Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yeah, the base amount is being reduced 20%. So lets imagine that the base mass is 100. So now the base mass is 80 instead. Only now does the skill come into play. Apply the skill to the base mass of 80, giving a 25% reduction of mass on a base 80 mass, and you remove 1/4th of 80, being 20. So now the mass is 60. 60 is 60% of 100. Overall reduction of 40%.


*no units of mass were used, nor actual values.

Shield burst is still SOO much better than armor burst...

AAR with base skills/stats equals 90/hps (can only fit ONE)
ASB with base skills/stats equals 196/hps (and can fit more than one)

Armor's Rep rigs, only 15% bonus with PG penalty (t1)

Shield Boost amp, 30% with no penalty. (t1)

And i like how you (CCP) used T1 reppers to compare the stats of the AAR with, when, in reality, most armor pilots use T2 reppers, so your new shiney module is almost 1/2 as effective dry, and ONLY 1.6x(not 2.25) better loaded)

Also, if for whatever reason someone has dual-rep-rig'd their dual rep armor (because thats the only way to match hp/s with a active shield tank) ship, they will actually LOSE PG...umm, what?

Add to this the fact shields passive regen, and how do you claim this is now balanced?

Translation:
If you can't make something balanced, don't complain if others can't as well.


If the ASB was limited to one per ship and not (double!) oversizable, I'd even see a chance of tweaking stats for balance.

When the module that is usually fit in multitudes has a new variation introduced that's limited to one per ship,
while the other that's doing a fair job without another of it's kind is NOT, I don't quite see the point in looking for balance.

Speed penalty to PG drain is awesome, agreed. I like the idea of the way the AARs are set up though, and I agree with Fozzies sentiments regarding it. Maybe needs a bit of work though; unfortunately, SiSi doesn't like my PC, so can't test.

Small nitpick: "Armor Boost Amps" are rigs.
With the good side of not taking up the tankslots, and the downside of taking up rig slots, being limited in choice (no faction/deadspace for a really notable increase in efficiency).


In my eyes, for missions, the problem is rather how good faction invuln and deadspace repair modules are.
Plus, how I have 7 lows on my Navy Domi for DDA+TE+MagStab, why would I ruin that with an armor tank?
(Replace Domi with Mach and DDA+MagStab with Gyro if you wish)

I have often wondered, as armour is supposed to be about longevity and shield more about burst tanking, how is it that thre is a skill to make shield tanking easier on Cap usage but there is nothing to assist armour. "Shield Compensation" can reduce the cap usage of a shield booster by up to 10%. In contrast, repair systems decreaces the cycle time of armour repariers, which is good because it means you can rep more often, but it increases the cap usage of the repairer by the same percentage as it increase the cycle. But, I'm guessing its down to the fact armour reps are more cap efficient than shield boosts:

T1 Armour Repairers rep 1.5 points of armour per 1GJ of cap.
T2 Armour Repairers rep 2.0 points of armour per 1GJ of cap.
AAR modules will rep 3.375 points of armour per 1GJ of cap (for 8 cycles.)

T1 Shield Boosters rep 1.125 points of shields per 1GJ of cap. (1.25 with Shield Compensation 5)
T2 Shield Boosters rep 1.5 points of shields per 1GJ of cap. (1.667 with Shield Compensation 5)

Armour repariers are more efficient than shield boosters, but that goes out the window when you get to an ASB. They rep 2.45 times as much as a T1 Shield Booster while an AAR reps 2.25 times as much as a T1 Armour Reparier. A direct comparisson here shows the following:

A single 5 second cycle from a Medium ASB boosts 146 or 29.2 points per second for 0 cap.
A single 12 second cycle (Based on Repair Systems 0) reps 540 or 45 points per second for 160 or 13.333 cap per second.
or
A single 9 second cycle (Based on Repair Systems 5) reps 540 or 60 points per second for 160 or 17.778 cap per second.

So, all things considered, (like armour ships normally requiring cap for weapons and stuff like that,) they seem pretty balanced.

Except for that issue where you can only ever have 1 AAR on a ship at a time and its almost impossible to oversize it, while ASBs are almost always doubled up and oversized.
Maybe that is an issue for another time, something to look into for the future, but right now I think there is a way to level the playing field a little more.

Reduce the reload time for the AARs. You can only have one and its sucking cap while its running, meanwhile that ASB fitted ship just starts another module while he starts to reload and his cap is unimportant. drop the reload time by 25% or even 50% and the odds start to look a little more even.

And this is coming from a shield tanker.

Should he also use Gist boosters?
They are common enough in recomendations for fits, and unlike a Core, makes or breaks the fit.

And yet T2 is as good as armour tankers can get, whilst shield tankers have the entire deadspace and officer range as options. Spot any imbalances yet? Also 3 rig slots /= 1 medium slot for fittings but to get the same effect that's exactly what you're looking at. Inferior rep, inferior burst rep, inferior rep boosting; armour's still not in a good place- better, but still very poor.

Perhaps it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to make nanos a little bit stronger, to more effectively compare with boost amps.

It so happens that the mathematics for this is already on my spreadsheet, (I am an Indy guy after all, spreadsheets are my bread and butter,):

All the deapspace armour repariers work on the following cap efficiency ratios:
C) 2.2/gj
B) 2.4/gj
A) 2.6/gj
X) 2.8/gj

The only real changes are cap draw and rep amount, which all maintain the same ratio.

Pith boosters:
C) 1.65/gj
B) 1.8/gj
A) 1.935/gj
X) 2.1/gj

Gist boosters: (This is the interesting one)
C) 2.389/gj
B) 2.447/gj
A) 2.5/gj
X) 2.637/gj

Across the board, Armour Repairers are still more efficient, though the gap does close when it comes to deadspace. Maybe its something to look at during the next point release.

I'm not going to bother with officer mods, Considering their value, anyone wanting to use the loot pinata for PvE or even PvP is welcome to the additional benefits and the drawbacks that entails.

There are so many variables that need to be considered when balancing tanking types, its idiotic to say, "Do 'X', sorted, job done!" It just isn't that simple.

Cap efficiency, cycle time, rep amount, fitting requirements, slot layouts, ship stats, etc...
The list goes on and on.

I think the team are doing a good job and the changes they are making are a good start. It's not the end of the journey and Fozzy has made clear that he is well aware of that.

I do think that the AAR works well for its purpose. Given how long it runs, it will stand up against ASBs if given the opportunity. As a rule, to oversize an ASB, you need to gimp your fit pretty badly. There are exceptions, but not many. You can't oversize an AAR, but it reps more for longer than an ASB, given that a large AAR will run for at least 90 seconds without overheating, boosts or rigs altering it. Meanwhile, an XL-ASB will run for 35 seconds with 400's or 45 seconds with navy 400's. I can see a few fits/doctrines maybe taking nicknames like Duracell Bunny...

I still think a reload time on AARs of about 45 seconds would put them at the 'just right' point, given that they are still dependant on cap and are limited to 1 per ship.