Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Fozzie can you explain why you consider a hull bonus for recieved remote reps to be OP? I mean there is already a bonus to remote reps in the game it is called armor/shield resistance bonuses.

Hypothetical example: Imagine a 25 man gang (with 20 dps ships and 5 logi) vs an identical gang. Each dps ship does 500 dps while each logi reps about 300 armor points/s. The only difference between them is that one gang has a 37.5% bonus to recieved remote armor repairs while the other gang has a 25% bonus to armor resists.

Both gangs put out 10,000 DPS (before resists are taken into account) and rep 1500 dps. How does the different hull bonuses affect each gang? Well firstly the gang with resist bonuses reduces incoming damage by 25%, so the other sides DPS is reduced by 2500dps. Whereas the other gang get a boost to it's remote reps so their incoming repairs are increased by 562.5 dps.

So even with a hypothetical bonus to recieved reps the resistance bonused ships win out.

Under the fairly sensible assumption that a fleet brings more dps than logi, then the armour resistance bonus ends up being much more useful in fleets than this bonus to recieved reps. Furthermore:
*Resistance bonused ships tend to have an extra low or mid for tanking, whereas active tanking ships tend to have a less focused slot layout, forcing one to either sacrifice tank or dps.
*Resistance bonused ships get better as the fleet scales up whereas active tankers get progressively worse even with this proposed active rep bonus.
*Resistance bonused ships are less vulnerable to volley damage on top of getting more remote reps

Even so, if the bonus turned out to be too strong you could always lessen the bonus to 3-5% for remote reps (and leave 7.5% bonus for active tanking). I just don't see why it's OP.

It tanks less with new bonus+SAAR than with old bonus Dual SAR II, but only for 7 cycles while still using half as much cap.

I assume these improvements is the first attempt to rebalanc active armor tanking.
And also the AAB will surely be first of all only a prototype modul like the ASB, won´t it?

Nice changes, and let´s see waht they bring. Also I now wish that ASB also get limited to once per ship, but that OT.

I'm not Fozzie, but slave set is balanced by crystal set.
Capital shield boosters is an issue, but it's definitely offtopic.

CCP, please consider decreasing volume taken by Cap Boosters of all sizes by at least two times. The most ridiculous stuff about your Ancillary shield boosters and reps is that they require cargo hold on combat ships to fit active tank. On the other hand you may just want to increase cargo space of active tanking ships or introduce a very special "Battery cargo hold" to them. Having only 4-5 loads of Cap Booster 800 is not enough for long range roamings. Permatanking is not an issue here since you have already managed to limit useful amount of ASB and AAR on ships to one per ship.

Update: Another weird but somewhat cool solution is to make Cap Boosters into `Empty Cap Booster` and introduce a module that will recharge them from ship's capacitor with efficiency of 60-70%. They will also wear off and eventually break down when used.

No. Just remember once and for all - now you're cargohold-tanking. Not that realman-ish like hull tanking, but sure even more dumb.

Concerning math....

If I combine 3 Rigs that each give 100% bonus to the overheat bonus, what is going to happen?

Stacking:
1. 100%
2. 88%
3. 57%
(roughly)

which means the combined bonus is:
2 x 1,88 x 1,57 = 5,9

multiply the 10% rep amount by 5,9 => 59% bonus to rep amount. Nice.

multiply the 15% ROF bonus by 5,9 => 88,5% bonus to ROF. OmgwtfBBQop....wh000t?

Does that mean 8,7times as many cycles or am I somehow completely wrong?

Would mean: AAR loaded, overheated, 3 Rigs: like 2.25 x 1.59 x 8.7 = 31times the rep amount of a T1 repper (8.7times the cap usage plus the cap boosters).
or in other news:
push that button to instantly trade aall your cap, a molten repper and half a cargohold full of cap boosters a for a fully restored armor...

It adds more depth at least to a very one fit ship, A cap booster/AAR/t2 rep will still be awesome like the current dual rep Incursus but now a attacker has to worry if he is fit with a web or not.

The whole pg trade off seems a bit **** when all shield users gain is a bigger sig.

And why are trimarks/resist rigs still have a speed penalty, my underpowered buffer Punisher isnt aloud to go above 900m/s but the overpowered Incursus can go as fast as it likes

I can't believe I'm hearing whines about "large shield extenders fit much easier than 1600mm plates" and "shield boosters have much better burst tank than armor reps". Come on guys - shield and armor have always been different and you are forgetting plenty armor advantages like better standard resists, much lower cap consumption on armor reps and bigger plates available than shield extenders. can we have this discussion about the armor tank issues and why these changes are good and bad?

Having cooled down I looked at this again with fresh eyes :

Skillbook reducing plate mass with 25% : I think this will help a little on the skirmish area where shield tankers prevail due to being able to outrun and outmaneuver armor ships. But with velocity drawback still on half the armor rigs armor ships will only have a chance while active tanking and then they will likely be alpha'ed before getting tackle on a shield skirmisher... Interceptors will definately still be better off with a shield extender even if traditionally an armor ship!!

Skillbook enabling active reps to go nuts while overheating : Okay, I guess it's convenient. It has potential to compensate for the slow cycle times on reppers and most active rep ships I've used can spare a rig slot for this.
Rigs increasing powergrid? Go go autocannons on all active rep ships without a good racial gun bonus.

Base mass adjustment on plates with exceptions. Just make sure you have a logical pattern on those plates mass. Don't make 1600 and 400 stick out. People only use them because thats the biggest they can fit and not because of their mass penalty.

AAR gives armor tankers a few advantages:

More burst rep because active tanking today doesn't keep up with half the dps people bring. But why not boost active tanking in general because normal shield boosters doesn't work for pvp either unless you go officer mods and crystals with blue pills... Why not focus on the problem instead of making an alternative? It's fine to have mods with an alternate better burst tank, but the normal ones need a boost too, seriously.

Cap injected so basically save a cap booster, but armor tanking already use way less cap pr. hitpoint than shield boosting? There is a reson while armor tankers could run 2 armor reps easier than shield tankers could run a single shield booster and the shield booster needed an amp on top to get decent results when talking about effeciency. And honestly it seems like a cap booster is needed anyway for 2nd repper and most guns - It's not like most armor tankers have issues with enough medslots anyway... which means armor reppers will likely be able to keep their reps going even at 3/4 for normal cap while an ASB tanker just stops to exist because the latest nerf made single ASB useless in order to balance dual ASBs...

Don't think this is all it takes to fix armor tanking - It'll be like the hybrid buff that wasn't finished but just dropped in silence when you started focus on ships rather than looking into why people didn't use railguns and why people rarely used anything but antimatter with a few minor exceptions.

Pinky

PS. sorry for bittervet attitude, I mean it well..

Why? That would be the only place in EVE where a combined bonus would be calculated in this way...