These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sitreba Oonchevkii
#381 - 2012-08-11 10:00:00 UTC
i too can fight solo in a bhaalgorn

Blod-red skies, strange beings, and the number 514, often written in blood.
Mattadore
Doomheim
#382 - 2012-08-11 16:38:33 UTC
Lmao. Dude, if he's active tank and you're just buffer, he's gonna slowly wear you down and kill you. 250k EHP vs well known tanking ship? Come on bro.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#383 - 2012-08-13 10:35:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Seishi Maru wrote:
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!!!


Having active local tank only being viable in PvE is already broken concept, to begin with. You argument is revolving around postulate that there are PvP modules (which are actually just plain better) and PvE ones (worse, but with no need for maintenance), which is not how it's done in a good game for the exact reason of avoiding situations when you don't need to make decisions between existing alternatives. You know that something's wrong when you have to think like "PvP? 1600 or ASB, period!"

What I posted this is oversimplified and I'm aware that some statements here are overgeneralizations, but I hope you'll understand what I mean.

P.S. And since you place so much emphasis on 1600mm plate, well... I don't really think that someone here will agree on how armour tanking is so OP just because of 1600mm plate.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#384 - 2012-08-13 10:56:15 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Seishi Maru wrote:
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!!!


Having active local tank only being viable in PvE is already broken concept, to begin with. You argument is revolving around postulate that there are PvP modules (which are actually just plain better) and PvE ones (worse, but with no need for maintenance), which is not how it's done in a good game for the exact reason of avoiding situations when you don't need to make decisions between existing alternatives. You know that something's wrong when you have to think like "PvP? 1600 or ASB, period!"

What I posted this is oversimplified and I'm aware that some statements here are overgeneralizations, but I hope you'll understand what I mean.

P.S. And since you place so much emphasis on 1600mm plate, well... I don't really think that someone here will agree on how armour tanking is so OP just because of 1600mm plate.



Dude.. in what world you live? Peopel will always go for the most powerful alternatives. Before ASB there was 1.. buffer tank. Now there are 2. What is so hard to grasp 2 >1 ?


Make a data mining on killboards and get number of ships that were using BUFFER tank vs active tank on last 4 years.... I would get VERY surprised if 10% of the ships had active tank!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#385 - 2012-08-13 20:14:16 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:

Dude.. in what world you live? Peopel will always go for the most powerful alternatives. Before ASB there was 1.. buffer tank. Now there are 2. What is so hard to grasp 2 >1 ?

Make a data mining on killboards and get number of ships that were using BUFFER tank vs active tank on last 4 years.... I would get VERY surprised if 10% of the ships had active tank!


That doesn't mean that active tanking wasn't viable. You continually assert that it wasn't, but I know better.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#386 - 2012-08-14 00:46:12 UTC
Armor whiners want armor active to be as good as shield active.

If so then give me an x-large shield extender and make shield buffer similar to armor buffer.

Also I want shield slave set and higher base shield resists.

...



Exactly, so STFU and HTFU already :P.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#387 - 2012-08-14 00:46:57 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Seishi Maru wrote:

Dude.. in what world you live? Peopel will always go for the most powerful alternatives. Before ASB there was 1.. buffer tank. Now there are 2. What is so hard to grasp 2 >1 ?

Make a data mining on killboards and get number of ships that were using BUFFER tank vs active tank on last 4 years.... I would get VERY surprised if 10% of the ships had active tank!


That doesn't mean that active tanking wasn't viable. You continually assert that it wasn't, but I know better.

-Liang


Before, active shield tanking was only for rich boys with pills and implants. Not to mention booster alts.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#388 - 2012-08-14 04:17:57 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:

Before, active shield tanking was only for rich boys with pills and implants. Not to mention booster alts.


Don't be daft. That's like saying that buffer tanking was only for armor people with booster alts and slave sets. Roll

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#389 - 2012-08-14 11:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Liang Nuren wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:

Before, active shield tanking was only for rich boys with pills and implants. Not to mention booster alts.


Don't be daft. That's like saying that buffer tanking was only for armor people with booster alts and slave sets. Roll

-Liang


LoL, are you kidding me?


170k ehp hellcat abaddon wants to have a word with you.

Compare that to barely 400 dps tank x-large booster cyclone, with no web and gimped DPS. Which was also out classed in every way by active armor myrm.

Nothing is/was ever wrong with armor buffer, the slaves were just an extra middle finger to shield tanks. Crystals on the other hand are needed to get a decent active shield tank going. Either that or atleast a booster and faction modules.

Yeah, active shield tanking was REAL good back then, I can see it now. Roll Maybe if you had an alt and rolling in ISK.


Literally only two ships could be active shield tanked without goodies and stuff backing you up, and they were subpar at best.
Lugalzagezi666
#390 - 2012-08-14 12:42:03 UTC
I will just leave this there :

- cyclone can tank 138k damage with 1 xlasb (assuming no reload) using 4 slots and all 3 rigs for tank
- prophecy (ok, its lolship, but it is just example) has 124k ehp using 4 slots, 3 rigs and HG SLAVES for tank
- cyclone with 4 slot tank, 3 shield rigs and HG CRYSTALS can tank 188k ehp assuming no reload of xlasb

- sleipnir can tank 189k damage with 1 xlasb (no reload) using 4 slots and 2 rigs for tank
- absolution can tank 157k ehp when using 4 slots, 2 rigs and HG SLAVES for tank
- sleipnir with 4 slot tank, 2 shield rigs and HG CRYSTALS can tank 262k ehp

Btw both cyclone and sleipnir can fit dual large asbs for lower but sustainable tank, sleipnir can fit dual xl asb too.
- cyclone using 4 slots + 3 rigs (dual large asb fit) can tank 487 dps, while tanking is immune to neuts
- brutix using 5 slots (2x mar, dc, eanm and CAP BOOSTER) + 3 rigs can tank 389 dps, while being vulnerable to neuts

Clearly balanced.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#391 - 2012-08-14 12:42:24 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:

Before, active shield tanking was only for rich boys with pills and implants. Not to mention booster alts.


Don't be daft. That's like saying that buffer tanking was only for armor people with booster alts and slave sets. Roll

-Liang



Aaa sure you know everything.. jsut like back then at that huge thread where we 2 discussed about the changes to arti where I supported an increase of alpha strike (that ended up being part of the solution that ccp chose) whiel you adamantly ensured that no one would even take advantage of alpha strike because your math prooved that always the larger dps groups would win regradless of alpha damage and that no one would think of using maelstroms with 1400mm arties ina fleet because tha alpha strike would bring absolutely nothing...

yeah.. we know how that ended up.. I could continue to recite failures on your annalysis for months.. but I don't have time to write an essay every day just for that...

Active tanking wa so prevalent htat your own fits with cyclones were using EXTENDERS!!! Your OWN FITS!
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#392 - 2012-08-14 15:01:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
I will just leave this there :

- cyclone can tank 138k damage with 1 xlasb (assuming no reload) using 4 slots and all 3 rigs for tank
- prophecy (ok, its lolship, but it is just example) has 124k ehp using 4 slots, 3 rigs and HG SLAVES for tank
- cyclone with 4 slot tank, 3 shield rigs and HG CRYSTALS can tank 188k ehp assuming no reload of xlasb

- sleipnir can tank 189k damage with 1 xlasb (no reload) using 4 slots and 2 rigs for tank
- absolution can tank 157k ehp when using 4 slots, 2 rigs and HG SLAVES for tank
- sleipnir with 4 slot tank, 2 shield rigs and HG CRYSTALS can tank 262k ehp

Btw both cyclone and sleipnir can fit dual large asbs for lower but sustainable tank, sleipnir can fit dual xl asb too.
- cyclone using 4 slots + 3 rigs (dual large asb fit) can tank 487 dps, while tanking is immune to neuts
- brutix using 5 slots (2x mar, dc, eanm and CAP BOOSTER) + 3 rigs can tank 389 dps, while being vulnerable to neuts

Clearly balanced.



Blah blah blah "no reload"

The reloading part is the weakest thing of the ancillary booster. Not counting the reload to prove your point makes your point invalid.

You can't just not count the reload.... Unless you found a way to instantly reload these shield boosters ingame and in that case it would be an exploit.

Even though your argument is completely worthless, I will still say that active tanks being able to tank more than a buffer tank over a period of time are Working as intended.

Now show me an active tank that can survive the alpha of a good sized gang long enough to get reps or warp away.

Oh yeah, you can't.


Oh and if you use 4 slots on a cyclone for tank, you have to choose between either a point or a speed mod. So using 4 slots for tanking on a cyclone is a failfit.

So you are sad that active shield tanking > active armor tanking...

Well, if you want active armor to be as strong as shields, then I want shield buffer to be just as strong as armor buffer.
Lugalzagezi666
#393 - 2012-08-14 15:26:22 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Blah blah blah

You clearly didnt understand, that the numbers show ehp gained with 1 load (13) of navy 400s already inside the booster. You also missed the part where dual asb fits still tank better than any other alternative while they are sustainable. If the booster manages to reload (dual asb fits), the ehp gained by these modules basically doubles.

You also does not seem to understand that I am comparing vanilla t2 fits with asbs with HG SLAVED armor fits.

Diesel47 wrote:
Oh and if you use 4 slots on a cyclone for tank, you have to choose between either a point or a speed mod. So using 4 slots for tanking on a cyclone is a failfit.

Wrong. If I am using 4 slot tank on cyclone I am using damage control, 2 invuls and xl asb. That leaves enough space for point and mwd. Btw 3 slot asb tank on cyclone with web still gives you more overall ehp than 4 slot tank on prophecy (by around 20k ehp).

So you are pretty much wrong in everything you wrote.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#394 - 2012-08-14 15:46:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:

I am pretty much wrong in everything I wrote.



Fixed that for you.

The comparisons that do not count the reloads are stupid and shouldn't even be mentioned. They prove nothing in a real PvP scenario. When the reload comes up , you will die if you are using a single shield booster. You will never be able to tank your theoretical "138k ehp". So like I said, Unless you found an exploit that you are using to not reload these boosters.. Half of your post is basically worthless. It is a bunch of theory crafting that will never ever happen.

Moving on.

"dual ASB is stronger than active armor tanking." Ok so what? And armor buffer is stronger than shield buffer. This how CCP keeps shield and armor as two different things. If you are suggesting to make armor and shields perfectly the same then you should stop posting, because that is a terrible idea that will dull the game.

Plus a 480dps tank isn't even impressive. It will die to a single hurricane or drakes dps.

Also: An active tank being able to tank more than a buffer over a period of time is work as intended. So at this point you are arguing with the developers. Slaves or not, this is how the game is intended to be. And it is fine.


Also make your posts more clear so people can actually understand what you are saying. Currently it is a mess.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#395 - 2012-08-14 15:51:01 UTC
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
Blah blah blah

You clearly didnt understand, that the numbers show ehp gained with 1 load (13) of navy 400s already inside the booster. You also missed the part where dual asb fits still tank better than any other alternative while they are sustainable. If the booster manages to reload (dual asb fits), the ehp gained by these modules basically doubles.

You also does not seem to understand that I am comparing vanilla t2 fits with asbs with HG SLAVED armor fits.

Diesel47 wrote:
Oh and if you use 4 slots on a cyclone for tank, you have to choose between either a point or a speed mod. So using 4 slots for tanking on a cyclone is a failfit.

Wrong. If I am using 4 slot tank on cyclone I am using damage control, 2 invuls and xl asb. That leaves enough space for point and mwd. Btw 3 slot asb tank on cyclone with web still gives you more overall ehp than 4 slot tank on prophecy (by around 20k ehp).

So you are pretty much wrong in everything you wrote.



You are so wrong lmfao.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#396 - 2012-08-14 16:05:17 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:
snip

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?

1600 plate is irrelevant when the ship can not fire anything due to 0 cap on its lasers, just means a few more shots to kill it. Cyclone can a) still keep firing, and b) keep on filling its shields.

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

The more targets on an alpha hit, the better the buffer tank. Anything else, ASB wins. Prophecy can not stand and tank 3-4 other ships continuously (until charges run out at least).


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...

Irrelevant argument. Both Proph and Cyclone would be dead in very short order if they get jumped by 2 alpha ships designed for sniping at very long range. Or they would warp out in seconds and Both would live.

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Lugalzagezi666
#397 - 2012-08-14 17:00:09 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Blah blah blah

Once again you are wrong. I will repeat it again - all calculations were counting ONLY with 1 load of navy cap 400s, that are already in xlasb. Even in such situation asb tanks are much better than anything else, even better than HG slaved armor tanks. When reload comes, you already tanked much more than a hg slaved armor tank ship. You should also have no issues getting that 138k ehp, unless you are completely incompetent and you are overboosting. If you manage to reload the booster, the ehp gained will double.

Armor buffer vs shield buffer was balanced very good on subcap level, because sig radius penalty is much easier to live with than speed penalty and shield buffer actually regenerates over time unlike armor.

480 dps tank of cyclone is 100 dps more than brutix can achieve with 1 more slot used for tank. Dual mar brutix will die to a single cane because he will be under double neuts pressure, cyclone will easily kill the cane.

Also active shield tanking being able to tank more than HG slaved buffer tanks over so short period of time, without any fitting issues, with lower signature radius penalty and with immunity to neuts is certainly not working as intended.

Im not going to bother to make my posts more clear to the "special" 1% of player base, but I can suggest you to train your reading comprehension. And learn basic game mechanics of eve, because everything what are you stating is wrong.

LordOfDespair wrote:
You are so wrong lmfao.

No. Im right and everything I said are facts you can easily check on tranquility or even in any fitting manager.

Zyella Stormborn wrote:
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...

Irrelevant argument. Both Proph and Cyclone would be dead in very short order if they get jumped by 2 alpha ships designed for sniping at very long range. Or they would warp out in seconds and Both would live.

Cyclone would be actually able to tank 2 artillery nados longer, because with oh tank armor/structure bleed would be minimal. Not to mention that cyclone has much better chance of disengaging because it is much faster and much more agile than plated and trimarked brick.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#398 - 2012-08-14 18:28:52 UTC
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:

Zyella Stormborn wrote:
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...

Irrelevant argument. Both Proph and Cyclone would be dead in very short order if they get jumped by 2 alpha ships designed for sniping at very long range. Or they would warp out in seconds and Both would live.

Cyclone would be actually able to tank 2 artillery nados longer, because with oh tank armor/structure bleed would be minimal. Not to mention that cyclone has much better chance of disengaging because it is much faster and much more agile than plated and trimarked brick.



Huh didn't think about that, good point.

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Ayuren Aakiwa
Shadow Legion X
Seriously Suspicious
#399 - 2012-08-14 18:46:32 UTC
Lol @ op trying to save face by crying troll a few pages back. Also asb is fine l2adapt
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#400 - 2012-08-14 19:00:12 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:

Aaa sure you know everything.. jsut like back then at that huge thread where we 2 discussed about the changes to arti where I supported an increase of alpha strike (that ended up being part of the solution that ccp chose) whiel you adamantly ensured that no one would even take advantage of alpha strike because your math prooved that always the larger dps groups would win regradless of alpha damage and that no one would think of using maelstroms with 1400mm arties ina fleet because tha alpha strike would bring absolutely nothing...

yeah.. we know how that ended up.. I could continue to recite failures on your annalysis for months.. but I don't have time to write an essay every day just for that...

Active tanking wa so prevalent htat your own fits with cyclones were using EXTENDERS!!! Your OWN FITS!


The funny thing about the artillery buff has turned out about like I predicted it would. You might recall that I said DPS would win right up until the point that ships were being literally volleyed off the field in mass. We even discussed how lag would favor alpha doctrines because DPS ships wouldn't be able to switch primary as often. I'd personally say that my predictions have been borne out in practice.

Though I do have to admit that I wasn't really conceptualizing what would happen when CCP introduced Time Dilation - and I haven't really kept up on fleet doctrines. Someone remind me - 500 person Hell Cat vs 500 person Alpha Fleet at 50km. Who wins?

As to cyclones: yes, I preferred buffer cyclones because they had more DPS and more consistent performance. You might remember that I never said the XL Cyclone wasn't viable - just that it didn't have the DPS I needed for my play style. Fortunately, I can now use a neut immune Pith X-Type XL Cyclone and get all the DPS of my previous fit!

I have to ask though: have you received a large head injury since you were on the forums last? You were so much more coherent then...

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.