Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Not true. In small-scale active rep is quite useful and it's not rarely used; In larger fleets it's senseless to active tank as you stated already. And the challenge for active reps is timing them right (be it neuts, alpha) which is why they are fun

Increasing powergrid of rep modules is not a good idea. Most fittings are already pretty tight. I would like to see no penalty at all for active reps (nanos already have a hidden penalty -> cap usage). Sig bloom is just awful for them, although the incoming damage would not be that much. This sure needs further investigation on what would be best.

Making buffered tanked ships (shield&armor) slower makes sense to me. I like that active armor tanks would be faster. For gallente, they need to get close/get tackle asap and considering they are active tanked and close range, it's not optimal to have reduced speeds.

Btw. there are effects which slows things down without increasing mass but with a stronger electromagnetic field (Lenz's law).

Can't help quoting this for truth.

Screw morons!

What I read in this thread is a lot of whining, and complaining, but not a lot of suggesting . . . what CCP wanted with this thread (im assuming) is not simply a commentary on what we think of these changes, but suggestions; those changes are what they came up with, what can you come up with.

I think everyone agrees that active tanking in PvP is broken, the question is what direction do you want to go with it? I think the problems with active tanking are un-fixable without massive changes to the way the mechanics work (then again it my just take someone more creative than I)

The main problem is that an active tank is effectively invulnerable to X ships but dies almost instantly to X + 1 ships. If you buff active tanks all you're really doing is changing how many "X" is.

Can we please have some suggestions on how to fix active tanking PvP instead of completely unhelpful posts like "THIS CHANGE IS THE SUXXXXORS!!!!!!!1111oneoneone"

The really tough thing to do is to balance PvP and PvE because the easy answer is to make active tanking cost less CPU/PG than plates/extenders and cost less cap, but 1, this makes no sense, and 2 this would really drastically change PvE

IMHO a good start would be to change all the gallente/minmatar bonuses from 7.5% bonus to repair to "5% bonus to repair effects" meaning that it boosts RR coming into the ship too . . . This would at least make the ships not totally suck while you figure out what to do.

What are your thoughts on fixing active tanking in PvP?

ate my post :(

Capacitor Boosters, when loaded with the appropriate Capacitor Booster Charges give you moar capacitor with the click of a butan.

On frigates, small NOS is enough to give you capacitor to cycle a small repper- even under neuting.

I've flown and won with active armor tanks in PvP (both on bonused and unbonused hulls), and while it certainly does not scale up to fleet combats, it's amazing when solo or in small gangs. And this is the preferred PvP variety for many players in EVE.

Also, I don't see how a fixed buffer tank can be seen as scaling better with fleet sizes- it requires RR to scale, which is, believe it or not, remote active tanking.

You people need to realize that 'overreliance' on cap, fitting etc. are GOOD things. These are called CONSEQUENCES. You decide to tank and thus have to PAY for that.

We don't need to remove (or lessen) those natural drawbacks of active tanks, but should introduce proper ones for passive tanking instead. The changes proposed are aimed to do precisely that.

I guess you need to do something to justify the money your grabbing for a non existant job.

If your going to make changes to EVE, make changes that improve the game by fixing stuff you already broke, but this time fix it properly and not just patch it, don't just sit there changing stuff just because you can write code.

Better idea would be for CCP to take this bunch round the back and club em to death before they go much further.

The same drawbacks on buffer and active tanking rigs may level the playing field a bit, but it kind of seems like the easy way out; "Want balance? Make it behave the same."

However, the impact of agility on PvP seems overlooked. Have you considered playing around with that?

Agility is actually more important than top speed for a Gallente blaster boat trying to get close. If I can reach my top speed slightly quicker, I may have a better chance to outmaneuver a ship that has a higher top speed than mine.

"Heavy armor is more agile than heavy shield" may be awkward to explain, but essentially this could be a good way to balance shield kiters and armor brawlers.
Less stale than downright equalizing rigs and bringing top speeds closer together at least.

"Shield = faster and more agile for a tad less EHP" doesn't really work in any case imho, even if they were slowed down a bit by rigs.


TL;DR - Agility, may wanna look into it.

+1 for this idea. Makes a lot of sense.


Additionally, I support any new ideas that will make Gallente more viable.

Hi Ytterbium,

Speedpenalties NEVER boost smallscalewarfare. I really wonder why this look like a good change to you. Makes me feel you never were into smallscale what brings me to the next question: Why did they give you this task?

It doesnt matter what you / ccp wants. You make the things we want or we stop paying you alltogether. Ofc. you are free to do what "you" want then.

With this change to rigs, you are hurting smallscalewarfare "again", at least for minmatar / nanopilots. I dont think thats what you want to have.

Activetanking doesnt have a place in current 0.0 warfare and your jokepatch wont change anything there. But it will remove nanopilots and force them to use activetanks or forget about rigs alltogether = it hurts lowsec / smallscale pvp.