Ships & Modules

Armor rigs only affect speed. Armor plates affect mass, which apply in two equations.
Signature penalties also apply twice, both when it comes to sensors and weapons.


While we can always debate wether armor should be auto-generated in stations (i don't really care either way): keep in mind that you can usually repair it in station for a symbolic figure. If you are a major cheapskate or if there is no repair shop, another useful habit is having an SAR in your holds to just refit and undock. Obviously, it's a bit of a chore but nothing that should cause these ridiculous concerns or outcries, where regeneration is just thrown as fuel on the fire while being extremely peripheral. There's definately more pressing matters to attend to in the game.

What i'm trying to get at is that for something to be an interesting topic of discussion there need to be an actual and impactful issue to adress. That something is inconvenient is hardly a topic worth superlatives. What is it you simply can't do, that hold direct value, with armor, that would be an overall positive change for the game?

Shield and armor are different in so many inconceivable ways, so unless we can define some major issues that pressingly need to be adressed, just celebrate the differences and train for the things you want to do.

I'm not touching the first two bullets, since those discussions are really a dead horse at this point (AST-to-ASB, PvE to PvP, oversizing active-to-passive, fitting requirements and shield-to-Minmatar, large- and small ship/scale profileration shield-to-armor etc). The grass is never greener. If there is one conclusion we can draw from that whole cesspool, it is that players expecting systems to adapt to their style, rather than adapting their styles to the systems they choose - should have spent more time reading up on the choices before making them, in good old EVE-tradition.

This thread has still left the most important question unanswered:

What exactly is it that "needs fixing" when looking at shield and armor from the general perspective taken by the OP?

In what way is "armor worse than shield" in general, rather than in certain specifics a specific player may value.

Okay, i'll try to respond to that.

The first issue you bring up is exactly what i mentioned in the post above. You are applying general terms to a specific issue. There may be select cases where a certain shield ship can match the tank of an armor ship, but those are exceptions. It's usually a bonused ship matching an unbonused ship (where the bonus fill the gap) or a ship where you can debate it's balance compared to another ship where you can debate it's balance. It doesn't apply in general though, since most shield ships have worse buffers than most armor ships due to module availability and resist-profiles.

Just as the XLSB being a "larger" module than a LAR, as was discussed earlier in this very thread, so is the 1600mm a "larger" module than an LSE; and even though the 1600mm is intended as a "Battleship module" it is being used from BS all the way down to Cruisers. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does apply in general - and where it doesn't apply you are speaking about a very specific situation. Those situations can be okay to discuss balance around, but you can't generalize them and say "armor" and "shield" in general, when you refer to specifics.

No matter from what angle we adress these issues it seems evident that you value speed, at closer ranges, where you apply primary tackle at smaller scale and fire turrets. When you take all those factors in, you have Minmatar. If that is what you like, you should be flying Minmatar. That the other races don't do those vert specifics that you value just as well, does not make the other races bad in general - or doesn't make other forms of tanking bad in general. The same applies to active shield tanks on smaller ships. Minmatar have the tank bonus. You have ASB, Sleipnirs etc., which can be discussed. Just not generalized.


I'm not sure if i even manage to follow the second issue you bring up. Instead of breking it down into "tackle", "EW" and "other utility" (which is mainly a result of this discussion transpiring to the point that we talk about "EW" because of some common reservation that free midslots would be less useful on a larger scale); so we skip over the real reason why midslot utility is often better than lowslot utility: it's active modules.

At smaller scale those mislots are incredibly useful to gain full tackle, since many shield-ships can't gain full tackle and maintain a sufficient tank. Your typical "Vagabond" or "Hurricane" never had webs or scrams, and only specialised small-gang variations of your typical "Drakes" had them. The tackle is also the speed-equalizer, similarly so for an armor-ship as it was for the Drake; some Drakes have/had webs because they had sufficient tank through their bonuses, but lacked sufficient speed and damage application - so they valued that Web. Conversely the Vagabonds had the speed-relatives so it never needed the Web. It's the same logic i apply to various cruiser-sized armor concepts i've flown.

At larger scale you generally have more support-ships that fill more focused roles revolving around tackle and then your midslot utility fall into a second-layer appeal, where they enable you to help your support gain superiority over hostile support (that's where the EW-generalisation come in). The only time this sort of logic does not apply is when you stop attributing a value to rounding off your ship - where you instead build your ship simplisticly to just do select things and completely rely on others to perform other actions for you. When you expect your own support to manage themselves, or support themselves because there is so much support that they can create redundancy and synergy on their own.

When the effect-control hit the roof like that, similarily to when damage hit the roof, it becomes less valuable. On the other hand, at that point we've reached such scales that other midslots begin to appeal, such as midslot tracking-modifiers, since application has become more valuable than damage as well (and midslots as such become just as important as lowslots to deal damage). The midslots never really ever fall out of style wether it's small-gang personal utility and secondary tackle, medium-gang synergy/redundancy or large gang sensor-accuracy damage-application.

I don't know if i adressed the second issue you raised now. If i misunderstood it - feel free to explain it again.

Or you could, you know ...

Setup a Vexor with 45k ehp, dual prop on top of that, still maintain full tackle, even a medium neut ontop of a 1600mm II and still retain both equivalent projected damage and brawl-damage.


Once again, i think your problem is mindset. I've seen these comments so many times before. It's always the same chatter appearing regarding nano-kiting in general. If you make an argument based on a kiter wiffling around at his point-range, in extended falloff, plicking away at you and him being able to disengage from that position - you need to factor in your own ability to do so too. It's not his exclusive right to disengage, or not engage at all. Logic implies that it's on whoever's in a favourable position to play offensively.

If it's defined as a problem that he can "flee" or doesn't "commit" you need to consider the fact that so can you and not just let yourself be kited around. The only thing he's stopping you from doing is warping. You can simply go back to a gate, he's not stopping you and he's not committing to kill you before you can if he stays in falloff. You can push him off with superior projected damage (that's how slower shielders deal with faster shielders as well). You can seek to reel him in by tactical manoeuvers or you can use any direct tactical counter to his kiting (which is what most solo-esque play amount to anyway). A ship that catches kiters, brawl better and also have an allround performance to deal with other ships at an ease of access simply wouldn't be balanced. It's why the Loki costs 500m.

I could use said Vexor to employ any of those reactions, yet not with bonused webs. I can jump out and warp off. I can jump out and try to get him as he comes in. I can crawl the gate and plick back at him with my superior tank. I can have a set of web-drones, surprise him with those and just replace them if my tackle lands. None of them are fool-proof in another Cruiser of course. He could see your drones, soil his drawers and warp off. If you want to prevent that, maybe you should pick a ship that specializes in secondary tackle.

In fact, you have such a tanking advantage on him that you could probably commit once (agress eg., your drones) to attempt catching him and still disengage (or force him to disengage) in time if it fails. Then whatever you have done is not in any way different than what he's achieved.

It's just odd discussing "shield balance" based on "solo kiting" from a scenario of another player not commiting to kill you efficiently where you absolutely demand that you should be able to reliably catch and kill them. Don't let yourself be kited.

I'm sorry if i don't subscribe to the idea of "small scale PvP" as hanging out in a single system, deciding beforehand to meet another player in a belt and banning half the game's useful ships and modules.

Small scale PvP, for me, extend well up into numbers of 10-15 and involve ships like Curses, Lokis and Arazus that can quickly force a half-committed gang to either commit or bleed.

Incidentally, that's much of the reason why nano-kiting has lost popularity even in the small-scale (or ~squadron) bracket, down to it's lower echelons and solo-pair play.


I belive there are alot of shield-capital pilots out there who would like to have a word with you...

... of course, i consider them just as ridiculous as the armor-mongerers in this thread.


The truth is much closer to: everything can stand at all scales, yet shield is more popular among smaller groups running disengagement and armor is more popular among larger groups running commitment. Note: popularity, not performance.

It will help not to compare shield and armor modules directly. Have you forgotten that shield ships don't have as much PG as their armor counterparts?

As opposed to an AC Rupture that also has more lows and armor? Heck, on BC levels even the amarr do it with the Harbringer, getting a lot better optimal than the cane it "copies".

The "problem" could be, that stacking damage... simply works.
Bring a few guys, have one tackle and maybe web on the primary (and perhaps secondary), and what more do you need?

There isn't that much incentive to go for an armor tank (Archon and the like witheld), unless you really really want to use EWAR, while apparently there is with shields.

I think that a reduction of the grid requirements on medium reppers as well as the 7.5% boost per level bonus changed to 10% per level on all hulls with active armor bonus would be a good start. I also strongly feel that medium cap booster "capacity" should be increased to allow for 2x navy 800 boosters to bit fit into a t2 med cap booster. Currently 1 med cap booster with 800 charges is not even enough to run a dual rep tank.

1.
But it isn't, that's your problem. The Vexor had both 25% more conventional tank, and an AB, compared to a dual-LSE/invul Caracal. To DP your Caracal you either give up hitpoints, resists or point. That is worth keeping in mind, as those are pretty essential slots. If there's any "myth" then it is that armor would be cripplingly slow or that mid/bay utility slots are not useful. Those are myths, especially once you factor in active modules and the existance of heat.

You used a poor example to suit your claim and then you began talking about the shield-ship disengaging, so you opened up that discussion as well. I gave you a better example when i answered you.

Even the Omen from your example would be "kited" by the shield-ship in your solo scenario, within it's optimal where it has a superior tank and effective firepower. The Vexor in my example doesn't match optimals, but has it's own ways to deal with the situation as i laid out in my last post.

Asking to have superior tank, firepower and control at all times, is simply asking too much: Especially in the cases where you have the utility to do something about the control, at times (as the Vexor do, which the Omen admittedly doesn't really do in the same sense with it's three mids and cap-hungry weapons). The Omen have other appeals than solo play though, while the Arbitrator do not have the same issues with availability of mids and capacitor, and presents a much better example if solo is what you aim to do. The principle still stands though, even the Omen can deal with any common AC or missile buffer shielder kiting them by better projection-buffer up to the 24km mark the shielder kite from. Wanting both that - and - better speed to maintain point to follow a kiter around a grid, is just greedy.

If you'd rather have inferior tank, but superior damage potential and control through speed - to float around holding points and disengaging - then you should be flying shield, and in most cases Minmatar (since Caldari would either not be utilizing it's range, or just be at a shorter range to begin with - at slower speeds), because that is what they do. Once you begin to factor in support-ships that enable the shielders to kite at higher distance, you must also factor in support-ships that enable armors to tackle at distance. You can do both and still call it small scale.


2.
The AAR balance to AST was always based around the ideal to fit multiple AAR in relation to AST+BAmps. Assuming a similar relation to exist for buffers, shield ships should in general have an abundance of tank-slots, which given the nature of active midslots, is the opposite.

ASB, of course, is another beast - with it's own pony show. However, the above is the reason ASB got introduced.

Most complaints about active armor have arisen in relation to ASB being slotted left and right as a utility tank - because it's alot of utility from a single slot. This is especially in regard to smaller ships with a fewer amount of slots where you don't dedicate yourself to tank. What you should do instead is looking at how the bonused ships fare - and you will see that they are still quite useful. ASB is definately an issue all the way up to BS (you could, for example, see ASB-Kronos and ASB-Vindi in the New Eden Open), but it's not like active Myrms, Hypes or Sacris are bad at their niche: even with ASB in the picture! AST never had as much appeal as utility tank, and still don't.

The whole XLSB to 1600mm argument thus become somewhat ridiculous since XLSB hardly see any profileration in the game whereas 1600mm is proven and quite useful all the way down to Tech I Cruisers.

Maybe i've missed some awesome XLSB Cruiser setups out there wreaking havoc. That ASB still need some tweaking is something i belive most of us agree on, so that too is a moot issue by now.

Still, whatever remarks are given here regarding small armor (which seems limited to solo-pair armor within a duel culture where leaving grid is frowned upon) somehow mistakenly attributed to a greater picture, equally so are remarks given at larger scale with larger ships regarding shield in the specifics of large-fleet projection-buffer and armor-support (even though that seems to be more popular in total): That makes me think the whole armor-shield balance is pretty reasonable overall, and nothing to cause such commotion about on the forums because your armor-ship doesn't do precisely what you want it to within the very limited environment you want to use it in (small "nano shield tactics", with armor ships).

As as been stated numerous times before. W/o a 10% per level to repper bonus, the 5% per level to resistance will be essentially superior in almost every situation. At level 5 the difference between a ship with 7.5% to rep and 5% to resistances is about 3% in active tank, however the ship with resistances has far more ehp and has the "versatility" advantage being able to field both active and buffer tanks very effectively via bonus. This is the fundamental reason that the 7.5% per level active bonus is not sufficient.

Just a worthless comment:
These are two separate topics though, one saying active tank % hull bonus needs a boost to properly out-perform the passive, the other about how it doesn't help at all make the majority of ships' (ones lacking such bonus) local armor tank better (which they are probably in need of).

Considering that for any repper you could fit a plate instead without any capacitor cost (but increased mass)...
Small repper vs plate 50:
Plate costs about no PG, gives 300 health, repper gives 80 HP per cycle, needs to run 2 cycles to give more HP and even then you pay for it with PG and Cap.
SARII vs 100 plate: plate costs more CPU, repper needs 4 cycles to give more EHP at a cost of cap, freeing up 4 cpu

MAR II vs 800 tungsten: one costs a bit more CPU, the other PG, repper does 320/9, plate gives 2100 HP.
7 cycles to get more EHP, which is a whooping 56 seconds and 60% of the cap reserve of a Thorax (with no MWD fit).

LAR II vs 1600: plate is 3/5th of the CPU, 1/4th of the PG cost (!!!), 800hp/11,25sec as opposed to 4800 hp.
6 full cycles, which is well over a minute, and also consuming 1/3rd of a Domi's cap (without recharge).

What exactly would keeping the rep/sec and rep/cap while cutting the cycle time in half achieve?
It would maaaybe help on an armor tanked frig getting Large NOS-ed I suppose, more cycles before cap goes empty, assuming the regen is crazy enough, but you said 10 secons, so not this case at all, but one of those one minute timers...


TL;DR:
If you die before your first repper cycle goes off, it wouldn't have saved you anyways, now would it?
(Non-ASB) Reppers are a long-term plan (with a backup plan - probably - needed for cap). Staying power is right.