Player Features and Ideas Discussion

got the same problem with Poetic Stanziel, you never know if you either mistunderstood these people or what not

I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P

so many changes its hard to keep up with what to qq about.

i want to qq thats for sure.

When something is OP i dont want to do it. I want to get my ass kicked by it and qq about it.

Well, armor has better repair to capacitor use than shields along with larger repair amount BY A LOT. This is only offset by a longer repair time. And even including that, armor repairers do their job more efficiently than shield boosters. This coupled with stronger base resistances across the board makes for a better active tank. While it may anger some people that they have to activate their repairers earlier since the repair is at the end of the cycle, armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat, that's why it's the most common choice for brawling fleets. Yes you sacrifice agility when armor fitted but that's the trade-off. It's one if the few things shields are better at. Another trade-off is damage modules vs utility slots. Both types of tank will lose some hp/resists if they try to fit the opposing one. Each one has its upsides and downsides but neither is really better than the other at too many things. It's all about the choices you make when you choose what to fly and how to fit it.

Sorry this is only true for burst tanking.

Shield tanking is better for sustained combat not armor, with passive regeneration, faster reps and over time a lower capacitor usage shield tanking wins.

Shield Booster
1 X-Large Shield Booster II
1 Shield Boost Amplifier II
1 Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
1 Core Defense Operational Safeguard I
Will rep 816HP in 4.25s for 342GJ

Armor Repair
2 Large Armor Repairer II
1 Nanobot Accelerator
1 Auxiliary Nano Pump
Will rep 1840HP in 9.5625s for 800GJ

With this it takes 153 seconds for the cycles to equal out. 2 min 33 sec

Shield tanking HP boosted 29,376
Cap Usage 12,312GJ
Number of cycles 36

Armor tanking HP repped 29,440
Cap usage 12,800
Number of cycles 16

With all that said I would like to see armor cap usage reduced as following
Large Armor Repairer II 215GJ
Medium Armor Repairer II 85GJ
Small Armor Repairer II 32GJ

The cycle time and HP amount should not be altered beyond what is happening in this thread.

Nopenopenopenope.jpg

There needs to be more active tanking not affected by neuts, not less. Neuts are far too ubiquitous as it stands, the benefits are just too huge not to slap a neut into every spare high on damn near every ship.

[quote=CCP Fozzie

You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.[/quote]

I'm not sure that this would be the right move. Excluding DG/CN boosters from the buff would actually make them less Cap efficient than T2 or Meta 4 boosters and would mean that their Cap efficiency was only fractionally above Meta 3. Similarly, excluding large and X-large Pith boosters means that the C-Type large or X-large boosters would be less cap efficient than T2.

The reason for this is that large and X-large Pith boosters aren't actually out of step with armour reppers, but actually follow the same pattern of increasing the boost amount by 10% of the boost provided by the equivalent faction booster on each step (Faction to C-Type to B-Type to A-Type) for the same activation cost. The only significant difference being the existence of an X-Type booster for each size for which there is no armour equivalent. Clearly, excluding any part of this chain from a 15% increase in boost amount is going to create some odd overlaps and inconsistencies.

However, the same is not true for small and medium Pith boosters or for any size of Gist booster. For these the gap between the faction boosters and deadspace boosters is huge. For example, small and medium C-Type Pith boosters give almost twice the boost of DG/CN for the same activation cost (albeit with a slightly longer cycle time) and for Gist C-Type the activation cost is significant reduced (up to 33%) whilst the boost amount increases (11%-85%!) compared to the equivalent Domi/RF modules. These are clearly unbalanced.

IMO the correct course of action would therefor be to include faction, large and X-large Pith boosters in the 15% increase to boost amount, but exclude small and medium Pith and all Gist boosters. Ideally, I would also completely overhaul to Gist and small and medium Pith boosters to bring them in line with other local reppers. However, I accept that with so much isk invested in these modules it will be a thankless task and, perhaps, too much to expect on this occasion.

Or you could reduce the cap draw abit on the large & x-large pith boosters.

The issue comes from the +resist everyone says for ages is completely op. Take those 4% per lvl away, problem solved.

Except you failed in reading comprehension.
The T3 has more RAW rep than the BS does. Before taking into account any sig/angular velocity mitigation, i.e. Sit both of them completely still inside frig optimal also sitting still and the T3 Reps more. Meaning it tanks dramatically more once you add in those factors. Now do you understand what the complaint on T3's rep power is?