Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It does stack - with the damage control - something every gallente ship and the huge majority of others fit as standard. So no, it doesn't even give the full 15/15/15/15 people keep quoting

Thanks Fozzie, after all of the feedback on this thread a post like this proves that you really are listening and that you value customer feedback. Excellent.

One quick point. I don't understand why armour has a PG requirement at all. After all it's just welding plates to an already existant hull, it's not like it's energised or anything, but just adding more buffer (it's a different argument for EANM's etc). Also armour realistically shouldn't affect top speed so speed penalities should not apply. Armour adds mass understandably enough but this should only affect acceleration and inertia/agility etc not final velocity. An acceleration penalty can still be significant in pvp so I'd like to suggest this instead.

Also why aren't armarr ships really fragile in the hull. I envisage a really simple, stripped down hull with less EHP being built on the assumption that it will soon be fitted with vast amounts of Armour, thus armarr ships should be just as fast as their traditional enemies the Minmatar with the hulls standard armour and plates fitted. Gallente are the traditional race for hull tanking which indicated more structure inside the hull and as such a heavier hull that will accelerate more slowly than those of other races etc. If we extend this principle to the Caldari and Minmatar then both races ships will be really agile and effective (for shield tankers) which is exactly how their are described as being in the official eve canon/wikki and backstory etc.

Just my thoughts.

Also I've always thought that ship's should work best as their designers intended with racially compatible technology . For example amarr are supposed to be the best at armour tanking (or they were when I started) and firing lasers. Yet all I see is amarr ships firing minmater projectiles whilst gallente fly around tanking sheild and use nos/neuts instead of rails/blasters and drones.

The only race that tends to stay true to form is the Caldari because hybrids/missiles/shield tank and light drone use represents the most sensible choices for their hulls. The same principles should apply to all racial designs.

I love the fact that eve is a mixed up world and these things are possible, they might even give you an edge if you really know what you are doing but it's a bit backward. Incompatible technologies should be penalised in some way or another so that it doesn't really work for you if it's not your ship designers tech. It's a bit like sticking Japanese guns on a US warship in WW2. It's possible, it might even improve performance, but really it's unthinkable.

Also, the cap bonus to armarr ships counts for nothing when you are up against an enemy that doesn't use cap, which these days is most of them.

In case it has not been suggested yet
resists rigs should also be moved to power grid penalty they are currently rarely used and that would be just the thing to make them useful

Yes, and good luck running your 3-rep ship cap-stable.

Does anyone else get the feeling that the speed penalty changing to the PG penalty, is like getting out of the frying pan into the fire?

It's massively better than speed penalty in burst tanking, but yes, it will cause problems.

Still the PG needs of medium and large reppers are ridiculously out of whack compared with their repping amount.

If the incredibly low base rep amount, yes- the core, origin and reason of every whine about active armor tanking is not fixed, then maybe balance the fitting so that people can start flying dual LAR Myrmidons? Or nerf oversizing shields.

90 hp/s.

That's the raw "power" of LAAR + Heavy Capacitor Booster II.
Two slots, both a low and mid.
3925 PG. Battleship size module.
Hard limit of 1 per ship.
Can be neuted out.

196 hp/s.

That's what you get with a single mid slot and 500 PG if you go shield. Twice as good, almost eight times easier to fit. Fit as many as you like. Cruiser size module. Cap immune.

Now it's up to you to decide what is the correct measure of balance:

ASB rep amount
LAR rep amount
ASB fitting
LAR fitting

but something has to change, the relative balance is just too bizarrely out of whack.

My suggestion would be to fix:

- ASB fitting so that oversizing is not possible
- Lift the base rep amount of all ASBs and armor reppers (so that < 3 appropriate sized mods are actually viable on current TQ)
- Decrease cycle time of armor reps because the repping happens at the end of cycle
- Decrease cap usage of armor mods *
- Then base the AARs on these stats because 2.25 times way too little != enough

* damage reduction if opting for armor tank is two-fold; you need to downgrade guns, and you can't fit dmg mods. So why shouldn't there be a concrete advantage then in the form of more efficient reps?

In the end, AAR really does not fix any of the core issues. It simply accepts the core issue - armor reps rep too little, and tries to work around it by turning one module into 1.68 modules for 8 cycles. Active armor hull bonuses are left as they are, barely better in their niche than universally good resist bonuses. Cool, we'll take this if that's the only option, but what we still have is lower damage with less reps if we opt for active armor tank instead of shields.

Great post mate and points out the issues quite nicely. Couldn't agree more tbh.

Edit: So as the AAR is based on rep amounts from the t1 reppers, when compared to officer reps, the gap must be vastly reduced.

That isn't really a problem. It only looks that way if you look at the 7.5% rep or 5% resist bonus without paying attention to the ship hulls.

Most ships with a 5% resist bonus are not that good for active tanking because they happen to be laser ships with at most 3 mids and cap hungry weapons. They can do it, but then have to deal with severe cap issues. The exception are Khanid ships, which have have low dps to compensate for their extraordinary defenses.

In practice, the ships with a 7.5% rep bonus are already the best at active tanking, and the ships with a 5% resist bonus cannot compete with them except for Khanid ships, which have other downsides.

The Prophecy isn't technically a Khanid ship but has the same limitation of low dps.

So in your opinion dual rep Abaddons are making Hyperions obsolete? Have you ever even seen a dual rep Abaddon?

As for the Prophecy, it's basically a T1 Khanid ship just with drones instead HAMs. They are designed to be great tanks both buffer and active tank fit. The downside is low dps, so they have problems breaking other active tanks.

This fear that ships with 5% resists per level are making dedicated active tanking ships with a 7.5% rep bonus obsolete isn't justified in practice.