Overboosting and Charge Consolidation in Ancillary Shield Boosters

Ancillary Shield Boosters (ASBs) have very simple guidelines for their use and consistancy across size classes. You get your 5-second cycle Convenient Ancillary Shield Booster (CASB), load it with 9x Navy Cap Booster 50s, and it gives you 100 HP per boost (HP/b). If you load it with 7x Cap Booster 50s, it still gives you 100HP/b. If you load it with 4x Navy Cap Booster 100s, still 100HP/b, same with Navy 200s, and still the same even when topped off with a Navy 400. 100HP/b everytime, which means it is always more economical to use the smallest size charges possible.

I have two ideas, one which I am in support of, and the other not so much.
I also have a third idea that would just be more quality-of-life-related.

Idea One: Charge Consolidation
Make ASBs so that they can not only accept larger charges, but use them too. Using Navy-Nonnavy variants of boosters, ASBs can hold:
9-7 of the smallest (CS), 4-3 of the second smallest (C2), 2-1 of the second largest (C3), and 1-0 of the largest (CL).
I propose having the Navy CSs give the same amount of HP as they do now, maybe a little more or less but we’ll start with the given 100HP/b and 900 HP per cycle (HP/C) for the CASB. The Navy C2s give a little more than 2x the HP/b of the Navy CSs, making the HP/s higher, but the HP/C lower. It would be beneficial if the HP/C would be a little bit higher (including reload) than with the Navy CSs. Let’s say 210 HP/b, giving 840 HP/C, but only taking 20s to rep it (at 42 HP/s) versus the 45s (20HP/s) for the Navy CSs. This gives 840/80 = 10.5HP/s after reload compared to 900/105 = 8.6HP/s.
The Navy C3s and Navy CLs would give 400 and 780 HP/b respectively, resulting in 80 and 156 HP/s and 11.4 and 12 HP/s after reload for the respective types.
Scale that across different size classes.
I fully support this idea because it would diversify ASB gameplay options and make navy cap booster 100s less of a joke. It would also make tanking surgical strike damage easier in short fights such as FW brawls. In fleets, it would allow a better “Extended buffer” option by mixing extenders and ASBs, giving more EHP overall than the extender but requiring more skill and input, making fleet flying more fun overall, not to mention the bait opportunities.

Idea Two: Overboosting
If a shield boost regens past the max shield capacity, it adds half (or less) of the extra repair as temporary extra HP that “dissipates” at a fairly rapid rate. I don’t particularly like this idea, but it could open up the use of ASBs to less experienced pilots. Just because I don’t like an idea doesn’t mean I can’t introduce it, as it is quite possible that I am wrong and this concept is popular.

Idea Three: More Faction Boosters. Have two types, the same factions that have the faction energy drain equipment. I am thinking Dark Blood and True Sansha, I think. Dark Blood Cap Boosters would take the same amount of cargo as Navy ones, but give like 5% more Cap/Boost each. The Sansha ones would boost/cap the same as the Navies, but with less cargo usage. They should both be prohibitively expensive, either through pirate LP stores or mission running/DED site drops.

Idk… maybe rapid cap boosters that have fast cycle times and hold smaller charges can be added too?

proposal :

  1. the shield repaired is multiplied by the amount of cap in the consumed charge, just like the damage inflicted by a weapon is multiplied by the damage of the ammo used.
  2. upon activation, the ASB gives a bonus to max shield hp, of the value of the consumed charge multiplied by the module multiplier. The value of the charge can be a different one than the “capacitor bonus”, eg blood can be +50%, T1 +0%, etc. When the effect ends, the shield goes back to max value.
  3. some factions of charges could have an INCREASE in booster period, that is they would be more oriented towards buffer than towards local rep.

This is an interesting variation concept, that I think I like more than my own.

Would this be a candidate for Small QOL suggestions oor no, since it isn’t UI related?