Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Changes look great :D

Where does it say that? Pumps and trimarks are keeping their drawbacks!

They change the drawbacks on the Aux and Nano module, so they are actually removing them on active rep setups...

Say I have a shield-tanked ship, and I'm looking to add a buffer. Disadvantages?

1. My sig radius is larger, so I may take more damage from missiles vs. their explosion radius.
2. My sig radius is larger, so I'm easier to track and take more damage from guns.

How about I add a buffer to my armor-tanked ship?

1. My speed is slower, so I will take more damage from missiles vs. their explosion velocity.
2. My speed is slower, so I'm easier to track and take more damage from guns.
3. My speed is slower, so I cannot maintain optimal range on my enemies and my guns do less damage.
4. My speed is slower, so my enemies always have optimal on me and do more damage.
5. My speed is slower, so I cannot escape from situations as quickly (or often at all).
6. My speed is slower, so I just take longer to get around.
7. T2 tank is a longer train.
8. The game is now being balanced around my training an additional skill to adjust the disadvantage, so now I have to train even longer.

What am I missing? I always shield tank ships that can go either way, and often shield tank ships that were designed to be armor tanked (people shield-tank Myrmidons all the time, when did you last see an armor-tanked Drake?). I haven't run the numbers, but does a 25% less penalty really make the many disadvantages to an armor tank so less significant that I'd rather have all of them rather than the shield buffer's disadvantage? Can someone who actually understands the numbers better than me explain how this makes armor tanking not suck almost as badly as it currently does?

like the change, the AAR needs a different name though
as the mechanics are different


the overcharged armor repairer?

Wrong the Cane and Cyclone had their cargo holds reduced.

I was hoping you would get rid of the mass penalty all together and replace it with a MWD/AB thrust penalty. Non-Attack Gallente and Amarr ships have the worst agility of their respective classes (usually) anyway, and the additional mass penalty just further emphasises this. I also feel that having different penalties across different rigs and modules makes it more confusing for new players.

• With shield Extenders and Shield rigs you have a Signature Radius Penalty. (Simple)
• With Armor you have plates which give you added Mass, rigs which will now either slow down your base speed or increase the power-grid of active tanking modules, you then have a further skill to decrease the penalty of mass addition from plates. Mass is very difficult to understand from a new player perspective anyway, aside from us hardcore EFT addicts and veterans, who knows how adding 300,000 mass to a Thorax is going to effect it without looking it up?

The new ASB module for armor tanking looks good, but I feel like it's only solving half the problem. Yes Armor Tanking is in dire need of being more slot efficient because generally speaking Active armor tanking requires more slots to be efficient than shield tanking, this leaves armor tanking with less options to itemize towards damage, damage projection, speed (and the fact that armor rigs, and plates slow them down too). And the new module which essentially means you can get away with only fitting it (1 slot) vs the usual 2 armor repair modules needed to have an acceptable tank. However it doesn't really solve the following issues, which I mostly think are to do with rig balancing.

Trimark and CDFE's are still way too good. Most rigs are about 50% as effective as the appropriate comparable module, for example, resistance rigs give 50% of an active hardener, damage rigs are 50% of a damage module, Auxiliary Thrusters are 50% of an overdrive. while a trimark is 100% of a tech II Energized Armor Layering module. The opportunity cost of not fitting Trimarks/CDFE's is way too high. Why is this a problem for Armor Tanking? It detracts from the options and availability of them itemizing towards damage/speed through rig slots, fitting 2x damage rigs vs 3x trimark (or indeed, CDFE) is at such a heavy loss that it becomes not an option.

Speed rigs also have an Armor penalty which makes fitting them painful for any armor tanking ship looking to cover their weakness, and shield tankers for the most part laugh at the penalty.

I propose the following;

1. Trimarks and CDFE's reduced in effectiveness.
T1: From 15% to 10%
T2: From 20% to 15%
~Resistance rigs are fine since they're stacking penalised. Trimarks and CDFE's would still be the best case rigs to fit if you have more than 2 active hardeners or 1 + Gang Links. It just makes them less powerful and means fitting other rigs doesn't come at such a high opportunity cost.


2. All T1 damage rigs. (Burst Aerator / Collision Accelerator rigs) reduced in Calibration cost from 200 to 150.
~ This change allows 2x damage rigs to be fitted with another rig, for example a optimal range rig, or a tanking/speed rig. This makes itemizing towards damage easier. Note: T2 rigs calibration if fine where it is now and doesn't need to be changed.


3. All Astronautic rigs changed from % armor penalty to % structure penalty.
~ Makes the penalty more universal for both armor/shield tankers. now fitting an auxiliary thruster on your plated Harbinger to cover your bases isn't completely self defeating. Also means they now share the same penalty with Nano-fibres.

In addition to these. (Where I think the main problem lies), I'd like to see the following.
Armor Plates: Mass penalty removed. Replaced with a flat % MWD/AB thrust penalty. If you want to increase the usage of seldom used plates: i.e. 800mm and 50mm, then put a lower flat % on those rigs to make them more attractive, I'd put the % as being about the same speed decrease as what is on TQ right now for fitting a plate to a similar sized ship.
~ Why make this change? First of all I think this makes the penalty and module much more understanding for new players. It's much easier to understand that a plate is going to decrease how much boost you get from a propulsion module by a certain % than it is to understand the penalty of adding mass to your ship, which is different depending on which ship you're flying and can sometimes have other ramifications such as a 1600mm Harbinger not being able to jump through a C1 wormhole that every other BC can etc. . It also means that plates are more accessible for roaming gangs, since there will no longer be an agility penalty, so roaming through space is quicker although flat-line MWD speeds stay about the same so this doesn't make them that much better at damage mitigation with propulsion module active. I also think this makes MWD/Scram setups more accessible for armor tankers, since although they do less damage and advance slower than typical shield tanked mwd/scram setups, they have better damage mitigation if they can get that tight orbit in scram range which having the better agility improves. I've always like the 'sig tank' aspect of armor tanking which made stuff like AHACS work, bringing that aspect to smaller gangs.

This also makes catching ships faster than you easier for veterans flying plated ships, the better agility means you can turn around and 'slingshot' someone into scram range better.

Armor Rigs: Base speed penalty changed to MWD/AB thrust %.
~ This makes armor tanking much more comparable and easier to understand for new players. Now both Armor Plates and the rigs have the same penalty, similar to shield extenders and shield rigs. It also means that while speeds with armor rigs stay about the same, base speed is increased meaning again, armor tankers have slightly better damage mitigation in scram range and adds to that 'sig tanking' aspect.

Better than nothing I suppose. :)

Looks interesting overall. It introduces a broad contrast between Amarr laser (slow, buffer, flexible engagement envelope) and Gallente blaster (fast, active, short engagement envelope) philosophies.

I wish this was off topic, but while you're looking at armor rigs, could you move Salvage Tackles somewhere else, or take off their velocity penalty? Noctis pilots everywhere will thank you.

That's what I am proposing in another thread, except the hull rep thing.

I proposed to reduce the cycle time of medum and large armor reps by 25% and another response I got was to cut the capacitor amount per cycle by 50%.

God I like that idea!

Dear CCP Fozzie,
I like where this is headed but I have some concerns.

Did you take exile boosters into account for the AAR's? But on the other hand, you cannot repair enough armor in the time it gets blow away and because the repair occurs after the cycle was the reason I came up with the idea of reducing the cycle time in the first place.

When do you think, we could get our hands on those on SISI?