These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Testing ASB adjustments on Duality

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
#61 - 2012-09-20 11:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: TheMaster42
The slot-economy savings vs. active tanking is even more ridiculous.

Active tanking: shield booster, boost amplifier, several capacitor mids/lows or rigs... ~5 slots and still vulnerable to neuts?


Yes, the ASBs only "active tank" for 35-45 seconds. But at the cost of 1 slot (plus fitting slots/rigs as I mentioned above) and invulnerability to neuts, it's "oh so worth it."

This is the error of ASBs. They're not even remotely an active tank item, but their stats are balanced against existing shield boosters. Double ASB fits are not actually true active tanks, but the ASB module is so good, they emulate active-tank stats (for only 2~3 slots).

If you left current ASBs as-is, and made it so they could never reload, they would still be overpowered in small gangs.


Also think about this: there are actually very few realistic small-gang PvP conditions where dual Large ASBs are better than a single X-L ASB.*


*: All I can think of are fighting under gate guns and a few number of low-damage buffer-fit enemies...
Bubanni
Primal Instinct Inc.
The Initiative.
#62 - 2012-09-20 12:06:50 UTC
James1122 wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Bubanni wrote:

Perhaps my suggestion above? only being able to reload all the ASBs at the same time? (so you can't run 1 asb, and then reload it while using another)


That is a very interesting take on the problem. I'm going to look more closely at it.



Or another idea under a very similar concept:

You can't active a second ASB if another one is reloading.

That way dual setups are still viable as you can deplete all of one and then use your second one, and then reload them both together.


Heh... that was actually what I meant

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2012-09-20 12:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelob
Quote:
  • Reducing capacity in all four ASBs so they can now fit 7 normal ones (9 navy ones)

    • This kind of works, but it does not address the main problem.

    Quote:
  • Upping the duration of X-Large ASB from 4 to 5 seconds

    • This has absolutely no impact. The amount boosted is so high that you are staggering the boosts anyways. You could make it a 6 second or even a 7 second delay and I still wouldn't care.

    Quote:
  • Adjusting the capacitor need of all four ASBs considerably

    • Again, a completely useless measure. Nobody uses the capacitor side on them as it is now, because its so ineffecient unless they are doing a single asb, and even then it is used up after only a few boosts and so is largely useless and at great expense of capacitor (a pretty bad tradeoff as it is, so in this respect it is balanced).

    The main problem with asb's is they are completely isolated from any external forces. Why don't you just make them dependent on both capacitor from the ship and the cap boosters so that they have a real weakness that can be exploited. At the very least, any changes you make that don't address the fact that they cannot be affected by other players actions will mean that they will continue to be unbalanced. They must have a weakness that an enemy can utilize.

    Also, as a slight aside you are right in not wanting to limit the number of asb's per ship. Doing so would ruin it as an active tanking element almost completely, and the fititng requirements make it so that fitting 2 or more is a serious strain on your ships cpu.
    Bubanni
    Primal Instinct Inc.
    The Initiative.
    #64 - 2012-09-20 12:17:48 UTC
    It should really be harder to fit x-l asb to anything below a battleship... it should require more pg... you could downgrade the high cpu requirement in return

    Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
    Lelob
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #65 - 2012-09-20 12:21:05 UTC
    There's nothing wrong with the fitting requirements, because the cpu makes you have to gimp your setups if you want an x-l booster on anything that is sub-bs.
    TheMaster42
    Scorpion Unicorn Bird
    #66 - 2012-09-20 12:23:20 UTC  |  Edited by: TheMaster42
    I think, for ASBs to remain as they are (free shields for "one" mid slot), their fittings and stats need to be adjusted to be in line with LSEs, for the reasons I've given above.

    This would be:

    • Highly-reduced powergrid and CPU.
    • Total health provided better than LSE, but not x3-x5 as much.

    In addition I would reduce the amount healed per second (with charges) to be more like armor repping than shield repping. This will turn the fitting choice into, "do I think I'll survive long enough to get the higher EHP over the shield extender?" Currently, the choice is, "if the incoming damage is near or less than the ASB tank, then fit ASBs always."

    This would probably also require the removal of X-Large ASBs. If they must remain, they should be comparable to 1600mm plates (but that raises the implication of adding an item that would essentially be like an X-Large Shield Extender in small gangs - wildly good compared to 2-3 LSEs).



    If the desire was to leave them like a "different kind of shield booster" I would make them like capacitor-efficient shield boosters while you had charges. I.E., they still take power even with charges, but are more efficient than normal shield boosters while the charges last. Once charges ran out, they could consume exorbitant amounts of capacitor (less efficient than normal shield boosters). The fitting choice would then become, "do I want to save slots on cap rechargers/power relays but have an "active" tank that gives out after a bit? (Even if I still have capacitor.)"

    You could probably safely make such ASBs last longer at that point. These ASBs would be balanced as long as the fitter is forced to spend slots on capacitor recharge or slots/powergrid on capacitor boosters. However, this solution probably requires new tech (module that uses different cap amount depending on availability of ammo) as opposed to simple numbers changes.
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #67 - 2012-09-20 12:28:26 UTC
    No response to having both a logical cycle time overheat bonus AND a 10% hitpoint pr cycle overheat bonus?

    Yes these things does adjust ASB in the right direction and shold be tested out a lot, however it doesn't look like adjustments adress the problem with oversized ASBs on high resist ships where the pilot doesn't have to boost continuously?

    BTW. - Should it be impossible to run multiple shield boosters at the same time? That would also reduce the versatility of dual ASB however still be possible to benefit from...

    Pinky
    TheMaster42
    Scorpion Unicorn Bird
    #68 - 2012-09-20 12:33:08 UTC  |  Edited by: TheMaster42
    Limiting ASBs to "1 per ship" isn't an actual fix to the ASB design, by the way.

    It will have the side-effect of toning down ship setups that use ASBs, yes - but you will still fit one as long as you expect to die after getting a worthwhile number of charges off. You will start to see fits with an LSE or two, resists, and the biggest ASB you can fit.

    Down the line it will likely make Amarr ships (and other low-mid-slot hulls) hard to balance for small-gang because you will have to compare a low slot 1600mm vs. a mid-slot XL-ASB with about double the EHP, no agility penalty, and room for damage mods (if the ASB will fit with just CPU rigs).
    Bloodpetal
    Tir Capital Management Group
    #69 - 2012-09-20 14:10:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
    CCP SoniClover wrote:
    Regarding the question of what we're trying to accomplish with the ASBs, then (as has been stated by some in this thread) the goal is to allow for a temporary massive boost. The key word there is temporary, as this is a requirement for the module to not go out of hand. The current stats on the modules allow for too much sustained boost. The problem is not the boost amount per se, so we will almost certainly not touch that.


    Temporary Massive Boost is not compatible with dual boosting, since it's obvious you can cycle them to keep a permanent repair ongoing as long as cap boosters are around, regardless of where you want to try and put the cap limit.


    CCP SoniClover wrote:

    Restricting ASBs to one per ship is a solution, but we feel it's fixing things with a hatchet as opposed to a scalpel. What we're doing now is looking at other potential solutions. Some good ones have even be mentioned in this thread, and for that I thank you. The danger with adjusting the stats just to make dual-ASB fits less powerful is to nerf the single-fitted ASB too much, so we're trying to see if there is a sweetspot somewhere in between for us to fall into.

    Thanks for your feedback so far!


    I don't see why it fixes things "with a hatchet".

    I can't activate more than 2 MWDs at the same time. I can't fit 2 Reactive Hardeners at the same time, I can't turn on a cloak with 2 cloaks on (presumably to avoid conflicting timers), I can't do a LOT of things with 2 modules at the same time. I can't use 2 Damage controls at the same time. I can't do a lot of things.

    So...

    Either rename the module to not be an ANCILLARY booster, specifically being a secondary component to a primary component of tanking so it's clear it will be a main module. Because there is no "sweet" spot without taking this back to the drawing board as it stands. If it isn't a dual boost setup, it will become a triple boost setup, with an offgrid Tengu + Blue Pill.

    Restricting it to 1 ASB IS an elegant solution because then you will always accomplish the Massive Temp Boost because you could double the amount of cap boosters that can fit, and still have a 1 minute timer, etc.

    The idea that they all have to be reloaded at the same time is respectable, and should be looked into carefully.

    Where I am.
    Hrett
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #70 - 2012-09-20 14:26:50 UTC
    Admittedly, I haven't tested the new versions yet, but:

    I would lean toward the one per ship option too. After using them and fighting against them, those don't seem OP. limiting the charges will make them more 'vanilla' and they wouldn't really standout as much for certain situations.

    Another option would be to increase the reload time to 120 seconds. That would be a good nerf to dual setups.

    But thanks for looking at them.

    spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
    Vixorz
    Cabronazos
    #71 - 2012-09-20 15:07:43 UTC
    I don't know if someone said this before, but what about some kind of diminishing return. When you fit more than 1 module you get a penalty in X. Something like fitting 2 ASB will result in 30% less shield HP boosted per ASB. If you fit 3 50% less each. Or longer reloads, or anything...
    Bubanni
    Primal Instinct Inc.
    The Initiative.
    #72 - 2012-09-20 15:14:27 UTC
    Hmm, they could also pull the charges directly from the same pool... meaning you don't get twice as many boosts by having 2 or more fitted... but you get a higher burst tank for same duration basicly (both ASB would run out of charges at same time this way)

    Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
    Gypsio III
    Questionable Ethics.
    Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
    #73 - 2012-09-20 15:17:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
    CCP SoniClover wrote:


    The adjustments are:

    • Reducing capacity in all four ASBs so they can now fit 7 normal ones (9 navy ones)
    • Upping the duration of X-Large ASB from 4 to 5 seconds
    • Adjusting the capacitor need of all four ASBs considerably


    Sooo... this doesn't prevent the definitely overpowered use of multiple/oversize ASB, while still nerfing the relatively balanced case of single normal ASBs.

    In any case, the guy above had it right in Posts 60 & 61 - ASBs are, to all intents and purposes, buffer-tanking mods that simply add a set number of EHP. If the intention was to make active tanks more viable in neut-heavy environments, they failed, because they aren't really active-tanking mods.
    Javelin6
    #74 - 2012-09-20 15:57:06 UTC
    CCP SoniClover wrote:


    Restricting ASBs to one per ship is a solution, but we feel it's fixing things with a hatchet as opposed to a scalpel.



    As Trebor likes to quote: Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

    It looks like you guys already have a lot on the table with the sprints leading up to the winter expansion, why not save yourself the dev time and use the effective (if not ugly) solution and use it elsewhere.

    Either way I'm looking forward to playing with your new toys.
    StevieTopSiders
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #75 - 2012-09-20 17:43:49 UTC
    One per ship, with slightly lower reload time.

    If you watch Kovorix's dual-prop XLASB Vaga footage, that stuff is nothing short of awesome. But when you watch dual XLASB MAelstronks crash a gatecamp, that's just le dumb.
    Larloch TheAncient
    Freindly Mining Corporation
    #76 - 2012-09-20 17:59:20 UTC
    This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same.





    [Myrmidon, New Setup 1]
    Medium Armor Repairer II
    Medium Armor Repairer II
    True Sansha Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
    True Sansha Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
    Armor Explosive Hardener II
    Damage Control II

    Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
    [empty med slot]
    [empty med slot]
    [empty med slot]
    [empty med slot]

    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]

    Medium Anti-Thermic Pump II
    Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump II
    Medium Nanobot Accelerator II


    540 DPS Tanked. Permaruns on 1 cap booster.





    [Cyclone, New Setup 1]
    [empty low slot]
    [empty low slot]
    [empty low slot]
    [empty low slot]

    Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 200
    Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 200
    Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field
    Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field
    EM Ward Field II

    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]

    Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

    630 DPS Tanked. Perma runs with Cap charges.


    The difference? The Dual Cyclone fit uses 200 CPU and 300 PG.

    The dual Myrm fit only used ~50 CPU, and 340 PG.


    Large ASB's are completely fine as is. The problem comes when people attempt to compare XL-ASB's to LAR II's which ofcourse you CANNOT DO.

    XL-ASB aren't equivelent modules to LAR II's In the same way that LSE II's are = to 1600mm Plates.


    Lets good at the XL-ASB on BC's now.


    [Cyclone, New Setup 1]
    [empty low slot]
    [empty low slot]
    [empty low slot]
    [empty low slot]

    X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
    X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
    Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field
    Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field
    EM Ward Field II

    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]
    [empty high slot]

    Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender II



    Tanks 1464 DPS . With 1 rep and fits with 40 CPU to spare without any guns/mods.

    Each "load" of a XL-ASB on a cyclone gives you 20,212 Shields. (15 Charges)

    so with 30 Charges (15 in each booster)

    + ~ 40 charges you can fit in your cargo hold, that would have you at a max rep of about.

    ~100,000 Shields. Giving you (if you live through all of your cap charges)

    108,000 Total shields. While this may seem like alot. And given this Cyclones resists thats aprox.

    ~400,000 EHP.



    Lets look at the armor's equivalent.



    ......


    Yea OK, They're OP as hell.


    Carry on.
    Fon Revedhort
    Monks of War
    #77 - 2012-09-20 18:18:31 UTC
    Gypsio III wrote:
    ASBs are, to all intents and purposes, buffer-tanking mods that simply add a set number of EHP. If the intention was to make active tanks more viable in neut-heavy environments, they failed, because they aren't really active-tanking mods.

    That's right and that's what dual ASBs are for - to provide active-like performance.

    "Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
    Fellblade
    Old Comrades
    #78 - 2012-09-20 18:54:38 UTC
    TheMaster42 wrote:
    Consider the following for "one" slot, even post-nerf:
    - Large Shield Extender II: +2625 shield, +sig
    - 1600mm T2 plate: +4800 armor, +mass
    - Large ASB (390 per charge * 7 charges): +2730 shield
    - X-Large ASB (980 per charge * 7 charges): +6860 shield
    - X-Large ASB (navy, overheated, cyclone - 1482.25 per charge * 9 charges): +13,340.25 shield


    I'd make the point that the headline figure could easily be brought more into whack by saying that the boost bonus is either not applied or fractionally applied to ASBs.

    I'd also point out that due to the multiplying-up effect of Core Defence Field Extenders, you can't really look at ASBs vs Extenders on a single module vs single module basis, same with Armour and Trimarks

    Thinking about how they currently work, I'd be interested to see what would happen if the number of charges that could be held in an ASB was increased by 50%, and the amount of boost that each generated was cut by 33%. So the total boost added is the same, but there's a better chance of ships breaking through the rep wall, and the total amount of extra EHP that can be stored in people's cargoholds in the form of cap charges is reduced.

    http://theexcession.blogspot.com - A Wormhole PvP blog.
    Fellblade
    Old Comrades
    #79 - 2012-09-20 19:02:19 UTC
    Larloch TheAncient wrote:
    This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same.
    ...


    You're saying that a fit that has 40 CPU spare when it doesn't have any guns or low slots filled is okay, and you're comparing a Myrm fit with ~100mil's worth of tank to a Cyclone that's spent ~910mil on it. And has no prop mod or tackle.

    http://theexcession.blogspot.com - A Wormhole PvP blog.
    nahjustwarpin
    SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
    #80 - 2012-09-20 19:16:04 UTC
    Fellblade wrote:
    Larloch TheAncient wrote:
    This may put me up as a minority here, but with similar setups (Dual MAR II repped Myrm, compared to a dual Large ASB boosted Cyclone) the dps tanked is essentially the same.
    ...


    You're saying that a fit that has 40 CPU spare when it doesn't have any guns or low slots filled is okay, and you're comparing a Myrm fit with ~100mil's worth of tank to a Cyclone that's spent ~910mil on it. And has no prop mod or tackle.


    you need to use 3 slots on armor tank to tank like shield xasb is doing on 2 slots. Don't forget that.