Player Features and Ideas Discussion

How does a 3200mm plate help active armour tanking, which seems to be what you're actually claiming to be underpowered? (i'll agree AAR needs some love). Passive armour is better than passive shield in the vast majority of situations partly due to the fact that plates of equivalent size add quite alot more raw HP than their related shield booster and that armour gets a wide variety of fitting options for resists. Also a 3200mm plate would then provide what, 9600 raw HP (at t2)? That's at least double alot of BS base armour for a single mod lol, hell, I could have a good go at armour tanking caldari ships with that much raw boost.

Shield and armor tank can not be the same. I know that extenders less effective then plates. And? Repairers much less effective then boosters. And if we will mention ASBs, fitted on ship with navy cap charges in the cargo....
What wrong with over 9000 armor HPs? People using two 1600 plates. Why not allow them to free one low slot? I remind you that it's expencive with PG and gives penalties.
Add: Agree that armor worse then shield in PvE mainly, but in PvP it is not better then shields. As result - yes,in general shields are better.
PS. I see no reason to flame

armour tankers usually have more EHP than shield tankers .... but at a cost of mobility its fine. passive tank is for PVP
active tanking (PVE mostly). is something that needs developing on the armour side ..
AAR's have 60 second reload time why??? nanites are tiny compared to cap boosters so it should be more like
-10-15 seconds to reload or injection of fresh nanites whilst its still repping at 75%.
- remove limit of 1 AAR
- surely it should repair more frequently and a lot less cap as nanites don't use cap and would repair armour at a consistent rate
- every 2 seconds armour should be repaired

And yes their should be an X-large Shield Extender

Perhaps if one were to decrease the cycle time of armor reppers slightly.. say, by 20%. Decrease cap usage accordingly as well, of course. Maybe possibly a very slight nerf to repaired amount, to offset the new shorter cycle and not make anything overpowered.

As a pilot who frequently flies both active shield and active armor, I must say that most of my frustration with active armor is in how bloody long it takes for the repper to actually do its job. A Medium Shield Booster II cycles in three seconds, whereas a Medium Armor Repairer II takes 12 seconds to cycle. It's also amazing how intensely cap-hungry armor reppers are. Just.. wow.

Also unusual is that shield boosting happens at the front of the cycle whereas armor repairing happens at the end. I'm sure there's some sort of reason for this, although if there is I can't think of it. Mind of course that I'm not suggesting it be changed - it's simply worth pointing out.

For a shield tank, perhaps I'm doing it wrong and bad at building tanks (this is entirely possible) but it seems as though armor tanking consistently takes up more slots than a comparable shield tank does. It's worst at the battleship level: A shield booster, a boost amplifier and two invulns against an armor rep, an ancillary rep and four resists. The reactive armor hardener, while a splendid idea and a magnificent piece of innovative thought, doesn't cut it in its current incarnation and compares poorly against a fully-skilled EANM II. Sure the EANM II only gets up to 25% vs the RAH's 30%, but that's 25% in all four damage types all the time for zero cap cost, compared to the RAH spreading a maximum combined total of 60% across all four (usually meaning you only get above 25% in two if two are near zero) and costing buckets of cap per cycle.

I have Armor Resistance Phasing trained to III (which I felt was really the maximum suitable level) and it costs me 5.1 capacitor/cycle vs a normal hardener's 1.5/cycle.

That sounds like a very good fix for armor reps and I agree without reservation.

Now let's talk about making the Reactive Armor Hardener stop being worse than a passive module - without nerfing the passive module in order to do it.

and why is it one can have 2 asr's but only 1 aar?
run 1 asr while the 2nd is reloading? great idea, why cant we do this with armor?

there are HUGE biases in game towards shields. its sickening when you factor them all in.

they need to be balanced. i think that before you do t2's, pirate ships, drones or even dig in your butts, this should be fixed.
for 10 years this game has been biased towards shield tanks.

i love my armor ships. and for them to be more competitive, and FAIR, this needs fixed.

forget the rest of tiericide
forget any pretty graffix
forget any kewl sounds

fix the armor side of this game.

not better than...but balanced. not advantageous, just equal too.
shield ships loose accessories due to needing tank, we loose damage from needing tank. one shouldnt "out rep" the other.

limit 1 on both.
you can run a normal repper and an ancilliary.
or build a better tank.
drop amount of armor for amount of resists and make due.

the active rep bonus is awesome combined with high resistances.

but we cannot take advantage of it if we are dead due to cycle time.

I really really hope they never consider this, at least in this format (no offense). A % chance to avoid damage will almost never be as good as a % damage reduction for pvp especially if they are the same %. Lets say you stack up to 80% resist all and you have 20k armor/ shield. On a shield tank they need to do 100k damage to you: ~10 max artillery shots to kill you provided you receive no repairs, and if it doesn't all come at once it leaves time to get repairs.

With an 80% chance to miss with armor it looks like this misss...misss....hit...hit dead. 2 ships can effectively one shot you with a 4% chance. While this may not seem like much add in another ship or 2 and you will instantly day often enough you wish you'd have trained shields.

Provided you don't die due to luck and you getting remote reps, after 5 hits you run out of hull and die regardless of reps 8/

Name please any frig, that can be fitted with two medium ARs (i am not asking about AARs obviously) and still be able to fire and fly.
Anyone forgot one more point - after shield goes down there is armor to penetrate, meantime after armor only hull remains. And if you have damage control fitted on the shield tanked ship you also get not the best, but not worse armor resists. Literally you have one more chance with shield tank. As i said before, shield and armor can not be the same, everyone admits that shields are better in PvE. So, people have reasonable position that 3200 will be overpowered in PvP, okey. Meantime active armor tank is far from good situation.
I will be happy with active armor if CCP will bring this changes:
1, Reduce AR cyccle time.
2. Replace existing AR and AAR with combined AR (with all existing meta levels) or remove limitation of 1 AAR per ship atleast.
3. Fix RAH.

With RAH i mean that this module strongly needs meta levels. Let say
- meta1-4 less cap usage, less cycle time
- meta 5 (t2) more cap usage, few more points to the resists (1 or 2 to each)
- faction, deadspace, officer less cap usage, or\and more points, less fitting demands. i think that most powerfull ofiser modules can not have more than 20%

I really don't think we need another plate. Buffer tanks are fine IMO.

In regards to armor tanking. Small armor reppers are also fine. I would even go as far as to say they're better than active shield tanking. However medium armor repairers are terrible and only just work on very limited amount of ships (e.g. Myrm, and even then it needs 3...). Medium armor repairers simply don't scale well in comparison to the damage increase from the previous level of ships. Large armor repairers could do with a slight buff in their cycle and cap time (overall tanking amount I think is fine so they should be adjusted accordingly) but otherwise aren't super duper bad.

So yeah... mediums... get them fixed!