These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Delucian
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#361 - 2012-08-09 19:34:09 UTC
Quote:
No, it's not fine. Power creep is never OK, and it's not OK to buff active tanking by just saying **** it and introducing new modules while leaving the old ones to rot.


I said buff armor reppers. Power creep has already occured. ASB's are not a balancing act when you can load two or three that all rep 100% damage.

However, I agree that is not Power Creep that is Power Slam!
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#362 - 2012-08-09 19:52:03 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:

Cool. You did one battle in one ship against what is arguably the best BC for this particular job, and are now convinced that the ASB is in no way overpowered. Also, if your cyclone fit was such that you had no tackle and your tank was barely able to hold against a cane with just ACs and neuts, then I don't even know what to tell you.


Actually, no. I did about five 1 vs 1 battles, at optimal/close falloff ranges for both ships. Basically a face to face brawl, with no tactical advantages to either, but still manually orbiting each other within optimal and close fallout. Since both ships used the same class of gun (Short-Range Autocannons), any advantage going to one would serve the other.

My testing removed all the non-tangible advantages one pilot may have over another, simply because testing such things is difficult to get accurate. An inferior ship configuration could get the jump on a superior configuration and get a few better shots in, or a pilot with a certain style might fly a particular configuration better than another pilot just as a matter of skill. The first four tests came out with the Hurricane on top. Basically the last test was the best possible configuration at the best possible scenario, without having any of the typical advantages that either an aggressor or defender might have (i.e. friends, timing, warp stabs, etc.)

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#363 - 2012-08-09 22:14:28 UTC
I do think the ASBs need tweaked, right now they deal as much reps as a T2 Shield Booster with less fitting requirements (Though the actual mechanics of ASBs are fine... it's an emergency use module)... I'd rather see ccp include a whole range of ASBs with the current one lowered to T1 shield boost levels and Meta 1-5 versions added to the game. Perhaps a penalty for fitting multiple ASBs or a 1 module limit would be a good idea as well.

But crying about it doesn't help anyone.
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#364 - 2012-08-10 04:30:43 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
Eternal Error wrote:

Cool. You did one battle in one ship against what is arguably the best BC for this particular job, and are now convinced that the ASB is in no way overpowered. Also, if your cyclone fit was such that you had no tackle and your tank was barely able to hold against a cane with just ACs and neuts, then I don't even know what to tell you.


Actually, no. I did about five 1 vs 1 battles, at optimal/close falloff ranges for both ships. Basically a face to face brawl, with no tactical advantages to either, but still manually orbiting each other within optimal and close fallout. Since both ships used the same class of gun (Short-Range Autocannons), any advantage going to one would serve the other.

My testing removed all the non-tangible advantages one pilot may have over another, simply because testing such things is difficult to get accurate. An inferior ship configuration could get the jump on a superior configuration and get a few better shots in, or a pilot with a certain style might fly a particular configuration better than another pilot just as a matter of skill. The first four tests came out with the Hurricane on top. Basically the last test was the best possible configuration at the best possible scenario, without having any of the typical advantages that either an aggressor or defender might have (i.e. friends, timing, warp stabs, etc.)


I'm still skeptical about your "experiments," but we can't really discuss that without de-railing the thread or posting all the fits.

The bottom line is, we're not discussing the hurricane vs. the cyclone. We're discussing ASB vs. regular shield boosters or regular armor repairers. Go repeat your experiments with an ASB fit vs. a regular t2 (or x-type for all I care) shield booster, and watch what happens.
XZemlja
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#365 - 2012-08-10 10:40:07 UTC
all super skilled players use asb. thats why u lose!
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#366 - 2012-08-10 10:42:05 UTC
I think people fail to realize basci logic. Old standard shield boosters were NOT USED in PVP. CCP wanted a active tanking PVP module.. therefore the new modules MUST BE STRONGER than the old ones or NO ONE WILL USE THEM!


SIMPLE!

CCP had an objective, an important one, and to achieve that they had 2 options, nerf buffer tank or boost active tank in a way that its better than old options in PVP (but not usable in PVE0.


They succeeded!!! Peopel complain that the fight takes longer.. well for damm 7 years ccp has been TRYING TO MAKE IT TAKE LONGER!! THat is why our hit point counts are more than 3 times what they used to be at release of the game.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#367 - 2012-08-10 10:43:39 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
Eternal Error wrote:

Cool. You did one battle in one ship against what is arguably the best BC for this particular job, and are now convinced that the ASB is in no way overpowered. Also, if your cyclone fit was such that you had no tackle and your tank was barely able to hold against a cane with just ACs and neuts, then I don't even know what to tell you.


Actually, no. I did about five 1 vs 1 battles, at optimal/close falloff ranges for both ships. Basically a face to face brawl, with no tactical advantages to either, but still manually orbiting each other within optimal and close fallout. Since both ships used the same class of gun (Short-Range Autocannons), any advantage going to one would serve the other.

My testing removed all the non-tangible advantages one pilot may have over another, simply because testing such things is difficult to get accurate. An inferior ship configuration could get the jump on a superior configuration and get a few better shots in, or a pilot with a certain style might fly a particular configuration better than another pilot just as a matter of skill. The first four tests came out with the Hurricane on top. Basically the last test was the best possible configuration at the best possible scenario, without having any of the typical advantages that either an aggressor or defender might have (i.e. friends, timing, warp stabs, etc.)


I'm still skeptical about your "experiments," but we can't really discuss that without de-railing the thread or posting all the fits.

The bottom line is, we're not discussing the hurricane vs. the cyclone. We're discussing ASB vs. regular shield boosters or regular armor repairers. Go repeat your experiments with an ASB fit vs. a regular t2 (or x-type for all I care) shield booster, and watch what happens.



Its not suposed to be any discussion about tat. They were made and MUST BE better than previosu active tanking. BEcause that is what CCP had as an objective.. make people active tank.. not only passive tank!


There is no argument to be made on T2 SHield booster vs ASB! You want discuss balance, discuss how to make armor active tanks as good... or compare ASB with BUFFER TANKS!
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#368 - 2012-08-10 10:47:59 UTC
Zyella Stormborn wrote:



Damage its looking like Cyclone > Prophecy.
Tanking for the first minute or so Prophecy > Cyclone.
Tanking past the first minute or so =/=
Tanking past a few minutes Cyclone > Prophecy
Tanking multiple targets Cyclone > Prophecy.
If Neuts are involved? Cyclone >>>>>>Prophecy.


Im not sure where you get 'on par with' from, but I see it as simply superior with ASB's. I did not bring up the Drake for comparison, because it also benefits from ASB, if maybe not as much, and Drake is kind of in a category of its own. Hurricanes are up their with them in popularity due to their versatility.

Saying you have to click a button to maintain it makes it more complicated ... not sure why that was brought up.


Im with Liang on this one.



What ? In what world are you? Since when the 1600 plate on the prophecy is more affected by neuts than the ASB in the cyclone?

And The more targets firing the better for the buffer thak when comapred to the active tank.


Cyclone is definately better on a 1v1 BC fight.. Now ... Put 2 tornados with arties firing at those.. and see who survives longer...
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#369 - 2012-08-10 11:05:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
People who defend ASBs on the basis that it was introduced to improve ALL active tanking have some explaining to do because this theory doesn't hold much weight at all:

- Why was active armor tanking not improved?

- Why were regular shield boosters not improved?

- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?

- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?


You see where I'm going with this. There is a big difference between trying to improve active tanking in general and introducing something like the ASB that ***** on all existing tanking modules and has no counter except to bring your own ASB or your friends.

At this point I'm more inclined to believe the Liang Nuren "conspiracy" that CCP introduced the ASB solely to get people to start posting feedback on active tanking. As an attempt to "improve" acting tanking, there are so many other things that would be more logical and better.
Nathan Ernaga
Applesauce Brigade
#370 - 2012-08-10 13:49:33 UTC
Is it viable in PvE ?

If you have in your hands the key to the fulfillment of your life's ambition and superiority over most, if you are aware that there is an absolute power on hand (just over the basic moral principles) how far are you willing to go and through what you are willing to tread?
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#371 - 2012-08-10 15:03:38 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
People who defend ASBs on the basis that it was introduced to improve ALL active tanking have some explaining to do because this theory doesn't hold much weight at all:

- Why was active armor tanking not improved?

- Why were regular shield boosters not improved?

- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?

- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?


You see where I'm going with this. There is a big difference between trying to improve active tanking in general and introducing something like the ASB that ***** on all existing tanking modules and has no counter except to bring your own ASB or your friends.

At this point I'm more inclined to believe the Liang Nuren "conspiracy" that CCP introduced the ASB solely to get people to start posting feedback on active tanking. As an attempt to "improve" acting tanking, there are so many other things that would be more logical and better.



I can easily answer:

- Why was active armor tanking not improved?- They hoped the new resist module could do that.. but they know they failed. Probably we will see another try soon.

- Why were regular shield boosters not improved? - BEcause PVE cannto become even MORE EASY

- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?- They are as immune as normal Shield boosters with cap injector. The ASB was introduced as a way to give a better boost while at same time freeing a middle slot from shield tankers that usually lack enough mids to have tackle AND good tank , and speed module AND cap injector.

- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?- Because you already need minimum 4 modules for a small scale PVP fit even without the injector. THe injector need basically made active shield tanking somethign unfittable on anything with less than 6 mids.
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#372 - 2012-08-10 16:10:08 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:


Its not suposed to be any discussion about tat. They were made and MUST BE better than previosu active tanking. BEcause that is what CCP had as an objective.. make people active tank.. not only passive tank!


There is no argument to be made on T2 SHield booster vs ASB! You want discuss balance, discuss how to make armor active tanks as good... or compare ASB with BUFFER TANKS!
Yes, it is supposed to be about that, because that's how people with brains balance video games. CCP wanted ASBs to be an alternative, not a hilarious all-around upgrade. Also, see Takeshi's post.


Seishi Maru wrote:

I can easily answer:

- Why was active armor tanking not improved?- They hoped the new resist module could do that.. but they know they failed. Probably we will see another try soon.

- Why were regular shield boosters not improved? - BEcause PVE cannto become even MORE EASY

- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?- They are as immune as normal Shield boosters with cap injector. The ASB was introduced as a way to give a better boost while at same time freeing a middle slot from shield tankers that usually lack enough mids to have tackle AND good tank , and speed module AND cap injector.

- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?- Because you already need minimum 4 modules for a small scale PVP fit even without the injector. THe injector need basically made active shield tanking somethign unfittable on anything with less than 6 mids.

1. No.
2. Buff active tanks, buff NPC dps by the same amount, give them neuts, etc.. Problem solved.
3. You basically explain why it's overpowered here, although it's obviously more immune since the boost/cap is better with charges and there is zero chance that some of your boost can get neuted out before pressing the SB button.
4. Seriously?

You're having the wrong argument. Again, you do not balance active tanking by bringing in a new module that completely eclipses the old ones, and you certainly don't do it to only one tank type. Additionally, while I think active tanking needs a buff, I do not think it should ever reach ASB boost levels without being able to be neuted.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#373 - 2012-08-10 16:21:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
I think we can also safely say that the Reactive Armor Hardener was not meant to improve active armor tanking, because it improves buffer and active armor tanking equally. Let's use some common sense here.

If I had to guess, the RAH was meant to make 4+ slot armor tanks better in PvE because that's what it does.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#374 - 2012-08-10 17:04:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Seishi Maru
Eternal Error wrote:
Seishi Maru wrote:


Its not suposed to be any discussion about tat. They were made and MUST BE better than previosu active tanking. BEcause that is what CCP had as an objective.. make people active tank.. not only passive tank!


There is no argument to be made on T2 SHield booster vs ASB! You want discuss balance, discuss how to make armor active tanks as good... or compare ASB with BUFFER TANKS!
Yes, it is supposed to be about that, because that's how people with brains balance video games. CCP wanted ASBs to be an alternative, not a hilarious all-around upgrade. Also, see Takeshi's post.


Seishi Maru wrote:

I can easily answer:

- Why was active armor tanking not improved?- They hoped the new resist module could do that.. but they know they failed. Probably we will see another try soon.

- Why were regular shield boosters not improved? - BEcause PVE cannto become even MORE EASY

- Why should the ASB be immune to energy neutralizers?- They are as immune as normal Shield boosters with cap injector. The ASB was introduced as a way to give a better boost while at same time freeing a middle slot from shield tankers that usually lack enough mids to have tackle AND good tank , and speed module AND cap injector.

- Why should the ASB save a mid slot previously used for cap injectors?- Because you already need minimum 4 modules for a small scale PVP fit even without the injector. THe injector need basically made active shield tanking somethign unfittable on anything with less than 6 mids.

1. No.
2. Buff active tanks, buff NPC dps by the same amount, give them neuts, etc.. Problem solved.
3. You basically explain why it's overpowered here, although it's obviously more immune since the boost/cap is better with charges and there is zero chance that some of your boost can get neuted out before pressing the SB button.
4. Seriously?

You're having the wrong argument. Again, you do not balance active tanking by bringing in a new module that completely eclipses the old ones, and you certainly don't do it to only one tank type. Additionally, while I think active tanking needs a buff, I do not think it should ever reach ASB boost levels without being able to be neuted.



YOu are the one witht he wrong argument! I payed attention on the development of tank balance during the years and hitns of what CCP wanted and all the feedback they gave about the subject. THey for a logn time stated exaclty the things that I posted. Too bad you did not payed attention. Too bad you lived in a world where 1600mm plates did not tanked more damage than all other forms of tanks in PVP by several factors... because THAT IS THE REALITY!

CCP DID WANTED ASB to be an UPGRADE! Active shield tanking was useless for PVP therefore what they needed was an UPGRADE.. not an alternative!!!

IF it boosted same as normal boosters and did not saved you from usign na injector it would be 100% useless!!!
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#375 - 2012-08-10 19:14:17 UTC
sometimes i complain when losing ships on TQ, I also think ASB works forever and doesn't need cap boosters.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#376 - 2012-08-10 19:19:02 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:



YOu are the one witht he wrong argument! I payed attention on the development of tank balance during the years and hitns of what CCP wanted and all the feedback they gave about the subject. THey for a logn time stated exaclty the things that I posted. Too bad you did not payed attention. Too bad you lived in a world where 1600mm plates did not tanked more damage than all other forms of tanks in PVP by several factors... because THAT IS THE REALITY!

CCP DID WANTED ASB to be an UPGRADE! Active shield tanking was useless for PVP therefore what they needed was an UPGRADE.. not an alternative!!!

IF it boosted same as normal boosters and did not saved you from usign na injector it would be 100% useless!!!


Logical answer to this is adding a low slot cap injector clone, not giving these ships the equivalent of a free mid slot.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#377 - 2012-08-10 22:28:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Seishi Maru wrote:
I think people fail to realize basci logic. Old standard shield boosters were NOT USED in PVP.



They were.

Not at fleet scale or large gangs (+10 or 15 dudes) but active shield tanking was already very good. ASB's just made it FOTOM atm including armor ships being better with shield modules for a long while now, and ASB's rather than armor modules witch is the proof those are way too powerful.

The initial idea is awesome, the fact you can fit more than one and how charges work is bad, it's really really bad as game design or whatever balance argument.

Edit: notice the difference in the fact this module brought to the field ships that weren't almost never used (like cyclones). What is plain wrong is the fact you can fit more than one and oversized ones.

brb
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#378 - 2012-08-10 23:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Seishi Maru wrote:

Cyclone is definately better on a 1v1 BC fight.. Now ... Put 2 tornados with arties firing at those.. and see who survives longer...


The cyclone because it'll tank the volley and then go face **** a pair of Tornados before they can fire again. Also, active tanking was used in small gang warfare.

-Liang

Ed: And to be clear: YOU are the kind of person that makes CCP have to introduce amazingly mindbogglingly OP modules in order to shake your cage hard enough to realize that active tanking has ALWAYS been viable.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#379 - 2012-08-10 23:38:50 UTC
The cyclone is the most broken atm hands down, its got speed, sig, dps and those dual large ASB or X-L ASB which makes it practically invincible against most small gangs - for the cost of the ship this is totally nuts.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Veronica Kerrigan
Surgically Constructed L Feminist
#380 - 2012-08-11 06:23:46 UTC
SO a module designed to be a counter to energy neutralizers was about to beat out the premier neuting ship in the game? Sounds like working as intended to me. One ship fit to counter another, both in the same class, pirate faction BS. Pit the same rattler against any machariel fit, and it wont deal a bit of damage , and will die once it runs out of booster charges. Fly the right ship for the job mate.