Player Features and Ideas Discussion

please think for a bit before posting


Combat viable Hull reps in any form are OP do to the 60+ uniform resist of hull tanks. they are gimped so hard to make sure they will not be viable during a fight

hull tanking is not OP.... but reps will make them op. There is no need to increase their utility in any way and risk EvE finding out how to make it viable

I gave an example. And I never said that remote rep would get all the bonuses, just the fitting one and capacitor usage one for the t2 cruisers.

The range bonus would only apply to the proper reps and being what they are hulls reps could be used to rep up pos modules or other things with large amounts of hull.

The hull reps will cap you out either way and if you would have a newbie who would want to do the rep thing but can only fly Amarr at the time might appreciate the option to fit shield reps instead.

He wouldn't get the proper armor remote rep range bonus but wouldn't wont to kill himself for undocking.

So even if you could actually fit them on a ship that 400 day cycle time and 2hp amount per cycle would still make hull reps a terrible choice to bring into a fight.

I don't think you've done the math on this one correctly. If you're only repairing structures you can absolutely setup a cheap T1 fit that can run hull reppers cap stable (even has room for extra mods if the poor nublet's fitting skills are bad):

[Augoror, test]
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Co-Processor II
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]

Medium Cap Battery II
Medium Cap Battery II
[empty med slot]

Medium Remote Hull Repairer II
Medium Remote Hull Repairer II
Medium Remote Hull Repairer II
Medium Remote Capacitor Transmitter II
Medium Remote Capacitor Transmitter II

Medium Egress Port Maximizer I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I

Also Large Hull Reps would absolutely be viable for tanking if you could run them like normal reps. I've had friends that have done it for a laugh and it's actually pretty viable because it's stupidly easy to get a huge hull buffer and the resist profile is flat by default.

If someone wants to run shield or armor reps they should train into the right Logi ship, not get a half-baked version that no sane FC would ever let undock. A ship shouldn't be bonused for something that's never going to get used, and bonuses shouldn't be added to ships "because why not". Nothing here is a compelling reason for changing any of this, it's just "this is mildly inconvenient".

This is neither really accurate nor fair. The reason we got MWD bonuses of AFs and HACs is because the ships were designed, originally a loooong time ago, to be "T1 but better" but that doesn't fit well into the new design philosophy. The result was that CCP had to make a decision to either give them a bonus that complemented what they were already used for without being OP (what they went with) or invalidate the ships current use and rework them from the ground up which would have seriously pissed off a lot of people.

Understandably they went with option 1 and tried to preserve the current use and skill training as much as possible. The main reason they're not used now is because of other ships that have been introduced since then, not because the MWD sig bonus is worthless or a fundamentally bad idea, fundamentally it's quite powerful it just runs into other issues.



If you're going to do this you may as well just build in a passive regen into structure HP, otherwise you'll get 20 or more of these things deployed around every structure in the game which will just cause lag and other issues.

Plus there's no point in making something specifically for POS modules which are, at some point, being phased out and going away completely.

CCP missed a good opportunity to make hull taking a thing when they b̶u̶f̶f̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶r̶e̶i̶g̶h̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ changed damage controls.

Your idea of all reps getting fitting requirement reduction on all logi only mean you can field ****-tier comp until you can train a "good" racial cruiser to V. Who the hell would let it's fleet with the logi wing with some member fit with ****-tier range reppers when you can tell them to train a cruiser to V and end up with an actually viable range on one of the 2 proper ship?

As for hull rep, they are meant to be unefficient to use in combat. You can make odd fits if you need them out of combat but the "free" 60% flat resist profile and somewhat ridiculous way hull EHP can be fitted for make them not a good candidate for in combat remote repping. If you want it to happen, you would have to be ok with nerfing most hull HP boosting modules and of course a nerf to the DC too.

Long live the wrecking ball... may the anchor forever guide our fleets.

-1... anchoring is boring. Logi with no rep range bonuses means that there is never going to be a hope of a fleet spreading out and actually flying their ships.

Or it means that logi will anchor on their kitey FC with the rest of their kitey fleet and stay safely out of range as usual.

In the case of a brawling fleet, yes they currently have some options for kiting while the DPS brawl, but risk-averse players don't participate in brawling fleets.. too much risk to their precious ship.

OP! OP! OP! That's all I ever hear when the topic of hull logi comes up and I don't believe it for a second. Anything can be made viable and balanced

"The resists are too easily brought up too high"(compared to other tanking forms)
Yes one module can bring hull resists to 60-68 whereas two to three modules would be needed to do this similarly for shield or armor (except if you're T2, where one resist module will average this or higher, or an interdiction cruiser where one resist module will average much higher)

But since when has Hull tanking ever relied upon one module slot? No you need a large buffer hull to make it viable and so would likely have to dedicate just as many, or likely more, ship resources to it as to any other tanking form, and needing a large buffer to make reps viable should not change. Currently the only ships that overly rely upon the damage control module are frigates and destroyers because they often do not have the resources to fit more than a single resist module. But would they be OP by receiving hull reps? Likely not because most simple cannot achieve the high hull HP base that would be required to prevent breaking through reps, except perhaps for a few exceptional ships, which could be re-balanced if need be.

Hull repping should be revamped and a ship hull should exist that gets some hull rep bonuses, even if it is not it's dedicated role or only for fitting requirements. (Maybe best as a pirate hull or special edition ship? or only Frigates?)

Should hull repping be common or preferred? No. Should it be viable? Yes, I think so, and not just for between-combat situations but during them otherwise it doesn't have much real use, and there are a multitude of ways to do it without making remote hull repair modules almost impossible to fit and run in a dedicated manner or overpowered compared to other forms of logi.

Some ways of making it viable could be:
-Make remote Hull reps act like Polarized, removing resists on the repping ship or have the dedicated ship start with zero initial resists
-Make remote hull reps competitively efficient to armor/shield but increase cycle time (double over armor?)
-Or instead of a bulk heal have repairs act as a slow regeneration (Like shields? maybe percentage based?)
-Keep range of remote hull reps short, or have cap usage scale to target distance
-Keep the average repair amount smaller than shield or armor
-Bonus Hull repping only to frigates
-Keep the Hull repping ship expensive (special modules/pirate hull)
-Or keep the Hull repping ship cheap and easily destroyed
-Make overheating of rep modules the only way to compete with other forms

Lots of options exist that could work. Only the will and effort to work towards them remains.