Test Server Feedback

I realize I'm way late to this party, but I'd like to sneak one suggestion in:

As an alternative to the limit-1 popular suggestion, how about allowing as many ASBs as the pilot wants, but linking them together such that they all reload at the same time. It's a little stickier implementation-wise as you have to deal with what to do when a reload is requested on one while another is still cycling (not impossible, though... just have the rest automatically go into reload as soon as their current cycle completes), but it would enforce the reload vulnerability phase without having to institute another hard limit on a module.

here's my .02 ISK on the different solutions:

- one ASB per ship: solid solution, albeit a little awkward, because it looks like a band-aid fix (which it isn't imo).

- capacity/cycle time nerf: ok solution but smells even more like a band-aid fix.

- ASBs use charges AND cap: good solution. ASBs being immune to neuts seems a little over to top to my mind. if you can implement it so that the ASB provides a little boost for a little cap or big boost for a little cap + a booster charge, but cannot be activated when you have no cap (even if it is loaded), that would be pretty awesome.
so if you have an XL ASB, you are effectively running a gist X-Type XL as long as you have charges. after you run out of charges, the boost per cap ratio goes down to 1:1, so you are basically running a T1 large booster, or no booster if you choose to reload.

- all other solutions: meh.

Well a dual XL ASB myrm is better than triple armor ... just make this kind of fit impossible on unbonused ships
For the dual asb fits.... i used the underdog Cyclone way before the asb came out, and i like my dual LASB fit

with normal charges (10 in LASB) you get 40 sec of perma run then 60 sec reload, the second asb covers 40 sec

so my cyclone is vulnerable 20 sec and only 8 sec with navy charges.
The 20 sec hole is ok, i'd say i ll accept even a 30 sec one, you have to gamble on shields and armor buffer to get to reload but with Navy charges the 8 sec will be covered most of the time by the ships shields alone

Now the new charge count on duality seems a little better.

7 charges = 28 sec of permatank / with a second asb the vulnerability hole is 32 sec
9 navy = 36 sec of permatank / --------------------------------------------------------------- 24 sec

What i want to point out is that Navy charges are not making ASB OP, the vulnerability hole is quite significant in both cases.
The only problem i see is the big price difference in normal charges and navy for a 22 % longer continous tank.
Still needs testin to see if it's woth it.

The increased cap need of ASB while out of charges is a mistake IMHO, if i have some cap left in my ship i can get 2-3 cycles more (with actual stats), without charges ASB is as efficient as meta 1 SB.

For the XLASB problem i think that the cyclone should be the only T1 BC to be able to fit it. It's Minmatars tanking BC, it has a role shield boost bonus, it's supposed to be able like other races tanking BC get oversized tanking modules.
Maybe increasing CPU requirement a little and giving bonused ships cpu reduction could fix the problem.


The other idea given here is that ASB uses some portion of ships cap, while that % should be set wisely i like that idea too.
That way NOSFERATU would make a comeback on my cyclone fit, NOS ensures i can activate ASB few more times but still the ships is vulnerable to neuting, NOS gives me a chance (gamble) to survive or not, like cap injected at the moment you are neutet.... That should also be tested on Duality.

Thats my 2 cent feel free to comment.

My first reaction to ASBs was, "Why do the cap booster charges have less cap than this thing takes from your ship?;" "Why doesn't your ship supply the excess Capacitor?; Does it?;" "Why are there different ones, when obviously the smallest is better given it doesn't matter how much cap it supplies?"

Those were the questions I asked myself in relative sequence as I fit and tried one out. There is an issue with not needing to supply that extra cap, and also with the cap boosters being interchangeable with no impact on the modules performance.

Also, increasing cycle times only makes them less useful in PvP. It could negate their usefulness entirely as time is of the essence.

This is the problem with active modules, and I don't truly understand why nobody sees it. It's pretty obvious. Incoming DPS in PvP is fast and furious, and you need a fast, furious response from an active module to make it feasible to use.

You can expect it to operate that way and not OP a ship for PvE use, which is a balancing issue for PvE vs. PvP playstyles if the amount boosted isn't adjusted to bring it in line with incoming damage and NPC effectiveness to retain a challenging PvE environment.

Here's my thought:

Adjust Armor and Shield Active Repair modules down in terms of time between Reps.

A 5 second Duration Module for example, should be adjusted to half that, or just marginally more than as a base. Make it a 3 second module, with player skills reducing it further. Take the 12 second armor modules and make them 6 second modules.

Reduce the amount Repped per cycle by ~35% and multiply by 2. This increases the overall effectiveness of the module, while improving its effectiveness in PvP with reduced cycle durations. This might save a ship subject to multiple high alpha strikes.

Reduce the Capacitor requirements by ~ 65%, then multiply by 2. Active Modules on ships require far too much capacitor, depleting even the most Capacitor Heavy ship of appropriate class quite easily for little gain.

Multiply the Powergrid and CPU requirements by 2.15 and 1.95 respectively.

Now you have a more fitting module that Reps better, and cuts the module requirements by half to get a decent amount of Repping out of it. Most players fit one size up for a reason, taking a heavy Powergrid and CPU hit for the sake of a much needed boost to rep amount.

We're fitting large Shield Extenders, XL-ASBs, XL-SBs, and the like on Cruisers and BattleCruisers because the appropriate sized module is for all intents and purposes useless for that class of ship.

My numbers above are non-specific, (more appropriate to Armor Reps than SBs), and sort of random, but I think it is a general idea with final implementation up to you, (the Devs), anyway.

ASBs are just a symptom of a larger problem. Active modules are pathetically inappropriate for PvP in most cases. The ASB itself is the opposite because it doesn't have to be balanced for missions with the 60 second duration to reload. It's very poor reasoning that lands us with modules like these.

They all need to be fixed. Balanced to provide a good boost to effectiveness in PvP, while not making them stupidly powerful for use in PvE. They also need to be adjusted so fitting an XL SB on a Cruiser isn't possible without flying gunless. Bring them in line with their appropriate classes.

ASB could suffer the following:

~ Increase to fitting requirements
~ Bring Cap use and Rep amount in line with Cap Booster charges used
~ Adjust cycle duration time downwards
~ Adjust other specs for reduced cycle duration time
~ Increase capacity
~ Either allow only one booster charge type, or have different rep amounts depending on booster charge used.

None of this throwing in the smallest charge which provides half the cap requirement and having it rep the full amount per cycle with more available cycles. That just means everyone is going to use that charge exclusively.

Navy Cap boosters are not expensive, though they have less types available.

Disclaimer: I did absolutely no research on this, but generally just dropped this from memory of the issues I've seen with these modules. Personal experience and otherwise. I don't feel like individually calculating each one and various changes at this time.

Suffice to say, the result should be that a Active booster fit can provide the same or similar effect as a buffer fit of same approximate fitting requirements over a certain period of time. It should be able to handle sustained incoming DPS, and even some amount of High Alpha DPS.

So if you take a 30 second period of PvP, an active fit should manage to Rep maybe 80% of what a Buffer fit of same PG + CPU cost can sustain in that period. 80% because it is subject to high Alpha as a weakness, requires Capacitor, but can be managed indefinitely depending on capacitor management.

That's just an estimate, comparable benefit aside. These are all just ideas, as my only intent is to offer a variety of ways to look at changing this system in general. Currently, it is completely fubar, with some active fits being extremely good, and 98% of them being utterly useless in PvP, aside from ASBs which dominate everything.

It's ridiculous that the expectations for fitting are limited to Either buffer tank or ASB, and mostly buffer tank regardless, except for solo and small gangs.

The whole thing as it is, just makes me go, "Aaaggghhhh!!!"

Just a feedback on LASB and XLASB cap use when out of charges.
They are out of target.

LASB needs 528 Gj for activation and reps 390 HP
XL SB needs 400 Gj for activation and reps 450 HP

Now ASB has a 4 sec cycle while XL SB has 5 sec

So i ll compare them on a 20 sec basis

XL SB nets 4 rep cycles : 4 x 450 = 1800 HP and 4 x 400Gj = 1600 Gj needed
LASB nets 5 rep cycles : 5 * 390 = 1950 HP and 5*528Gj = a staggering 2640 Gj

ratio:
XL SB has a 1.125 HP per Gj
LASB has a 0.738 HP per Gj

The only thing i ask is to bring ASB Cap need a little closer to meta 1 SB level... I thing a 435-450 GJ would be a good choice for this module.
Compared to XL SB meta1 the LASB get 150 HP (8% more tha XLSB) more in 20 sec and if i m out of charges it needs 10% more cap than the standard Shield Booster.

Maybe having the ASB function as a Cap Booster and Shield Booster at the same time. When it cycles, whatever Booster charge is in it will reload cap as the AB drains it. This would mean a Cap Booster 100 charge would Boost 100 Cap while the ASB was draininbg 153, leaving a drain of 53 cap per cycle. Swapping to a 150 charge would of course leave 3 drain per cycle.

Improving your skills and such might mean the 150 charge actually boosts your cap beyond the shield boosters drain amount of course.

Purely numbers off the top of my head, but the function makes sense. It's a bit like having a fuel overflow that pushes excess fuel back to your gas tank, or the alternator refilling your battery as you draw on it with other parts of the vehicle.

Anyway, that sort of thing would be a good start to getting these things balanced.