Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The HP/GJ/S ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers
(Repair Systems V)

Small Armor Repairer II 40GJ 80HP 6s = .4444HP/GJ/s
Medium Armor Repairer II 160GJ 320 HP 12s = .2222HP/GJ/s
Large Armor Repairer II 400GJ 800HP 15s = .1777HP/GJ/s


This is a steep change from small to medium, and not much of a change from medium to large. This should be looked at before introducing new modules into the Armor Tanking system.

A quick look at shield boosters HP/GJ/second
Small Shield Booster 20GJ 30HP 2s = .75HP/GJ/s
Medium Shield Booster 60GJ 90HP 3s = .5HP/GJ/s
Large Shield Booster 160GJ 240HP 4s = .375HP/GJ/s
X-Large Shield Booster 400GJ 600HP 5s = .3HP/GJ/s
This is a nice step from small to X-large

Then I don't think you've understood the AAR.

Take a dual rep setup. You can tank 2 reps worth of hp of whatever size rep for as long as you have cap (determined by the cap boosters you hold)

Take the dual AAR and normal rep setup. You can tank 1.75 reps worth of hp of whatever size rep for as long as you have cap (determined by the cap boosters you hold). Additionally you can tank an extra 1.5 reps worth of tank each time you activate the burst , and this can be done for 7 cycles, 9 with navy charges.

So, you lose 0.25 reps/cycle but gain 9x1.5 = 13.5reps over a 9 cycle period. You then lose 60 seconds of rep whilst you

1. fall back to a 1 rep if reload disables the rep

For a small rep with a cycle time 4.5s you lose (60 / 4.5)=13.3 cycles versus a gain of 13.5 cycles for a net gain of 0.2 cycles with an AAR in place of a standard rep

For a medium this is (60 / 9)=6.7 lost versus a gain of 13.5 cycles for a net gain of 6.8 cycles

For a large this is (60 / 11.25)=5.3 cycles lost versus a gain of 13.5 cycles for a net gain of 8.2 cycles.

; or

2. fall back to 1.75 reps whilst it reloads if it remains active whilst reloading.

For a small rep with a fast cycle time of 4.5s this means you lose (60 (reload time) / 4.5 (cycle time))*.25 = 3,3 reps equivalent, but you gain 13.5 reps equivalent for a net gain of 10.2 reps over the whole use-and-reload cycle.

For a medium this is (60 / 9)*.25=1.7 lost vs 13.5 gain for net gain of 11.8 cycles

For a large this is (60 / 11.25)*.25=1.3 lost versus 13.5 gain for net gain of 12.2 cycles

Under no circumstance at all does the dual rep ever match the AAR/standard rep for how much repair can be done throughout the whole use and reload cycle. Combine this with the cargo holds being increased to specifically cater for the possible introduction of this mod and you're left with the state I described where this will ALWAYS be the first rep you fit, there is never any reason to do otherwise.

I don't really know how CCP comes up with the fitting requirements, but the large armor rep really does have excessively high fitting requirements.

Ironically I think it was done to prevent cruisers from using them.

T2 armor reps have an efficiency of 2 armor/cap.

T2 shield booster plus T2 amp has an efficiency of 2.26 shield/cap.

As I said, not a major difference. I don't know what kind of math you're using if armor reps come out as "horribly inefficient" for you.

Cap efficiency per second is a nonsensical concept.

Oh, then why is the Cap free ASB so popular?

The armor one has some potential IMO but not as it is right now, like others have said before, it should use nanite repair paste to supercharge the repairer.

The ASB could be fixed if it was a standard booster that could load cap boosters to negate the cap, everything else should be the same as a standard booster of the same size.

ASB and AAB both need to go back to the drawing board for how they operate.

The initial idea is sound. One of the biggest problems for armor tanking is that you cannot allow a permanant active tank to handle more DPS than can be dished out, or else no one ever dies. Burst tanking solves that by allowing an active fit that is useful in PvE, with the flexability of a competitive PvP tank as long as your boost charges last. When I first saw the ASB I had high hopes that it was a step in the right direction to getting carebears into ships that could both accomplish mission running and not be forced to hide or dock because a hostile PC showed up.

I think the better solution is to make them both repair boosters instead of repair modules in their own right. Inactive, they could provide a small boost bonus, such as 10% more sheild boost for the ASB and perhaps something like 5% of the repair amount of an Armor repper as passive regen every 10 seconds.

Once Activated, they would provide additional benefits, such as reducing the cap use of the active modules to zero, and a large boost to repair amount for the shield rep, and a massive reduction in cycle time for armor reps.

Splitting them off into seperate modules like that allows for better balancing of their benefits. The cycle times of the Ancilliary modules could be tailored to the needs of the burst tanking concept without destroying the balance of the active tank modules themselves. Limiting them to one per ship would enforce the burst part of burst tanking without leaving the ship itself without a tank at all in reload. Allowing them to be overheated seperatly from the active repair module allows for more flexability in how you tank and in the effects that can be built into the modules---imagine if overheating the Ancillary module would slow the cycle down, extending the burst period at the risk of burning the boost out completly, but leaving the Active modules operating normally.

It still takes Large Shield Booster 60-70 seconds to catch up to Large Ancillary Shield Booster (if you let both run all the time, witch you shouldnt, so realistically even more) and by that time the fight could be over. Also Large Shield Boosters drain a lot of cap and will eat BC capacitor by themselves in 2 min, and even fitting Capacitor Batteries wont make them stable or able to run for longer periods of time without burning the ships capacitor, and also they can be completely shut down by neut.

Also the fitting and skill requirements are just silly, Shield Operation II, 100cpu and 150pg, much less than just Large Shield Booster not counting Capacitor Booster.

And dont forget, you can fit two of them. They are op. Needed to make active shield tanking viable in pvp, but with current stats just too powerful.

QFT

Unit is HP/(GJ.s) ; GJ.s don't make any sense. That does not represent any real thing.

Armor repair is more cap efficient than shield boost but shield boost have a better burst than armor repair ; mixing those two caracteristics to artifiacialy show one type of tank better than the other is rather dishonnest infact, because that rely on the weight you give to burst versus cap efficiency, which can only be arbitrary.

These change are awesome, and some people should really think about them all. Buffer armor will still be brick, but less than before. And hopefuly, lighter armor buffer will now have a reason to live. But above all, this AAR will be amazing : alowing for effective mix tank (AAR+buffer) or usable active tank (with AAR+AR) or the old pure active tank, and without killing your speed, and more importantly, freeing you a low slots (and maybe a med slot : less armor reper mean less cap needed ; and as the AAR will run for a little more than one minute, you don't need more than that of cap life before being cap stable again).

These changes will open countless possibilities for many ships, and allow to use signature AND tank at the same time !

That is so huge it will be hard to tell where that will lead us before some times, though most concerns should be fixed with that : active armor can use less slot ; active armor will be 17% faster ; buffer will be 25% more agile ; and smaller plates may become useful !