Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Thank you very much for pointing that out, and again, I stick to my original statement, to wit, proper fit.

So, no cap usage reduction for armor repairers? that is quite a problem still.

Nice changes ! A bit sad for ASBs though, it could have been useful to buff them too, but I understand how much pressure people can produce :o

+ Increase the repair amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
+ Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%


I would like to point out that this results in a boost to all local tanking except for the deadspace shield boosters. This is a good thing as we both A) don't get anything nerfed. B) non-deadspace shield boosting as well as armor tanking of the pimped and non-pimped variety becomes more viable.


This is something that has been needed for years, independent of any changes to links. Bravo.

Definatly a lovely buff for solo/small gang pvp, tho sadly also a buff for pve

That's digestible. I would not go beyond that atm though.

I have to join this bandwagon. It doesn't make any sense that shield local reps are far more powerful, require no cap (in ASBs) and can fit larger modules, all taking up one slot.

In order to effectively local armor tank, you need a minimum of two modules (cap booster and repper), and most of the time you have to double or triple rep (which necessitates another cap booster).

I just don't know how reasonable it is to expect that there's going to be scores of adopters for local armor tanking giving these glaring differences. Granted, I am not advocating for homogenizing shield and armor tanking. I am, however, advocating to being provided with the reasoning why I'd use a local armor tank given all the deficiencies. I understand that local armor tanking's "thought" is that you have more sustained tanking potential (for an "over-the-course-of-the-fight" mentality) and with shield you can tank very effectively under burst conditions. I think those differences are great.

But, then, how do you reconcile the fact that a sustained armor tank "over-the-course-of-the-fight" is going to consume FAR much more cap than a shield setup? (This isn't even considering that armor-tanking-focused ships' weapon systems require either the most cap or second most cap (compared to none).) Without some sort of cap reduction, I don't think it's viable to think that local armor reps will be adopted outside the most specialized scenario (bait tanking) or for the random (and RARE) solo encounter. Cap independent, oversized, huge-rep ASB shield setups are going to remain king for local reps. There's a reason you see Brutixes being tanked with an XLASB and Invul over using those 6 lows to take advantage of its hull bonus.

If you aren't running a cap booster on a dual rep Incursus you are doing it wrong.

Usually dual rep Incursus do have a cap booster, problem is not the dual rep incursus, you can always get out from that fight since they don't carry a web.

Single rep Incursus is already very good, it is fast in their class, hits very hard with blasters or rails, and now it tanks like a boss.
I understand that this is just a collateral effect since the buffs to armor reps are very welcome, but I wouldn't be surprised to see way more incursus flying around after the next patch.

And the blue ones know it, that's why they nerfed the ship bonus when SAAR was deployed in game.

I still don't understand why you can fit two (or more) ASB but only one AAR.

Why does the AAR not get a cap use reduction when using paste? (not cap free.. just some kind of reduction?)
I realize the ASB doesn't get as big of a boost compared to the AAR, but to be capless is everything.

Fozzie, do you have future plans to even out the armor/shield tanking disparity? dual XLASB fits on armor rep bonused ships should speak louder than any words I can say. (Myrm/Brutix etc)