These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

UNNERF ancillary armor repairer
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
almanac Omaristos
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#21 - 2014-11-12 21:20:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Almanac Omaristos
Lloyd Roses wrote:
almanac Omaristos wrote:

But there is one GIGANTIC issue with module, you can only fit one in your ship unlike the shield variant where you can fit two. As an armor pilot who like to solo in null sec (yes using armor for solo is a thing) being able to fit a second module would be great. If your thinking it may be over powered, it simply wont be because of the reload time alone would get you killed.


This incredibly biased. If you were to get to chose a number of ancillary repairers, they probably had to double or triple the fitting requirements to make up for the powerspike over regular repairers.

Your proposal totally beats the purpose of the ancillary armor repairer. It's a burst-tank mod and you ask for *can i have sustain pls ty bye* :|

Also, shieldtanking vs. ASB tanking is tricky, since ASB outperforms before using full siegelinks and falls off afterwards in many cases - while also screwing up your fittings and normally hindering you from fitting a regular cap booster on cruisers and BCs.


Like I said earlier I am an armor pilot I don't fly shield so of course ill be biased. you shield pilots have always had the advantages when it comes to kitting and solo pvp in general.

but armor should have the advantage of controlling their own specialized HP. Being a armor pilot I'm slow to catch up with your standard shield ship and it should always be that way. Armor pilot need to be given more localized control over their own ship health the duel AAR proposal is the way to do it.

From solo PvP there is one thing I've learned and it is that .....

passive armor tank= death

An active tank duel ASB ship will rip the junk out of a passive tank armor ship (given it will take more time) AND they have the ability to kit and get a decent amount of reps out as well.

Armor ships can still kill shield ships solo its just tougher to do. That's why I propose duel AAR as a possibility for armor ships to be able to destroy shield ships with slightly less trouble and to add a bit more variety to armor fits as well.
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#22 - 2014-11-12 21:36:45 UTC
almanac Omaristos wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
It's pretty fine tbh, what I'd like is the T2 and faction versions.



like I said the ability to fit more of these would nice" I am an extremely jealous Amarr pilot who looks at a ancillary shield booster with certain distain.

No sir its not fine atm we armor pilots must be on the same playing field as the shield pilots when it comes to solo.


Why not fit an ancillary and normal repper? Makes for a strong tank, and unlike ASBs is still useful after nanite runs out.

As what comes to solo, armor ships are perfectly viable for that.

King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#23 - 2014-11-12 21:39:28 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
It's pretty fine tbh, what I'd like is the T2 and faction versions.



No!

You do not want a tech2 version because moon-poo sec is just looking for more stuff that need moon-poo to build. Did you ever wonder who actually does pay the sov bills and whatnot nullsec lawyers are whining about?


Renting pays the bills for sov null, not moon goo at the moment. And the profits from T2 are also spread to other regions, where the invention and manufacturing happens.

I also don't have any problems with other people making isk.

almanac Omaristos
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#24 - 2014-11-12 21:40:08 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
almanac Omaristos wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
It's pretty fine tbh, what I'd like is the T2 and faction versions.



like I said the ability to fit more of these would nice" I am an extremely jealous Amarr pilot who looks at a ancillary shield booster with certain distain.

No sir its not fine atm we armor pilots must be on the same playing field as the shield pilots when it comes to solo.


Why not fit an ancillary and normal repper? Makes for a strong tank, and unlike ASBs is still useful after nanite runs out.

As what comes to solo, armor ships are perfectly viable for that.



I know all about this I have but one thing to say in response.

LAZORS
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2014-11-12 21:44:37 UTC
I think you're misunderstanding what an AAR actually is.

It's not a native tanking module. It's a "buffer" tank module in the form of a burst tank. It also has the advantage of turning into (although poor) active tank module when out of manure (lol, auto correct nanite->manure)

The AAR gives you more raw HP than its plate counterpart with out the mass but has the trade off of having to get through all the cycles to get it and burning cap modules to get it. Also, if you survive the reload, you get another plate+ worth of HP!

This module is working as intents des very well.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2014-11-12 21:46:22 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It boggles the mind as to why this module came pre-nerfed in several ways, but the other approximate shield module does not have any analogous weaknesses.



wasn't it CCP said then they released the aar that they weren't going to make the same as the asb cause the asb being capless was bad.

I haven found anything that says that. Where did you see it?
Kinza
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2014-11-12 23:56:52 UTC
no, shield and armor needs the difference they have right now
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#28 - 2014-11-12 23:57:06 UTC
Armor is in a sad state, so I wouldn't oppose this change, but I don't fly active armor enough to be able to comment from any authority.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
almanac Omaristos
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#29 - 2014-11-13 13:55:52 UTC

Bump
Havenard
Havenard Corporation
#30 - 2014-11-13 14:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Havenard
Its not nerfed, you are failing to see it because you are only comparing one aspect of those modules.

You can fit as many Ancillary Shield Boosters you want, while you can only fit one Ancillary Armor Repairer. However, the Ancillary Armor Repairer has a 200% repair bonus while fueled, while the Ancillary Shield Booster will repair the same regardless if its fueled or running on cap.

So you see, for as long as you have Nanite fueling it, its like you have 3 repaires. One low slot doing the job of 3, thats a huge advantage! Limiting you to have only one of those modules was the least they could do to balance it.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#31 - 2014-11-13 14:47:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
Havenard wrote:
Its not nerfed, you are failing to see it because you are only comparing one aspect of those modules.

You can fit as many Ancillary Shield Boosters you want, while you can only fit one Ancillary Armor Repairer. However, the Ancillary Armor Repairer has a 200% repair bonus while fueled, while the Ancillary Shield Booster will repair the same regardless if its fueled or running on cap.

So you see, for as long as you have Nanite fueling it, its like you have 3 repaires. One low slot doing the job of 3, thats a huge advantage! Limiting you to have only one of those modules was the least they could do to balance it.



920hp/cycle for large armor repairer and 1554hp/cycle for large ancillary armor repairer. the 3 times thing is off its base stats which are worst than meta 0.

for shield boosters for x-large asb its 980/cycle and tech 2 690/cycle
large asb its 390/cycle and tech 2 276/cycle

for shield the asb is 980/690=1.42 times more hp per cycle than a t2.
for armor the aar is 1554/920=1.689 times more hp per cycle than a t2.

The aar is limited to one a ship and cost cap like a t2 all the time and if you run it without charges its 518hp/cycle worst than meta 0.

tha asb isn't limited to number on a ship cost no cap when it has charges. without charges it requires an ungodly amount of cap.

so no an aar isn't like having 3 mods in one slot its slightly more efficient than the asb when comparing the increase over t2
Jurico Elemenohpe
Flipsid3 Tactics
#32 - 2014-11-13 14:48:21 UTC
Havenard wrote:
Its not nerfed, you are failing to see it because you are only comparing one aspect of those modules.

You can fit as many Ancillary Shield Boosters you want, while you can only fit one Ancillary Armor Repairer. However, the Ancillary Armor Repairer has a 200% repair bonus while fueled, while the Ancillary Shield Booster will repair the same regardless if its fueled or running on cap.

So you see, for as long as you have Nanite fueling it, its like you have 3 repaires. One low slot doing the job of 3, thats a huge advantage! Limiting you to have only one of those modules was the least they could do to balance it.
Its base regen is lower than normal, so it's actually more like 2.25x regen. But yeah, 2.25 low slots for the price of 1 and some cargo? Sounds good to me.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#33 - 2014-11-13 14:50:21 UTC
Jurico Elemenohpe wrote:
Havenard wrote:
Its not nerfed, you are failing to see it because you are only comparing one aspect of those modules.

You can fit as many Ancillary Shield Boosters you want, while you can only fit one Ancillary Armor Repairer. However, the Ancillary Armor Repairer has a 200% repair bonus while fueled, while the Ancillary Shield Booster will repair the same regardless if its fueled or running on cap.

So you see, for as long as you have Nanite fueling it, its like you have 3 repaires. One low slot doing the job of 3, thats a huge advantage! Limiting you to have only one of those modules was the least they could do to balance it.
Its base regen is lower than normal, so it's actually more like 2.25x regen. But yeah, 2.25 low slots for the price of 1 and some cargo? Sounds good to me.



its base is less than meta 0. its only 1.6 times better than t2. not 3 not 2.25 its 1.7 rounding up.
Havenard
Havenard Corporation
#34 - 2014-11-13 14:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Havenard
Lady Rift wrote:
its base is less than meta 0. its only 1.6 times better than t2. not 3 not 2.25 its 1.7 rounding up.

Defense systems were never intented to work the same way, in fact they like to make sure they do not.

As you said yourself, ASB drains an ungodly amount of cap when it run out of fuel, so even if it does repair relatively more, no ship will sustain it for long.

ASB uses a Medium Slot, and that alone is a problem as those slots can be necessary for indispensable modules, specially in PVP, which is probably the only reason Armor Tanking is used.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#35 - 2014-11-13 15:08:53 UTC
Havenard wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
its base is less than meta 0. its only 1.6 times better than t2. not 3 not 2.25 its 1.7 rounding up.

Defense systems were never intented to work the same way, in fact they like to make sure they do not.

As you said yourself, ASB drains an ungodly amount of cap when it run out of fuel, so even if it does repair relatively more, no ship will sustain it for long.

ASB uses a Medium Slot, and that alone is a problem as those slots can be necessary for indispensable modules, specially in PVP, which is probably the only reason Armor Tanking is used.



I was more pointing out that the 3 mods for one slot isn't true and that shields get almost the exact same thing.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#36 - 2014-11-13 15:25:27 UTC
almanac Omaristos wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
almanac Omaristos wrote:

But there is one GIGANTIC issue with module, you can only fit one in your ship unlike the shield variant where you can fit two. As an armor pilot who like to solo in null sec (yes using armor for solo is a thing) being able to fit a second module would be great. If your thinking it may be over powered, it simply wont be because of the reload time alone would get you killed.


This incredibly biased. If you were to get to chose a number of ancillary repairers, they probably had to double or triple the fitting requirements to make up for the powerspike over regular repairers.

Your proposal totally beats the purpose of the ancillary armor repairer. It's a burst-tank mod and you ask for *can i have sustain pls ty bye* :|

Also, shieldtanking vs. ASB tanking is tricky, since ASB outperforms before using full siegelinks and falls off afterwards in many cases - while also screwing up your fittings and normally hindering you from fitting a regular cap booster on cruisers and BCs.


Like I said earlier I am an armor pilot I don't fly shield so of course ill be biased. you shield pilots have always had the advantages when it comes to kitting and solo pvp in general.

but armor should have the advantage of controlling their own specialized HP. Being a armor pilot I'm slow to catch up with your standard shield ship and it should always be that way. Armor pilot need to be given more localized control over their own ship health the duel AAR proposal is the way to do it.

From solo PvP there is one thing I've learned and it is that .....

passive armor tank= death

An active tank duel ASB ship will rip the junk out of a passive tank armor ship (given it will take more time) AND they have the ability to kit and get a decent amount of reps out as well.

Armor ships can still kill shield ships solo its just tougher to do. That's why I propose duel AAR as a possibility for armor ships to be able to destroy shield ships with slightly less trouble and to add a bit more variety to armor fits as well.


How you fail to see the advantages of armortanking for kiting escapes my grasp oO

Fyi: AAR-Nexors, AAR-Megas, AAR-Barghs, AAR-Phoons, AAR-Railmos, AAR+plate ishtar, AAR-NOmen, AAR-railvigilant, AAR-railprot are all pretty bossy solo/kiting ships. Let me get you the known ASB kiting ships: Cerb, Orthrus, Gila, Ishtar. Unsure if I missed one.

The reason: When fitting AAR, you are handed insanely high armor-hp/cap, while also keeping your cap up to pulse mwd and save mids for tackle while fitting armormodules with very low fitting costs. Unlike this, you need not only one, but usually two ASBs if you want sustained tank, with 2 mids coveted to tanking before resistmods, not many slots for propulsion and tackle remain, so the ship becomes crappy at kiting. If you only fit one, then you got an SB that turns cap boosters into shield-hp but doesn't boost your ship's cap which is therefore bound to run dry quickly over a normal kite engagement.
Which is why people skip ASBs for excessive kiting in favor of a SB+CB combination. ASB+CB is rarely flown since cheap pith-b-type boosters usually do more for that style of piloting.
Jurico Elemenohpe
Flipsid3 Tactics
#37 - 2014-11-13 16:54:39 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Jurico Elemenohpe wrote:
Havenard wrote:
Its not nerfed, you are failing to see it because you are only comparing one aspect of those modules.

You can fit as many Ancillary Shield Boosters you want, while you can only fit one Ancillary Armor Repairer. However, the Ancillary Armor Repairer has a 200% repair bonus while fueled, while the Ancillary Shield Booster will repair the same regardless if its fueled or running on cap.

So you see, for as long as you have Nanite fueling it, its like you have 3 repaires. One low slot doing the job of 3, thats a huge advantage! Limiting you to have only one of those modules was the least they could do to balance it.
Its base regen is lower than normal, so it's actually more like 2.25x regen. But yeah, 2.25 low slots for the price of 1 and some cargo? Sounds good to me.



its base is less than meta 0. its only 1.6 times better than t2. not 3 not 2.25 its 1.7 rounding up.
I was comparing it to T1 for some reason >.> 2.26* better than T1.
Previous page12