Ships & Modules

Recently I took interest in those tanking modules ( never used anything more than one c-type booster before ) and it seems that there are some serious inconsistencies regarding those mods. I'm sure that others have also identified this problem although I haven't seen any threads about it and I'm visiting forums regularly and even if there were some threads long time ago the problem remains.

The core differences between armour reppers and shields boosters are as follows :
Reppers
- less cap used
- more reps given
- long cycles
- reps at end of cycle

Boosters
- more cap used
- less reps given
- short cycles
- reps at beginning of the cycle

Of course there are more differences between armour and shield tanking but they are not really relevant in this specific situation.

Those core concepts are implemented on the level of base modules ( T1 and T2 ) and it works as it should. Deadspace mods however behave differently. Shield boosters have taken over benefits of reppers ( less cap, more reps ) but are also maintaining their inherent advantages. The problems seems to be limited to small and medium modules.


Here are results of my testing :

Relevant skills at 5, no rigs, implants or hull modifiers.

Small mods

- repper/booster
base increase in repping effectiveness ( cap stays the same )
repper T1->T2 33%
booster T1->T2 30%

increase of repping effectiveness for deadspace mods

......................coreli.......centii......pithi...........gisti
T2->C-type.....10%........23%......83%......30%
T2->B-type.....20%........35%.....116%......36%
T2->A-type.....30%........46%.....153%......90%

capacitor modifiers ( 'minus' meaning reduction of cap needed )

......................coreli.......centii......pithi.......gisti
T2->C-type.....0%........12.5%......0%......-45%
T2->B-type.....0%........12.5%......0%......-40%
T2->A-type.....0%........12.5%......0%......-35%

To put it in a more meaningful form lets see how it all works out when time is taken into account.

time span of test..........18seconds
number of SAR reps....4
number of SSB reps....10
modules used in test :
SAR : T2, coreli/centii a-type
SSB : T2, pithi/gisti a-type

.............................T2sar...T2sb......coreli.....centii.....pithi...............gisti
repping amount....320......300.........416.......468.......760.....570
cap used..............160......180.........160........180......160..........117

pithi booster is repping 62% more than centii repper while using 11% less cap
gistii booster is repping 21% more than centii repper while using 35% less cap

Medium mods

- repper/booster
base increase in repping effectiveness ( cap stays the same )
repper T1->T2 33%
booster T1->T2 32%

increase of repping effectiveness for deadspace mods

......................corelum...centum....pithum...........gistum
T2->C-type.....10%........23%.......81%..........28%
T2->B-type.....20%........35%......115%.........37%
T2->A-type.....30%........46%......153%.........88%

capacitor modifiers ( 'minus' meaning reduction of cap needed )

......................corelum...centum....pithum....gistum
T2->C-type.....0%..........12.5%.......0%.......-46%
T2->B-type.....0%..........12.5%.......0%.......-41%
T2->A-type.....0%..........12.5%.......0%.......-36%

And another test :

time span of test..........63 seconds
number of SAR reps....7
number of SSB reps....22
modules used in test :
SAR : T2, corelum/centum a-type
SSB : T2, pithum/gistum a-type

.............................T2sar...T2sb......corelum.....centum.......pithum................gistum
repping amount....2240.....1980.........2912........3276.........5016.........3740
cap used..............1120......1188.........1120........1260..........1188.............752

pithum booster is repping 53% more than centum repper while using 5% less cap
gistum booster is repping 14% more than centum repper while using 40% less cap



As you can see those boosters are breaking core design concepts of reppers/boosters, what's even worse those differences are beyond extreme.
I'm yet to test other modules extensively but it seems that large reppers/boosters are working as they should ( they are conforming to design concepts and in no way seem OP ).
My first test on deadspace EANM and Adaptive fields shows that the same inconsistencies can be also observed there but I didn't have the time to run the numbers.


If I didn't fcked up something during my testing ( very unlikely ) then I believe we need to see some serious rebalancing in that area.

Comments, criticism and trolling equally welcomed.

So, Tengu selling like crazy, frigate mods collecting premium prizes for years and it just hit you that the mods are a bit op?

Anyway, I agree. There's no nerf bat big enough to sort this craziness out.

I always assumed that those mods are selling like crazy because of ships like Tengu, Loki, Sliepnir and the fact that active shield tanking is generally superior to active armour tanking.
I never assumed that the modules themselves are completely out of whack in terms of actual numbers.
I never really cared about the stats themselves ( I don't use them myself ). Well that's not entirely true, I do care about one stat and that is selling price. I sell quite a lot of those mods ( especially pithum line ).

Also - EvE players are always whining when something is terribly out of whack and I never saw threads about it.

…so why is any of this a problem?

deal with it. (⌐■_■)

Are you trying to insult your own intelligence or is it just some poor attempt at trolling?
Either the case you of all people can do better than that.



My thoughts exactly
Well, he stated that he very much likes his Tengu on several occasions so this kind of reaction is to be expected. No one likes when you try to screw over their favourite toys

They're still better with ASBs, try it out, difference is just insane.

i don't see it either.

Yeah, small and medium deadspace boosters are awesome!

Have you seen the T2 versions though? They're so crappy and give such a bad boost to cap ratio nobody ever uses them. The problem isn't the Deadspace versions beeing too good, it's that the T2 versions need a massive buff!

T2 Armor repairers for instance are perfectly usable and solid modules, Deadspace versions are awesome versions of the same modules.

Comparing a Tengu with a Gist Med Shield booster + Boost Amp +C-Type Invuln Field + A-Type EM Ward field to a Proteus with 2x C-Type EANMS, A-Type Explosive and a Deadspace Armor repper, and you'll find the Proteus not only has more EHP but also a higher sustainable tank.

No. I'm stating that the modules are rare.

…and it's popular in an area where balance isn't particularly important and where the Tengu isn't the best ship to begin with. Balance is a spectacularly low priority when all you're doing is shooting rats (and if you're shooting something else, these modules are rather behind on the power curve and thus not worth the cost).

CCP disagrees. They're very fond of imbalances between different parts of space.

No, largely because it's not a particularly well-supported claim. The same exploration opportunities exist in null, following the same reward curve, and they take a back-seat to other means of making money. Additionally, since you included lowsec, you already have something that's higher risk for your higher reward.

…and that problem is…? Being popular is not a problem, and the “core design decisions” rather sound like something you've made up. Also, even if it did exist… so what? We're talking about the very highest end of modules here — breaking out of the mould is rather something you'd expect them to do. It just sounds like you're making a reversed appeal to popularity: everyone likes them, so they must be something bad… Yes, they're good modules. So what?