These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Marauder rebalancing

First post First post First post
Author
Proteionos
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3741 - 2013-09-15 21:50:31 UTC
It seems to me (very confusing with 1 correction post in the middle of everything) that the Marauders are loosing their PVE specialization with less tank overall plus slow speed.

Tanking some enemies will be better and others worse, e.g. a Vargur will be tanking Blood/Sansha/Amarr better with the T2 resists, but tanking Angels/Mercenaries a lot worse from the removal of the 7.5% SB bonus pr. level plus slightly worse cap recharge. Tanking Serpentis/Guristas will also become slightly worse... Which seems strange, going from fast well tanked mission beasts, to slow bricks that tank worse against their most common PVE enemies.

But with those enemies they are now weaker against, one could ofcourse fit arties, MJD far away, deploy bastion and slowly pick them off, then MJD back to the next gate.

I don't know... It was nice being able to just fly into the face of the enemies and brawl them at all times, and being quick about transportation. This seems impossible with Bastion mode since there are no bonuses to tank, or what? Is the "100% bonus to shield or armor repair amount" removed, as with the 30% more resistance in bastion?

Why not just assemble and edit info on page 1 along the way so it's clear what the current plan is?



Besides that I'm really looking forward to seeing the animations :)
Mer88
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3742 - 2013-09-15 22:00:08 UTC
Proteionos wrote:
It seems to me (very confusing with 1 correction post in the middle of everything) that the Marauders are loosing their PVE specialization with less tank overall plus slow speed.

Tanking some enemies will be better and others worse, e.g. a Vargur will be tanking Blood/Sansha/Amarr better with the T2 resists, but tanking Angels/Mercenaries a lot worse from the removal of the 7.5% SB bonus pr. level plus slightly worse cap recharge. Tanking Serpentis/Guristas will also become slightly worse... Which seems strange, going from fast well tanked mission beasts, to slow bricks that tank worse against their most common PVE enemies.

But with those enemies they are now weaker against, one could ofcourse fit arties, MJD far away, deploy bastion and slowly pick them off, then MJD back to the next gate.

I don't know... It was nice being able to just fly into the face of the enemies and brawl them at all times, and being quick about transportation. This seems impossible with Bastion mode since there are no bonuses to tank, or what? Is the "100% bonus to shield or armor repair amount" removed, as with the 30% more resistance in bastion?

Why not just assemble and edit info on page 1 along the way so it's clear what the current plan is?



Besides that I'm really looking forward to seeing the animations :)


i am pretty sure the 100% repair when bastions is active is still there.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#3743 - 2013-09-15 23:48:40 UTC
Harvey James wrote:

5% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo explosion velocity per level

5% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo explosion radius per level


same way golem with painter and web would suck golem with both of those would be op
Tsukihi Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3744 - 2013-09-16 01:33:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsukihi Hareka
Mer88 wrote:
Proteionos wrote:
It seems to me (very confusing with 1 correction post in the middle of everything) that the Marauders are loosing their PVE specialization with less tank overall plus slow speed.

Tanking some enemies will be better and others worse, e.g. a Vargur will be tanking Blood/Sansha/Amarr better with the T2 resists, but tanking Angels/Mercenaries a lot worse from the removal of the 7.5% SB bonus pr. level plus slightly worse cap recharge. Tanking Serpentis/Guristas will also become slightly worse... Which seems strange, going from fast well tanked mission beasts, to slow bricks that tank worse against their most common PVE enemies.

But with those enemies they are now weaker against, one could ofcourse fit arties, MJD far away, deploy bastion and slowly pick them off, then MJD back to the next gate.

I don't know... It was nice being able to just fly into the face of the enemies and brawl them at all times, and being quick about transportation. This seems impossible with Bastion mode since there are no bonuses to tank, or what? Is the "100% bonus to shield or armor repair amount" removed, as with the 30% more resistance in bastion?

Why not just assemble and edit info on page 1 along the way so it's clear what the current plan is?



Besides that I'm really looking forward to seeing the animations :)


i am pretty sure the 100% repair when bastions is active is still there.


But that 100% repair is almost useless, cuz you are one brick which receive full damage. Speed is very important for any kind of tanking.

As for Golem, standing still receive more than 100% damage from npc torps and cruise and large gunfires.

So the new Golem is just a pile of epic shxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt(with worse recap). Other Marauders are a little better than Golem maybe, but just a little.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3745 - 2013-09-16 01:58:51 UTC
Tsukihi Hareka wrote:
Mer88 wrote:
Proteionos wrote:
It seems to me (very confusing with 1 correction post in the middle of everything) that the Marauders are loosing their PVE specialization with less tank overall plus slow speed.

Tanking some enemies will be better and others worse, e.g. a Vargur will be tanking Blood/Sansha/Amarr better with the T2 resists, but tanking Angels/Mercenaries a lot worse from the removal of the 7.5% SB bonus pr. level plus slightly worse cap recharge. Tanking Serpentis/Guristas will also become slightly worse... Which seems strange, going from fast well tanked mission beasts, to slow bricks that tank worse against their most common PVE enemies.

But with those enemies they are now weaker against, one could ofcourse fit arties, MJD far away, deploy bastion and slowly pick them off, then MJD back to the next gate.

I don't know... It was nice being able to just fly into the face of the enemies and brawl them at all times, and being quick about transportation. This seems impossible with Bastion mode since there are no bonuses to tank, or what? Is the "100% bonus to shield or armor repair amount" removed, as with the 30% more resistance in bastion?

Why not just assemble and edit info on page 1 along the way so it's clear what the current plan is?



Besides that I'm really looking forward to seeing the animations :)


i am pretty sure the 100% repair when bastions is active is still there.


But that 100% repair is almost useless, cuz you are one brick which receive full damage. Speed is very important for any kind of tanking.

As for Golem, standing still receive more than 100% damage from npc torps and cruise and large gunfires.

So the new Golem is just a pile of epic shxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt(with worse recap). Other Marauders are a little better than Golem maybe, but just a little.


Especially after the torp range nerfs... It's much better with cruise now though.
That said, I went in order from drake, raven, RNI, SNI, Golem, traded it for a tengu, then nightmare.
Torpedo golem was the most fun, but you couldn't tank for long cause of cap, took full volley damage by the time you could hit anything due to sig, took forever to lock anything, and that's when you could lock anything.
My nightmare outshines all but the tengu(pre-hml nerf) and does so with instant dps.

Everyone of those ships out tanks the golem as it sits on live because of the cap and sig issues
Tsukihi Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3746 - 2013-09-16 02:08:46 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Tsukihi Hareka wrote:
Mer88 wrote:
Proteionos wrote:
It seems to me (very confusing with 1 correction post in the middle of everything) that the Marauders are loosing their PVE specialization with less tank overall plus slow speed.

Tanking some enemies will be better and others worse, e.g. a Vargur will be tanking Blood/Sansha/Amarr better with the T2 resists, but tanking Angels/Mercenaries a lot worse from the removal of the 7.5% SB bonus pr. level plus slightly worse cap recharge. Tanking Serpentis/Guristas will also become slightly worse... Which seems strange, going from fast well tanked mission beasts, to slow bricks that tank worse against their most common PVE enemies.

But with those enemies they are now weaker against, one could ofcourse fit arties, MJD far away, deploy bastion and slowly pick them off, then MJD back to the next gate.

I don't know... It was nice being able to just fly into the face of the enemies and brawl them at all times, and being quick about transportation. This seems impossible with Bastion mode since there are no bonuses to tank, or what? Is the "100% bonus to shield or armor repair amount" removed, as with the 30% more resistance in bastion?

Why not just assemble and edit info on page 1 along the way so it's clear what the current plan is?



Besides that I'm really looking forward to seeing the animations :)


i am pretty sure the 100% repair when bastions is active is still there.


But that 100% repair is almost useless, cuz you are one brick which receive full damage. Speed is very important for any kind of tanking.

As for Golem, standing still receive more than 100% damage from npc torps and cruise and large gunfires.

So the new Golem is just a pile of epic shxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt(with worse recap). Other Marauders are a little better than Golem maybe, but just a little.


Especially after the torp range nerfs... It's much better with cruise now though.
That said, I went in order from drake, raven, RNI, SNI, Golem, traded it for a tengu, then nightmare.
Torpedo golem was the most fun, but you couldn't tank for long cause of cap, took full volley damage by the time you could hit anything due to sig, took forever to lock anything, and that's when you could lock anything.
My nightmare outshines all but the tengu(pre-hml nerf) and does so with instant dps.

Everyone of those ships out tanks the golem as it sits on live because of the cap and sig issues


In fact, after all these changes made to Marauder, I only want a pure missle pirate battleship.

Give me a missle pirate battleship then I can ignore all Marauders.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3747 - 2013-09-16 02:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Tsukihi Hareka wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Tsukihi Hareka wrote:
Mer88 wrote:
Proteionos wrote:
It seems to me (very confusing with 1 correction post in the middle of everything) that the Marauders are loosing their PVE specialization with less tank overall plus slow speed.

Tanking some enemies will be better and others worse, e.g. a Vargur will be tanking Blood/Sansha/Amarr better with the T2 resists, but tanking Angels/Mercenaries a lot worse from the removal of the 7.5% SB bonus pr. level plus slightly worse cap recharge. Tanking Serpentis/Guristas will also become slightly worse... Which seems strange, going from fast well tanked mission beasts, to slow bricks that tank worse against their most common PVE enemies.

But with those enemies they are now weaker against, one could ofcourse fit arties, MJD far away, deploy bastion and slowly pick them off, then MJD back to the next gate.

I don't know... It was nice being able to just fly into the face of the enemies and brawl them at all times, and being quick about transportation. This seems impossible with Bastion mode since there are no bonuses to tank, or what? Is the "100% bonus to shield or armor repair amount" removed, as with the 30% more resistance in bastion?

Why not just assemble and edit info on page 1 along the way so it's clear what the current plan is?



Besides that I'm really looking forward to seeing the animations :)


i am pretty sure the 100% repair when bastions is active is still there.


But that 100% repair is almost useless, cuz you are one brick which receive full damage. Speed is very important for any kind of tanking.

As for Golem, standing still receive more than 100% damage from npc torps and cruise and large gunfires.

So the new Golem is just a pile of epic shxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt(with worse recap). Other Marauders are a little better than Golem maybe, but just a little.


Especially after the torp range nerfs... It's much better with cruise now though.
That said, I went in order from drake, raven, RNI, SNI, Golem, traded it for a tengu, then nightmare.
Torpedo golem was the most fun, but you couldn't tank for long cause of cap, took full volley damage by the time you could hit anything due to sig, took forever to lock anything, and that's when you could lock anything.
My nightmare outshines all but the tengu(pre-hml nerf) and does so with instant dps.

Everyone of those ships out tanks the golem as it sits on live because of the cap and sig issues


In fact, after all these changes made to Marauder, I only want a pure missle pirate battleship.

Give me a missle pirate battleship then I can ignore all Marauders.


Well, pve wise I think the bastion will do what it's intended to do..
Most people in marauders don't kite missions anyways.
That said though, I would still much rather see the 30% omni bastion bonus than t2 bonuses

I still like my idea of changing marauder resists to be more balanced.
Look up some and you'll see my long ass suggestion.
However, the balanced resists I suggested is my favorite idea, and fits well with marauders
Melek D'Ivri
Illuminated Overwatch Group
#3748 - 2013-09-16 03:49:51 UTC
Is there a date set for test server availability of the new ships and module?
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#3749 - 2013-09-16 03:56:57 UTC
Melek D'Ivri wrote:
Is there a date set for test server availability of the new ships and module?



no, but i bet that there is a tq date set

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Cade Windstalker
#3750 - 2013-09-16 05:25:01 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
I agree with you about the general intent of the current system. It would make for a very bad model if moving up a class made you trump anything below you. That's not a game that would be particularly interesting to play. I'm more talking about the complete ineffectiveness of larger hulls to deal with ships that are down a class.

Unless the battleship fits cruiser size turrets in some of its highs its only option for dealing with small targets at close range is to deploy light/medium drones. The problem is that a flight of lights/mediums doesn't pack enough punch to break the tank of those targets. Unless you have utility highs and fit heavy neuts you don't have many options for escape either.

The role is reversed at range with the smaller ship risking getting blapped off the field just because it's at range. Not a fun prospect for the cruiser/frigate pilot too. What I'd like to see is the removal of those two extreme cases. The cruiser/frigates smaller size should offer some protection at range which decreases as it gets closer, while the BS wouldn't become completely ineffective against smaller targets at minimal range. No certain death for the cruiser/frigate pilot at range and no guaranteed lockdown for the BS in CQ. I think that would be more balanced and offer a more dynamic environment.

Note: As I mentioned earlier, with precision cruise and 3 TPs or 2 bonused TPs a missile ship can apply 75%+ damage to said targets at all ranges. I know this is what sets missiles apart from turrets.


I more or less agree with you on all points, actually. I just don't think that hilariously powerful velocity bonused webs are the way to go about fixing this.

There was a recent discussion in another thread (and by recent I mean last month or so) about the balance implications of Rapid Light Missile Launchers on a Caracal and its effectiveness at applying damage to smaller ships.

Someone brought up that in general smaller caliber weapons are almost entirely useless in the current meta and are only fit if you have no other choice, either due to power-grid restrictions or in some niche cases massive capacitor issues. This is not the case for missiles which still see use out of their Precision Ammunition and things like the Rapid Light Missile Launcher which is almost specifically designed for shooting down a class.

In addressing a problem like this I would love to see a retooling of the smallest sizes of turret, at least for Cruisers and Battleships, to be more able to engage smaller targets, probably at the expense of DPS, alpha, and/or something else to make it a fair and meaningful trade-off. The problem with this is that it's a rather large undertaking and would require significant changes to pretty much every type of Medium and Large turret and certain categories of Artillery and Lasers might end up needing a third turret size.
Cade Windstalker
#3751 - 2013-09-16 05:27:25 UTC
Tsukihi Hareka wrote:
But that 100% repair is almost useless, cuz you are one brick which receive full damage. Speed is very important for any kind of tanking.

As for Golem, standing still receive more than 100% damage from npc torps and cruise and large gunfires.

So the new Golem is just a pile of epic shxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt(with worse recap). Other Marauders are a little better than Golem maybe, but just a little.


Actually with Battleships unless you're being shot at by dreadnaughts speed has very little affect on your damage unless you and your opponent are counter-rotating (you're both maximizing the overall transversal) and even then you're both equally hosed. In missions gun platforms generally want to stay still unless they have very high tracking because the damage mitigation against mission rats is fairly low and it's more important to be dealing full DPS.

The various missile boats are an exception because their damage is only affected by enemy velocity not their own movement.

Kane Fenris wrote:
althogh its offtopic...
your obersvation is right but your conclusion may be wrong

your explanation snt the only (and probably not the simplest)
which would be there was an overproduction at release which hasnt corrected itself by now.


There are certainly other available explanations, though I feel the idea that these modules are suffering from an over-stock that's managed to persist for over a year since their inception only supports my idea more strongly, since for that to occur you'd have to have almost none of the modules being bought and used.

DSpite Culhach wrote:
Well, I think the problem is that everyone - and I am not innocent of it either - seem to have this special idea in our brains, of what a Marauder is "supposed" to do, and personally I get confused still when I see very detailed posts with numbers cause I can follow a "general effect" but I have no idea what hard numbers will work, and which ones break equations.

It would be far easier for CCP to introduce a second Marauder hull to do all this messing with, and let people vote by if and when such hulls get flown around.

Seems to me that making GARGANTUAN changes to a ship that's already been flown by quite a few people just they way it is for many, many years, is a bit of a stretch.


The problem is more that it's flown by a relatively small number of people in one very niche profession, and can arguably be out-done in that professions by other ships.

The problem with just throwing a second Marauder hull into the game and then seeing what gets used the most is that out of N possible options the one that's used the most is likely to be over-powered. Plus any idea would need to go through at least a little balance testing internally, so every version is more work and more data for them to process and their time isn't unlimited.

Joe Risalo wrote:
Especially after the torp range nerfs... It's much better with cruise now though.
That said, I went in order from drake, raven, RNI, SNI, Golem, traded it for a tengu, then nightmare.
Torpedo golem was the most fun, but you couldn't tank for long cause of cap, took full volley damage by the time you could hit anything due to sig, took forever to lock anything, and that's when you could lock anything.
My nightmare outshines all but the tengu(pre-hml nerf) and does so with instant dps.

Everyone of those ships out tanks the golem as it sits on live because of the cap and sig issues


You can only take full damage from a hit based on sig, you can't take increased damage. Therefore the Golem, with its rep rate bonus, will tank better than even a resist bonused ship.

The caveat to this is that you may not be eliminating incoming DPS fast enough compared to some of those other hulls.

I can't 100% guarantee you though that you are not, in absolute terms, tanking better in a Nightmare than a Golem.
Jasmine Assasin
The Holy Rollers
#3752 - 2013-09-16 05:29:25 UTC
Tsukihi Hareka wrote:


In fact, after all these changes made to Marauder, I only want a pure missle pirate battleship.

Give me a missle pirate battleship then I can ignore all Marauders.



Hopefully "They" can rebalance the Rattlesnake to make Drone and missile users happy without making it completely worthless to one or the other play style like it is currently.

Then I could go back to ignoring the Tech II Battleships again while quietly laughing to myself at any poor SOB I saw flying one.



Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#3753 - 2013-09-16 05:32:49 UTC
i still think its a legitimate option to make marauders just plain all around better then pirate in all ways.... and i thought of something that would keep myself interested anyway. In addition to their already high skill requirement, could always make them all split weapon systems XD
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#3754 - 2013-09-16 07:29:12 UTC
From the sounds of it, would highly like the 100% repairamount to become a 50% cycletime-reduction + 50% cap consumption reduction.
chaosjj
Doomheim
#3755 - 2013-09-16 07:53:48 UTC
These changes are making me and my Kronos happy!
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3756 - 2013-09-16 08:01:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Lloyd Roses wrote:
From the sounds of it, would highly like the 100% repairamount to become a 50% cycletime-reduction + 50% cap consumption reduction.

In fact, some active tanking mods (ahem) could use this treatment applied to them, regardless of the hull...
But that's another, pretty much flame-inducing, topic...

But wait. If your idea is to be implemented, it can solve that pesky ASB-on-the-marauder-with-GOOD-bastion-mod issue. Here, have your sick burst tank, but you will have to reload it much sooner.

And while we are at it, it's possible to set the numbers differently to balance dem mods out, for example:

-50% cycle time;
-50% cap consumption;
+0% repair amount.

Or:

-33% cycle time;
-33% cap consumption;
+34% repair amount.

etc. Unless I messed up numbers, that still amounts to "+100% HP per second using same amount of cap per second" while allowing devs to tweak ancillary/normal mods balance.

The downside is, as always, that AARs are completely screwed up unless you can specifically make a bonus to paste consumption.
Cade Windstalker
#3757 - 2013-09-16 08:25:11 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
From the sounds of it, would highly like the 100% repairamount to become a 50% cycletime-reduction + 50% cap consumption reduction.

In fact, some active tanking mods (ahem) could use this treatment applied to them, regardless of the hull...
But that's another, pretty much flame-inducing, topic...

But wait. If your idea is to be implemented, it can solve that pesky ASB-on-the-marauder-with-GOOD-bastion-mod issue. Here, have your sick burst tank, but you will have to reload it much sooner.

And while we are at it, it's possible to set the numbers differently to balance dem mods out, for example:

-50% cycle time;
-50% cap consumption;
+0% repair amount.

Or:

-33% cycle time;
-33% cap consumption;
+34% repair amount.

etc. Unless I messed up numbers, that still amounts to "+100% HP per second using same amount of cap per second" while allowing devs to tweak ancillary/normal mods balance.

The downside is, as always, that AARs are completely screwed up unless you can specifically make a bonus to paste consumption.


I am really liking this idea since it rather neatly gets around the ASB debacle while affecting AARs at least less if not leaving them completely unaffected.

I have a niggling concern over the potential effects when combine with certain deadspace modules but overall I like the idea of a more sustained tank (part of the objective of a mission fit) over ridiculous burst tanking a lot more. Plus it helps against annoying neuting enemies by letting you potentially get more rep cycles off before they clean out your cap again, or even get rep cycles off at all.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#3758 - 2013-09-16 09:06:20 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Kane Fenris wrote:
althogh its offtopic...
your obersvation is right but your conclusion may be wrong

your explanation snt the only (and probably not the simplest)
which would be there was an overproduction at release which hasnt corrected itself by now.


There are certainly other available explanations, though I feel the idea that these modules are suffering from an over-stock that's managed to persist for over a year since their inception only supports my idea more strongly, since for that to occur you'd have to have almost none of the modules being bought and used.


i agree with you but one could easily come to a diffrent conclusion

lets say uses are equaly distributed over all ships in eve (asumption! this is just to explain the thought)
1/2 pvp 1/2 shield 1/2 active 1/2 solo/smallscale 1/2 of the active smallscale asb (opposed to active non asb)
that leaves 1/32 of all ships fitted with asb number for conventional would be larger cause the use is not that specialized
(alone all active pve shield fits amount to 1/8)

so now the next asumption which is just the opposite to yours: the modules are quite good!
this would end up that of those asb ships (1/32 off all ships) less get destroyed than those ships that oppose them.

so you would end up with small sale values even the module does not suck.
and this would mean its easy thinkable that the overstock still persists

the problem of low small sale values is just there because the number of ships useing the modules is small
there may be a problem in future cause i think changes to armor tanking havent hit the meta to the whole possible extend.
i like asb's in smallscale pvp and think they are mostly fine.
Cade Windstalker
#3759 - 2013-09-16 10:14:30 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
i agree with you but one could easily come to a diffrent conclusion

lets say uses are equaly distributed over all ships in eve (asumption! this is just to explain the thought)
1/2 pvp 1/2 shield 1/2 active 1/2 solo/smallscale 1/2 of the active smallscale asb (opposed to active non asb)
that leaves 1/32 of all ships fitted with asb number for conventional would be larger cause the use is not that specialized
(alone all active pve shield fits amount to 1/8)

so now the next asumption which is just the opposite to yours: the modules are quite good!
this would end up that of those asb ships (1/32 off all ships) less get destroyed than those ships that oppose them.

so you would end up with small sale values even the module does not suck.
and this would mean its easy thinkable that the overstock still persists

the problem of low small sale values is just there because the number of ships useing the modules is small
there may be a problem in future cause i think changes to armor tanking havent hit the meta to the whole possible extend.
i like asb's in smallscale pvp and think they are mostly fine.


I actually considered the use-case where the modules weren't selling simply because the ships weren't dying and I find it highly unrealistic.

Overall local tank gets beaten by Logi and people tend to fly solo ships until they die, plus we've already established that only a fraction of hulls can actually fit a dual ASB tank and those that can only fit a single ASB are at something of a disadvantage in a protracted fight even against a single opponent.

Plus if the modules were really that good and that popular then you'd actually see more of them getting destroyed since it would be ASB fit vs ASB fit, which would increase demand since someone in that fight is going to lose.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#3760 - 2013-09-16 11:56:56 UTC

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I actually considered the use-case where the modules weren't selling simply because the ships weren't dying and I find it highly unrealistic.


not dyining and not dying as often isnt the same dying not as often will just be another thing that slows sales

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Overall local tank gets beaten by Logi and people tend to fly solo ships until they die, plus we've already established that only a fraction of hulls can actually fit a dual ASB tank and those that can only fit a single ASB are at something of a disadvantage in a protracted fight even against a single opponent.


you got some things right and some things wrong here and some things neither nor...
yes solo pilots tend to fly ships till they explode.
but for this subject it does only matter if they kill more than one ship before they pop at average and i belive most solo pilots choose there fights wisely enough. (and for that matter solo pilots in asb just one kill more than an non asb...)

i sense we could have a lenghy discusion about pvp in general but since this is already offtopic i want to keep it as short aas possible

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Plus if the modules were really that good and that popular then you'd actually see more of them getting destroyed since it would be ASB fit vs ASB fit, which would increase demand since someone in that fight is going to lose.


this is a valid point but i think 1 on 1 fights are just a very small part of eve pvp mainly done by ppl in high sec and those tend to have logis to cheat their duels ...