Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I hope this have not been proposed before (and buried ).

The cap booster charge fueled active tank kind of module for armor could be a low slot module which gives a significant amount of resist for a short period of time. Kind of like a shield invul.

It should give significantly more armor resists than a T2 eanm, as for the fitting requirements, no idea.

There should also be some way to prevent this module to be too good on supercaps ( there is no such problem with ASB )

... couse giving armor tankers an armor repairer which works exactly like an asb, but for armor, would be a super boring solution, this game has seen too much balancing of the kind which makes everything the same (and boring) as it is...

tbh you armour tankers have the shifting resist percentages you dont need a armour reper like shields.

No one disputing that.



And what does it have to do with ACTIVE tanking?



shield invul is stronger than eanm but costs cap - check
shield invul is much better than RAH in 99% situations - check
shield invul takes 2-3 times less cap than RAH - check
shield invul does not require new dedicated skill to operate - check
shield invul does not need to adapt - check
shield active tanking by means of ASB uses no cap - check
shield active tanking tanks MUCH more than active armor tanking - check
active armour tanking uses a lot of cap while the boats it is supposed to be used on in most cases also use a lot of cap for weapons - check
plates/rigs impose severe drawbacks on armor tankers ( especially Gallente ) - check
extenders/rigs impose minor drawbacks on shield tankers - check

To sum up - all is well and working as intended.

ONLY positive side of RAH is that is not prone to stacking penalties ( you can still fit only one though )

So what you say is this :
Armour has better buffer so it needs to have MUCH worse active tank.

Where's logic in that?
Shouldn't both styles of tanking( buffer/active ) be viable on both armour and shield ( just in different scenarios ) ?

Also - when you undock you are either buffer tanking of active tanking so you can't really have both at the same time can you.

Many dedicated armour tankers are much better while using their shields for tanking. That is just wrong and no discussion is to be had here.

I would like to see ALL tanking styles viable and share similar effectiveness. That does not mean that I would like to make them identical.

Remember though that the ASBs are talked about getting a nerf, and remember that the adaptive things for armor don't have a T2 yet.

It does occur to me that the reason the reactive armour hardener is broken for frigates and cruisers is the high cap cost.

It could be changed to run on cap boosters like the ASB. With auto reload off you could run it past the minute or so the cap boosters last at least for a time. May make the mod viable for pvp fits.

This 100000000 times!

Give them slight variations but an ideal system would be a tweaked version of what we have allready.

Armor tank:
Active - good (Sustained)
Passive/Buffer - great (no recharge of course)

Shield tank:
Active - great (Not so sustainable)
Pasive/buffer - good (But recharge included)

But dont make the diffrence SO great that its an obvious choice like it is now. Make subtle but noticeable diffrences.

Are you responding to the OP? If you read the proposal it merely suggests using the direct cap injecting of a module for a resistance mod not an ASB armour duplicate.

to quote the op