These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

ancillary shield boosters and ancillary armor repairers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TomHorn
Horn Brothers Holdings Inc.
#1 - 2013-12-29 14:45:29 UTC
I just noticed last night that these modules now have an activation cost after having a fight with curse in my myrm bc yesterday.
Couldnt understand why my ancillary armor repairer was not working when i had nanite repair paste still in the module. Until i checked the module realized there is now an activation cost.

Myrm i had medium armor repairer = repair 714 cap cost of 160 / medium ancillary repairer = repair 401 cap cost of 160.

Now that the ancillary modules have an activation cost are they now obsolete. Wondering when did the change come in.
Sid Crash
#2 - 2013-12-29 14:54:58 UTC
they had that since the beginning, nothing changed. Is it "fair"? No, not really.
TomHorn
Horn Brothers Holdings Inc.
#3 - 2013-12-29 15:02:32 UTC
Thankyou Sid been ship spinning couldnt remember. Trying to think back and just thought they didnt have cap cost. Thanks Sid.
kurage87
EVE University
Ivy League
#4 - 2013-12-29 15:06:44 UTC
Yeah, like the other guy said AAR have always had activation cost even when loaded with charges.

ASB are cap free when loaded though, so I guess you just remembered wrong and got them mixed up.
TomHorn
Horn Brothers Holdings Inc.
#5 - 2013-12-29 15:27:08 UTC
Thanks Kurage87 must have.
Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2013-12-29 16:30:51 UTC
The 'flavor' between the two ancillary modules was that WHEN LOADED the shield booster is free but same boost size as regular one, but the armor was same cap cost but much more rep done
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2013-12-29 20:18:16 UTC
Froggy Storm wrote:
The 'flavor' between the two ancillary modules was that WHEN LOADED the shield booster is free but same boost size as regular one, but the armor was same cap cost but much more rep done

Not true. The ancil shield boosts around the region of high end deadspace boosters. The ancil armor rep is straight up worse and you can only fit one. IMHO CCP learned lessons with the OP shield one as the AAR is better balacned vs other armor options.
kurage87
EVE University
Ivy League
#8 - 2013-12-29 21:53:12 UTC
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:
Froggy Storm wrote:
The 'flavor' between the two ancillary modules was that WHEN LOADED the shield booster is free but same boost size as regular one, but the armor was same cap cost but much more rep done

Not true. The ancil shield boosts around the region of high end deadspace boosters. The ancil armor rep is straight up worse and you can only fit one. IMHO CCP learned lessons with the OP shield one as the AAR is better balacned vs other armor options.

Umm, the AAR I look at reps better than the ASB size above it.

The AAR also reps better than all three same size A type AR whereas the ASB reps worse than its size A type SBs.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#9 - 2013-12-30 00:59:40 UTC
You simply shouldn't forget that armor/shieldtanking are fundamentally different justifying quite elegantly those cap-consumption-behaviours.

For one, fitting an ASB of the correct size (med for frigs, X-L for everything else) requires enormous fitting compromises, not to mention multi-ASB-fits. The AAR though fits easier than a T2 module, and is also fitted with approprate size.

Shieldbooster are usually slapped into a really tight midrack sharing the avaiable place with necessary modules like prop and tackle, whereas the AAR is just the replacement for one of your armor repairers - and most ships use 2-3 of those anyways. The cap efficiency of armor repairers and shieldboosters are different, and ASBs tend to be strongly limited by your cargohold's capacity, whereas the charges for a boosted armor rep cycle are nanite paste. So while you can easily squeeze some 150k+ HP out of a dualrep hyperion using LAR+LAAR at average of 75% resists, a dual-ASB mael usually dies after around 200k+ damage taken at an average resist of 45%.
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#10 - 2013-12-30 03:29:37 UTC
Stealth buff AAR thread spotted...

+1

Oderint Dum Metuant
Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2013-12-30 10:30:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Odithia
Lloyd Roses wrote:

For one, fitting an ASB of the correct size (med for frigs, X-L for everything else) requires enormous fitting compromises, not to mention multi-ASB-fits.

Dual MASB "Tank as much as a BS" Hawk disagree.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2013-12-30 17:58:18 UTC
Im not all into comparing shield and armor tanking because they are two different beasts.

However, after the introduction of the ASB, armor clearly needed a similar burst tanking module. The AAR does the armor job well for small gang pvp. Personally, I love it and think it is balanced well. I fly mostly small gang pvp, and it is nice to have active reps be viable. I use them all of the time.

When you run out of charges on the AAR, you still get reps equivalent to a T1 armor rep for as long as you have cap (as long as you dont forget to turn auto reload off!). When you run out of charges with an ASB, you are either forced to reload, or have your cap completely nuked in a cycle or two. Both have trade offs, but both have their place. I personally HATED the ASB when it was introduced. After a few weeks, I changed my tune (and although I argued it needed a slight nerfing) I realized it made active repping viable in pvp for more than just a few ships. The AAR did the same for armor. I am grateful for both and use them both.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Starbuck05
Abiding Ormolus
#13 - 2013-12-31 09:44:31 UTC
Hrett wrote:
Im not all into comparing shield and armor tanking because they are two different beasts.

However, after the introduction of the ASB, armor clearly needed a similar burst tanking module. The AAR does the armor job well for small gang pvp. Personally, I love it and think it is balanced well. I fly mostly small gang pvp, and it is nice to have active reps be viable. I use them all of the time.

When you run out of charges on the AAR, you still get reps equivalent to a T1 armor rep for as long as you have cap (as long as you dont forget to turn auto reload off!). When you run out of charges with an ASB, you are either forced to reload, or have your cap completely nuked in a cycle or two. Both have trade offs, but both have their place. I personally HATED the ASB when it was introduced. After a few weeks, I changed my tune (and although I argued it needed a slight nerfing) I realized it made active repping viable in pvp for more than just a few ships. The AAR did the same for armor. I am grateful for both and use them both.


Except that when you run out of nanite paste the aar reps only half as much as a t1 or t2 repper

Just because i am blond does not make me stoopid !
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2013-12-31 15:42:11 UTC

Starbuck05 wrote:
Hrett wrote:
Im not all into comparing shield and armor tanking because they are two different beasts.

However, after the introduction of the ASB, armor clearly needed a similar burst tanking module. The AAR does the armor job well for small gang pvp. Personally, I love it and think it is balanced well. I fly mostly small gang pvp, and it is nice to have active reps be viable. I use them all of the time.

When you run out of charges on the AAR, you still get reps equivalent to a T1 armor rep for as long as you have cap (as long as you dont forget to turn auto reload off!). When you run out of charges with an ASB, you are either forced to reload, or have your cap completely nuked in a cycle or two. Both have trade offs, but both have their place. I personally HATED the ASB when it was introduced. After a few weeks, I changed my tune (and although I argued it needed a slight nerfing) I realized it made active repping viable in pvp for more than just a few ships. The AAR did the same for armor. I am grateful for both and use them both.


Except that when you run out of nanite paste the aar reps only half as much as a t1 or t2 repper


Well, actually looking it up, we are both wrong. I swear I read a dev blog that said when unloaded it would be as effective as a T1, but that isnt the case according to eft. Looking at medium reppers: The T1 outperforms an unloaded AAR by ~33.3%. The T2 outperforms it by ~75% ish.

At level V, I am pretty sure you get 8 fueled cycles out of a full load of paste at 9 seconds per cycle.

For each 9 second cycle and for 20 cycles:

Loaded MAAR: 621 per cycle. For 20 cycles: (621 x 8) + (207 x 12) = 4968 + 2484 = 7452
Unloaded MAAR: 207 x 20 = 4140
MAR I: 276 x 20 = 5520
MAR II: 368 x 20 = 7360

So for MAAR vs. MAR II, it looks like the break point is just around 3 mins. If the fight will last 3 mins or under, a MAAR is better. If it will last longer than 3 mins, a MAR II is better.

Its early, Ive had 3 hours of sleep and I am terrible at math on my best of days, so that chicken-scratch may need double checking, but that looks about right.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!