These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Ancillary shield booster vs ancillary armour repairer.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fivethumbs
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
#1 - 2015-02-27 21:09:38 UTC
I've just been looking at the ancillary shield boosters and ancillary armour reppers and I'm wondering why there is such a disparity between them. Looking at them with base stats and loaded with charges it seems to work out like this

small ancillary armour 26 hp/s
small ancillary shield 26 hp/s

medium ancillary armour 51.75 hp/s
medium ancillary shield 48.6 hp/s

large ancillary armour 103 hp/s
large ancillary shield 97.5 hp/s

I can see that obviously the armour repper has a very slight advantage in hp/s, but the shield reppers have no cap use at all, and on top of that can fit more than one. Have I missed something here?
Leiron Thali
#2 - 2015-02-27 21:23:08 UTC
What's the issue here? You simply pointed out the differences and seem to have answered any potential questions
Fivethumbs
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
#3 - 2015-02-27 21:26:30 UTC
Leiron Thali wrote:
What's the issue here? You simply pointed out the differences and seem to have answered any potential questions


The issue is why such an imbalance?
Paranoid Loyd
#4 - 2015-02-27 21:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
They are two different systems that work differently, comparing one stat linearly is not possible as there are other factors involved.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Fivethumbs
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
#5 - 2015-02-27 21:35:54 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
They are two different systems that work differently, comparing them linearly is not possible.


They use charges and/or cap to regain hp. Why can we not compare them directly?
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#6 - 2015-02-27 21:38:20 UTC
Fivethumbs wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
They are two different systems that work differently, comparing them linearly is not possible.


They use charges and/or cap to regain hp. Why can we not compare them directly?

Because shield reps use cap boosters so they don't use ship cap, and armor reppers use nanite paste and cap.

Also, they're different modules and different modules have to be different, else they're the same.
Fivethumbs
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
#7 - 2015-02-27 21:42:36 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Because shield reps use cap boosters so they don't use ship cap, and armor reppers use nanite paste and cap.

Also, they're different modules and different modules have to be different, else they're the same.


They can be different yet balanced. As it stands the armour repper gets the bum deal by quite a margin, AND you can only fit one.
Odethia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2015-02-27 21:44:56 UTC
Yea Ancillary shield booster are way better than Armor rep: oversized module, stack, no capacitor.
So good compared to regular shield boosters that they are pretty much the only active shield tank used in pvp nowadays.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#9 - 2015-02-27 22:01:53 UTC
On the matter of equivalency...

- shields have the Ancillary Shield Booster (ASB)
---- requires only cap boosters and draws no ship power until those charges are gone.
---- multiple can be fitted on the same hull (CPU and PG allowing).

- armor has the Ancillary Armor Repper (AAR) and the Reactive Armor Hardener
---- requires capacitor AND nanite paste... but will consume the same amount of capacitor regardless.
---- is limited to one such module per ship.
---- the Reactive Armor Hardener was made to compensate for the ASBs being "better in every conceivable way."


What does this mean?

- ASBs are better for "burst tanking" but quickly fall apart when the charges are gone and ship capacitor becomes an issue.
- AARs are also good for "burst tanking" but have a greater degree of longevity compared to ASBs... plus, armor can achieve MUCH higher resistances than shield can without expending (too much) extra capacitor or overloading.

How did you Veterans start?
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-02-27 22:13:45 UTC
Also cargo space is a factor as well. Cap charges are huge whereas nanite paste is almost limitless so it's much better for long roams in hostile space where you can't dock or buy more.

Art of Explosions
Fivethumbs
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
#11 - 2015-02-27 22:19:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Fivethumbs
ShahFluffers wrote:
What does this mean?

- ASBs are better for "burst tanking" but quickly fall apart when the charges are gone and ship capacitor becomes an issue.
- AARs are also good for "burst tanking" but have a greater degree of longevity compared to ASBs... plus, armor can achieve MUCH higher resistances than shield can without expending (too much) extra capacitor or overloading.


I'm not buying that, certainly in the case of the small modules. The shield modules can be double fitted so one can reload while the other is active which means a constant 'burst' tank. The reactive armour hardener uses nearly as much cap as the small AAR, so if anything makes things even worse!

Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Also cargo space is a factor as well. Cap charges are huge whereas nanite paste is almost limitless so it's much better for long roams in hostile space where you can't dock or buy more.


This is true, though at 1m3 (0.75 for navy) they are hardly going to be a problem with most frigates having around 160m3 cargo space. The Hawk has 300!
Aerie Evingod
Midwest Miners LLC
#12 - 2015-02-27 22:24:08 UTC
When your oversized ASB runs out of charges you can't run it or one cycle absolutely destroys your cap. Once your AAR runs out of paste it continues to run without destroying your cap.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-02-27 22:26:11 UTC
A few additional points.
Shields will passively repair while you are armor repping. Not so in reverse.
Rigging choices are better for AAR (time and amount) vs ASB (time only).

I use both systems on different ships, so I have no real bias. Would be nice to see same fitting req (1 unit per ship, or multiple for all), and fixing the cap ammo size/benefit issue (should be same as cap booster)

Otherwise working as intended, imho.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Fivethumbs
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
#14 - 2015-02-27 22:31:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Fivethumbs
*Double posted while editing, sorry!
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#15 - 2015-02-27 23:10:47 UTC
Fivethumbs wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
What does this mean?

- ASBs are better for "burst tanking" but quickly fall apart when the charges are gone and ship capacitor becomes an issue.
- AARs are also good for "burst tanking" but have a greater degree of longevity compared to ASBs... plus, armor can achieve MUCH higher resistances than shield can without expending (too much) extra capacitor or overloading.


I'm not buying that, certainly in the case of the small modules. The RAH uses nearly as much cap as the small AAR, so if anything makes things even worse!

Admittedly... ships smaller than cruisers tend not to use the Reactive Armor Hardener.

But here is another thing; look at...

- the cycle duration for a small AAR and a medium ASB (despite what the name says, they are both "frigate sized").
---- the AAR has a cycle time of ~4.5 seconds
---- the ASB has a cycle time of ~3 seconds.

- the capacitor cost for a small AAR and a medium ASB.
---- the AAR consumes ~40 capacitor power regardless if it has nantie paste in it or not
---- the ASB comsumes ~182 capacitor when the cap booster charges are gone.


Put together this means that the AAR is FAR more "efficient" when it comes to using capacitor power... meaning it can run for MUCH longer even when the nanite paste has been depleted.
Again... once the cap booster charges loaded in an ASB are gone... it has problems.


(NOTE: all this is assuming max skills)

How did you Veterans start?
Clara Barcelo
Abysmal Gentlemen
#16 - 2015-02-27 23:17:39 UTC
Also note you can carry FAR more Nanite then you can Cap boosters. Nanite also has the added bonus of repair heat damage.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#17 - 2015-02-27 23:28:58 UTC
Oh, and why no ancillary hull-repper?
Based on the active hull-rep modules, it might just get 1 or 2 hp/sec
Roll

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Fivethumbs
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
#18 - 2015-02-28 00:18:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Fivethumbs
ShahFluffers wrote:


- the cycle duration for a small AAR and a medium ASB (despite what the name says, they are both "frigate sized").
---- the AAR has a cycle time of ~4.5 seconds
---- the ASB has a cycle time of ~3 seconds.

- the capacitor cost for a small AAR and a medium ASB.
---- the AAR consumes ~40 capacitor power regardless if it has nantie paste in it or not
---- the ASB comsumes ~182 capacitor when the cap booster charges are gone.


Put together this means that the AAR is FAR more "efficient" when it comes to using capacitor power... meaning it can run for MUCH longer even when the nanite paste has been depleted.
Again... once the cap booster charges loaded in an ASB are gone... it has problems.


(NOTE: all this is assuming max skills)


After the charges have run out for the AAR you are using 40 Gj for 8.6 hp rep per second, that's not going to be much help. If you stop it you have to wait 60 secs for the reload, while the dual ASB setup has 48.6 hp/s per repper which can be alternated across reload cycles. Add to that the fact that armour reps hit at the end of the cycle and shield at the start. This is all assuming basic numbers without skills.

I understand the point about cargo space, but assuming a 1v1, where this would most likely be used, by the time charges are an issue the fight is over.

I really don't think it's balanced at all.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2015-02-28 00:19:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiddle Jr
Specia1 K wrote:
Oh, and why no ancillary hull-repper?
Based on the active hull-rep modules, it might just get 1 or 2 hp/sec
Roll



Love for hull repperes. This issue been raised and pointed so many times as of now.
Sooner or later we got them fixed.Blink

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2015-02-28 01:18:03 UTC
Fivethumbs wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:


- the cycle duration for a small AAR and a medium ASB (despite what the name says, they are both "frigate sized").
---- the AAR has a cycle time of ~4.5 seconds
---- the ASB has a cycle time of ~3 seconds.

- the capacitor cost for a small AAR and a medium ASB.
---- the AAR consumes ~40 capacitor power regardless if it has nantie paste in it or not
---- the ASB comsumes ~182 capacitor when the cap booster charges are gone.


Put together this means that the AAR is FAR more "efficient" when it comes to using capacitor power... meaning it can run for MUCH longer even when the nanite paste has been depleted.
Again... once the cap booster charges loaded in an ASB are gone... it has problems.


(NOTE: all this is assuming max skills)


After the charges have run out for the AAR you are using 40 Gj for 8.6 hp rep per second, that's not going to be much help. If you stop it you have to wait 60 secs for the reload, while the dual ASB setup has 48.6 hp/s per repper which can be alternated across reload cycles. Add to that the fact that armour reps hit at the end of the cycle and shield at the start. This is all assuming basic numbers without skills.

I understand the point about cargo space, but assuming a 1v1, where this would most likely be used, by the time charges are an issue the fight is over.

I really don't think it's balanced at all.


So assuming one tiny part of the game, you've decided this is imbalanced.

ok

Art of Explosions
12Next page