Player Features and Ideas Discussion

He's not wrong.

True, but this isn't a faction module, and it's a continuous cost. Hence why I wanted to bring it up. I just think it'll be more useful if the charges for it didn't cost 200,000 a cycle, which is vastly more than anything currently on the market, even when counting faction items.

It's up to you. I just wanted to give you my point of view, as I know I'll likely never use it unless it's a super-expensive ship or there's an extremely high need. At least, unless the cost of the charges were made less in some way or another.

And also pretty much the same reaction we had, wasn't it.
(Apart from not mentioning mediums.)

Wait, faction module, or T1 module fueled by faction charges. Kinda like Faction/T2 ammo compared to T1...

Let me try a different approach.
For a BC, the total cost of one load will be under 1M, right?
A BC well fit with meta4-T2 will cost somewhere above 50M (and I'm underestimating).
We were also discussing how a second load is probably not needed, as the fight will be probably over one way or the other. But for the sake of argument, carry a reload's worth extra.
And it's still not *THAT* notable in total cost.

For a BS, your initial investment is over 150M with rigs the least, and 2M per recharging.
Not likely to need several recharges, and still under the cost of a rig.

My expectation is to see off grid boosts addressed and then a revisit to the overheating rig.

Hello All,

I realize this is a little late but I have some interesting (probably already mentioned) ideas.

I think that it is time to retire the active bonuses. This limits the use of the ships in some areas, whereas t1 ships are supposed to be a little more generalized. A raw hp bonus has been mentioned and I think that if it was applied to both shield and armor it would be well balanced.

ie: lose the rep bonus for 10% armor and 5-7.5% shield hp.

The reason the shield ships would get a lower bonus is because the have a regen rate and this bonus would increase that as well. This bonus would give gallente ships, which lack armor, a larger buffer for reps to land while also making them viable for fleets and small gangs as they could fit a smaller plate and get a similar amount of tank as amarr with a larger plate, with more maneuverability.

The minmatar ships affected would also be more useful in a fleet as they would be benefiting from both bonuses as well.

Alongside this, I would hope that armor reps get a 25% increase across the board and shield boosters get 10-15% (except ASB).

This would mean that dual reps on armor boats are slightly better than a single over sized booster, while still not competing when using only one.

I think reducing the fitting costs of a tracking computer or increasing the fitting needs of a tracking enhancer would also benefit this balancing pass.
They give a very similar bonus but one takes twice the cpu and requires cap while a TE gives 3 bonuses even if they are slightly less.

I also think that having two combat battlecruisers is weird. Why not make one a tactical battlecruiser which gets the link role bonus and a tank bonus, while the other ship is pure combat?

Also, what gives with battlecruisers with such a large signature?

I would also like to see astrometric rigs lose their armor penalty and gain a signature penalty.

Also, armor needs more done to it. A shield thorax has more range, dps, speed and tank than a similarly fit armor one. The only thing the armor one gets is two mids. Four pros for shields and only two for armor seems a little unbalanced.

There are a ton of things with broken balance in this game, and yes the balance between high metalevel shield and armor mods is one of them.

However since I can't really commit to any timing for anything beyond next Tuesday I've been trying to focus on discussing the changes we have ready for 1.1.

So yes we know it's a problem, but I can't say anything more without setting unreasonable expectations. It is a completely legitimate concern though and I agree with you that it's a problem.

He's not talking about a faction shield booster. He's talking about the fact that nobody's stupid enough to use standard charges in their ASB's. You used the price of a standard Cap Booster Charge. Nobody uses those except in MASB's (and SASB's, but nobody uses those either). For a full booster of navy 150's/400's the cost is much more comparable. Of course the balance is completely skewed (ASB's OP!) but the fact remains that for a full load the cost is comparable (if still somewhat more expensive for the AARs.)

maybe after next week you can get kil2 to write a nice dev blog about the future of balancing for the spring expansion... tbh i just want to know what his dev name is...

True. I did kinda forget the gap between T2 and Deadspace reps. Shields need to be brought down hard (or - CCP willing - T2 shield, reps and Deadspace reps brought up.)

http://localectomy.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/circles-in-metagame.html

As i read it, we will go through the same problems with AAR's as we had with ASB's. The Incursus with a heated AAR and a heated SAR II, legion boosts (not uncommon) will achieve Godlink levels of tanking - with even LESS reliance on capacitor to run the reps, and be less likeely to be capped by a neutraliser.

This is absolutely ridiculous. The Incursus is already the most tanky frigate in the game by a gigantic margin. The AAR will break this so badly Fozzie should be embarassed.

I am glad the heat rig got dropped. it is a stupid idea. Absolutely stupid, as it would stack with everything else, and escpeciallly on a uber-resist T3 such as a Legion or Proteus, it could get out of hand with AAR + MARII setups - considering the coolant injector subs reduce heat damage.

I like the concept. But there is no balance in this appparent "balancing"pass on Armour - just another cycle of stupid + exploitation + nerf + abandonment.

And yes, ASB's are crap now. i actually went and said it.