These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ancillary Shield Booster use should be nerfed

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#121 - 2012-07-24 09:39:15 UTC
Jori McKie wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Jori McKie wrote:
Btw. the ASB is making the Curse and other neut ships useless for small scale fights.


The curse was made useless by t2 gan linked 90km webs and points while the curses primary weapon (neuts) are limited to 40km.


But feel free to keep blaming everything on the ASB


Sure the Curse is often the primary in small scale fights but it has a major role if you face a skirmish gang with say 2 to 4 Scimis. With a dampener Drake+Curse setup you can beat those skirmish logi setup without needing any logis on your own. I don't have to explain to you what happens to the Rapier, Huginn and the odd Loki in such fights, they are dampned/neuted to hell and in case of the Rapier, Huginn primary too. Of course you have to make sure some scimis are dampned too, to beat the RR. After that it's a clean up job, damp and neut the Scimis either forcing them out of the fight or into your own optimal range.

The ASB will make small scale skirmish logi setups history, except the standard Drake+Scimi and so the Curse.


I knew this was all fantasy the second you started talking about the mass use of damps.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#122 - 2012-07-24 10:33:50 UTC
Lexa Hellfury wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
.

Lexa Hellfury wrote:
Yes please continue adding more tank to the game, that way we can finally kill solo pvp.

how is that? Both sides of a solo fight can field ASB fitted ships.


Ah yes the age old argument.

2007: Nano isn't broken because you can bring your own nano
2008: ECM isn't broken because you can bring your own ECM
2010: Logistics aren't broken because you can bring your own logistics
2011: t3 links aren't broken because you can bring your own t3 links
2012: ASBs aren't broken because you can bring your own ASB

If the only way to counter a module is to bring one of your own, then that module is not balanced. Everything in Eve has a counter. ASBs, atm, do not. And no, "bring more dudes" is not a counter.

You should have put Titans and hot-dropping somewhere in between AttentionP

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#123 - 2012-07-24 10:43:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
Grath Telkin wrote:
Jori McKie wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Jori McKie wrote:
Btw. the ASB is making the Curse and other neut ships useless for small scale fights.


The curse was made useless by t2 gan linked 90km webs and points while the curses primary weapon (neuts) are limited to 40km.


But feel free to keep blaming everything on the ASB


Sure the Curse is often the primary in small scale fights but it has a major role if you face a skirmish gang with say 2 to 4 Scimis. With a dampener Drake+Curse setup you can beat those skirmish logi setup without needing any logis on your own. I don't have to explain to you what happens to the Rapier, Huginn and the odd Loki in such fights, they are dampned/neuted to hell and in case of the Rapier, Huginn primary too. Of course you have to make sure some scimis are dampned too, to beat the RR. After that it's a clean up job, damp and neut the Scimis either forcing them out of the fight or into your own optimal range.

The ASB will make small scale skirmish logi setups history, except the standard Drake+Scimi and so the Curse.


I knew this was all fantasy the second you started talking about the mass use of damps.


I guess we have a different understanding when we talk about small scale that is the only excuse i can think of reading your statement. Welcome to the world of small scale where things work differently.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Lexa Hellfury
Perkone
Caldari State
#124 - 2012-07-24 13:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexa Hellfury
Grath Telkin wrote:
Lexa Hellfury wrote:


If the only way to counter a module is to bring one of your own, then that module is not balanced.


Its not the only counter but the eve populace at large will simply sit and cry about it until somebody shows them how to beat it since they're too lazy to work it out on their own.

Everybody else just puts in testing and practice on the test server until they understand what the mod can and can't do.


Sorry, "lol l2p noob" is not actually a valid counter-argument, please try again. If you have some magical counter to dual-ASB fit ships other than "bring 3000 dps" (otherwise known as 4-5 people), I would love to hear it. Otherwise "I have a counter but I can't tell you what it is" isn't gonna fly.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#125 - 2012-07-24 14:08:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Mariner6 wrote:
Cearain wrote:
[quote=Mariner6][quote=Cearain]



It would dumb it down by making it is the same thing whether you active armor tank or shield tank. The passive shield tank is very different than the passive armor tank. The passive armor tank gives more hp but slows you down.

But the active tanks are pretty similar. There is a difference in cap use and time when you get the rep but the fact that you load cap boosters into an ancillary booster would pretty much eliminate one of the few differences. I just think ccp should look for balance through diverse means instead of making the same module for armor or shield.


There is no such thing as a armor passive tank. Passive tank refers only to a shield's natural regeneration. This can be increased with various mods and rigs. The Mrym for example can field a particularly impressive passive shield tank. As armor does not regenerate on its own its nonsensical.

Armor can be a buffer tank (plates, trimarks, resist) or it can be active (armor reps, resist, respective rigs).

Sheild has more options. Any shield tank will have a passive aspect though depending on the set up can be negligible. So a shield can have buffer (extenders, resists, rigs), passive (rechargers, rigs, and that low slot mod whose name escapes me) and active.

So bottom line is that armor repping currently sucks. The worst part about it is that the ships that have an armor rep bonus are all meant to fight close in. So that's in neut range. Further you have to sacrifice an incredible amount of slots to make it work. Your also slow as hell. So you get scrammed, webbed, neuted, can't control range and die. The Mrym is the only viable BC armor repper and has to sacrifice 2 mid slots just to make it work. And with smart pilots you'll stuggle to beat the neut cycle with you cap boosters. Now I can get better performance out of aux shield boosters with far less commitment of slots. Even on the Mrym that is freaking bonused for armor repping! You don't see a problem with this?

So NO having a viable armor repping mod would not dumb the game down. CCP came up with a great mod as its un neutable. Unfortunately they gave it to winmatar because that is what everyone flies.




I think you are a bit too worked up about semantics. I disagree with your narrow catagorizations. Slaves are passive tank implants even though they add to armor which does not regenerate. But whatever.

There were quite a few viable active armor tank pvp ships. Triple rep and dual rep myrm. The dual rep did not require 2 midslots. Dual rep incursus, dual rep sfi, and various dominix fits not to mention all the tech 2 amarr and gallente ships.

The issue now is really whether the ancillary shield booster is so overpowered that all these fits are obsolete. I don't think the proper response is to say well then lets give armor ships an equally overpowered module so armor and shield are the same!


I think that just tramples the nuanced considerations in how you fit ships and gives you the dumbed down choice of if under 10 in your gang then "here ancillary shield booster or ancillary armor booster take your pick they are the same." Roll

Like I said right now as a mainly solo pilot I use the asbs allot. And there will need to be some fine tuning either with the mod directly or with how armor tanking works. But just creating and equally overpowered armor tanking mod is hamfisted and will dumb the game down.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#126 - 2012-07-24 14:15:08 UTC
Cearain wrote:

I don't think the proper response is to say well then lets give armor ships an equally overpowered module so armor and shield are the same!

So armour and shield were the same before ASB release? Ugh Really? What?

By the way, introduction of damage mods for drones was basically the same case. For some reason I haven't seen people whinning of drones turning into the same thing as turrets or missiles.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#127 - 2012-07-24 14:30:48 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Cearain wrote:

I don't think the proper response is to say well then lets give armor ships an equally overpowered module so armor and shield are the same!

So armour and shield were the same before ASB release? Ugh Really? What?...




Thats my point they weren't the same. They both were viable even though they were different.

But more importantly there was a variety of ways to tank the ships within the broad catagories of "armor tank" and "shield tank." Adding an over powered ancillary armor booster reduces all that variety to one of 2 choices 1) ASB fit or 2)AAB fit. All the various other fits can be thrown out the window along with the diversity in fitting ships in eve.

The problem is now that the asb may be overpowered making pretty much everything else obsolete for small fights. The solution is not to just say well lets just **** on all other forms of tanking by making an ancillary armor booster that does the same thing as the asb.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#128 - 2012-07-24 14:56:10 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Cearain wrote:

I don't think the proper response is to say well then lets give armor ships an equally overpowered module so armor and shield are the same!

So armour and shield were the same before ASB release? Ugh Really? What?...



But more importantly there was a variety of ways to tank the ships within the broad catagories of "armor tank" and "shield tank." Adding an over powered ancillary armor booster reduces all that variety to one of 2 choices 1) ASB fit or 2)AAB fit. All the various other fits can be thrown out the window along with the diversity in fitting ships in eve.

Yeah, that's correct.

But since a CCPer at the front page told us these ABSs provide 'flexibility' our best bet now is asking for armour to become as 'flexible' as shield Big smile

Also, I suggest them introducing Ancilliary Titans - cheap-ass ships with a portal and system-wide bonuses. That would be really fun and make our game even more 'flexible' Lol

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
DruzidelCastro
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#129 - 2012-07-24 18:03:31 UTC
Dual ASB fits need some serious fixing. There's no way anyone (Grath included) can try to pass them off as something that promotes solo/small gang fights. I wrote a ridiculously long post about what I tested on Sisi with Tinkeng (PL's logi pilot for every match) but it was too much so here's the tl;dr -

Corner A: Vindicator
HG slaves, T2 trimarks, Single X-type LAR, A-type EANM, Reactive hardener, 1600 plate, damage control, two faction magstabs with a legion giving bonuses

Corner B: Maelstrom
Dual ASBs, a single T2 invuln, a single T2 boost amp, LG crystals, damage control, 2x anti-EM rigs/1x anti-thermal, while receiving no gang bonuses.

That vindicator does 1350ish turret DPS, +250 from drones for 1600. Overloading the guns brings it up to 1800 with drones. Long story short, the vindicator won. However, it took until the maelstrom ran completely out of navy 400's which was over 5 minutes of punching eachother in the face. The mail lists the damage taken as 496,000 which was from the vindicator overloading two separate stacks of neutrons and 5 berserkers that were never killed. The vindicator ended with 50% armor and only 6 navy cap booster 800s left - the maelstrom never overloaded it's guns or lost his drones.

The fact that the multi-billion isk deadspace/faction fit vindicator had as much trouble as it did killing a junk T2 fit maelstrom whose mods couldn't have cost more than 30mil is simply astounding to me. ****, we probably could have called it even by giving the maelstrom a blockade runner alt who dropped more boosters... although it most likely would never have died then.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2012-07-24 18:50:41 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
[quote=Cearain][quote=Mariner6][quote=Cearain]






I think you are a bit too worked up about semantics. I disagree with your narrow catagorizations. Slaves are passive tank implants even though they add to armor which does not regenerate. But whatever.

There were quite a few viable active armor tank pvp ships. Triple rep and dual rep myrm. The dual rep did not require 2 midslots. Dual rep incursus, dual rep sfi, and various dominix fits not to mention all the tech 2 amarr and gallente ships.

The issue now is really whether the ancillary shield booster is so overpowered that all these fits are obsolete. I don't think the proper response is to say well then lets give armor ships an equally overpowered module so armor and shield are the same!


I think that just tramples the nuanced considerations in how you fit ships and gives you the dumbed down choice of if under 10 in your gang then "ancillary shield booster or ancillary armor booster take your pick they are the same." Roll

Like I said right now as a mainly solo pilot I use the asbs allot. And there will need to be some fine tuning either with the mod directly or with how armor tanking works. But just creating and equally overpowered armor tanking mod is hamfisted and will dumb the game down.


Ok, obviously we are not going to agree on it but nor do I feel like having a pissing match about it. I don't think it will dumb the game down, but you know what if that's what you want to call it, then fine. Dumb the game down and give armor ships a more viable armor rep system. It would be great to have a module for armor tanking ships that would provide boosts without also having to sacrifice mid slots to cap boosters and also suffer the danger of neuting. Its the only way to balance things if the ASB is going to remain as it is. Which I'm fine with.
Ristlin Wakefield
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2012-07-24 19:26:18 UTC
DruzidelCastro wrote:
Dual ASB fits need some serious fixing. There's no way anyone (Grath included) can try to pass them off as something that promotes solo/small gang fights. I wrote a ridiculously long post about what I tested on Sisi with Tinkeng (PL's logi pilot for every match) but it was too much so here's the tl;dr -

Corner A: Vindicator
HG slaves, T2 trimarks, Single X-type LAR, A-type EANM, Reactive hardener, 1600 plate, damage control, two faction magstabs with a legion giving bonuses

Corner B: Maelstrom
Dual ASBs, a single T2 invuln, a single T2 boost amp, LG crystals, damage control, 2x anti-EM rigs/1x anti-thermal, while receiving no gang bonuses.

That vindicator does 1350ish turret DPS, +250 from drones for 1600. Overloading the guns brings it up to 1800 with drones. Long story short, the vindicator won. However, it took until the maelstrom ran completely out of navy 400's which was over 5 minutes of punching eachother in the face. The mail lists the damage taken as 496,000 which was from the vindicator overloading two separate stacks of neutrons and 5 berserkers that were never killed. The vindicator ended with 50% armor and only 6 navy cap booster 800s left - the maelstrom never overloaded it's guns or lost his drones.

The fact that the multi-billion isk deadspace/faction fit vindicator had as much trouble as it did killing a junk T2 fit maelstrom whose mods couldn't have cost more than 30mil is simply astounding to me. ****, we probably could have called it even by giving the maelstrom a blockade runner alt who dropped more boosters... although it most likely would never have died then.


I see your point, but couldn't an active armor tank battleship with cap boosters pull off a similar result?

I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
DruzidelCastro
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#132 - 2012-07-24 19:35:24 UTC  |  Edited by: DruzidelCastro
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
I see your point, but couldn't an active armor tank battleship with cap boosters pull off a similar result?


Not for 30mil worth of mods, giving up all of your damage, and still dying to neuts, no. Not to mention most of the fits that can get that crazy need dual cap injectors which chew through cap boosters like you wouldn't imagine while also needing a ton of fitting space.
Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2012-07-24 19:38:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaigar
Personally, I would increase the powergrid usage of ASB by 5% or so. It would make the cap booster+ ASB fittings or double ASB fits more difficult.
B'reanna
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#134 - 2012-07-24 19:39:32 UTC
as i already said the issue is with active armour tanks not the asb. but y'all are going in circles in here so gl with that
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#135 - 2012-07-24 19:50:30 UTC
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:


I see your point, but couldn't an active armor tank battleship with cap boosters pull off a similar result?


Kronos. 2 LAR 2 EANM 1 EXP 1 DCU 1 MagStab 2 Aux Nano Pumps - No Implants or boosters

1000 dps tanked. For 11 minutes or until booster runs out (or you get neuted rofl.)

Kronos 2 X-Type LAR 2 A-Type EANM 1 X-Type EXP 1 DCU 1 MagStab 1 Nanobot II 1 Aux Nano II - No Implants or boosters

3k tanked. 1.7k sustained. (Overloaded - 2m30) Cap does not do so well (like 2 min with 1 cap booster) Can be neuted out.

Maelstrom X-L ASB 1 Invul 1 Boost Amp 1 Spare X-L ASB 1 DCU 2 EM Rigs 1 Therm Rig - No Implants or boosters.

Upwards of 1.7k dps tanked on one booster. 3.4k on both boosters.

Note the Maelstrom tanked 700 dps more with a t2 fit vs a t2 fit Kronos (which is a t2 ship with same 7.5 percent bonus) and also does so with only 3 mid slots, 4 if you count the second ASB plus a DCU. The kronos is using 5 lows plus a DCU.

Maelstrom X-L ASB 1 A-Type Invul 1 X-Type Boost Amp 1 Spare X-L ASB 2 EM T2 Rigs 1 Therm T2 Rig - No Implants or boosters.

3k tanked on one booster. 6k tanked on two boosters.

Note Maelstrom only needed 2 faction mods and a couple of cheap resistance rigs to hit 3k tanked. Kronos fit is upwards of 5B IIRC. Maelstrom fit is about 2B I think.

THIS IS NOT EVEN INCLUDING CRYSTALS.
Faffywaffy
Fremen Sietch
Evasive Maneuvering.
#136 - 2012-07-24 20:14:57 UTC
If only someone had warned us about this ahead of time.

Oh
wait
Eraza
Fuzzyness Enterprizes
#137 - 2012-07-24 21:24:17 UTC
Faffywaffy wrote:
If only someone had warned us about this ahead of time.

Oh
wait


hmm, surprisingly i dont remember a lot of armor teams on the final day..

as much as i love the new ASB, it's starting to seem overpowered, or armor is now underpowered
with it, armor tanking setups have use mostly in missions, in pvp, the team with no ASB looses

at the very least, two ASB setups are in dire need of some attention
i'm pretty sure that if two ASB's per ship had not been forbidden, hardly anyone would have brought only one
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#138 - 2012-07-24 21:30:33 UTC
Druz is biased and hates shield tankersStraight

Dez is mad his falcon alt doesn't matter

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#139 - 2012-07-24 21:38:43 UTC
This is funny, people are acting like some great sea of 1v1s are being ruined by ASBs.


Its a myth, everybody blobs, and the ASB is the small gang blob equalizer. I roam about every night for 2-3 hours a night around lowsec, and what do i see, groups of 3-4 people looking for easy kills.

What has the ASB done to that? Oh, what, those 3-4 people are now getting curb stomped by a lone ship or not getting the kills they wanted at all?

Oh, damn...


Guess it sucks to be a victim of the environment you created.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#140 - 2012-07-24 21:39:53 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
This is funny, people are acting like some great sea of 1v1s are being ruined by ASBs.


Its a myth, everybody blobs, and the ASB is the small gang blob equalizer. I roam about every night for 2-3 hours a night around lowsec, and what do i see, groups of 3-4 people looking for easy kills.

What has the ASB done to that? Oh, what, those 3-4 people are now getting curb stomped by a lone ship or not getting the kills they wanted at all?

Oh, damn...


Guess it sucks to be a victim of the environment you created.



Hey Grath, what happens if all 3-4 of those people have asbs you have to chew through. OK good talk.