These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ancillary Shield Booster use should be nerfed

First post
Author
B'reanna
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2012-07-22 23:00:31 UTC  |  Edited by: B'reanna
from pls internal testing i can now say that:
a properly run armour team just cant stand up to a properly run shield team. yes the vindi teams for example do alot of dmg but the shield teams always beat it.(thanks raivi about misleading everyone on the air) the reactive hardner helped with this a good deal in the 6 mans but most ship dont really benefit from it int he 12s. as most of the good teams seemed smart enough to kill the amour teams logi first. now i dont think they need to nerf asbs rather they just need to take a look at ACTIVE armour tanking. as it was we have several matches where armour logis ran asbs bc they tanked more with a non native tank. and this to me just seems wrong. that all said it was a great tourney this year.
Dwym
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#82 - 2012-07-22 23:07:33 UTC
I liked the ASB, but perhaps something similar for armor tanked ships would be in order.

And/or perhaps having an ASB fitted would reduce incoming remote reps?
Kallie Rae
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#83 - 2012-07-22 23:16:18 UTC
Rather than nerfing ASB's, introduce something similar for armor tanking.
Lexa Hellfury
Perkone
Caldari State
#84 - 2012-07-22 23:20:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexa Hellfury
Kallie Rae wrote:
Rather than nerfing ASB's, introduce something similar for armor tanking.


Yes please continue adding more tank to the game, that way we can finally kill solo pvp.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#85 - 2012-07-22 23:30:05 UTC
The asb doesn't need to be nerfed. What it needs is (said this before, but repeating) the cap cost of the cycle only modified when a charge is used. If using the smaller charge, it only cuts down the overall cap usage. The problem isn't the ASB, just how the mechanics are excecuted. If you want free charges, need the larger charge size. Want lots of charges, gotta use the smaller one.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#86 - 2012-07-22 23:56:47 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
It offers a load of flexibility which I think makes it pretty damn awesome in terms of getting different setups.


If you fly shield ships, yup.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#87 - 2012-07-23 03:31:44 UTC
Ryno Caval wrote:
they already have a disadvantage with the 60sec reload and most of the number of charges is 10 regular cap boosters and then 12 or 13 navy cap boosters and what ends up happening when you run out of charges you are extremely weak tank and you tend to run outta cap extremely quickly so they already are balanced you just need to stop crying about the ASB however with some of the other inferno modules need buff like the reactive armor is weak as hell the target breaker is kinda wack maybe focus on the stuff that really is broken the ASB is fine the way it is it penalizes you for running outta charges and running the module and you run out of ammo rather quickly so you have to balance how much damage you are willing to take in the shields.


OH MY GOD!

You have managed to completely destroy most every rule of written English in one post.

I dare someone to read it aloud as written and not be gasping for air or doubled over in laughter before they are half way through.

Mr Epeen Cool
Rengas
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#88 - 2012-07-23 05:14:02 UTC
Our team fielded an armor setup vs. ASB Darkside gang and managed to win.

Did the same against Mildly Intoxicated.

Yes they offer some huge advantages, but they are still beatable with the right strategy.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#89 - 2012-07-23 07:17:31 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
The Bazzalisk wrote:
Look at this match at the moment - Mildly Intoxicated - Raiden.

Those 3 Proteuses were unable to take down a webbed Sleipnir for a solid minute, and the logi was long dead. It's a bit silly.



Did you mean those 3 proteus's that were rotating turns being jammed?


Lets do some simple math shall we?

Lets say a single XL ASB reps about 400 per cycle right?

Lets say each proteus does 500 damage, thats low, I'm way undershooting the Damage value of the proteus but basically the 3 of them added up to nearly 1500 dps or more.


Do you see how a single ASB wouldn't matter at all to those proteus's?


I think you're confusing what you're seeing with whats actually happening and you just dont understand the mod.

You're not factoring in the effects of the boosting ship's resists. A sleipnir heating its invuln will have >70% resists across the baord, so that ~400 shield boosted per second becomes 400/0.3 = 1452 dps tanked while the booster has charges. That almostly completely negates your three proteuses and their combined 1500 outgoing dps while the sleip has charges loaded.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#90 - 2012-07-23 09:01:56 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
The Bazzalisk wrote:
Look at this match at the moment - Mildly Intoxicated - Raiden.

Those 3 Proteuses were unable to take down a webbed Sleipnir for a solid minute, and the logi was long dead. It's a bit silly.



Did you mean those 3 proteus's that were rotating turns being jammed?


Lets do some simple math shall we?

Lets say a single XL ASB reps about 400 per cycle right?

Lets say each proteus does 500 damage, thats low, I'm way undershooting the Damage value of the proteus but basically the 3 of them added up to nearly 1500 dps or more.


Do you see how a single ASB wouldn't matter at all to those proteus's?


I think you're confusing what you're seeing with whats actually happening and you just dont understand the mod.

You're not factoring in the effects of the boosting ship's resists. A sleipnir heating its invuln will have >70% resists across the baord, so that ~400 shield boosted per second becomes 400/0.3 = 1452 dps tanked while the booster has charges. That almostly completely negates your three proteuses and their combined 1500 outgoing dps while the sleip has charges loaded.


Ok but focus now, i said my dps estimate was low, even WITH your resisted number my lowballed estimate dps is beating it, in actual dps numbers you're looking at more like 600+, which would put it well over the dps threshold.

Like seriously, the spliep that died tanked about as much damage as a buffer tanked sliep did, and not just that one, if you check the damages that any dead ASB ship soaked, its about as much as a standard shield buffer ship might absorb before going down, +/- 5k in most instances.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#91 - 2012-07-23 09:39:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Durzel
I like what ASBs added to the game, less so for the Alliance Tournament. The fact there was an arbitrary restriction on the number you were allowed to fit speaks volumes to balance.

That being said prior to ASB there was barely any reason not to default to a passive setup, the only ships that really seemed viable were ones with active tanking bonuses - and they still required at least 1 cap booster to last any reasonable amount of time.

I do think however that a lot of people are just looking at ASBs in terms of them being a direct (better) replacement for shield boosters, when in reality when you've run out of charges - which will happen on most ships sooner than you think - you're screwed. The cap usage on them when run dry is insane.
Narkotik
Tyrosalata
#92 - 2012-07-23 10:15:44 UTC
Ancillary armor repairers. DO IT CCP.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#93 - 2012-07-23 11:50:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Kallie Rae wrote:
Rather than nerfing ASB's, introduce something similar for armor tanking.


Narkotik wrote:
Ancillary armor repairers. DO IT CCP.


shield? armor? Who the **** cares? Lets make them the same.

Lexa Hellfury wrote:
Yes please continue adding more tank to the game, that way we can finally kill solo pvp.

how is that? Both sides of a solo fight can field ASB fitted ships.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#94 - 2012-07-23 12:24:03 UTC
Dual tank FTW.
Jori McKie
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#95 - 2012-07-23 12:55:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
Grath Telkin wrote:

Lugalzagezi666 wrote:


xl asb tank on sleipnir - 2490 dps overheated
xl asb tank on vargur - 2000 oh
fitting - 200/500
reps from asb are neut proof




These numbers are very made up, good job.


Sorry Grath you have no clue at all. i'm flying that ASB x-large Sleipnir a lot and that thing is a beast on it's own.
That is the raw data from EFT, Sleipnir with 1x x-large ASB + 1x T2 Invul Field + 1x T2 Kinetic Rig + 1x DC TII

1)
no crystal, no booster, no blue pill
Tank = 1278 omni, no overheat
Tank = 1640 omni, overheat the ASB (and as you know you should always overheat it as it gives you 10% extra Shield HP bonus with heat)
Tank = 1789 omni, overheat the ASB + Invul

2)
Add a Shield Booster Tengu with just the resi link + mindlink
Tank = 1820 omni, no overheat
Tank = 2332 omni, overheat the ASB
Tank = 2499 omni, overheat the ASB + Invul

3)
Shield booster Tengu + Crystal Set
Tank = 2755 omni, no overheat
Tank = 3542 omni, overheat the ASB
Tank = 3795 omni, overheat the ASB + Invul

4)
Shield booster Tengu + Crystal Set + Standard Blue Pill
No data as neither EFT or Pifa have implemented it yet and i'm to lazy to do it myself.


The single x-large ASB on any T2 Ship with resis and shield boost bonus is a beast, like on a Sleipnir, Vargur or Claymore. A single x-large ASB is nothing more than extended EHP, so the Sleipnir has roughly 200k EHP using all the 13 cap booster and not dieing before due to too much DPS or Alpha. On top of it it is nearly neut immune and completly neut immune if you change the invul to a shield ampli

A dual x-large T2 fit on a Vargur can reach over time about 1.4m EHP, cycling the ASB that's roughly the EHP of a Dreadnaught.

In case you doubt me, i can provide you fittings, video and killmails.


P.S.
That x-large ASB works perfekt on a Cane too, it's freaking easy now to kill Drakes and other stuff you would have never killed with a standard extender Cane. I even killed a Sacri with dual amor tank 2 days ago, only needed about 4x charges. His friends 1x nightmare + 1x extra Sacri needed about a minute to kill me off using my remaining cap booster.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#96 - 2012-07-23 13:04:04 UTC
Lexa Hellfury wrote:
I really don't understand why CCP thought adding more tank to the game was a good idea. People keep talking about how it's a buff to solo/small gang (<5) PvP, which is not the case at all. It limits solo PvP/small gang PvP horribly. If you try to PvP in non-ASB setups, do you know what your targets are? Other non-ASB ships. It's not quite so pronounced in ATX because of the single ASB, but on TQ where double ASB is the current FoTM you cannot engage an ASB setup with a non-ASB setup.

Hell, a double ASB Myrm with a 3 slot tank tanks twice as much as a triple rep Myrm with a six slot tank and the Myrm gets a bonus to armor tanking. Anybody who thinks this is adding options to the game is a goddamn retard.

Edit: Triple rep Myrm actually requires 8 slots if you count cap boosters.

Because we all know how CCP actually PvPs:

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=11653698

that's their scale. "Gamebreaking for small-scale and solo PvP? LOL N00b! Go blob like everyone else does!"

Ugh

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#97 - 2012-07-23 14:37:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Durzel
Lexa Hellfury wrote:
I really don't understand why CCP thought adding more tank to the game was a good idea. People keep talking about how it's a buff to solo/small gang (<5) PvP, which is not the case at all. It limits solo PvP/small gang PvP horribly. If you try to PvP in non-ASB setups, do you know what your targets are? Other non-ASB ships. It's not quite so pronounced in ATX because of the single ASB, but on TQ where double ASB is the current FoTM you cannot engage an ASB setup with a non-ASB setup.

Hell, a double ASB Myrm with a 3 slot tank tanks twice as much as a triple rep Myrm with a six slot tank and the Myrm gets a bonus to armor tanking. Anybody who thinks this is adding options to the game is a goddamn retard.

Edit: Triple rep Myrm actually requires 8 slots if you count cap boosters.

I keep reading this. Why are you talking about ASBs like they are a direct replacement for vanilla shield boosters?

Granted while an ASB (or two) has charges it is formidable, but that is exactly why it was introduced. Active tanking was the red headed stepchild of PvP, even on bonused ships for the most part. You either went nuts with deadspace & crystals, and risked billions in doing so, or you sacrificed multiple slots just to keep the booster running for a remotely sensible period of time.

Now, with ASBs, you have a burst tank that actually has utility, and one that is unsustainable for long periods. Once you run out of cap charges, or once you use up the ones you have fitted in the case of a single ASB with sufficient incoming DPS, you're screwed. I don't know if you've noticed the cap usage on a dry ASB - it's massive, more than twice the activation cost of a T2 SB equivalent, it's barely useable once you've run out of cap charges - at which point it is just dead weight.

Perhaps there is tweaking to be done but unless everyone wants active tanking to return to the depths where it was only remotely effective on ships that had bonuses to it, and was (is) cap intensive and chronically vulnerable to neuting then we need to keep ASBs in some shape or form.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#98 - 2012-07-23 14:55:58 UTC
Narkotik wrote:
Ancillary armor repairers. DO IT CCP.



I don't think ccp should just make all tanking the same. It dumbs the game down. "You can either use a asb or a aab they do the same thing."

As for whether asbs are op well I'm definitely using them. But I fly solo allot. Are they better than a buffer tank in larger fleet fights? I'm not so sure.

Perhaps instead of making armor and shield tanking the identical, they should leave the asb for shields and buff the armor buffer tank fits. There are lots of ways they could do this. But again maybe not. I say give it some time.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-07-23 15:05:56 UTC
Durzel wrote:

I keep reading this. Why are you talking about ASBs like they are a direct replacement for vanilla shield boosters?

Granted while an ASB (or two) has charges it is formidable, but that is exactly why it was introduced. Active tanking was the red headed stepchild of PvP, even on bonused ships for the most part. You either went nuts with deadspace & crystals, and risked billions in doing so, or you sacrificed multiple slots just to keep the booster running for a remotely sensible period of time.

Now, with ASBs, you have a burst tank that actually has utility, and one that is unsustainable for long periods. Once you run out of cap charges, or once you use up the ones you have fitted in the case of a single ASB with sufficient incoming DPS, you're screwed. I don't know if you've noticed the cap usage on a dry ASB - it's massive, more than twice the activation cost of a T2 SB equivalent, it's barely useable once you've run out of cap charges - at which point it is just dead weight.

Perhaps there is tweaking to be done but unless everyone wants active tanking to return to the depths where it was only remotely effective on ships that had bonuses to it, and was (is) cap intensive and chronically vulnerable to neuting then we need to keep ASBs in some shape or form.


Ok let me put this to you. Let's assume no crystals no tengu booster no blue pill.

Nightmare

Pith X type XL SB booster, 2 caldari navy invuls, em and 2 boost amps and a heavy cap booster to keep it running. This fit is like 3 billion isk I think.

3k dps peak tank, 2k sustained without even running guns.

2 X-L ASB, 1 t2 invul, 1 t2 em, 1 t2 shield boost amp. 2 slots spare for whatever you wish. Fit cost is about 100m.

1.6k dps tank on ONE booster. 3k on both. Plenty of cap left over for running guns, cannot be neuted out, have to wait for both boosters to run out at the same time. If you have less than 1.6k dps don't even bother, you will be waiting till their cargo is completly empty.

If you pimp it a little bit you get to over 2.2k sustained with one booster. 4k with two. Fit like 1.5b I think? Don't forget this is immune to cap warfare and his 2 mid slots spare.

Why would I use regular shield boosters anymore? For missions?
Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#100 - 2012-07-23 15:21:42 UTC
Dez Affinity wrote:
Durzel wrote:

I keep reading this. Why are you talking about ASBs like they are a direct replacement for vanilla shield boosters?

Granted while an ASB (or two) has charges it is formidable, but that is exactly why it was introduced. Active tanking was the red headed stepchild of PvP, even on bonused ships for the most part. You either went nuts with deadspace & crystals, and risked billions in doing so, or you sacrificed multiple slots just to keep the booster running for a remotely sensible period of time.

Now, with ASBs, you have a burst tank that actually has utility, and one that is unsustainable for long periods. Once you run out of cap charges, or once you use up the ones you have fitted in the case of a single ASB with sufficient incoming DPS, you're screwed. I don't know if you've noticed the cap usage on a dry ASB - it's massive, more than twice the activation cost of a T2 SB equivalent, it's barely useable once you've run out of cap charges - at which point it is just dead weight.

Perhaps there is tweaking to be done but unless everyone wants active tanking to return to the depths where it was only remotely effective on ships that had bonuses to it, and was (is) cap intensive and chronically vulnerable to neuting then we need to keep ASBs in some shape or form.


Ok let me put this to you. Let's assume no crystals no tengu booster no blue pill.

Nightmare

Pith X type XL SB booster, 2 caldari navy invuls, em and 2 boost amps and a heavy cap booster to keep it running. This fit is like 3 billion isk I think.

3k dps peak tank, 2k sustained without even running guns.

2 X-L ASB, 1 t2 invul, 1 t2 em, 1 t2 shield boost amp. 2 slots spare for whatever you wish. Fit cost is about 100m.

1.6k dps tank on ONE booster. 3k on both. Plenty of cap left over for running guns, cannot be neuted out, have to wait for both boosters to run out at the same time. If you have less than 1.6k dps don't even bother, you will be waiting till their cargo is completly empty.

If you pimp it a little bit you get to over 2.2k sustained with one booster. 4k with two. Fit like 1.5b I think? Don't forget this is immune to cap warfare and his 2 mid slots spare.

Why would I use regular shield boosters anymore? For missions?

Granted there seems to be little reason to use regular shield boosters outside missions, I'll give you that.

Nightmare has 665 m³ cargo space. If for the sake of argument we assume that all of that is consumed with cap charges - that's 55 charges which is 4 reloads (of 13) total, or 2 per booster. After 2 reloads you'd have 4 charges left in your cargo.

So, given each XLASB has 13 navy charges in, you're looking at eftectively 4 x 52 secs worth of boosting, 208 secs (3.46 minutes) of 1.6k tank before that Nightmare effectively can't tank anymore. It's even less if you run both boosters at the same time.

The question then becomes is it overpowered for a Nightmare to be able to tank 1.6k DPS for 208 seconds, i.e. 332,800 damage repped... vs a passive fit one.






... looking at those numbers and working them out as I went along, I'm inclined to change my point of view. What?