These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

ASB changes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#21 - 2012-09-13 17:42:25 UTC
I think the current shield penalty of ultrabloated sig is fine (though maybe ASB should have such a penalty). The reason armor tanking's penalty seems worse is that sig radius is not very important on non-frigs due to the prevalence of battlecruisers. Battlecruisers will track a cruiser or HAC easily regardless, and battleships are rare enough due to the relative superiority of cane/drake.

I think when CCP is done with their ship balancing pass the issue with armor tanking vs shield tanking will be lessened, if not entirely gone.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#22 - 2012-09-13 17:48:17 UTC
The absolute certainty of an ASB nerf comes from a dev post by CCP Fozzie. I've linked it quite a few times and I'm too lazy to do it yet another time. It's in F&I, go read one of the frigate mega threads.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ginger Barbarella
#23 - 2012-09-13 17:53:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ginger Barbarella
The people who are losing KMs because of ASB's have been screaming that it's OP since day one.

It's almost a certainty that CCP will hit it with the nerf bat (that's just my opinion, no links, nothing I've read or heard from a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of one of CCP's great Uncle Ralph's 32 times removed). I'm against Easy Button stuff, but have zero opinion on the ASBs myself.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Aaron Greil
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2012-09-13 18:13:11 UTC
The armor tanking issue wouldn't be so bad if the new adaptive hardener actually worked. Its worthless as is, but its a really good idea. If they iterated on it a bit that would go a long way to fixing the issue.
Iyica de Tylmarand
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-09-14 02:20:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyica de Tylmarand
Arazel Chainfire wrote:
Iyica de Tylmarand wrote:
Armor also has better resists and armor buffer modules give more HP so it's decently equiped to handle the initial damage before the rep kicks in.


Would you please stop spreading this blatantly false interpretation around? Yes, base armor resists are slightly higher, with a combined 130 resistance to a shields 110. However, only an idiot is comparing the untanked resists, and there, shield comes out ahead because of 1 module: The invulnerability field. A t2 EANM gives a base 20% boost to resists (25% if you max out your skills). An invuln gives 30% resists. All other active/passive mods are the same between the two tank types. This means that if you were to compare a max skilled character, putting 1 EANM on an armor tanker gives it the same overall resist (around 230) as putting 1 invuln on a shield tank (around 230). After that, shield just keeps getting the better resists.

So yes, armor has more buffer, and it is easier to get higher raw HP on armor, but it is significantly easier to get higher resists all around on shield than on armor, assuming an equal number of tanking modules is used.

-Arazel
EANM doesn't use cap and can't be turned off by cap warfare. T2 1600mm Reinforced Steel gives 4800 HP. T2 LSE gives 2625 HP. In general armor buffer ships will have significantly more EHP than shield buffer ships. Compare a cookie cutter buffer Rokh fit to a cookie cutter Abaddon fit - each using the same amount of slots dedicated to tank. Abaddon will have a significantly higher EHP. It's not just marginally more EHP, it's significantly more and in most cases that makes up for the rep cycle kicking in at the end. I don't see how that's a false interpretation. Less EHP = greater liability to get alphaed = reps being useless.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#26 - 2012-09-14 03:25:33 UTC
Please don't forget that shield reps itself while armor doesn't

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-09-14 03:51:47 UTC
1 per ship and all the problems with the module are gone.

Then it would be good.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-09-14 04:20:28 UTC
There is a dev post where they acknowledged there are balance issues with ASBs.

Also, for anyone who watched AT10, the debs set a "No Dual ASB fits" rule, so that should give you an idea about their feelings on those...

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#29 - 2012-09-14 08:44:51 UTC
To mare wrote:
i think the only nerf asb need is a only 1 per ship limit, then they have to give some cool toys for active armor tanker.

Combine that KISS solution with size of charges determining the amount boosted and you have a winner Big smile
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-09-14 10:06:18 UTC
Aaron Greil wrote:
The armor tanking issue wouldn't be so bad if the new adaptive hardener actually worked. Its worthless as is, but its a really good idea. If they iterated on it a bit that would go a long way to fixing the issue.



Not really.

Sleipnirs double XL-ASB still able to dish over 700dps and tanking for over 130K dmg is just one example on how much this module makes shields completely out of whack when those were already very good thx to passive regen offering something unique and useful in every single situation, add a very decent choice of excellent shield resist/boost mods and it's quite silly to not choose it over armor unless specific situations.

The new RAH can't make whatever for armor set ups even if you make it passive and decrease 100% reaction time making it finally decent for use but wouldn't do anything other than make those already over used (Zealots/Abbadons) even better, does not change the poor general performances of Deimos but would make Zealots even stronger.
This means those ship types are in real and urgent need of balance before bringing another fake module or tweak the existent ones that will do nothing but the same effect you would have strapping a broken leg, feels better but doesn't solve the problem.
This is how things got balanced in latest expansions leading to this awful status of armor tanking where the only way to ever think those might work is when you use Zealots/Proteus/Legions surrounded by Guardians (no one know about those being good at what they do right?)

Atm can't see anything good for armor changes in near future nor ships but just see an increase of armor tanking based ships become finally useful because shield mods make them worth flying, but then shield ones are completely OP.
Why no trust on this? -well easy, the introduction of ASBs and RAH just proves how ignorant of armor issues balancing team is.

brb
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-09-14 10:21:19 UTC
Change armor HP extending modules (like plates) so that they do not affect the ship's speed or agility.
Change active/passive armor tanking rigs so that they don't affect the ship's speed.

Now everybody loves armor tanking even if reps come at the end of the cycle, even if armor tanking has less even resistance profiles after fitting, or whatever.

That's the one and only difference between shield and armor tanking. Armor tankers are generally sloooooooooooow, shield tankers are fast.

Kiting ships are shield tankers. Flavor of the month fits are shield tankers. Nano ships that defined an era were shield tanked. Now there's a module type so powerful that multiple iterations were forbidden in the last AT, and of course it's for shield tanking.

As explained by some other user (Liang, I think), when a Myrmidon does better in ASB configuration than with double or triple armor repper fit, there's something VERY wrong with the current state of things.

I, for one, have seen many a shield tank Myrmidon, Brutix, Deimos, Thorax, Ishtar, Talos (LOL), Harbinger...

Never saw a ship with shield tanking bonus (or, for that, a traditional shield tanked ship even without bonus to shield tanking) in armor configuration. At least, I can't remember any examples, other than fitting a damned plate in a Falcon so it cannot be one-shot without wasting a mid.

Shield tanking seems to be the way to go, for both active and passive fits, unless in very particular fleet compositions. When in doubt, put an oversized extender or ASB and a T2 Invul, and there yo go. Your ship is tanked and fast as HELL.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-09-14 12:22:11 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:
Change armor HP extending modules (like plates) so that they do not affect the ship's speed or agility.
Change active/passive armor tanking rigs so that they don't affect the ship's speed.


so this.

Armor tanks are always always ALWAYS going to be behind shield tanks while armor tanks mobility is hurt with rigs and plate mass.

Its space and this is a game, so dont bother with saying "its logical that more armor slows you down" because you are correct, but for balance sake its sucky

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#33 - 2012-09-14 12:37:13 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
Darius Brinn wrote:
Change armor HP extending modules (like plates) so that they do not affect the ship's speed or agility.
Change active/passive armor tanking rigs so that they don't affect the ship's speed.


so this.

Armor tanks are always always ALWAYS going to be behind shield tanks while armor tanks mobility is hurt with rigs and plate mass.

Its space and this is a game, so dont bother with saying "its logical that more armor slows you down" because you are correct, but for balance sake its sucky


Initially i went "pfft, terrible idea" but then after some thought....

By using a lo-slot module for are sacrificing the ability to fit one movement mod already... so the speed is already nerfed bersus a mid slot tanker who has free lo's.
Ra Jackson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-09-14 12:46:25 UTC
First people complain that solo is dead, then they want to stomp ASBs What?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#35 - 2012-09-14 15:59:30 UTC
Ra Jackson wrote:
First people complain that solo is dead, then they want to stomp ASBs What?


ASBs do not really help solo PVP, IMO.

-Liang

Ed: And yes, I solo PVP. A lot.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-09-14 16:06:22 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ra Jackson wrote:
First people complain that solo is dead, then they want to stomp ASBs What?


ASBs do not really help solo PVP, IMO.

-Liang

Ed: And yes, I solo PVP. A lot.


they really do aid solo in a big way.

however against more than one guy, ecm, ecm drones, damps Tds etc still will just make your while lengthy death, no less inevitable, i agree.

But a solo tank thats normally a decent buffer, can be adapted to ASBs with good success.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#37 - 2012-09-14 16:15:07 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:

they really do aid solo in a big way.

however against more than one guy, ecm, ecm drones, damps Tds etc still will just make your while lengthy death, no less inevitable, i agree.

But a solo tank thats normally a decent buffer, can be adapted to ASBs with good success.


You cannot only look at ASBs from your perspective. You must also look at them as your enemies having ASBs as well, unless there's some compelling reason that they won't have one fit. From the small gang/solo perspective, this means that the fight comes down to exactly the same mechanics as if we didn't have the ASB at all: can your "buffer" hold out long enough for their/your mates to get to the fight. With only you on the field, the answer is almost certainly yes with regards to whether their mates will get there.

The only reason I can really think of that ASBs would help is when you are solo engaging The Blob and you've got some sort of specialized fit for extra damage mitigation/anti tackle. You could reasonably assert that they're looking for bigger gangs and are probably buffer fit. Then again, they probably also have Logis so your only hope is pulling someone 100km+ away from their gang and nuking them down.

Basically what I'm pointing out here is that ASBs are fantastic for solo PVP if I'm the only one on the field with one. But that's just stupid.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-09-14 16:17:32 UTC
you make an excellent point, but consider that the ASB makes a fight even against another ASB fit ship MORE interesting than waring a buffer down, or capping out etc.

The asb you have a new level of micro management in pvp, overall i like, but i do not defend dual ASB setups at all. they are broken and barly fun.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#39 - 2012-09-14 16:20:32 UTC
ASBs do not introduce a new level of micro management in PVP - they in fact dumb down what active tanking used to be. I've found that ASB fit vs ASB fit tends to boil down to damage and damage mitigation combined with someone's utterly stupid (eg, they run all 13 boosts because they don't know how to turn off a mod).

ASBs (as a general mechanic) are OP and I think we could have gotten the same "good" side effects from boosting Heat.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-09-14 16:24:35 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

I think we could have gotten the same "good" side effects from boosting Heat.

-Liang


I think this is the most interesting and great thing ive read all day :D

+1 give heat more love

EDIT: if ASBs are here to stay mostly as they are then armor reps do need some love (perhaps mad heat bonus going off above quote)

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Previous page123Next page