EVE General Discussion

So we finally get our ancillary repairer after shield tankers have already had their version for a while. Except ours uses cap and theirs doesn't. Oh and they get to use cap booster ammo for cheap while ammo for a medium ancillary repairer and one reload costs 2,400,000 ISK or so. How is this fair?

Nawww, need a diaper change OP?

(My body is ready for the impending armor changes)

It's not meant to be fair.

Or they could just balance their game for once.

It IS meant to be fair.

It's not meant to be "equal", but it's definitely meant to be fair, as long as not all 4 races have viable ships in all categories and roles for both armor and shield tanking.

They don't speak English where you're from? Read the first post.

ASBs use no cap when loaded, AAR using ships are still much more vulnerable to neuting.
Filling ASBs with caps (even large Navy caps) is much cheaper than filling AARs with paste.
ASBs come in four sizes, and mid-size hulls (BCs) are able to fit the biggest ones (unlike AARs)
ASBs are not limited to one per ship, to the point that some BCs use multiple units of the biggest ones. Picture a Brutix fitting just ONE Large AAR? LOL

AARs are much less appealing than ASBs, and I would not be surprised if ships with bonus to armor repair amount (Myrmidon comes to mind) are still better off with ASBs than AARs.

Hell, the X-ASB Myrmidon was shown to tank more than the triple DEADSPACE armor repper cookie cutter fit.

No, it really isn't.
They're meant to be different, which means that fairness goes right out the window, especially once you start including things that have nothing to do with balance to begin with, such as cost.

You can use the new reppers when you run out of charges without killing your cap, and you can use all that cargo space on an actual cap booster to keep everything else running… how is that fair? Oh, wait, it's not in the exact same way as ASBs using cap charges is not fair.

No they don't, just like pretty much everywhere else. Welcome to the rest of the world. It's a much larger place than you think.

Your first post just whinged about fairness and costs and made some very vague point about caps that wasn't really based on anything. The latter might be a balance problem, but you don't actually show that it is. Soooo… in what way is it imbalanced?

Ok. So what's the actual effects of the cap usage? How does it translate into unfairness?
Cost is not a balancing factor, so that part is irrelevant.
Soft size restrictions are just of way in which armour and shield reps differ — it's not a balancing factor to begin with, even less so since, just as with the cap, you don't illustrate how it translates into any kind of unfairness.

The armor version being inferior in every way was vague? Are you ******** or something? Serious question. I don't want to flame you if you have a disability.


A deimos is better and costs more than a thorax and caldari navy antimatter is better and costs more than T1. For everything else in the game more expensive means better.

Yes. How is it inferior?

Lolno. If it were, my Nomad would be one of the best Incursion ships in the game…

Cost has nothing to do with balance, especially not in a game where those costs are determined by the players.