These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Ancillary Armor reppers listed, but not seeded yet. stats inside.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#21 - 2013-02-10 19:11:51 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:

Gabriel Karade wrote:

Alt scrub, incorrect maths, wrong conclusion... ah that would be the Eve-O forums then.

On topic, I'm looking forward to these, these past 6 months have seen more changes to my Megathron fits than the past 6 years, loving it.


the formula is wrong. how are any of the other conclusions wrong?


THe aar is garbage and you all know it
You were out by a factor of five and the central plank to your "it's garbage" argument was based upon the comparison of repaired amount over a complete 'fuel' load.

AAR is very different to ASB, there are a range of fits out there which will get a significant boost once this hits TQ - no, I'm not going to tell you how to fit your ship. maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age - I've pretty much *always* seen these sort of threads pop up when something new is introduced, and seen them proven incorrect 3 - 6 months down the line when the tinkerers complete their tinkering and the meta catches up...

The worst thing Fozzie et al could have done is recreate the ASB in armour form.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-02-10 19:22:58 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I've pretty much *always* seen these sort of threads pop up when something new is introduced, and seen them proven incorrect 3 - 6 months down the line when the tinkerers complete their tinkering and the meta catches up...



ASB modules says you're wrong and will keep saying it in 3-6 months unless spectacular changes.


removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-02-10 19:39:16 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:

Gabriel Karade wrote:

Alt scrub, incorrect maths, wrong conclusion... ah that would be the Eve-O forums then.

On topic, I'm looking forward to these, these past 6 months have seen more changes to my Megathron fits than the past 6 years, loving it.


the formula is wrong. how are any of the other conclusions wrong?


THe aar is garbage and you all know it
You were out by a factor of five and the central plank to your "it's garbage" argument was based upon the comparison of repaired amount over a complete 'fuel' load.

AAR is very different to ASB, there are a range of fits out there which will get a significant boost once this hits TQ - no, I'm not going to tell you how to fit your ship. maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age - I've pretty much *always* seen these sort of threads pop up when something new is introduced, and seen them proven incorrect 3 - 6 months down the line when the tinkerers complete their tinkering and the meta catches up...

The worst thing Fozzie et al could have done is recreate the ASB in armour form.


Im not saying that it wont boost specific fittings, I am saying that it wont boost them enough to be viable past the initial lol fitting explosion that always happens around a new module introduction. none of those fittings you are thinking of will last past the first two weeks of tranq useage because they simply arent good enough to compete in the current asb world.

I am not saying that the asb is a good module,
i am not saying that the asb does not need to get nerfed again

I am saying that the current aar is a terrible module that doesnt go far enough towards addressing the problems with armor tanking to make a noticeable difference in the active armor/buffer useage.

It has huge fitting requirements,
It needs a lot of cap
It has a very long cycle time

Since we both agree that my math can use some work, Please give me the numbers for
1. X-L ASB with navy 400 cap boosters on an unbonuses ship (total hp repped and hp per second)
2. LAAR with full nanite (total hp repped and hp per second)
3. Each with heat and each with a single cycle time reduction rig

I ask this because it seems that everytime numbers comes up you decide to ignore the fact that the AAR doesnt rep nearly enough to counter an ASB and the unbonused OH asb reps a total of 25hp less then the shipbonuesed rigged OH AAR
Which also has a whole host of drawbacks that the asb does not have.

Which i feel makes for terrible module introduction. its prenerfed to be crappy.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#24 - 2013-02-10 23:17:17 UTC
Fair enough :

XLASB (9 cycles) : 980*9 = 8820 hp ; 5s*9 = 45s ; 196 hp/s
LAAR (8 cycles) : 600*2,25*8 = 10800 hp ; 8*11,25s = 90s ; 120 hp/s

Though it is a bit unfair (armor have auxiliary nanopump too), here the numbers with one rig and heat
Heat (boost amount +10% ; cycle time -15%) + cycle time reduction (-15% cycle time) :
XLASB (9 cycles) : 8820*1,10 = 9702 hp ; 4,25s*9 = 38,25s ; 253,6 hp/s
LAAR (8cycles) : 10800*1,10 = 11880 hp ; 8,128*8 = 65s ; 182 hp/s

Nobody use cycle time rigs before auxiliary nanopump or resistance rigs, and you can easily use a LAR on top of the LAAR to earn XLASB like hp/s, at the cost of a required cap booster though.
LARII : 800/11,25 = 71 hp/s
LAAR + LARII : 253 hp/s

Most armor fit use auxiliary nanopump, sometimes 2 of them, because that increase both burst and efficiency whereas active shield fit use resistance rigs, the only way to increase efficiency, but far less efficient for this than ANP. This is then a bit hard to compute a comparison without a fitting tool, and that may very well end in a fitting war. IMO, in the end, efficiency/burst/hp amount are pretty balanced, the only odd thing being the capless feature of ASB.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-02-11 13:53:02 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
ASB being poorly balanced is not a reason to make any newer module as imbalanced as it is.



Everything being about choices and options available, the available options after inferno 1.2 being what they are, the main question remains: why use AAR over ASB if you don't gate/station camp?




removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#26 - 2013-02-11 13:56:09 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Everything being about choices and options available, the available options after inferno 1.2 being what they are, the main question remains: why use AAR over ASB if you don't gate/station camp?

To use your midslot for full tackle/EWAR/double prop/whatever.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#27 - 2013-02-11 15:10:04 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Fair enough :

XLASB (9 cycles) : 980*9 = 8820 hp ; 5s*9 = 45s ; 196 hp/s
LAAR (8 cycles) : 600*2,25*8 = 10800 hp ; 8*11,25s = 90s ; 120 hp/s

Though it is a bit unfair (armor have auxiliary nanopump too), here the numbers with one rig and heat
Heat (boost amount +10% ; cycle time -15%) + cycle time reduction (-15% cycle time) :
XLASB (9 cycles) : 8820*1,10 = 9702 hp ; 4,25s*9 = 38,25s ; 253,6 hp/s
LAAR (8cycles) : 10800*1,10 = 11880 hp ; 8,128*8 = 65s ; 182 hp/s

Nobody use cycle time rigs before auxiliary nanopump or resistance rigs, and you can easily use a LAR on top of the LAAR to earn XLASB like hp/s, at the cost of a required cap booster though.
LARII : 800/11,25 = 71 hp/s
LAAR + LARII : 253 hp/s

Most armor fit use auxiliary nanopump, sometimes 2 of them, because that increase both burst and efficiency whereas active shield fit use resistance rigs, the only way to increase efficiency, but far less efficient for this than ANP. This is then a bit hard to compute a comparison without a fitting tool, and that may very well end in a fitting war. IMO, in the end, efficiency/burst/hp amount are pretty balanced, the only odd thing being the capless feature of ASB.


did you just say that to get something like the performance of a xlasb you would need two reppers? one LAAR and one LAR?
Is that a LAR with a nanopump bonus? either way

thats 1 XLASB with one rig vs. (1 LAAR + 1 LAR) with one rig
I would sat that the fitting differences are pretty important when you are considering that you have only matched the xlasb when you added a second module

200 cpu + 500 pg vs. 100 cpu + 3600 pg (this is LAR + LAAR , each at 50 cpu + 1800 pg)
thats a huge fitting difference

and the aar has other drawbacks in addition to the fitting requirements the asb does not. Cap use being the biggest one.

this module is so prenerfed that it simply will not be a viable use module.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Freyya
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-02-11 17:55:43 UTC
Im smelling adaptive armor hardener all over again, only this time its not for just cap ships, its for frigs....
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#29 - 2013-02-11 18:23:07 UTC
As Bouh Revetoile beat me to it, there's not much else to say on the numbers (key difference being that ASB drops flat after half the time) except that going way way back, armour vs shield has always been balanced as 1 XL shield booster vs 2x Large armour repairers - now clearly you can't fit two AAR, but comparing XLASB vs LAR + LAAR is valid in my opinion, particularly considering the ships that will be using them.

I guess to sum it all up; don't try to directly compare ASB to AAR, you need to see how fits evolve rather than jumping straight on the "it's garbage" bandwagon - like I said, there are viable fits that will see immediate beneft from switching in this module.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#30 - 2013-02-11 19:06:17 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
As Bouh Revetoile beat me to it, there's not much else to say on the numbers (key difference being that ASB drops flat after half the time) except that going way way back, armour vs shield has always been balanced as 1 XL shield booster vs 2x Large armour repairers - now clearly you can't fit two AAR, but comparing XLASB vs LAR + LAAR is valid in my opinion, particularly considering the ships that will be using them.

I guess to sum it all up; don't try to directly compare ASB to AAR, you need to see how fits evolve rather than jumping straight on the "it's garbage" bandwagon - like I said, there are viable fits that will see immediate beneft from switching in this module.


People will use them and will have effective setups. But it doesn't do anything to address the already glaring balance issues in sub-capital shield versus armour tanking.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#31 - 2013-02-11 19:20:16 UTC
The rep PG change combined with the active tank rigs being changed are probably all that really needed to change. The introduction of the AAR is interesting but ultimately underwhelming I think.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-02-11 19:23:58 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Gabriel Karade wrote:
As Bouh Revetoile beat me to it, there's not much else to say on the numbers (key difference being that ASB drops flat after half the time) except that going way way back, armour vs shield has always been balanced as 1 XL shield booster vs 2x Large armour repairers - now clearly you can't fit two AAR, but comparing XLASB vs LAR + LAAR is valid in my opinion, particularly considering the ships that will be using them.

I guess to sum it all up; don't try to directly compare ASB to AAR, you need to see how fits evolve rather than jumping straight on the "it's garbage" bandwagon - like I said, there are viable fits that will see immediate beneft from switching in this module.


It reps less, uses cap, costs far more to run, and takes more grid. It's garbage.

And you're right, you can't directly compare ASB to AAR. One of them fits. You have shield BCs fitting XL ASBs with ample room to spare compared to Myrm fitting Medium AARs.Roll
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-02-11 19:40:12 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
It reps less, uses cap, costs far more to run, and takes more grid. It's garbage.

And you're right, you can't directly compare ASB to AAR. One of them fits. You have shield BCs fitting XL ASBs with ample room to spare compared to Myrm fitting Medium AARs.Roll


So? Shields have always active tanked better than armor, see the XLSB vs 1600mm plate, crystals vs slaves. Seriously you armor pilots whine as much as miners.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#34 - 2013-02-11 19:42:30 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
It reps less, uses cap, costs far more to run, and takes more grid. It's garbage.

And you're right, you can't directly compare ASB to AAR. One of them fits. You have shield BCs fitting XL ASBs with ample room to spare compared to Myrm fitting Medium AARs.Roll


So? Shields have always active tanked better than armor, see the XLSB vs 1600mm plate, crystals vs slaves. Seriously you armor pilots whine as much as miners.


Spoken like someone who can only fly one or the other. Shields, in your case. Lol

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#35 - 2013-02-11 19:47:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Paikis
Liang Nuren wrote:
Sal Landry wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
It reps less, uses cap, costs far more to run, and takes more grid. It's garbage.

And you're right, you can't directly compare ASB to AAR. One of them fits. You have shield BCs fitting XL ASBs with ample room to spare compared to Myrm fitting Medium AARs.Roll


So? Shields have always active tanked better than armor, see the XLSB vs 1600mm plate, crystals vs slaves. Seriously you armor pilots whine as much as miners.


Spoken like someone who can only fly one or the other. Shields, in your case. Lol

-Liang


Ad hominems are bad mmkay?

However, just to entertain your silly idea that you have to fly both to have a valid opinion, I do fly both and I agree with him. All to often these conversations devolve into armour tanking versus shield tanking, and the objective of balance changes to one upping "the other guy".

Just once I'd like to see a discussion that doesn't turn into an argument on why one side is overpowered and in need of a nerf.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-02-11 20:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Paikis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Sal Landry wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
It reps less, uses cap, costs far more to run, and takes more grid. It's garbage.

And you're right, you can't directly compare ASB to AAR. One of them fits. You have shield BCs fitting XL ASBs with ample room to spare compared to Myrm fitting Medium AARs.Roll


So? Shields have always active tanked better than armor, see the XLSB vs 1600mm plate, crystals vs slaves. Seriously you armor pilots whine as much as miners.


Spoken like someone who can only fly one or the other. Shields, in your case. Lol

-Liang


Ad hominems are bad mmkay?

However, just to entertain your silly idea that you have to fly both to have a valid opinion, I do fly both and I agree with him. All to often these conversations devolve into armour tanking versus shield tanking, and the objective of balance changes to one upping "the other guy".

Just once I'd like to see a discussion that doesn't turn into an argument on why one side is overpowered and in need of a nerf.


To be able to fly both yet choose AAR over ASB...

This doesn't speak well of your IQ.Lol

Btw, to catch ppl while packing 1600s, what's your secret?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#37 - 2013-02-11 20:12:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Paikis wrote:
Ad hominems are bad mmkay?


I'm sure you responded to the wrong post then.

-Liang

Ed: All "you people" that are "like that" are just a bunch of "whiny cry babies" and "cry more than miners". Yeah, I'm the one **** stirring with ad hominem. Roll

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Nesteh Rotsuda
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-02-11 20:45:42 UTC
I have not seen anyone mention how this might effect frigates. SAAR + MASB on the same fit might be a bit over the top?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#39 - 2013-02-11 21:20:00 UTC
Nesteh Rotsuda wrote:
I have not seen anyone mention how this might effect frigates. SAAR + MASB on the same fit might be a bit over the top?


No, I don't think that'll be much of a problem. Maybe you can post a fit that's worrying you in particular?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-02-11 22:07:41 UTC

I am not sure it is as bad as the general feeling suggests in this thread, but then I have been using the RAH so what do I know.

In all cases the ASB provides better boosting within it’s boost cycle.

I would say the SAAR is ok compared to the MASB they provide around the same hitpoints with the SAAR taking longer to provide those hitpoints. As you can continue to run the AAR it may be a good choice in a frigate fight as neither ship will last long enough to get a reload in.

I would suggest the same at the MAAR LASB level with neither ship likely to get time for a reload the MAAR can potentially provide more hitpoints, this is where I believe a form of buffer + AAR or a second rep is vital to last long enough to get the benefit.

AT LAAR level the XL- gets a massive head start in boosting power, although it goes into it’s reload quite quickly I believe if fight duration is between 49-103 seconds (this example differed in that I worked on having a SBAII & cycle time rig for the ASB and Nanopump/Nanopump/Accel rig for the LAAR) then the LAAR has an advantage before the ASB has reloaded and catches up, after the end of the second reload ASB (somewhere around 180seconds) things are still even but from this point there is some crossover but the XL-ASB has an increasingly large advantage. There may be an optimum point to reload the LAAR if the fight is expected to last more than 200 seconds.

Of course this excludes factors like resists and other advantages of shield fits in regards to slots and cap, I do not believe it is pre-nerfed it is arguably better balanced. If I were to change anything about the ASB I may suggest reducing the reload time on the small and increasing it on the XL.
Previous page123Next page