de-aggressing before.



well i'm sure its not the same number. The ASB means the frigs would have a hard time punching threw the tank . A cyclone would microwarp, turn and pop the assault frigs 1 by 1, with help of drones. Just letting him run out of charges isn't a tactic, it is directly proportional to the damage applied and it's what every ASB fitted ship wants, while you die. There is no counter to an ASB shield tank other than more damage, and is broken.

Mfume Apocal wrote:

It's made active tanking more viable in small gang (6v6) situations. And by more viable I mean without links, blue pill and crystals. Clearly this should be nerfed because FHGHKLSAFHAKJF


I disagree. People who use bluepill, crystals, are gonna use them anyway, after all; its why they bought them and its not any different now. It's less viable in small gang warfare unless all you do is gank helpless mission runners (lookout fer traps). small gangs fleets will take longer to kill, and more prone to being blobbed. As if cyno bait tactics weren't boring/frequent enough. Two ASB fitted ships can't out dps each others tank (for a lot, not all) thus making 1v1 pvp less tactful and silly (who runsout first Roll ). I was thinking removed as apposed to nurfed anyway but at this point i would be happy with either. As good as they are they should powered from Strontium. I fitted an ABS dominix with 1000+ tank and 1500 dps with little trouble, yet armor is far from even coming close Ugh

Mfume Apocal wrote:

You won't see an armor Domi win in the tournament for a variety of reasons, the main one being that the marauder (and arguably pirate BS) are too close in points to regular BS, making them a no-brainer for most setups. That being said, using the AT for an example of OP on TQ is fairly silly given that there are goofy rules in the AT (no faction mods, only 1 logi, no pirate implants, . limited team sizes, etc.). How many Cyclones and Sleipnirs do you actually see on TQ? I'm willing to bet you see 10x as many Hurricanes and Drakes.



The point vs ship quality is a decent argument for why they are not in the tournament; however, I've seen Scorpions, Armageddons, Abaddons in the past tournaments with some success but the point value may have changed. I'm not sure why your bringing up the number of ships vs types on TQ, this has nothing to do with ship pvp quality & balancing and thus is a very poor metric.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2012-07-09 03:31:53 UTC
DeadPool MercWithAMouth wrote:
Mfume Apocal wrote:


The same number as before, it's not like your typical ASB Cyclone has a web. Just run him out of charges and he dies. It's not like a Cyclone couldn't tank a bunch of AFs while de-aggressing before.


well i'm sure its not the same number. The ASB means the frigs would have a hard time punching threw the tank . A cyclone would microwarp, turn and pop the assault frigs 1 by 1, with help of drones. Just letting him run out of charges isn't a tactic, it is directly proportional to the damage applied and it's what every ASB fitted ship wants, while you die. There is no counter to an ASB shield tank other than more damage, and is broken.


It has to use cap charges to run it's tank. Once it's out of charges, it burns cap. You then have a solid minute (60 seconds) to kill it. As long as you bring enough DPS to kill it in that minute, it's going to die.

Quote:
The point vs ship quality is a decent argument for why they are not in the tournament; however, I've seen Scorpions, Armageddons, Abaddons in the past tournaments with some success but the point value may have changed. I'm not sure why your bringing up the number of ships vs types on TQ, this has nothing to do with ship pvp quality & balancing and thus is a very poor metric.


The numbers thing is an example of how goofball the AT is compared to TQ.
DeadPool MercWithAMouth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-07-09 03:34:19 UTC
Secluse wrote:
Personally I never want to see EvE 100% balanced - balance is stagnant.


I agree, I think the races* should be balanced but each ship should have a given roll that has bonuses that shouldn't be easy match by others. I would like to see some modules & drones fixed though. Who uses energy neutralizing drones? target painting drones? or the prophecy for that matter. I think a lot of modules can counter other modules better including ships as well. I like the concept they tried with the cap batteries, but then ruined the idea with the introduction of the ASB.
DeadPool MercWithAMouth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#100 - 2012-07-09 03:49:43 UTC  |  Edited by: DeadPool MercWithAMouth
Mfume Apocal wrote:


It has to use cap charges to run it's tank. Once it's out of charges, it burns cap. You then have a solid minute (60 seconds) to kill it. As long as you bring enough DPS to kill it in that minute, it's going to die.


I am aware of how they work, the the amount of boost they have until they must reload is far too much (beside the fact, there's no counter). With skills, blue pill, crystals, over loading a player can keep skewing boost per cap ratio making the cap last quite a long time. Once he's out of cap (if their is even enough damage on the field to get them to reload), yes they die (hopefully) but my main concern the booster is over powered, there is no counter (other than time & dps), and everyone will use it because its so effective (i thought this type of module is exactly what CCP was trying to avoid).

Mfume Apocal wrote:

The numbers thing is an example of how goofball the AT is compared to TQ.


I mentioned the alliance because its a fair example of ship pvp quality and what works and what doesn't work rather than TQ. Ship balancing and the operation of modules go fairly had-and-hand.