Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Rose Roses
Blue-Fire Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 11:24:00 -
[151] - Quote
Why don't you add the target painter's stacking penalties (the harsh ones) to the shieldboostamount instead of -- with the current planning -- totally nerf single ASB out of this game.... honestly, with 9 charges instead of 13, I won't mount that thing to any hull. Just the obscene fitting requirements aren't justified if the module itself isn't really that good anymore.
In the case of the more usual dual large cruiser/bc setups, I doubt they give a **** if they need to reload after 9 or 13 times the diference is way less aggravating. (Assuming that most dual-ASB ships more than sufficiently tank on one booster already, afaik) [recently fought a dual-large ASB tengu with SBAs instead of invulns as part of a gangfight, still took ashimmu, loki and ~5 other factioncruisers/battlecruisers 3 minutes to kill that tengu t.T]
So dual ASB still works kind of equally with less sustained maxtank, single ASB-setups (the one that this module was intended to support) will receive a hard nerf. YAY. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
784
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 12:27:00 -
[152] - Quote
As someone who actually PvPs and has experience of using both single and dual ASB I don't see how current changes nerf either of these options into ground. I'd still be using both, unless conventional tank receives a buff at the same time, which is unlikely to happen and is not even needed in the first place. The only reason why active tank is underused is cause passive/buffer tank is absurdly good, we shouldn't be delusional about that. ASB is even more OP than buffer tank, deal with it getting fixed.
As for testing particular things, I for one do think that test servers and artificial environment don't provide proper ground for all-around testing, excluding 1 on 1 fights which on the other hand are only a tiny part of actual PvP and hardly proove anything.
CCP, just release the changes and keep your mind open for further adjustments. 14 |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:53:00 -
[153] - Quote
I'm not sure about these changes. They have reduced some of the values. So, we'll see how things go if implemented. If these modules are still superior to regular shield boosters. Then that's not a really a fix. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 18:35:00 -
[154] - Quote
Can we at least know why it is perfectly fine to have more than 1 asb in game but not in tournaments? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
427
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 07:56:00 -
[155] - Quote
Honestly can you guys just bite the bullet and cast ASBs back into the fiery chasm from whence they came already? On a theoretical level they're just profoundly silly modules-- there's a reason all active tanking schemes were cap-dependent prior to their introduction.
Remove ASBs, rebalance historical shield boosters to provide more rep and consume less cap. Proper shield boosters can't practically be stacked like ASBs and leave the user vulnerable to heavy neuting (small amounts of neuting can be countered by cap injection, but large amounts can't, which is as it should be).
ASBs are a silly concept, whereas normal boosters are a good concept that suffers from poor implementation. Toss out the silly and fix the good. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
785
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 10:36:00 -
[156] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Honestly can you guys just bite the bullet and cast ASBs back into the fiery chasm from whence they came already? On a theoretical level they're just profoundly silly modules-- there's a reason all active tanking schemes were cap-dependent prior to their introduction.
Remove ASBs, rebalance historical shield boosters to provide more rep and consume less cap. Proper shield boosters can't practically be stacked like ASBs and leave the user vulnerable to heavy neuting (small amounts of neuting can be countered by cap injection, but large amounts can't, which is as it should be).
ASBs are a silly concept, whereas normal boosters are a good concept that suffers from poor implementation. Toss out the silly and fix the good. Agreed, even though it's unlikely to happen.
But the idea to remove or reduce commitment factors from underpowered stuff instead of introducing those to overpowered one is dubious. Active tanking was tied with cap and that was good, just like 10-minutes siege mode was good for making dreads balanced - but instead of creating something simular for other capitals (titans and moms) they just cut siege timers in half. Apparently, the same was true for ASB, but even to a bigger extent. Nerfing commitment and reducing vulnerability instead of developing them... meh...
Given this weird logic, I wonder how CCP managed to come up with turret tracking back then - evidently, tracking is also 'bad' the same way siege and cap dependancy are. 14 |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1069
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:18:00 -
[157] - Quote
I like the idea of the no reload while one is running. However if you do this, I'd suggest buffing the reload time, potentially in half.
I'd further reduce the capacity of them so that they can only hold 9 charges.
During the spring sometime you can begin to introduce the higher meta ASB's which would give varying bonuses to reload time, cycle time and capacity (not boost amount).
The highest meta would be in line to what is currently out and while having two of these equipped it would function exactly how they do right now but would just be really rare and potentially cost prohibitive outside people pimping out things like Nightmares. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 22:25:00 -
[158] - Quote
I think limiting the module to one per ship is not a good idea. PG/CPU are here for that, and if the problem is the number, then make the fitting cost prohibitive if you use more than one. And if, then, the module is not effective enough for its cost, then you need to boost the effect. But the reverse is also possible : lower the effect of one and keep it's cost. If one is still worth fitting and two are not OP anymore, then it's balanced too.
But I think these changes are good : with a shorter lifespan, then the off time is longer,and that leave more time to kill the ship. The off time also come sooner, solving the problem of longer fights. |
Straahl
House of Dying Laggers
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:10:00 -
[159] - Quote
nahjustwarpin wrote:Can we at least know why it is perfectly fine to have more than 1 asb in game but not in tournaments?
Same reason why you can't field 4 of any given ship, have only 1 logistic, can't fit faction/officer mods, only field a maximum of 12 pilots, intentional pod killing is illegal, can't leave the arena, etc.. Tournament matches Gëá the in-game environment. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10079
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 12:41:00 -
[160] - Quote
Another vote for 1-module limit (regardless of size GÇö no mixing sizes).
Also, make them match the size of the ship and cap charges: XLSBs shouldn't fit on anything smaller than battleships; LSBs should be a tight squeeze below BCs; MSBs fit on cruisersGǪ and have each accept one und only van cap charge size.
If you don't like the charge size limitation, how about this for a brainfart: revamp the module almost completely. Give them zero cycle time, but make the shield rep amount directly proportional to the cap charge used. Yes, you can blow 800x HP back in your shield as quickly as you can press the button, but you also expend 800-cap charges that fastGǪ so you'll run out in 3 seconds flat and then you have to face that 60-second reload (and you can still only fit one of them). Thus, it doesn't matter what charge you use GÇö they're all equally valuable for the purpose of filling your shield. Instead, you're weighing your ability to rapidly tap a button (and hope the server keeps up) against your wish to not waste charges on over-boosting the shield against making the most use of your available cargo space against what you might need for your regular cap booster. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 15:56:00 -
[161] - Quote
Straahl wrote:nahjustwarpin wrote:Can we at least know why it is perfectly fine to have more than 1 asb in game but not in tournaments? Same reason why you can't field 4 of any given ship, have only 1 logistic, can't fit faction/officer mods, only field a maximum of 12 pilots, intentional pod killing is illegal, can't leave the arena, etc.. Tournament matches Gëá the in-game environment.
That still doesn't explain why you are allowed to fit only one ASB. Why is the ASB the only standard mod that is restricted? Because it was OP. |
Spurty
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
524
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 16:03:00 -
[162] - Quote
It's a great module!
Should be like the damage control unit though. Strictly one per ship!
Please listen to the posters here. They really have their fingers on the pulse.
Dual (or more) ASB is just silly.
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
789
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 17:15:00 -
[163] - Quote
Spurty wrote:It's a great module!
Should be like the damage control unit though. Strictly one per ship!
This comparison is quite telling - we surely need more must-have modules in the game. 14 |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
711
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 19:35:00 -
[164] - Quote
James1122 wrote:keep them as they are and just limit it so you can only fit 1 per ship
^this. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
862
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 19:51:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Again, we're still in the process of figuring out the best way to adjust the ASBs...
Quite simple, pick a Megathron active armor tanking and run after a double XL-ASB Sleipnir.
If you need me to help you with fittings, please be my guest to convo/mail me in game. brb |
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:29:00 -
[166] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1943688#post1943688
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Yes, until we do the navy 50 version. Which I think we're going to do at some point, I just don't think it will make it into the winter expansion. But I've been wrong before Ahhhhh my hawk becomes possible to kill for a couple of months! :P You should try the quadruple-ASB Kitsune fit
really? there are more players than you, and they want this game somewhat balanced |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1429
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:12:00 -
[167] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2093180#post2093180
To quote from my post in that thread:
"If they really wanted a complex but efficient rebalancing of the ASBs, they would make them use both cap charges and ship capacitor for power, albeit independently of each other so that you could still get shields even without cap (let's say 70% comes from the batteries, and the rest from ship capacitor). That would be an interesting design, since it would bring back cap injectors and neutralizers into fitting considerations without fully nerfing the capless boosting concept." (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:48:00 -
[168] - Quote
My personal preference on 'fixing' ASBs would be to make them a one-shot activation.
You activate it, it cycles through ALL its loaded charges.
You would still get the amazing burst tank, but now dual ASBs aren't enough to cover the reload time. You have to commit to your ASB tanking, it's all or nothing.
This maintains the power of the module against big-number incoming dps, but balances it with a set, short, tanking time. The upshot of this would be that against targets over time, or against lower dps it is far less efficient and more vulnerable than a normal booster. It is no longer a 'best choice always' module.
Engage a gang with serious dps or need to tank enough to gatecrash or de-aggress = ASB would be better. Engage at a celestial and in it for the duration = repper / buffer / passive is a better choice.
Paper, scissors, stone =/= EVE It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
400
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:41:00 -
[169] - Quote
One thing I never got my my head around about ASBs... Given that shield is utterly dominant in the solo/small-gang-skirmish environment, and that armour is utterly dominant in the capital environment, why did CCP think it was a good idea to reinforce that awful imbalance even further by introducing the ASB which has skewed solo/small-gang even further towards shield, and the reactive armour hardener which, thanks to prohibitive cap drain and its innate reaction time, only approaches usefulness on heavy ships with abundant lowslots and EHP such as capitals.
I mean, in what crazy world was it decided that further accentuating the already severe tanking imbalance was a good idea? |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
711
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:26:00 -
[170] - Quote
The amount of people in this thread supporting a '1 ABS max' solution is rather overwhelming and coming from many people that are not simply theory-crafting, but have a lot of first-hand experience.
Wanna bet CCP SoniClover is going to ignore them all anyway to implement his own original ham-fisted 'solution'?
It seemed to be pretty much his m.o. when working on the wardecs, ignoring expert input except for some tiny details, so to show he 'listened'. And there were also plenty of players already warning against the current ABS problem when it was still being tested on SiSi months ago...
The suggested decrease in charge capacity isn't going to solve imbalance, nor is it going to restrict the use to short skirmishes. And on top of that it also further reinforces the shield dominance in non-capital warfare. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
Capqu
Love Squad
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:47:00 -
[171] - Quote
plz 1 per ship & no other changes
tia http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:47:00 -
[172] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2093180#post2093180
To quote from my post in that thread:
"If they really wanted a complex but efficient rebalancing of the ASBs, they would make them use both cap charges and ship capacitor for power, albeit independently of each other so that you could still get shields even without cap (let's say 70% comes from the batteries, and the rest from ship capacitor). That would be an interesting design, since it would bring back cap injectors and neutralizers into fitting considerations without fully nerfing the capless boosting concept."
This is a cool idea and a potential way to go. We've been toying with a similar concept, which is very simple to implement - currently the cap booster charges reduce cap need 100%, but we can easily have them reduce it by less than that. The main difference here is that if the capacitor doesn't have enough cap then the shield boosting will not work at all. This change is not in the version on Duality over the weekend, as we feel adding it will nerf the ASBs too much. So if we introduce this we would most likely revert some of the other changes already made.
Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet. |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:53:00 -
[173] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Just do stacking penalties!! (Pleaaaaaase)
just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount.
or maybe less drastic, like 85% and 65% |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:15:00 -
[174] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Does this mean we will get navy cap booster 50s? 50s are what people use in medium ASBs. Maybe even navy cap booster 25s for small ASBs, even though they arent used much. Most like not at this time.
This is great news, i hope people stop flying fkin frigs now and fly a real ship. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:24:00 -
[175] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Just do stacking penalties!! (Pleaaaaaase) just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount. or maybe less drastic, like 85% and 65%
I'm not sure stacking penalties would do much, as they would only really affect ASBs if you have two or more active at the same time. Stacking penalties do not check how many modules are fitted, only how many things are affecting the same stat (that has been flagged to use stacking penalty) at any given time. So you could still get maximum efficiency out of dual-ASBs as long as you only use one of them at a time, which is the normal case anyway.
It would be possible to do some pseudo-stacking penalty based on number of modules fitted, but it would be a dirty hack. |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:52:00 -
[176] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Just do stacking penalties!! (Pleaaaaaase) just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount. or maybe less drastic, like 85% and 65% I'm not sure stacking penalties would do much, as they would only really affect ASBs if you have two or more active at the same time. Stacking penalties do not check how many modules are fitted, only how many things are affecting the same stat (that has been flagged to use stacking penalty) at any given time. So you could still get maximum efficiency out of dual-ASBs as long as you only use one of them at a time, which is the normal case anyway. It would be possible to do some pseudo-stacking penalty based on number of modules fitted, but it would be a dirty hack.
Possible future version then if it requires a bit of a new method for coding. Doesn't have to be for retribution, but I really think just reducing total boost amount based on how many boosters are fit is a good way to do it. The real problem is the fact that they can run so powerfully no matter how many boosters are fit. Having a single one run powerfully for a period isn't all that broken. On bonused ships, it gets a bit ridiculous, but it's not impossible to fight. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
527
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:16:00 -
[177] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the one-per-ship, this is still on the table, but we want more testing/feedback on the existing changes. Editing it to be one-per-ship is a very quick and easy thing to do, so we're not under any time pressure to make a decision on this quite yet.
Just do stacking penalties!! (Pleaaaaaase) just make it so having two boosters will result in both of them functioning at a 75% boost amount, or three boosters with each of them functioning at 50% boost amount. or maybe less drastic, like 85% and 65% I'm not sure stacking penalties would do much, as they would only really affect ASBs if you have two or more active at the same time. Stacking penalties do not check how many modules are fitted, only how many things are affecting the same stat (that has been flagged to use stacking penalty) at any given time. So you could still get maximum efficiency out of dual-ASBs as long as you only use one of them at a time, which is the normal case anyway. It would be possible to do some pseudo-stacking penalty based on number of modules fitted, but it would be a dirty hack.
as you point out yourself, that people normally use 1 ASB at a time, even when fitting two, because that will give them enough time to reload the first asb while the second one is tanking,
I really think the main problem is that people can reload their ASB while still using another ASB..., I think I suggested it before, but what if the charges from ASBs where considered the same "pool", so when you have 2 ASB, you pull the charges from the same total pool (thus you run out on both ASBs at the same time) it would then be impossible to reload 1 ASB while using another, as they should both reload at the same time then....
Alternatively, make ASB unable to activate if another ASB is reloading (but you should be able to cancel reload then) another idea is to make a set maximum of charges that can be used at the same time, (lets say 14 or whatever) if you fit 1 ASB, it will have 14 charges, if you fit 2 ASB, each asb will have 7 charges... (or 3 asb = 14/3)
or as a last resort, simply limit to 1 ASB per ship... if people really want "dual ASB", they can just fit 1 ASB, and 1 normal shield booster :D Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Tarmageddon
Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:29:00 -
[178] - Quote
I understand that CCP wanted a TEMPORARY massive boost to shield, and at the moment it's just not temporary enough.
I think as has been mentioned before that the ASB works more as a giant buffer than an active tank in that if you KEEP shooting an ASB fitted ship it will eventually run out of charges and die, as opposed to an active tank system which will tank a certain amount of DPS indefinitely. The problem is that at the moment the buffer is just too big.
For example, a corp-mate has a dual ASB Sleipnir which can tank something like 5.5k DPS until he runs out of charges, which unfortunately is several minutes, and as any PvPer will testify seconds and minutes become mini-lifetimes when you are in the heat of battle. The ASB has not robbed any of the Sleipnir's hitting power, so whilst my regular buffer-tanked ship is not out-gunned it is simply a matter of whose timer runs out of first, and at the moment due to the power of the ASB it's always going to be mine.
My solution to the problem would be to make the ASB non-reloadable, and in order to give the same initial boost but make it wear off more quickly I would make it so the actual boost given by the ASB reduced with each cycle until it was empty, for example (based on the module's current stats):
Cycle 1: 100% Cycle 2: 98% Cycle 3: 94% Cycle 4: 88% Cycle 5: 80% Cycle 6: 70% Cycle 7: 58% Cycle 8: 44% Cycle 9: 28%
So you can see, for the first three cycles they get pretty much the same whack as they do from the current module, for the 4th and fifth it's still no laughing matter for the enemy but after that it really starts to wear off until it runs out of charges and the buffer is spent.
After that, well, you better hope you killed them in time! |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
403
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:09:00 -
[179] - Quote
If CCP wanted to give active tanks the ability to temporarily tank massive DPS, then this could have been easily achieved simply by increasing the bonuses to boost/rep amount associated with overheating. There was simply no need to introduce a new module, the mechanic already existed. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
794
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:39:00 -
[180] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:If CCP wanted to give active tanks the ability to temporarily tank massive DPS, then this could have been easily achieved simply by increasing the bonuses to boost/rep amount associated with overheating. There was simply no need to introduce a new module, the mechanic already existed. True.
The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how CCP time and time again refused to give us any reasoning on why they had introduced this new module. Cause, frankly, only two options are possible:
1) ASB is balanced in line with conventional tank, but since conventional tank is aknowledged to be somewhat overpowered why introduce yet another module of that sort
OR
2) ASB is overpowered - and then why the hell do we need conventional tank at all in the first place 14 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |