Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I am awaiting the contract with all of your stuff

While you're checking out modules, take a look at the faction medium armor reps. Some of them offer nothing more then easier fitting over t2, and some of them are actually worse (republic fleet i'm looking at you.) Give the underdogs better cap efficiency or lower fitting or something to make them worth existing.

dont forget the other aspects of shield boosters. A X-Large T2 booster only gets 600 hp for 400GJ while a T2 Large Armor Repairer get 800 hp and 400GJ.

Armor has 1.5 cap/hp ratio while shields have 2.0.

And if your going to compare an ASB to anything do it against the AAR:


The Large Ancillary Armor Repairer does 1350hp for 400GJ (assuming nanites loaded) and does it for 8 cycles (120 seconds)

The X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster does 980hp for 0GJ (again assuming cap charges loaded) and using cap booster 400 does it for 7 cycles (35 seconds)

AAR repairs 10800hp total (90hp/s)
ASB boosts 6860hp total (196hp/s)

So, the shield ship becomes vulnerable within 35 seconds. it's not a matter of 1 being more powerful than the other, it's all reliant on playstyle. armor is more passive and drawn out while shield is quick and fast. With an ASB fit shield ship your hope is to kill the enemy before you run out of cap boosters. With armor, you hope to outlast the enemy and use your utility mid slots to keep him where you need him until he has exhausted his options and is vulnerable.

AS for fittings, it's an opposing situation, Armor needs more PG while shield requires more CPU. Shield fits require more cpu than armor and vice a versa. Along with generally higher resists armor also has the option of the 1600mm plate where shields do not have a similar option.

It's all about playstyle.

But the main reason shields have a X-Large booster is because armor has a 1600mm plate, which gives almost 2x as much hp as Large shield extender.

Are all these changes on SISI now? Am not 100% sure, but it looks like the Ancillary Armor Repairer is worse off than the T2 variant now with nanite paste loaded? At least according to the number in the fitting window.

Wait... armor reppers are weaker than shield boosters so you are nerfing them?

CCP please.

thats sort of the trade off i'm trying to show. ARmor and Shield fits seem to appose each other in function. For every benefit/hinderance Armor has Shield has an opposing one.

Few examples:

Armor

Advantages
Larger buffers (1600mm plates)
Higher base resists (10% racial)
No signature radius penalty
more capacitor efficient repairs
Low slots - extra utility mids
Modules use less CPU

Disadvantages
Mass addition - slower/less agility
No passive recharge
slower repair rate/end of cycle
Low slots - less dps mods
Modules use more PG

Shield

Advantages
Higher agility/speed
Faster active repair
passive recharge
Mid slots - more dps low slots
Modules use less PG

Disadvantages
Smaller buffers
Lower base resists
signature radius penaltys
High Shield boost cap demand
Mid slots - less utility mods
Modules use more CPU

Each one does certain things better than the other and certain things worse. Each has its own penalties and benefits, and for the most part neither of them has a penalty that the other cant match in another form.

And for the most part this is good. Or else we end up with a very homogenized defense systems.

this.

i don't know what's in your mind at CCP, but since january, you are doing crap over crap to eve.

are you trying to kill it (this is a serious question)?

servers are more and more buggy, laggy etc... => you on't give a F

new launcher => doesn't improve anything, made using more than one account a nightmare, and i don't even speak about the bugs

odyssey: increase cost of all the things (ice + BS), delete exploration from the game, introduce **** tones of bugs

and now, you are just doing silly stuff, avoiding to address the really issues, like with this thing.

the whole active tanking need rethinking, not just this (failed) polish

the whole drone need rethinking, not a (failed) polish

the whole UI need rethinking, and some issues adressed, not a failed "we add MORE radial and ignore all the rest (sensor overlay crap anyone?)"
the unified inventory is STILL NOT able to perform as efficiently as the old one!

the ship re balance is not all good and need more look, like for the matars, wtf where you thinking with this missile boats? and the hurricane?

and what about this wasted time breaking things that worked well, like the jump animation, or fixing stuff that no one cares about like hose industrial ships?

the only GOOD thing that happened in those last 6 month: we can finally use drones in lowsec pvp (and i think it was really time to make this, thank you for doing it!)

what we care about:

sensor overlay not really turning off
active tanking unbalance between shield & armor
sound bugs (50% of the time there is no sound at all)
launcher not working (like NEVER working => get rid of it)
jump animation cannot be turned OFF
server not registering some events
gas cloud killing the FPS
fleet boost not always working (not talking about ogb here, just regular fleet / wing /squad boost)
environment hitbox are silly big (stations, roids etc.....)
bring exploration back.

i strongly suggest the next expansion focused on FIXING those things, then we will talk about actually improving / adding content to the game, but first, please fix the mess you did those last 6 month.

thank you

Wow... just wow. I think if I had taken the time to write that... whatever it was, I would at least kept it on topic.

Anyway, I fly solo, armour tanked ships in combat all the time and can honestly say that armour tanking is in the best position it's been in since I can remember. The latest buff is excellent and very welcome. You can now fit a viable kiting armour setup, passive brick, or active tank and not be at the kind of disadvantage you would have been 6-12 months prior.

Shield/Armour should have different pro's and con's, otherwise there's no choice and choice is good.

The only thing I am waiting for is a limit on the number of ASBs, same as AAR. I don't understand why shield can have two fittted and armour only one.

There's lots of pluses and minuses with this change. But I think Fozzie, you need to just go on SIsi and use the compare tool and see what to me is a glaring error on shield boosters.

As you go up in Meta level, by the very nature, there should be a gain of some sort over a lower meta level. Some changes are subtle, but they are always there. But I think with the buffing of certain groups of shield boosters more than others, you've destroyed the balance.

Look at T2 Large Shield Boosters vs Gread Gurista/Caldari Navy ones. Used to be, they repped the same, but the DG/CN ones had easier fitting. That was warranted. After all, CN/DG are 4 meta levels higher than a T2. Now, on Sisi, they still have the same fitting, same cap use, but they rep 26 less than the T2 per cycle. Where has the value gone? I could expect that possibly from a meta 7 or 8 module, but these are meta 9. They should be clearly better and they are not anymore.

I think you may be looking at buffing the less powerful boosters to help balance against the more OP, and more powerful higher meta ones. But be careful you don't destroy the value of your meta system. I would suggest looking at individual cases, and doing a pass to make sure the progression of each size of booster in rep amount, cap use, fitting, and meta level make sense, and tweak individual modules, rather than doing sweeping across the board changes with different percentages.

The additional 15% is to compensate for the loss of resistance bonus form warfare links, with links applied it puts them in the same (or extremely close) position as they were before.