These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

ASB is BULL.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#301 - 2012-08-06 18:08:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Liang Nuren wrote:
If it were up to me to fix the balance between active tanking and buffer tanking, I'd say that the more elegant solution would be to move about 80% of a mindlinked T3's bonus into the active tank modules themselves. Then I'd try to address the mobility problems Gallente face when active tanking (Brutix, Myrmidon, Hyperion really). I think the best choice there is to change the penalty on aux nano pups and accelerators.


I think there are several different problems with active tanking at the moment:

1) Active tanking is only effective below a certain threshold of incoming dps. As gang size increase, active tanking very quickly becomes inferior to buffer tanking. This is a problem of scaling.

Simply boosting all active tank modules like you are suggesting increases this threshold but the risk is making it too effective in 1vs1 situations. You would solve one problem while creating another problem. Making active tanking modules significantly more powerful is not the way to go (though I do agree that slight improvement would be appropriate).

See the link in my signature for a better explanation and solution to the scaling problem.


2) Some ships do not have to sacrifice anything to mount double neutralizers. They literally eat active tanks for breakfast, and are too effective at countering them. This is a problem with the ships in question, not neutralizers. Energy neutralizers are powerful and should require some sort of sacrifice from the pilot so that people don't fit them just because they can.

Introducing active tanking that is immune to neutralizers is not justified and it's also bad because everything is supposed to have a counter.


3) Energy neutralizers are too prevalent also because the alternative high slot modules pretty much suck for general use. As consequence, everybody with a spare highslot tries to fit at least a small neut because it's the only thing that will give a relatively consistent advantage. Giving pilots real alternatives to energy neutralizers will promote variety and make active tanking more viable in general. People should fit energy neutralizers when they expect an active tank, not because there are no alternatives.

Smartbombs could maybe finally become smart and not damage your own drones.

There was also a highslot target painter on SiSi as far as I know.
Ramiel Wayfarer
#302 - 2012-08-06 18:55:22 UTC
Adrenalinemax wrote:
Holy Crap, lemme get a 55 gallon drum, your tear ducts are in overload




ha ha ha great Big smile
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#303 - 2012-08-06 20:28:04 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
...


Hmm, I'm not sure that I agree with you, really. For sure, active tanking by definition will always be dramatically superior to buffer below a certain DPS level and dramatically inferior above that DPS level + a little bit. It'll always be vulnerable to that scaling you bring up. To me, that's a fine attribute - you screwed up pretty hard if you find yourself trying to active tank in a situation it wasn't made for.

That said, I think you misunderstood: I wasn't suggesting simply boosting active tanking modules. I was suggesting moving bonuses around so that they're more widely available - and simultaneously nerfing the hell out of tanking gang mods. Consider that active tanking today is by and large not that effective today unless you have alt boosters, implants, and pills. Consider that an 11 slot tank on a Myrmidon (2 MAR, 2 EANM, Exp, DC, 2 ANP, Accel, 2 Cap Booster) is only going to tank ~550 DPS. That's actually pretty low anything with a large sig radius - a single Vexor can break it. That's why people (kessah?) came up with the even more unstable triple rep setups.

With regards to neutralizers: yes, I am aware that they eat active tanks for breakfast. I am aware that some ships fit multiple neutralizers. I believe that to be acceptable and good game balance. I think that you don't really "get" why people are fitting that small neut though. It's because it cycles fast enough that you actually have a chance of escaping from a nos frig that's got you tackled. It doesn't matter what else you boost - until it can either disable or kill a frig it isn't going to be used.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#304 - 2012-08-06 21:25:38 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

The core problems with ASBs:
- Multiple ASBs allow you to sidestep the drawback of an ASB: reload time.
- Oversized ASBs allow you to sidestep the traditional drawbacks of oversized active tank modules: capacitor and tank volatility
- ASBs are immune to the traditional counter to active tanking: neutralization.


Are these modules something that you want to see fixed in the game? Or should CCP simply stop seeding them so they are a sought after rarity in years to come?

There's only so many ways to balance them.

  • Their rep amounts could be reduced to match conventional shields. Nuet immune boosters with a long reload vs. conventional boosters.

  • You could drastically increase their fittings so that oversized and multiple are not solid options.

  • You could reduce their charge capacity so that you get the same tank for a shorter time.

  • You could have a hard limit of one per ship.


Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#305 - 2012-08-06 21:49:11 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Are these modules something that you want to see fixed in the game? Or should CCP simply stop seeding them so they are a sought after rarity in years to come?

There's only so many ways to balance them.

  • Their rep amounts could be reduced to match conventional shields. Nuet immune boosters with a long reload vs. conventional boosters.

  • You could drastically increase their fittings so that oversized and multiple are not solid options.

  • You could reduce their charge capacity so that you get the same tank for a shorter time.

  • You could have a hard limit of one per ship.



I think it'd be a shame to have introduced content that'll never really be used. The armchair game designer in me says to increase fittings cost and make it always cost some capacitor. This solves:
- Dual/Triple ASBs
- Oversized ASBs (to an extent)
- Neut immunity

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#306 - 2012-08-07 00:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

The core problems with ASBs:
- Multiple ASBs allow you to sidestep the drawback of an ASB: reload time.
- Oversized ASBs allow you to sidestep the traditional drawbacks of oversized active tank modules: capacitor and tank volatility
- ASBs are immune to the traditional counter to active tanking: neutralization.


Are these modules something that you want to see fixed in the game? Or should CCP simply stop seeding them so they are a sought after rarity in years to come?

There's only so many ways to balance them.

  • Their rep amounts could be reduced to match conventional shields. Nuet immune boosters with a long reload vs. conventional boosters.

  • You could drastically increase their fittings so that oversized and multiple are not solid options.

  • You could reduce their charge capacity so that you get the same tank for a shorter time.

  • You could have a hard limit of one per ship.


Firstly, fitting requirements should be increased. They currently match that of t1 shield boosters and yet essentially remove the requirement for a cap booster, which frees up a ton of PG (active tanking probably takes a bit too much fitting as it is, but we have to balance the ASB against other shield boosters for now).

Hard limits (e.g. only allowing one per ship) suck imo.

They should also just have the boost amount straight up reduced. They're good enough due to the fact that they provide a cap free and neut-proof booster before you run out of charges, they hardly need drastically increased tankability to go along with that. If I had it my way, you'd see these nerfed down to the point where they provide roughly similar boosts to regular shield boosters, and the reason you might want to fit them is to forego a cap booster and have added resiliency to neutralizers.

Before someone attacks me for "OMAGERD THIS WOULD MAKE THEM USELESS," I think we all know that active tanking as a whole needs looked at. This module should not have been introduced at this time, but since CCP isn't just going to yank it from the servers, it needs to be balanced against the current (and somewhat lackluster) active tanking options.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#307 - 2012-08-07 00:11:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Eternal Error wrote:

They should also just have the boost amount straight up reduced. They're good enough due to the fact that they provide a cap free and neut-proof booster before you run out of charges, they hardly need drastically increased tankability to go along with that. If I had it my way, you'd see these nerfed down to the point where they provide roughly similar boosts to regular shield boosters, and the reason you might want to fit them is to forego a cap booster and have added resiliency to neutralizers.


I'm not too opposed to that, but I think they'd need to adjust the reload time on it if they did that.

-Liang

Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#308 - 2012-08-07 00:23:19 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Eternal Error wrote:

They should also just have the boost amount straight up reduced. They're good enough due to the fact that they provide a cap free and neut-proof booster before you run out of charges, they hardly need drastically increased tankability to go along with that. If I had it my way, you'd see these nerfed down to the point where they provide roughly similar boosts to regular shield boosters, and the reason you might want to fit them is to forego a cap booster and have added resiliency to neutralizers.


I'm not too opposed to that, but I think they'd need to adjust the reload time on it if they did that.

-Liang

Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.



They meant it to be overpowered for a short period of time. Its the only way to draw peopel attention to active tanking.

Armor also need some very short term overpowered active tank. BOTH cases must be adjusted so thtat drawbacks cannot be sidestepped, like the multiple modules.


CCP could also change the overheat bonus to be ONLY a large cycle time bonus (Taht would make your time with tank burn even faster).
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#309 - 2012-08-07 00:28:21 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Eternal Error wrote:

They should also just have the boost amount straight up reduced. They're good enough due to the fact that they provide a cap free and neut-proof booster before you run out of charges, they hardly need drastically increased tankability to go along with that. If I had it my way, you'd see these nerfed down to the point where they provide roughly similar boosts to regular shield boosters, and the reason you might want to fit them is to forego a cap booster and have added resiliency to neutralizers.


I'm not too opposed to that, but I think they'd need to adjust the reload time on it if they did that.

-Liang

Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.

Sure, make the reload and cycle times reflect something closer to that of a regular booster, as long as the dps tanked is reduced. You have more faith in CCP than I do... I just think they're bad at balancing. I mean seriously, they introduced the "capless" active tanking module for the tank type that is least likely to be using weapons that require capacitor.
Serijain
State War Academy
Caldari State
#310 - 2012-08-07 02:03:15 UTC
I think people need to take a step back and reanalyze the purpose and reason for the implementation of the ASB in the first place.

ASB was intended to bring back active tanking in small-med gang warfare, since it is simply impractical in large scale warfare, due to alpha's. The issue at had is balancing the fact that active tanking requires cap, adding a remarkable vulnerability to any active tank, as we all know. CCP's solution was the remove the cap requirement.

First this doesn't fix active tanking, it replaces it with a faux-active tank. I say faux active since this tank can be modeled, in most cases (alpha/enough dps to break tank/killed during recharge/run out of charges) as a buffer tank.

The case of alpha is trivial. Active tanking always is inferior to passive tanking in terms of alpha, always will be. This is the one downfall of ASB, it has the vulnerabilities of an active tank.

Case of having enough dps to break the tank is simply a buffer tank with less than maximum ( total damage applied to the target will be less than if the tank fails due to running out of charges).

Case of reload is remedied by dual ASB systems. If dual ASB is limited, then tankage is limited by actual buffer over 1 minute for maximum incoming dps sustained, other wise the tank is limited to a 1-2 minute presence on the field. But even this can be modeled after a buffer if dps is not enough to break the tank, maximum possible being the full 2 minutes of dps, minimum being 1 minute.

The case of running out of charges should be fairly obvious.

At the end of the day, ASB systems are buffer systems with a higher propensity for alpha, however, having potentially far higher ehp values. I think that once people begin to think of ASB as buffer tank systems, it will be come far clearer where they stand in terms of balance.

I, however, believe that ASB should never have been introduced into the game. It is a new buffer tank system, fully replacing the old active tanking system without addressing the issues and problems related to active tanking at a game play level. Active tanking is supposed to be about resource management, engagement control, and fight control.

However, the resource system in the game has created a very... balance unfriendly system, either active tanking will be good, or ewar will force it to be irrelevant.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#311 - 2012-08-07 02:07:52 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Seishi Maru wrote:

Again.. tank can be broken without massive dps when its not sustainable! ASB are not sustainable for more than 60 seconds if you can fit only 1.

Yes it prevents fast ganks, but that is EXACLTY the intention of the module!

And no active tanks were NOT overtanked at all. Super expensive setups do not count sicne they are less than 0.001% of pvp in eve. Active tanks outside carriers and dreads have been JOKE for years!

ASB are MUCH less hard to deal than the old HUGE passive buffer tank drakes of past (when they coudl reach 700 dps passive tank)


The core problems with ASBs:
- Multiple ASBs allow you to sidestep the drawback of an ASB: reload time.
- Oversized ASBs allow you to sidestep the traditional drawbacks of oversized active tank modules: capacitor and tank volatility
- ASBs are immune to the traditional counter to active tanking: neutralization.

From my perspective, shield tanking just wasn't hurting in small gang PVP before the ASB. It was even dominant for both buffer and for active tanking. I know you said something about .001% of PVP with "super expensive setups", but the truth of the matter is that all of my Harpy videos were done with a meta 4 named shield booster (feel free to check my loss history).

If it were up to me to fix the balance between active tanking and buffer tanking, I'd say that the more elegant solution would be to move about 80% of a mindlinked T3's bonus into the active tank modules themselves. Then I'd try to address the mobility problems Gallente face when active tanking (Brutix, Myrmidon, Hyperion really). I think the best choice there is to change the penalty on aux nano pups and accelerators.

But the creation of a shield tanking module so compelling that the only realistic answer in small gang combat is to fit as many as realistically possible - even if your bonuses are for armor tanking? No, obviously this module is overpowered as hell.

-Liang


Yeah, I kinda agree here, but as I said earlier, I would be more willing to accept the ASB in its current form if they introduced a comparable armor module.

The more I read this thread, and Seishi's earlier post, I am kinda changing my tune here a little. I think it IS cool that active tanking has now been buffed and is now a viable alternative for small gang (maybe still nerf the 2xASB). I guess the root of my real disagreement has now manifested itself - I don't hate the ASB because it's overpowered, per se. I hate the ASB because they didn't introduce a comparable armor module. As you say, it makes the already present disparity between the two much worse. But I admit I am an armor whore.

Regardless, I built some remarkably fail fit XL ASB cruisers with 3 fitting mods, just to see what all of the fuss is about. ;)

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#312 - 2012-08-07 04:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Are these modules something that you want to see fixed in the game? Or should CCP simply stop seeding them so they are a sought after rarity in years to come?

There's only so many ways to balance them.

  • Their rep amounts could be reduced to match conventional shields. Nuet immune boosters with a long reload vs. conventional boosters.

  • You could drastically increase their fittings so that oversized and multiple are not solid options.

  • You could reduce their charge capacity so that you get the same tank for a shorter time.

  • You could have a hard limit of one per ship.




I'd like to see it stop being seeded, CCP to go back to look at active tanking as a whole and then try to fix it by improving existing modules for shield and armor, reducing the enormous gap between gang-linked and non gang-linked tanks, and perhaps doing something about prevalance of energy neutralizers without nerfing them.

The link in my signature also details a good plan to make active tanking more viable in gangs of 2-6 people without making it overpowered in 1vs1.

Basically several changes to the system rather than one "jesus module".
Katalci
Kismesis
#313 - 2012-08-07 07:05:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Katalci
Freezehunter wrote:

My Bhaalgorn had 250 K EHP, 850 gun + 200 drone DPS, dual web, dual NOS, one neutralizer, one tracking computer with tracking scripts, one target painter, one warp scrambler and 4 T2 pulses with COnflagration L crystals.

haha what the **** this fit is terrible (and probably why you lost, in addition to your probably-worse piloting, m8)
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#314 - 2012-08-07 12:34:10 UTC
I'm actually starting to see ASBs (oversized ones when possible) in EVERYTHING.

Vagabonds, Cynabals, Dominixes, Myrmidons, Rifters... On ships with active shield tanking bonus, on ships without them, and on ships with ****ing armor bonus.

And it works. It works wonders in ALL of them. Not to mention things like a Dual X-ASB Cyclone being able to shrug off the damage off 2 Hurris and 2 Drakes and drop aggro next to a gate, or a good ASB frigate tanking 4 ships equal to it.

I don't have any issues with making active shield tanking more used in PvP. But when you seed up a module SO EFFECTIVE even in unbonused ships, then you create a problem.

And checking the fitting trends, its getting worse.

They need a very serious review.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#315 - 2012-08-07 12:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.

Actually, that is pretty common method of solving trend problems in some communities. When you are having troubles remaking something, you have to draw people's attention to the matter first, otherwise getting feedback on changes will be problematic.

Seishi Maru wrote:
Armor also need some very short term overpowered active tank. BOTH cases must be adjusted so thtat drawbacks cannot be sidestepped, like the multiple modules.


It would be nice if it won't be a carbon copy of ASB, only for armour. Speaking of approaches we see ATM though, armour is used as a playground for reactive hardener, not really the same thing. With T2 version of it and some tweaks though we'll probably see following picture: mostly "active-like" shield module that provides buffer-like effect due to burst boost (without increasing passive tanking ability, so not really substitute for SE modules) and an armour module which is mostly other way round (not that good for anti-burst buffer, better for prolonged fights though, in some cases at least).

Still, application of additional aspects (minor cap costs, quantity restrictions etc.) should be taken into consideration.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Veryez
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#316 - 2012-08-08 06:03:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Veryez
Liang Nuren wrote:


Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.


I think you hit the nail on the head. The first time I looked at it, my first comment was, "OMG, this thing boosts more than the highest meta shield booster of the same size." Immediately I started looking at it on ships with a shield boost bonus and a resist bonus.

This mod was designed to bring some life to active tanking, and to give you options against neutralizers. Perhaps it's too good, time will tell, but nerfing it into uselessness will just return everybody to buffer tanks (which are a little too good).

Finally to the OP, you went up against a ship that has a tank that's resistent to being nueted, and has weapons that don't use cap and are surprised that you lost (CCP has always hated solo pwn-mobiles)? Good thing this was on sisi, as you'll be able to make that 100 isk back pretty quickly. Now instead of complaining about it, why not think of a way you can win this engagement.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#317 - 2012-08-08 16:50:41 UTC
Veryez wrote:
...


Long time no see Veryez! Let me know if you need anything getting started again. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#318 - 2012-08-08 17:03:06 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Are these modules something that you want to see fixed in the game? Or should CCP simply stop seeding them so they are a sought after rarity in years to come?

There's only so many ways to balance them.

  • Their rep amounts could be reduced to match conventional shields. Nuet immune boosters with a long reload vs. conventional boosters.

  • You could drastically increase their fittings so that oversized and multiple are not solid options.

  • You could reduce their charge capacity so that you get the same tank for a shorter time.

  • You could have a hard limit of one per ship.



I think it'd be a shame to have introduced content that'll never really be used. The armchair game designer in me says to increase fittings cost and make it always cost some capacitor. This solves:
- Dual/Triple ASBs
- Oversized ASBs (to an extent)
- Neut immunity

-Liang



You mean something like 90% of the capacitor cost is payed by the charges and like 10% by the ship? That could work indeed...
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#319 - 2012-08-08 17:04:51 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ed: BTW, I'm firmly convinced that the ASB was introduced in order to make people take a second look at active tanking. The buffer mentality had gotten adopted to levels that neared dogma. I think they meant for it to be overpowered.

Actually, that is pretty common method of solving trend problems in some communities. When you are having troubles remaking something, you have to draw people's attention to the matter first, otherwise getting feedback on changes will be problematic.

Seishi Maru wrote:
Armor also need some very short term overpowered active tank. BOTH cases must be adjusted so thtat drawbacks cannot be sidestepped, like the multiple modules.


It would be nice if it won't be a carbon copy of ASB, only for armour. Speaking of approaches we see ATM though, armour is used as a playground for reactive hardener, not really the same thing. With T2 version of it and some tweaks though we'll probably see following picture: mostly "active-like" shield module that provides buffer-like effect due to burst boost (without increasing passive tanking ability, so not really substitute for SE modules) and an armour module which is mostly other way round (not that good for anti-burst buffer, better for prolonged fights though, in some cases at least).

Still, application of additional aspects (minor cap costs, quantity restrictions etc.) should be taken into consideration.



One concept for an armor module. a OMNI active hardners.. with moderate resist bonus.. like a bit less than T2 EANM.. and give it an overheat bonus of 75% (just specuilative numbers right here)
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#320 - 2012-08-08 17:12:49 UTC
Overpowered on some ships with multiples - no question OP

However, im seeing alot of deserve trail setups on just about anything with 4 mids or more, and this experimentation makes a very nice change from the 90% change of a cookie setup every time. I dont remember the last time a new module made these sort of waves.

+1 overall

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.