Ships & Modules

Of course it's an articficial combat environment inside an artificial combat environment due to the extra rules. But neither you nor the fellow who originally theorized that this limitation might get imported to the game really knows what CCP is considering with ASB. So it's perfectly fine for him to speculate. Apparently his speculation angers you. Too bad. Anyway, take a look at your statement below concerning damps and substitute ancilliary shield booster for it.


Seems to me there is quite a lot of ASB usage (and only one per ship) in the AT. I certainly am not advocating a knee jerk reaction like they did with damps and killing damp boats, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that ASBs will get a nerf coming out of this (in 2014). A nerf could take a number of forms or severity. If they do, I hope they don't kill the mod as surely as they pre-nerfed the adaptive armor hardener.

Yes to you though concerning damp boats having got shafted from the kneejerk nerf. Both times they nerfed ecm they always gave an immediate rebuff back to ecm boats. But damp boats, no rebuff. Nos/Neut boats, no rebuff for nos nerf, cap battery buff, or ASB introduction. Web boats, no rebuff for the rapier and hugi for the web nerf. And ships with TD and painter bonuses are still waiting for their buffs (TD affecting missiles and painters just more strength).


Except they could just nerf the mods and buff the specialized ships, like they did with ecm. I see nothing wrong if an ASB fit ship can have powerful tanking and laugh at neuts on unbonused ships, but still fear a sentinel, curse, pilgrim, or blood raider ship. Do those bunsed ships need to drop the boost amount of the ASB or is it enough that they can turn off the shield hardeners and render the ASB somewhat irrelevant. I don't know. But certainly raw neuts could get nerfed but bonused ships buffed back to compensate.

WTF is that dude on about? "There are neutralizers so I'm not able to use ships with active defense" (paraphrased something stupid)?

It's like those fools who've been saying solo pvp is impossible or dead for years (since I've been playing). You know what really makes using active defense setups difficult? Answer: Ecm drones and Ecm ships.

I've almost never lost a ship with active defense to multiple ships using neutralizers.

One more thing! ROFL Jackie chan reference achieved = )

I've noticed many pilots are starting to circulate this nonsense about "ships not useful before are now useful with this module". Yeah!? What ships are those? I have yet heard or read an example of this. That whole argument is not factually correct. From what I've seen and what I've been doing. The new module tends to replace, upgrade, or just added as another setup in most cases. They tend to be used on the same ships that are most effective.

So no! It's not helping "useless ships". On the other hand. The new drone damage module has made 1 - 3 ships viable. 2 of those were considered viable before. One was not (Worm).

Please...


- end of transmission

Speculation doesn't anger me, but this particular bit of speculation is completely baseless. Claiming that they MIGHT be looking into something is pointless, since they MIGHT be looking into countless things, from buffing missiles to removing supercaps from the game.

As I said before, commenting on things that will maybe possibly happen is pointless, as that sort of logic can be applied to literally any possible change you can imagine. The issue here is moreso whether or not their limiting the number of mods in the AT is an indication that they're planning to nerf them, and it just isn't. Balance in the AT has nothing to do with balance in TQ,
Claiming that CCP might make changes to the ASB = fine.
Claiming that the rules they put in to the AT do anything to affect the likelihood of this happening = not fine.

CCP has a history of putting limits on things that buff up tanks in tournaments, because in that tiny area, with so few people, the overly tanky setups are absurdly boring to watch. It was the explicit reason behind banning more than one logi, I would imagine it was also the reason behind banning faction mods and pirate implants, as both offer a massive improvement to tank compared to dps output.

I would LOVE to see neuts get nerfed, as they're hands down the biggest problem with active tanking ships (unbonused neuts mind you, the specialized neut using ships are fine as they are) But in lieu of that introducing a mod that tanks well even while getting neuted is a reasonable move (and involves less whining than nerfing a mod that gets fit in 90% of all utility highs, despite that very fact being a pretty damn good indicator that they need a nerf)


Would you prefer I put them in a separate paragraph? I would think that CCP specifically making an active tank mod that doesn't get affected by neuts implied that they wanted a sort of active tanked setup that could counter neut using ships, and that's a MUCH smaller leap in logic than the one you've been so doggedly defending.

Since 1600mm plates offer roughly 2x the benefit of a LSE?

Only one ecm module on each ship plz, ecm is so op and there is no way to counter it.

You do know that a reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy don't you?

Damps were as prevalent before the nerf as neuts are now, which given that unlike neuts there were an abundance of alternatives for spare mids was pretty much proof that they needed a nerf. Their problem was that literally EVERYONE had to fit them, the ASB equivalent for this would be seeing ASBs on armor tanked ships.


[/quote] As I said earlier, it is a MUCH smaller leap to assume that the mod that allows people to active tank while being immune to neuting was introduced as a counter to neuting than it is to assume that a nerf is incoming because CCP put in a rule for the AT, which traditionally has no effect on TQ balance.


1600s also use 3 times the power grid and make anything using them slow as ****. I'd wager that at least half of the good buffer fits out there use shields instead of armor, so comparing a single mod to another single mod doesn't really prove anything anyway.

Shield tanked Hurricane has 48K EHP.
Armor tanked Hurricane has 70K EHP.

You trade speed for more buffer. I just use the Hurricane because it was, off the top of my head, the most common ship that can go either way in terms of tanking.

MY GOD, YOU MEAN THERE ARE TRADEOFFS IN THIS GAME??? WHAT IS THIS MADNESS???

Hey let me quote what you were saying before:



In case you missed it:



Armor giving more buffer with shield being better active is fine with me.

What is and is not useful is situational. You could fairly say that speed matters a lot solo, but elsewhere it doesn't really mean ****. Sometimes your individual DPS doesn't even matter, just the ability to tank and that's when you look at armor.