Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yep looks like a bonus is not being applied correctly somewhere

Oh, my mistake. I didn't take the base amount from the module in the station. I took it from the base amount when loaded in the ship. I guess I shouldn't test anymore after a silly mistake like that.

We're aware that the Hype, Paladin, Kronos and Vangel, as well as Exile boosters are broken on that Sisi build. All fixed internally.

Don't overbuff armor.

-1 , sure keep shield dominating forever , soon abaddons will go shield tanked.

I don't know if he's so much saying "don't keep fixing armour so it's not clearly inferior" so much as "please don't make armour the way shield is now, the clear winner in most cases", and most certainly: "don't make armour OP."

Probably just a matter of asking CCP to be careful with what they do, rather than accidentally jump into something headfirst and release a module even MORE OP than the ASB's were. Those were bad enough, y'know?

Of course he might be one of those people who has all his skills in shield tanking and wants shields to be better than armour so he doesn't even need to think about training other tanking skills for any reason whatsoever. *shrugs* You never know who you're dealing with on these forums.

Oh how I would love perfect balance. But that's a tough thing to do. I don't mind if they overpower armour a bit. I just don't want them jumping in and rather than just making it stronger than shield, they make it so the only feasible option is armour tanking. Sure, armour tanking is inferior right now. Sure, there aren't a lot of reasons to armour tank (though some do exist, including AHAC fleets, slowcats, Archons in general, etc.) but what I don't want to see is a day of Armour tanking where there is literally no reason at all to fly shields, not even that you have better skills because a 10 minute train in armour makes it so clearly a better choice than shield.

I do want balance, and if they make armour too strong in the process I'm willing to live with it. But varying degrees of too strong. "Oops, shield is inferior" versus "Oops, armour BS's can now fit 4 million EHP with a 4 slot tank while moving as fast as shield BS's".

I am of Amarr and don't fly anything but Amarr/Khanid and I too feel the love, so it is not just the designer-turd flying population it is meant for but rather the *shock* armour population. Resist bonus will lose out to the straight rep bonus in the short term, but has benefits beyond and Amarr hulls generally have better capacitors and slightly more base armour.

Don't underestimate the effect of lowered fittings on MAR/LAR, will still require sacrifices but only the one child and not the whole family .. having 'proper' gear, even if downsized, in all slots instead of having to top up with fitting rigs/modules is huge!
Only thing I would like to see is fitting for buffer modules being ramped up, especially now that their penalties are being reduced, buffering will still be the best option in most situations as neuting is omni-present (AAR cap dependent) and armour ships generally need their cap to bite peoples faces off .... a +25-50% to plate fitting requirements would suffice, 1600's still more than viable on BCs but not on cruisers (without sacrifice). It is one thing to make active viable, but making people abandon what is more often than not the better option is a whole other can.

I've left this sitting for a while but i have some comments and questions i'd like to address:

AAR’s – I felt at first this was a little un-inventive, but the separation of PVE and PVP is something many MMO’s are scared to do - and Ancillary modules do this in a way that makes sense. However there are several issues with this. The first of which is something CCP cannot change, but still the player base is restricted to.

Cap boosters Vs.Nanite Paste: On XL -shield and L-armor, large AAR cost twice as much isk per cycle (paste is 20k per unit x 10, navy boosters are 100k per unit x1). This means 2 things:

1. It’s MUCH more expensive to run an AAR and
2. The lack of ‘Navy Paste’ means that either large AAR’s have a disadvantage over XL-ASB’s or, if you are balancing these rep amounts against *assumed* navy cap boosters, small AAR’s have an advantage over small ASB’s (there is no navy 25 booster). Does this make any sense?

With that in mind, I’ll simply say: Don’t complicate things just because you want armour and shield to be distinct. Balance is more important than distinction as long as things are not homogenised… which is not an issue with these 2 modules. Make AAR’s use cap boosters until you have a better way of fuelling them without these issue arising.

ASB’s are amazing, although they offer good ‘burst tank’ they do not give more EHP in their first cycle than shield extenders/resists. The 2 advantages they instead offer are:

1. Lower sig radius.
2. Zero capacitor cost.

By making AAR’s using cap AND charges, you are pre-nerfing them. Amarr especially suffer from large cap issues as well as being generally quite heavy and slow. The AAR solves the speed issue by replacing plates with an ancillary module, but ANY cap cost is too severe versus a plated tank. Most Amarr ships struggle to be cap stable using guns never mind anything else. This necessitates the use of a cap booster, which defeats the primary benefit of a fuelled booster.

Neut pressure is a huge deal also. Most plated, totally passive ships fit a cap booster just to let them fire guns under neut pressure. AAR’s are just a way of getting delayed EHP under light to moderate incoming DPS so they really are just ‘plates but in a different way’. The benefit of an AAR is that you don’t lose speed, the benefit of a plate is that you can’t be alpha’d as easily. Adding cap use to the AAR just makes it not worth fitting on most ships that don’t already fit an active repper. Yes, I’m sure 1 large AAR and 2 normal LAR II’s on a tri-rep, dual cap injected hyperon will r0x0r, but on ships such as the Omen/Zealot or Deimos they still will prefer a plate or simply a passive shield tank.

Honestly… remove the cap usage. Beginning of cycle versus end of cycle HP gains balances out the AAR’s superior cap viability when out of charges when measured against the lower cap efficiency but higher EHP gain of the ASB when out of charges.

On another note: The rig changes are excellent.

armor is still superior for pvp fleets as it has much higher EHP yealds then shield and saved mids for prop and tackle and/or cap boosters, whilst shield needed ancil booster to minimize the amound of tank slots they lost while also beign able to fit prop and tackle.