These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2012-07-23 15:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
Narkotik wrote:
Ancillary armor repairers. DO IT CCP.

+1

It seems like a great idea. The current armor reps would be used for PVE applications. An ancillary armor rep would help balance out armor active tank which is already very disadvantaged and makes ships slow as hell.(the rigs) Seems that the only reason why some of the armor teams that beat the shield teams is the fact that it's a closed arena space and that they were held to one booster per ship. In PvP outside the tourney those shield ships just kite away forever, sport 2 boosters, and just own armor ships, particularly blaster boats.

This would add some nice options for all pilots not just shield boats, which last I looked already dominate this game.
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#102 - 2012-07-23 15:27:01 UTC
There's a reason the only real effective use of armour ships in this tournament were the highest DPS single ships in the game (Vindis and Kronos) And they still lose to ASB Sleipnirs.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#103 - 2012-07-23 15:35:00 UTC
Mariner6 wrote:
Narkotik wrote:
Ancillary armor repairers. DO IT CCP.

+1

It seems like a great idea. The current armor reps would be used for PVE applications. An ancillary armor rep would help balance out armor active tank which is already very disadvantaged and makes ships slow as hell. Seems that the only reason why some of the armor teams that beat the shield teams is the fact that it's a closed arena space and that they were held to one booster per ship. In PvP outside the tourney those shield ships just kite away forever, sport 2 boosters, and just own armor ships, particularly blaster boats.

This would add some nice option for all pilots not just shield boats, which last I looked already dominate this game.




The idea that armor and shield need to be equivalent at both passive and active tanking is a bad one.


Keep the two forms of tanking different.

I don't think shield ships dominate the game. If the asbs change that, then buff armor/nerf asbs but don't just make all the forms of tanking the same. That just dumbs the game down.

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

Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2012-07-23 15:37:15 UTC
Durzel wrote:


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.


It's also uncounterable except with very high dps (generally more than a single ship can provide) other than waiting for charges to run out. This brings ships with ASB close to the status of solopwnmobiles. This is not fixing any problems but creating more of them. When the only counter to ASBs is fitting an ASB yourself or bringing more people then something is wrong.

What CCP should have done is give the players ways to increase their burst tank using cap-dependent modules. I suggested scripts for shield boosters / armor repairers that increase tank by a factor of 2-4 while decreasing cap efficiency. This would achieve similar results as ASBs but in a manner that can be countered and is more fluid. It also wouldn't leave armor out of the equation.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2012-07-23 15:49:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
Cearain wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
Narkotik wrote:
Ancillary armor repairers. DO IT CCP.

+1

It seems like a great idea. The current armor reps would be used for PVE applications. An ancillary armor rep would help balance out armor active tank which is already very disadvantaged and makes ships slow as hell. Seems that the only reason why some of the armor teams that beat the shield teams is the fact that it's a closed arena space and that they were held to one booster per ship. In PvP outside the tourney those shield ships just kite away forever, sport 2 boosters, and just own armor ships, particularly blaster boats.

This would add some nice option for all pilots not just shield boats, which last I looked already dominate this game.




The idea that armor and shield need to be equivalent at both passive and active tanking is a bad one.


Keep the two forms of tanking different.

I don't think shield ships dominate the game. If the asbs change that, then buff armor/nerf asbs but don't just make all the forms of tanking the same. That just dumbs the game down.


How would adding this dumb the game down? Just the opposite. It would add more diversity vice everyone flying winmatar. The fact is that you can buffer tank armor or shield. You can active tank armor and shield. And you can passive tank shield. So how would adding another form of armor active tanking hurt? The only ship, other than frigs, I ever see do it in PvP is the Mrym. And as someone mentioned you can get better performance currently on a shield tanked Mrym with the new mods. That's a bit ridiculous no? Plus armor tanks have to operate in neut range which makes it even more challenging. Shield tanks don't have to as they can dictate range. So now they have absoultely the best of all worlds.
B'reanna
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2012-07-23 16:08:44 UTC
here the thing about asbs that some people here seemed to not have mentioned. On alot of ships they end up taking the place of extenders. So while impractical for an arena 250km in diameter verry high alpha ships can kill asb fit ships simply by doing enough dmg with each volley to burnt through the shields. In the 6 mans esp when looking at asb logis pl tested a couple setups who basic purpose was to 1 or 2 shot the other teams asb logi bc it only had about 10-12k ehp. on tq this isnt so much of an issue. So while yes you can come up with some insane tank numbers with asbs on say a 2 on 2 fight if one side is in say dual asb fit vs an alpha/kite fit. depending on which ships they are, if they are running dual asbs on one side and kiting alpha ships on the other it just a matter of a few shots to kill one of the other sides ships bc each time you shot yes they are at full shield but you take chunks out of the armor/hull. So while it is verry good in small gang stuff, it doesn't scale well. As ive said
the issue is not the asb but the fact that armour even before the asb was **** for active tanking and the ships that had active tanking armour bonuses where seldom used.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#107 - 2012-07-23 16:42:04 UTC
Mariner6 wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
Narkotik wrote:
Ancillary armor repairers. DO IT CCP.

+1

It seems like a great idea. The current armor reps would be used for PVE applications. An ancillary armor rep would help balance out armor active tank which is already very disadvantaged and makes ships slow as hell. Seems that the only reason why some of the armor teams that beat the shield teams is the fact that it's a closed arena space and that they were held to one booster per ship. In PvP outside the tourney those shield ships just kite away forever, sport 2 boosters, and just own armor ships, particularly blaster boats.

This would add some nice option for all pilots not just shield boats, which last I looked already dominate this game.




The idea that armor and shield need to be equivalent at both passive and active tanking is a bad one.


Keep the two forms of tanking different.

I don't think shield ships dominate the game. If the asbs change that, then buff armor/nerf asbs but don't just make all the forms of tanking the same. That just dumbs the game down.


How would adding this dumb the game down? Just the opposite. It would add more diversity vice everyone flying winmatar. The fact is that you can buffer tank armor or shield. You can active tank armor and shield. And you can passive tank shield. So how would adding another form of armor active tanking hurt? The only ship, other than frigs, I ever see do it in PvP is the Mrym. And as someone mentioned you can get better performance currently on a shield tanked Mrym with the new mods. That's a bit ridiculous no? Plus armor tanks have to operate in neut range which makes it even more challenging. Shield tanks don't have to as they can dictate range. So now they have absoultely the best of all worlds.



It would dumb it down by making it is the same thing whether you active armor tank or shield tank. The passive shield tank is very different than the passive armor tank. The passive armor tank gives more hp but slows you down.

But the active tanks are pretty similar. There is a difference in cap use and time when you get the rep but the fact that you load cap boosters into an ancillary booster would pretty much eliminate one of the few differences. I just think ccp should look for balance through diverse means instead of making the same module for armor or shield.

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

Jori McKie
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#108 - 2012-07-23 17:02:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
B'reanna wrote:
here the thing about asbs that some people here seemed to not have mentioned. On alot of ships they end up taking the place of extenders. So while impractical for an arena 250km in diameter verry high alpha ships can kill asb fit ships simply by doing enough dmg with each volley to burnt through the shields. In the 6 mans esp when looking at asb logis pl tested a couple setups who basic purpose was to 1 or 2 shot the other teams asb logi bc it only had about 10-12k ehp. on tq this isnt so much of an issue. So while yes you can come up with some insane tank numbers with asbs on say a 2 on 2 fight if one side is in say dual asb fit vs an alpha/kite fit. depending on which ships they are, if they are running dual asbs on one side and kiting alpha ships on the other it just a matter of a few shots to kill one of the other sides ships bc each time you shot yes they are at full shield but you take chunks out of the armor/hull. So while it is verry good in small gang stuff, it doesn't scale well. As ive said
the issue is not the asb but the fact that armour even before the asb was **** for active tanking and the ships that had active tanking armour bonuses where seldom used.


Absolutly correct, the new ASB is great you get much more bang for your buck but on the other hand it makes any other sort of active tanking in small/med scale nearly obsolete. Just imagine a nano Tempest, 100MN Tengu etc with x-large ASB, kiting ships control range and won't get that much damage, the ASB extend your EHP to amounts that aren't funny.
Some Numbers:
A Sleipnir has with 1 x-large ASB about 200k EHP using all the 13 booster
A Cane has with 1 x-large ASB about 100k EHP using all the 13 booster
and so on.
The hard counter to that will be a Blob or high Alpha/DPS Tier 3 BC and god i hate those ships already. In fact the Tier 3 BC will be soon a major problem as the only counter to them are the same numbers of Tier 3 BC (or in 0.0 sniper BS with bubbling the Tier 3) or expansive Tech 3 CR which in case your opponent will happily trade vs his cheap Tier 3 BC. Tier 3 vs Tier 3 fights aren't fun fights it's just stupid get range, avoid transversal and hit F1 and even more worrying it's bringing the numbers game to small/med scale.

The only good thing is you can't fit a x-large ASB on a Drake without crippling that ship to much, i can't imagine what EVE would look like if you could.

"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
#109 - 2012-07-23 17:15:21 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
It offers a load of flexibility which I think makes it pretty damn awesome in terms of getting different setups.

Why restrict it to just one per ship then?

Idea Let's have even more 'flexibility' next time, just like we're allowed at TQ.

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

Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2012-07-23 17:30:57 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
Cearain wrote:
[quote=Mariner6][quote=Narkotik]Ancillary armor repairers. DO IT CCP.

+1

It seems like a great idea. The current armor reps would be used for PVE applications. An ancillary armor rep would help balance out armor active tank which is already very disadvantaged and makes ships slow as hell. Seems that the only reason why some of the armor teams that beat the shield teams is the fact that it's a closed arena space and that they were held to one booster per ship. In PvP outside the tourney those shield ships just kite away forever, sport 2 boosters, and just own armor ships, particularly blaster boats.

This would add some nice option for all pilots not just shield boats, which last I looked already dominate this game.





It would dumb it down by making it is the same thing whether you active armor tank or shield tank. The passive shield tank is very different than the passive armor tank. The passive armor tank gives more hp but slows you down.

But the active tanks are pretty similar. There is a difference in cap use and time when you get the rep but the fact that you load cap boosters into an ancillary booster would pretty much eliminate one of the few differences. I just think ccp should look for balance through diverse means instead of making the same module for armor or shield.


There is no such thing as a armor passive tank. Passive tank refers only to a shield's natural regeneration. This can be increased with various mods and rigs. The Mrym for example can field a particularly impressive passive shield tank. As armor does not regenerate on its own its nonsensical.

Armor can be a buffer tank (plates, trimarks, resist) or it can be active (armor reps, resist, respective rigs).

Sheild has more options. Any shield tank will have a passive aspect though depending on the set up can be negligible. So a shield can have buffer (extenders, resists, rigs), passive (rechargers, rigs, and that low slot mod whose name escapes me) and active.

So bottom line is that armor repping currently sucks. The worst part about it is that the ships that have an armor rep bonus are all meant to fight close in. So that's in neut range. Further you have to sacrifice an incredible amount of slots to make it work. Your also slow as hell. So you get scrammed, webbed, neuted, can't control range and die. The Mrym is the only viable BC armor repper and has to sacrifice 2 mid slots just to make it work. And with smart pilots you'll stuggle to beat the neut cycle with you cap boosters. Now I can get better performance out of aux shield boosters with far less commitment of slots. Even on the Mrym that is freaking bonused for armor repping! You don't see a problem with this?

So NO having a viable armor repping mod would not dumb the game down. CCP came up with a great mod as its un neutable. Unfortunately they gave it to winmatar because that is what everyone flies.

Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#111 - 2012-07-23 18:24:22 UTC
Hey gies ASB Vargur setups are unkillable just watch the fina-oh.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2012-07-23 20:18:18 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:
Hey gies ASB Vargur setups are unkillable just watch the fina-oh.


Nano ships were not overpowered because they were killable. That's your logic right there.
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#113 - 2012-07-23 20:36:38 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:
Hey gies ASB Vargur setups are unkillable just watch the fina-oh.


What killed them? ASB Sleipnirs. Which are basically the same thing. Hope that helps.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#114 - 2012-07-23 21:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Misanth
Fon Revedhort wrote:
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


Took me a days thinking about this, but I think you both are quite right on this matter tbh. Personally I like the idea of going out solo, active tanking. In fact, I love it. But I wonder if that repping power isn't too powerful as is. Was just talking to a guy on Skype right now, and he's so excited over getting into the Sleipnir. Myself having seen what it did pre-rig, pre-hp buff days, and sitting with multiple Command Ship 5-characters.. I just feel it's a shadow of its former self today (not to mention my poor old dual-MAR Absolution and Pilgrims). And the main culprit in this I believe is the extra tank power added by rigs and the hp boost.

Perhaps it's about time to reduce hp overboard on all ships. P
And the balance between active tanking shield vs armor, should be looked at.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Lexa Hellfury
Perkone
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-07-24 02:47:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexa Hellfury
Robert Caldera wrote:
.

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.


Ah yes the age old argument.

2007: Nano isn't broken because you can bring your own nano
2008: ECM isn't broken because you can bring your own ECM
2010: Logistics aren't broken because you can bring your own logistics
2011: t3 links aren't broken because you can bring your own t3 links
2012: ASBs aren't broken because you can bring your own ASB

If the only way to counter a module is to bring one of your own, then that module is not balanced. Everything in Eve has a counter. ASBs, atm, do not. And no, "bring more dudes" is not a counter.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#116 - 2012-07-24 03:42:59 UTC
Lexa Hellfury wrote:


If the only way to counter a module is to bring one of your own, then that module is not balanced.


Its not the only counter but the eve populace at large will simply sit and cry about it until somebody shows them how to beat it since they're too lazy to work it out on their own.

Everybody else just puts in testing and practice on the test server until they understand what the mod can and can't do.

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

Kenshaiso
League of Non-Aligned Worlds
#117 - 2012-07-24 07:56:46 UTC
what i think would help solve the issue is having an armour module that works like the ASB, although the most useful armour tankers dont get the bonus that ships like the vargur get. I love the ASB, I dont think its broken I think armour tanking in general needs some love. Just my two cents worth anyway Lol
Jori McKie
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#118 - 2012-07-24 08:48:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
Grath Telkin wrote:
Lexa Hellfury wrote:


If the only way to counter a module is to bring one of your own, then that module is not balanced.


Its not the only counter but the eve populace at large will simply sit and cry about it until somebody shows them how to beat it since they're too lazy to work it out on their own.

Everybody else just puts in testing and practice on the test server until they understand what the mod can and can't do.


The counter is fairly obvious, bring enough DPS to just chew through the tank. That is nothing new and every active setup has the same problem. The major difference between ASB and the old fashioned way is you can be completely neut immune. ASB is limited to small scale and med scale up to 20, the big blob warfare in 0.0 don't have to bother about the ASB.

The major problem with ASB are x-large dual fits on BS, take the Maelstrom as example and watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMU2SsF0IZk&feature=youtu.be at the very end. Granted Kovorix is no newb :) and he knows how to fight but you can't take on so many enemies with an old fashioned Maelstrom as the neuts would have killed him rather quick.

Anyway i like the ASB a lot but i don't want to be small and med scale to develop into blob warfare as the hard counter to ASB is the blob. Btw. the ASB is making the Curse and other neut ships useless for small scale fights.

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

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2012-07-24 08:56:12 UTC
Jori McKie wrote:
Btw. the ASB is making the Curse and other neut ships useless for small scale fights.


The curse was made useless by t2 gan linked 90km webs and points while the curses primary weapon (neuts) are limited to 40km.


But feel free to keep blaming everything on the ASB

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

Jori McKie
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#120 - 2012-07-24 09:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
Grath Telkin wrote:
Jori McKie wrote:
Btw. the ASB is making the Curse and other neut ships useless for small scale fights.


The curse was made useless by t2 gan linked 90km webs and points while the curses primary weapon (neuts) are limited to 40km.


But feel free to keep blaming everything on the ASB


Sure the Curse is often the primary in small scale fights but it has a major role if you face a skirmish gang with say 2 to 4 Scimis. With a dampener Drake+Curse setup you can beat those skirmish logi setup without needing any logis on your own. I don't have to explain to you what happens to the Rapier, Huginn and the odd Loki in such fights, they are dampned/neuted to hell and in case of the Rapier, Huginn primary too. Of course you have to make sure some scimis are dampned too, to beat the RR. After that it's a clean up job, damp and neut the Scimis either forcing them out of the fight or into your own optimal range.

The ASB will make small scale skirmish logi setups history, except the standard Drake+Scimi and so the Curse.

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