Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we.

Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow.

Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it.
The balance IS IN the risk vs reward.

Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone.

Frustrating.

Nice changes so far!

But here I am still standing by my point that medium and large armor reps need to loose 50% capacitor activation cost and 33% cycle time.

Note here:
A 50% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle is only for the case that the cycle times of medium and large reps go down by 33%.
If not a 25% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle should be fine.

So far I cannot see anything wrong with the capacitor cost and cycle times on small armor reps but correct me if I'm wrong.


A general buff in repair power of shield boosters and armor reps is always welcome since the the amount of damage on the field has increased by a ton.

Proceed

Can't really see why Deadspace Large and X-Large Shield Boosts get a 10% increase. 5 or maybe 7.5 should be more than enough imho.

The 15% on the AAR make the module way more attractive, but I fear that this might even be a little bit too much.

Time will tell.

These are excellent changes, and will really have an impact on active-tanked battleships (as they should). The small and medium Deadspace boosters are super-efficient and don't need any buffs. I honestly don't know what people are complaining about with a nerf...

Yeah, you totally spent a year on farming your Gistum A-type Medium Shield Booster. I have news for you. and it's related to you being bad.

If you're whining because your hilariously OP small/med pithum/gistum(pithi/Gistii) didn't get buffed(they should actually have been nerfed aeons ago) you should just quit this game.

Edit : Make DG/CN boosters 15% aswell, at very least 10%

Why did you not decide to extend the ship bonuses to active tanking to include a bonus to the amount of received remote reps?

I still believe that a bonus such as "+7.5% bonus to local and received armor repair amount per level" will allow these ships to compete better with ships that get bonuses to resistances.

I agree that a bonus to only the local armor repair or shield boost amount will help in shifting around the numbers in a ship statistic if this is the goal of the change, but I do not see how it addresses the source of the problem, which is the competitiveness with other hulls. These ships with bonuses to active tanking will still only be used in small gangs. What makes it worse is that active tanking will become more dominant for small gangs and thereby only destroys the choice and the variety of ships just like the resistance bonuses have destroyed the choice and variety of ships for large fleets. It is like you are dividing the ships into two new roles, one being a small gang role and the other a large fleet role and leaving the players with less choices.

No, and please do not label others as brain dead and stupid, but think about it yourself. You seem to forget or to ignore the meaning of the bonuses with regards to small gang and fleet warfare. Increased resistances lower the amount of incoming damage and so reduces the amount of armor repairs or shield boosts needed. These bonuses further increase the effective hitpoints of a ship, which then gives logistics more time to respond. As such are bonuses to resistances always superior for large fleets.
Bonuses to local reps do nothing similar, but are irrelevant to large fleet fights. Resistance bonuses can work for solo PvP and small gang PvP in a same way as the bonuses to active tanking do, but after the resistance bonuses have previously been lowered to 4% and active tanking now receiving further increases will it polarize the ships only more in that active tanking bonuses become dominant for solo and small gang PvP, whereas resistance bonuses will continue to be the only option for large fleets.
The idea of adding a bonus to the amount of received reps is also rather old and I would like to know from CCP why they have decided against it and to make active local tanks as dominant as is proposed and why they do not want to do anything for fleet fights.
Further, bonuses to active local tanks practically demand that every setup requires either an ASB or an AAR or else it becomes a failfit. These bonuses leave one no choice but to always require an active local tank fitted onto these ships and so destroy the freedom of fitting choices. Boosting these bonuses is making this only worse. Please remember that with resistance bonuses one still has the freedom to decide if one wants to fit an active or a passive tank.
This is why I say that with these bonuses and the newly proposed changes to them will the ships be split into two roles and thereby the choice of ships itself is being dictated by CCP and is not left as a choice to be made by the players.

I am sad capital boosters/reps aren't being touched. I don't think capital reps are in a bad spot to begin with so i understand why they aren't being included now, but I'm just disappointed i cant cackle like a maniac as i face tank a fist of moros in my archon.

Loki/Tengu for sure you can, even with a medium Pithum A-type and "elite pvp skills/implants/booster" you get already 1100 so 4K fitting a large one is not hard already, Proteus/Legion 4k active tank?- no way.

Since you are already at the modules, a few need a helping hand.

The Domination\Republic fleet boosters\armor reppers offer very little in performance gain over the meta 4 or T2 ones. Could you consider to:

A:

Knock off 10-20% of the CPU and power grid requirements for the fitting, to make them more attractive on Cruisers/BCs/HACs and T3 or on thigh BS fittings like the fleet phoon?

or

B:

Reduce her cap use by another 10%, to make them more attractive for a her cap efficiency, similar to gist stuff?

Similar things are true for other domination\republic fleet tanking mods:

Domination Invulnerably Field:

25% to all resists, 34 cpu, 1.3 cap/s

Caldari Navy Invulnerable Field:

37.5% to all resists, 27 cpu, 3.3 cap/s

Suggestion: Give the Domination at least 30% resists and cut down the CPU use to 20-25 points.

Another example are the armor hardeners:

Domination Explosive Armor Hardener(stats are similar for republic fleet):

50% resist, 33 CPU, 0.5 cap/s

Imperial Navy Armor Hardener(stats are similar for the rest):

55% resists 16 CPU, 1.5 cap/s

Suggestion: Give the domination\Republic fleet also 55% and reduce the cpu use to 20-25 points, since CPU is the main reason why faction armor hardeners are used.

The hole line of domination\republic fleet tanking mods needs a few adjustments to become useful compared to the other faction mods. Give the CN\DG boosters the 10%, since they will be not useful with the 5% and tweak the republic fleet\domination modules a bit more in the fitting or cap area.

Also the serpentis reppers could use a little change, in the fitting or cap use department, to make them a more useful option compared to other faction/dead space gear(it is not as bad as with the domi/rf mods but could need a little improvement to make them more a distinctive options instead of just being the cheaper, inferior module).