Warfare & Tactics

Has there been any formal explanation given on the discrepancies between these two modules?

This website, http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/24/eve-evolved-new-ancillary-armor-repairers-arent-up-to-the-task/, claims for a measly 5.42% difference in repair amount, in favor of the AAR, the ASB can be used without consuming any capacitor, has a cycle time 300% faster, and does not share the AAR's one module per ship stipulation.

I mainly fly frigate sized hulls, so perhaps these modules pan out different in larger ships, but the AAR is unequivocal inferior to the ASB in my tier of PvP.

On one hand, I do not want to be a cry-baby, but I am having a very difficult time justifying the incredible advantage of using the ASB. The comparison between these two has left me frustrated thinking that many of my fights could have turned out differently if I never had to use any capacitor repairing my ship.

Edit: Grammar

Because that line of tought is completely WRONG.

You cannot average the bonus and the panalty after charges run out. You use them when you want to make th fight finish BEFORE your charges run out.

They are 66% more efficien than normal repairers, PERIOD. If you will need more than 10 cycles you need a completely different setup.

YEs they are inferior to ASBs, but mostly because you can only fit 1.

but how come my light missiles don't do as much damage as blasters!?

I know, right? It's so unfair. I mean CCP isn't even my real dad and he totally doesn't understand me. God, everything he does just makes my life hell. I'm going to run away. That'll teach him.

ASBs in their most effective setups are hard to fit along with decent resists. Reason being is that for an ASB to be truly effective you have to use an oversized one (medium on a frig, large on a cruiser for example) which eats up a LOT of grid. I think if you compare a small ASB to a small AAR you will find they are comparable, but you can't really oversize AARs on ships. Also, any resistance mods on a shield setup come at the expense of slots to be used for tackle and ewar, or a cap injector that can keep an active armor rep going for a VERY long time.

With a right sized AAR on a proper armor ship, you can also make up for some of the shortfall with a better resist profile, which will make those rep points mean more. You have more reaction time to start them up once you start taking damage, and finally, there is a reason most frigs don't want to solo a dual rep incursus where that AAR is being backed up by a t2 rep, and that tank will last loads longer than most frigate ASB setups.

Oh... and active armor setups don't give either sig bloom OR speed penalties, and sig bloom from shield rigs/mods can result in more incoming damage to tank as well.

My favorite active armor setups involve more kiting and mid to long range engagement with the exception of the incursus.

Common misconception: The 'duration' rig is actually NOT boosting the AAR's performance. If you use an aar, you actually say '**** you' to your own tank when you fit that one.

They're also limited to 1 per ship because otherwise you could cycle one while the other reloads, and in case of an emergency, keep it cycling without bigger capacitor usage to get that last few seconds of reload through. Which would mean, from 2 reppers that you alternate between, you'd get more than 2 reppers of average repair amount over time.

Because of several points posted above and also because of the other rep module options open to armour ships. Triple-shield-boosted Cyclones have never been a thing, triple-armour-rep Myrmidons pop up whenever "being a solo BC" isn't the worst idea ever. Shield Boosting got a better module because it needed more help, bluntly.

Depending on your shield ship it can be beneficial to fit both ASB and regular boosters only using the ASB when things get ugly or your capacitor runs empty.