These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Testing ASB adjustments on Duality

First post First post
Author
Exer Toralen
The Big Push
#141 - 2012-10-10 19:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Exer Toralen
I concur with TheMaster42 that ASB is a problem in small gangs because fights there are often do not last as long as ASB's charges, so ASB essentially provide not a burst but sustained tanking there.

There are enough different ideas here on how to nerf ASB, but here is crazy one how to provide burst tanking (if that was the initial idea) in both small and large gangs.

Make it so that ship with such burst tanking module is invulnerable for module's duration. And make invulnerability countdown refresh if there are hostile actions agains the ship or make invulnerability duration proportional to number of enemy ships in your vicinity. And penalize invulnerable ship with inability to shoot or decreased speed or something else like with different "Now I'm invincible but useless" spells in different RPG games.

This way burst tanking would scale with number of your enemies. And it won't give you an edge that currently makes you are able to out-tank your single enemy (in small gangs like one-on-one) while still blasting him with burst damage.

There are different kinds of such invulnerability. You can make ship getting into something like POS reinforce mode. Or you can still allow lock on it, but make people miss by decreasing signature greatly (thus preventing new enemies from locking you effectively). You can provide one-time bonus to shields or greatly increase resistances temporarily with magnitude being dependent on number of enemies and disappearing after some time. Or you can leave it as shield booster but change amount of shield restored according to number of enemies.

Just make it purely survival module so it stops being an advantage in combat or make it's effect scaling with number of enemies or both.

Yes, it somewhat overlaps with Target Breaker. But that's a matter of another discussion.
Dante KamiyaX
STARK INDUSTRIES.INCX
#142 - 2012-10-11 13:08:45 UTC
A better solution is to give armor rep ships a similar ver of an ASB only it reps armor instead of shields

I hope you don't nerf every good thing that has come to solo pvp and make it just less solo pvp friendly

Thats what tends to happen
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#143 - 2012-10-12 16:20:26 UTC
The thing that always bothered me about ASB's is the fact they seem like passive modules untill they run out of charges. These modules seem like a new category.

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

Cpt Arareb
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#144 - 2012-10-14 04:46:43 UTC
Make asb´s use cap charges and ur own ship capacitor at the same time at a ratio of 50/50 or something, if your ship get neuted and there is no more ship capacitor to feed the 50%(or whatever) that a cycle need, then the asb will only rep at 50% of maximum power due to the cap charges.

With this changes you get an active module that you can counter(neuts) that is dificult to be viable in dual asb fits cause it will be dificult to keep ur ship´s capacitor running all those cycles to 100% power w/o need of a cap booster(that means another slot need to be used), and you still get ur temporary tank cause the cap charges are still letting the asb run at 50% of is capacity(probably doing the same repping power of normal shield booster).

And if you dont have cap charges to help run those cycles you get the amount capacitor of those cap chargers taken from your ship´s capacitor as well. bam problem solved, you get a unique type of supper repping module but with real drawbacks this time.Blink
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#145 - 2012-10-14 11:56:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
I too support the 1 module per ship solution.

Having flown single MASB frigates against MSE frigates, the ASBs give only marginally more EHP after 10 boosts (and by marginally I mean 2 boosts extra boosts worth or 400-600 more EHP). I'm fine with this advantage given that the disadvantage is that the ASB fit is more vulnerable to large alpha. If the MASB is reduced to only 7 boosts, I doubt they'll be used on any ship.

The XLASBs are also great as they provide a solution to a lot of ships that weren't viable active tankers before due to cap issues (or inadequate fitting to fit both a XL Shield Booster + Cap Booster). As others have mentioned, the issue is 2 XLASBs provide more sustained active tank than a Deadspace XL Shield Booster + Cap Booster (to cope with the cap). Deadspace XL Shield Booster fits were still vulnerable to cap warfare even with a cap booster as heavy neuting meant they could only boost for a few seconds after a cap injection before neuts shut the cap downa gain. Dual ASBs don't have this vulnerability and above it give more booster than their deadspace equivalent? No that's too much. However take away the 2nd ASB and the fit becomes beatable again since the 60 second reload factor will actually come into play (which if I'm not mistaken was CCPs intention to begin with).

As others have pointed out, the proposed nerf isn't tackling the issue of having dual ASBs which overcome the reload factor and provide more sustained active tanking than Shield Booster + Cap Booster, but instead unnecessarily nerfs the legitimate use of ASBs, which I believe is already balanced (Alliance Tournament clearly showed that single ASB fits were quite beatable and a lot of ships went down once they went into reload).
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#146 - 2012-10-14 12:05:06 UTC
Dante KamiyaX wrote:
A better solution is to give armor rep ships a similar ver of an ASB only it reps armor instead of shields

I hope you don't nerf every good thing that has come to solo pvp and make it just less solo pvp friendly

Thats what tends to happen
Armor repping ships needed buffing before ASBs, this isn't an ASB related issue. The ASB issue (i.e. dual ASB fits) does need to be dealt with of itself, although it may have highlighted some significant weaknesses with active armor tanking.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#147 - 2012-10-14 16:58:22 UTC
Cap is another reason why ASB itself is so borked - it makes ship capacitor pretty meaningless tanking-wise, allowing hacs to tank like command ships and cruisers like BCs. Sheer stupidity.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

FunkBoi69
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#148 - 2012-10-14 19:25:45 UTC  |  Edited by: FunkBoi69
Well you need cap to hold point and lets face it if your not using an invuln u have no buffer. As for all these arguments regarding shield tank being OP compared to armor, thats bull. Armor tank can usually fit a mwd and web whereas shield tank usually sacrifices these to get bigger tanks, armor just doesnt give u that option so they always have both an MWD and WEB fit. Armor tanks can also usually fit dual cap boosters as well and are a lot more cap efficient and more cap stable. If u were to fit a Maelstrom with an MWD and WEB and DUAL CAP BOOSTERS you would have an inferior tank compared to a Hyperion even with hi grade crystals, so please stfu about armor tank needing a buff too. CCP can you please post some of your thoughts so we know what direction your looking at going in...
Danny John-Peter
Blue Canary
Watch This
#149 - 2012-10-15 14:51:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Danny John-Peter
I'm going to throw in my own opinion here, while I think that ASBs need looked at, I can honestly say that they have made Active tanking viable, without the massive support system behind pre ASB tanks, what I'm essentially saying is it means you no longer need Tengu links or billions of isk in implants to have a 'Bitchin' tank on you BS, I have been doing it with a T2 fit and some improved Blue.

Limiting to 1 ASB or even making it so Links/Implants dont effect ASBs I would be fine with, but dont nerf these modules into the ground ,plox CCP.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#150 - 2012-10-15 17:33:44 UTC
oops

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly

Rose Roses
#151 - 2012-10-17 11:24:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Rose Roses
Why don't you add the target painter's stacking penalties (the harsh ones) to the shieldboostamount instead of -- with the current planning -- totally nerf single ASB out of this game.... honestly, with 9 charges instead of 13, I won't mount that thing to any hull. Just the obscene fitting requirements aren't justified if the module itself isn't really that good anymore.

In the case of the more usual dual large cruiser/bc setups, I doubt they give a **** if they need to reload after 9 or 13 times the diference is way less aggravating. (Assuming that most dual-ASB ships more than sufficiently tank on one booster already, afaik) [recently fought a dual-large ASB tengu with SBAs instead of invulns as part of a gangfight, still took ashimmu, loki and ~5 other factioncruisers/battlecruisers 3 minutes to kill that tengu t.T]

So dual ASB still works kind of equally with less sustained maxtank, single ASB-setups (the one that this module was intended to support) will receive a hard nerf. YAY.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#152 - 2012-10-17 12:27:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
As someone who actually PvPs and has experience of using both single and dual ASB I don't see how current changes nerf either of these options into ground. I'd still be using both, unless conventional tank receives a buff at the same time, which is unlikely to happen and is not even needed in the first place. The only reason why active tank is underused is cause passive/buffer tank is absurdly good, we shouldn't be delusional about that. ASB is even more OP than buffer tank, deal with it getting fixed.

As for testing particular things, I for one do think that test servers and artificial environment don't provide proper ground for all-around testing, excluding 1 on 1 fights which on the other hand are only a tiny part of actual PvP and hardly proove anything.

CCP, just release the changes and keep your mind open for further adjustments.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#153 - 2012-10-17 14:53:53 UTC
I'm not sure about these changes. They have reduced some of the values. So, we'll see how things go if implemented. If these modules are still superior to regular shield boosters. Then that's not a really a fix.

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

nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
#154 - 2012-10-17 18:35:39 UTC
Can we at least know why it is perfectly fine to have more than 1 asb in game but not in tournaments?
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#155 - 2012-10-19 07:56:27 UTC
Honestly can you guys just bite the bullet and cast ASBs back into the fiery chasm from whence they came already? On a theoretical level they're just profoundly silly modules-- there's a reason all active tanking schemes were cap-dependent prior to their introduction.

Remove ASBs, rebalance historical shield boosters to provide more rep and consume less cap. Proper shield boosters can't practically be stacked like ASBs and leave the user vulnerable to heavy neuting (small amounts of neuting can be countered by cap injection, but large amounts can't, which is as it should be).

ASBs are a silly concept, whereas normal boosters are a good concept that suffers from poor implementation. Toss out the silly and fix the good.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#156 - 2012-10-19 10:36:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Ganthrithor wrote:
Honestly can you guys just bite the bullet and cast ASBs back into the fiery chasm from whence they came already? On a theoretical level they're just profoundly silly modules-- there's a reason all active tanking schemes were cap-dependent prior to their introduction.

Remove ASBs, rebalance historical shield boosters to provide more rep and consume less cap. Proper shield boosters can't practically be stacked like ASBs and leave the user vulnerable to heavy neuting (small amounts of neuting can be countered by cap injection, but large amounts can't, which is as it should be).

ASBs are a silly concept, whereas normal boosters are a good concept that suffers from poor implementation. Toss out the silly and fix the good.

Agreed, even though it's unlikely to happen.

But the idea to remove or reduce commitment factors from underpowered stuff instead of introducing those to overpowered one is dubious. Active tanking was tied with cap and that was good, just like 10-minutes siege mode was good for making dreads balanced - but instead of creating something simular for other capitals (titans and moms) they just cut siege timers in half. Apparently, the same was true for ASB, but even to a bigger extent. Nerfing commitment and reducing vulnerability instead of developing them... meh...

Given this weird logic, I wonder how CCP managed to come up with turret tracking back then - evidently, tracking is also 'bad' the same way siege and cap dependancy are.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2012-10-19 19:18:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
I like the idea of the no reload while one is running. However if you do this, I'd suggest buffing the reload time, potentially in half.

I'd further reduce the capacity of them so that they can only hold 9 charges.

During the spring sometime you can begin to introduce the higher meta ASB's which would give varying bonuses to reload time, cycle time and capacity (not boost amount).

The highest meta would be in line to what is currently out and while having two of these equipped it would function exactly how they do right now but would just be really rare and potentially cost prohibitive outside people pimping out things like Nightmares.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#158 - 2012-10-19 22:25:28 UTC
I think limiting the module to one per ship is not a good idea. PG/CPU are here for that, and if the problem is the number, then make the fitting cost prohibitive if you use more than one. And if, then, the module is not effective enough for its cost, then you need to boost the effect. But the reverse is also possible : lower the effect of one and keep it's cost. If one is still worth fitting and two are not OP anymore, then it's balanced too.

But I think these changes are good : with a shorter lifespan, then the off time is longer,and that leave more time to kill the ship. The off time also come sooner, solving the problem of longer fights.
Straahl
House of Dying Laggers
#159 - 2012-10-23 07:10:40 UTC
nahjustwarpin wrote:
Can we at least know why it is perfectly fine to have more than 1 asb in game but not in tournaments?


Same reason why you can't field 4 of any given ship, have only 1 logistic, can't fit faction/officer mods, only field a maximum of 12 pilots, intentional pod killing is illegal, can't leave the arena, etc.. Tournament matches ≠ the in-game environment.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#160 - 2012-10-23 12:41:15 UTC
Another vote for 1-module limit (regardless of size — no mixing sizes).

Also, make them match the size of the ship and cap charges: XLSBs shouldn't fit on anything smaller than battleships; LSBs should be a tight squeeze below BCs; MSBs fit on cruisers… and have each accept one und only van cap charge size.

If you don't like the charge size limitation, how about this for a brainfart: revamp the module almost completely. Give them zero cycle time, but make the shield rep amount directly proportional to the cap charge used. Yes, you can blow 800x HP back in your shield as quickly as you can press the button, but you also expend 800-cap charges that fast… so you'll run out in 3 seconds flat and then you have to face that 60-second reload (and you can still only fit one of them). Thus, it doesn't matter what charge you use — they're all equally valuable for the purpose of filling your shield. Instead, you're weighing your ability to rapidly tap a button (and hope the server keeps up) against your wish to not waste charges on over-boosting the shield against making the most use of your available cargo space against what you might need for your regular cap booster.