These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 1.5

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#481 - 2013-01-22 22:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Addition of new skills and modules
Many people have expressed objections to the addition of new skills and modules to the game rather than rolling all the changes into existing modules. I understand the feeling many people have that skills create a gap between older and new players, but that logic can be applied to any existing skills as well. Skill systems in games like Eve do provide a certain advantage gained over time, but the diminishing returns over levels helps to balance the playing field. I disagree that Armor Upgrades is any more a "must train skill" than any other support skill, and many players will find quickly training it to level 2-3 will get them most of the way to the bonus enjoyed by an older player at a far lower time commitment. Also note that half the plates are receiving mass reductions completely unconnected to the skill.
As for the new module and rig, I agree that in general having fewer modules/ships/features that all work is better than having many that don't. However we feel that these additions open up useful design space by allowing the tanking mechanics to be influenced in different ways. As flawed as it was in many ways I do think the ASB provided a useful service by adding a new line of burst-oriented tanking modules that can be balanced in their own way. Modules built towards burst tanking will be definition overshadow other tanking types in many pvp scenarios, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing as long as sustained tanking systems have their own effective uses in the game. The AAR is a unique mechanic that fills the same general game niche as the ASB while remaining quite different in operation and gameplay. It does put more pressure on cargoholds, however keep in mind that an AAR goes through cap boosters much much slower than an ASB.
Heat is a mechanic that I think has been underutilized over the years by CCP, but I don't want to rely on it as the only method of burst tanking.

Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.

Reducing ganglink bonuses and increasing effectiveness in other ways
As I've said before, this is something we definitely want to do. Links are both too effective in their direct bonuses as well as their ability to be used off-grid. However getting this specific issue fixed is going to need to wait until after 1.1. Once we have the room to implement some changes to the way warfare links work from the ground up, expect changes to a lot of other modules and mechanics to happen at the same time.


The overheating rig
Modules and rigs that interact more explicitly with the heat mechanic are something I think Eve can really use, and I am a big fan of the concept of making synergy with heat part of armor tanking's advantages. The rig as initially proposed would not have served the goal adequately but we're working on retooling it in a more balanced way and I'll bring it back if possible.

1. You COMPLETELY missed the point on adding new modules/skills. If something is broken, you FIX IT. You don't add something new and say "well, this should work instead." This has never been done in the past (it started one or two patches ago) and is absolute ****. You're basically saying you acknowledge that there are issues, but are ignoring them. As for training new skills, I don't care. I have just shy of 110m sp and 3 bonus remaps. In the mean time, you're dicking over new players and bringing the game to a point where you need an absolutely absurd number of support skills to compete. Oh, and when you introduce new skills, you're still not addressing the underlying issues. E.G. here, you're basically admitting that armor plates have way too much added mass, but not fixing it.

Also, the ASB is garbage that should have never been added to the game. If CCP continues this awful trend of ignoring old modules and just spamming new **** everywhere, I'm gone.

2. I hope you're joking with that PG reply. Seriously. One of the underlying issues with armor reppers is how high the fitting reqs are.

3. I'm not particularly stoked about anything involving overheating being used as a method of balancing, making something more viable, etc. It should be a last ditch attempt or something that adds a bit of "oomph", not something that is required to not suck.

I realize I'm coming across a bit rude, but what is the point of these threads if you don't post them until you've obviously made up your mind? And at what point did you say "nah screw it, we'll ignore the core issues, THIS NEW STUFF is how we're going to fix it"?

EDIT: made some edits
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#482 - 2013-01-22 22:29:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie
[u wrote:
Resist Bonus vs Rep Bonus[/u]
The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.


Yes, this would be ideal, but then it would really mean that the module base stats tweaked, no?

Quote:
Differences between Shield and Armor tanking as a whole


The only thing bothering me about sig is MWD bloom, it completely equalizes sig difference between tank types, but leaves the speed drawback. Ok now the speed thing sees some fixes which I think are fine, and armor buffer should stay slow, but maybe interaction with MWD bloom and shield tank could be an area to explore.

Quote:
Addition of new skills and modules
Modules built towards burst tanking will be definition overshadow other tanking types in many pvp scenarios, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing as long as sustained tanking systems have their own effective uses in the game. The AAR is a unique mechanic that fills the same general game niche as the ASB while remaining quite different in operation and gameplay. It does put more pressure on cargoholds, however keep in mind that an AAR goes through cap boosters much much slower than an ASB.
Heat is a mechanic that I think has been underutilized over the years by CCP, but I don't want to rely on it as the only method of burst tanking.


Burst tanking and heat are both awesome mechanics (every mechanic that means more tactical butan pressing is good for pvp) and people have adopted them well, AAR is very interesting module. However I don't think current basic medium and large armor reppers are effective in their use in any meaning of the word.

Quote:
Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.


The PG penalty is the most logical one, but what are the fitting stats for AARs? Medium and large reppers are extremely expensive to fit, also because you always need a cap booster with them, and one repper is never enough. Furthermore the ability to fit larger guns is important, as armor tank means you won't have free slots for dmg mods.


.
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#483 - 2013-01-22 22:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Freighdee Katt
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I don't know if this is possible... but I think the Ancillary Armor repper would be much, much, much better if you could "chose" when to activate the "ancillary" portion...

Essentially, if you could use the rep at 3/4 t1 amount until you activate the ancillary reps to give you a boost to repping when you most want it, rather than just at the beginning of the cycle, it would be a much better module!

This is a good, and probably unconsidered point about the design. The ASB by design is only used when it is charged and then shut down until it is reloaded, so you don't use it at all until you need the burst. This thing though, with its weird "same cap use but gimped rep" normal mode, is something you probably will want to run as a normal rep a lot of the time. The obvious use for this thing is turning the typical dual rep setup into a burst triple-rep, with a somewhat gimped dual rep "normal" mode. And you can't do that with it empty, because it takes 60 seconds to load. So it has to sit there loaded and shut down almost all the time, waiting for when you need the burst rep. It would make some sense if there were a way to run it as a normal rep while it's loaded, and only trigger the burst rep on demand, so you don't have to wait until it is reloading to use it as a gimp normal repper.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#484 - 2013-01-22 22:37:09 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Limiting oversized mods as a way to simplify balancing
I completely agree that limiting more modules to certain ship sizes would make my life easier. :)
However giving people the freedom to be creative with fits is part of what makes Eve so great and I don't want to lose that. It's going to take more work and more time but finding a balance without unnecessarily removing player choice is the ideal we're shooting for.


Paradoxically, allowing oversized mods reduces player choice because the oversized mods end up being the better choice. Choices are only meaningful when it's not obvious which choice is best.


I'd just like to note that there is no fitting freedom with armor reppers, you simply can't oversize the mods on current ships, and undersized reppers are only fitted because armor does not automatically regenerate between fights.

Unlike ASBs. People hate them because every ASB fit uses oversized mods, most of them two. If they would have had realistic fitting costs from the start, no nerf would have been necessary.




.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#485 - 2013-01-22 22:44:24 UTC
Roime wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.


The PG penalty is the most logical one, but what are the fitting stats for AARs? Medium and large reppers are extremely expensive to fit, also because you always need a cap booster with them, and one repper is never enough. Furthermore the ability to fit larger guns is important, as armor tank means you won't have free slots for dmg mods.




medium and especially large armor reppers seriously need there PG use toned down.
if this is done reasonably, then its ok for active armor rigs to amp up the PG use of armor reppers, as it then demands the choice between extra tank and maybe a weapon downgrade or less effective tank and better dmg more grid for other stuff.

how about shield rigs increase the CPU needed for extenders and boosters, instead of messing with the signature?
i always had the feeling, the increase in signature was no real issue, atleast above cruiser size.
to keep things "consistent" with armor rigs, active shield rigs increase CPU use of shield boosters (and maybe hardeners) while passive shield rigs reduce the speed-bonus gained from MWD or AB due to energy diverted from the cap to the shields or stuff.
RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#486 - 2013-01-22 22:47:14 UTC
My main concern with this is the PG penalties.

Good luck fitting ANY dual rep (not AAR) fit (hyperion, myrm etc) with 3x grid penalties from your rig slots... it makes things impossible for ships that are already tight on grid. Not to mention my Kronos is now impossible to fit... and i refuse to use electron blasters full stop.

-Rock.
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#487 - 2013-01-22 22:48:02 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Resist Bonus vs Rep Bonus
There's a couple issues here that I'd like to address.
I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus we ever give T1 ships in fact. That being said ship balance can incorporate bonuses of varying degrees of power as long as the complete ships end up in the right place. The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.
In addition, my comment about the power level of active bonuses applying to remote reps was both unclear and exaggerated which was a mistake on my part. I have absolutely no desire to increase the effectiveness of T2 Logistics ships in fleets beyond their current state, or to push fleet warfare further in the direction of alpha being the only resort for breaking reps. Filling in the lower-end with less powerful repping ships that provide an upgrade path is another story, but I don't want to move beyond the current maximum. The extension of active rep bonuses to remote reps is something I feel would take fleets in the wrong direction, and if anything I am investigating ways to make resist bonuses a bit less powerful in those environments.


You're still missing the problem here. Resist bonuses will stack with every single buff you give to local active tanking that isn't "here, have a bigger ship bonus to repper effectiveness". Because of this, they will continue to be outright better than active tanking bonuses unless you nerf them in some way. For example, if you change the bonus from "stronger base resists" to "better returns from modules that increase resists", you'll suddenly find that those ships' pilots are making a much more significant choice when they decide to go with fewer reppers to fit more resist mods-

-Ahh, who the hell am I kidding? Resist ships can already fit enough resist mods to get to the point where diminishing returns would render more pointless anyways, so they won't HAVE to choose between more resist mods and more reppers. They'll still be able to have their cake and eat it too, especially since they generally have more slots in their tanking slot-type than active tank ships.

Replace resist bonuses with nice, chunky raw HP bonuses. It'll let those ships keep their buffer tank options while not letting them be better at active tanking than the actual active tanking ships. Plus, it'll be a minor stealth nerf to logi shenanigans, since base HP doesn't stack multiplicatively with extra HP from logis like resists do.
WNT TK
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#488 - 2013-01-22 22:48:28 UTC
Well its good to see that significanse of resist bonuses compare to active repping ones is understood. What i dont understand is why would anyone want to go extra mile to balance strong bous against weak one, instead of just swapping it where needed? Also look for instance on Gallente battlecruisers - they would still have 4 hulls with active tanking bonuses? even if one presumes that active tanking ships are as common (and as usefull) as passive tanking ones (which is nowhere near truth imo) - still that does not explain why poor bastards got 4 of them. Why not give half of them 5% bonus on remote repping or on armour amount? That would make them half as usefull as amarrian counterparts, but in my book half as good is much better than "nowhere near" - which describes current situation. Yes, maybe that is the question best asked in bc thread, but i think that before making armor better it may be wise to make all armor balanced, becouse if basement is not leveled - making straight walls would be next to impossible. And while i do like tower in piza as a concept - in balance i'd rather have something like dubai tower.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#489 - 2013-01-22 22:51:03 UTC
They should make it a true Ancillary system. Rather than a repper, make give a boost to a normal repper when not active, and a much larger boost that consumes the charges when active. This way you are not stuck with a dead slot 99% of the time, and you still can have a signifcant burst tank when needed.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#490 - 2013-01-22 22:51:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
for instance the TE and TCs



when is this getting fixed

all you have to do is drop TEs to 7.5% falloff or something
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#491 - 2013-01-22 22:54:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:



Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.


Sure when you run out of power grid, remove 2 guns and you'll be just fine.
Who came up with that stupid idea to get power grid penalty ?

Abaddon will now have to remove 3 guns from high slots so that it has enough powergrid to fit rigs.
Another ccp nerf and very bad idea.
How more stupid can it get ?
Shocked
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#492 - 2013-01-22 23:01:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Thank you all for your valuable feedback!
You're wrong.
I am right.
See you on SISI, my pet beta testers!

Corrected that for you.
So what was the point of this thread, really?
Dzajic
#493 - 2013-01-22 23:16:56 UTC
1. Resist bonuses.

Stronger resist bonuses than existing would be just a boon for logistics and large fleets.
Irrelevant to armor tanking vs buffer tanking debate.

Fact is that people have shown the math over and over that current resist bonuse hulls get active tank some 3% less than active tank bonused ships. Shield is alleviated from this by having ASBs in their entire broken glory.

Let me repeat that, resist bonused hulls get active armor tank a tiny percentage worse tank than active bonused hulls.
While at same time being desirable for fleets, something that active bonsued ships aren't desired for. Changing active tank bonus to resist bonus would make those hulls equally capable of active tank and being fleet ships.

But yes that is bad and homogenizes stuff. So buffing active bonuses above 7.5% could actually make them better at active tank than resist bonused hulls by more than 2.5%

2. Powergrid.

Giving armor tank grid penalty is simply unfair. Only rigs in game that have grid penalty are weapon rigs, and its uniform for all.
All shield tank goes as it is. Armor buffer and resist tank remains as it is.

But active armor tank is now penalized and drains more grid. Thank you very much but I'd like to keep my speed penalties. With proposed changes I can either downgrade guns, downgrade tank itself, sacrifice a damage mod or tank module to fit a RCU or PDS or switch one tank grid for anciliary.

Considering that normal armor tank modules are not getting even a tiniest boost (and Incurus is getting nerfed!) this leads to getting either less tank or less gank than before the "armor tank fix".

3. AAR and all about it

Without this one module you are not doing anything about active armor tank, no wait, you are actually nerfing those fits powergrid. Outside of this one module active armor tank isn't getting anything positive.

4. Overheating rigs and modules.

Only positive news here. Will be looking forward to it, but can't say anything without exact talk about numbers and mechanics.

5. Nerfing links and boosting actual local stats

Please for the love of god prioritize this.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#494 - 2013-01-22 23:17:47 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
for instance the TE and TCs



when is this getting fixed

all you have to do is drop TEs to 7.5% falloff or something



Pretty please?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#495 - 2013-01-22 23:21:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
for instance the TE and TCs



when is this getting fixed

all you have to do is drop TEs to 7.5% falloff or something

Be careful, you might get an Ancillary Tracking Computer.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#496 - 2013-01-22 23:23:55 UTC
Ancillary Shield Boosters
Are incredibly overpowered. One Ancillary Shield Boosters repairs more, takes only one slot, and takes much less pg and cpu than combination of 3 other modules that it replaces as all in one package. As i said before i understand the need for it in pvp since it frees mid slots for other essential modules but there should be some trade off. It should repair less that Shield Booster+Boost Amplifier and take at least as much cpu/pg as Shield Booster+Capacitor Battery, not much less.

Currently X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster takes 200cpu and 500pg, and repairs 286ehp/s. Heavy Capacitor Booster II+X-Large Shield Booster II+Shield Boost Amplifier II takes 325cpu and 2476pg, and repairs 241ehp/s. Who would ever again use Shield Boosters after you introduced Ancillary? Yeah it needs to reload but so does Capacitor Booster, and you can fit two of them and still use less fitting space and mid slots than standard booster. It is so much better than standard boosters that no one is using them now. And you need less skills to use them efficiently / at all. That is a job poorly done.

Buff Shield Boosters and nerf Ancillary Shield Booster so that there is some compromise between the two, make it worthwhile to spend those mid slots to actually gain a better active tank, not worse. Or make them use bigger charges and need to reload more often. Anything really, they are just too good now.

Ancillary Armor Boosters
I just dont get why? First of all they are simply upgraded version of standard armor repairer, they dont free up slots or have any other interesting function. Also the mechanics you want to implement will not work well, since we probably wont be able to actually choose when to repair at 3/4 efficiency and when to use capacitor batteries, and even if we do somehow get that choice it will probably require too much micromanagement. It will share batteries from cargo with Capacitor Boosters. And its just plain silly design, Ancillary Shield Boosters at least make sense in the way they operate, Ancillary Armor Boosters dont make any sense at all. Much better way would be to simply buff armor repairers or repair skill itself. Or at least make them use nano paste instead of batteries for the sake of our cargoholds and making sense.

Armor Rigs
Slow ships down too much. Its not just a problem for active tankers. Make all armor rigs add mass or %mass to the ship instead of straight %velocity reduction and balance ship mass for desired effect. Dont reduce mass on plates, maybe even add mass to balance this. I was to lazy to do the math, and it will probably require revisiting frigates / cruisers but i think its the best way to balance speed for armor tank. Its a solid amount of work but when done it would work perfectly.

Enough with Ancillary modules and capacitor batteries, whats next? Ancillary Propulsion Module, requires no skills, works like afterburner until you feed it Navy Cap Booster 200 and then it becomes mwd with no sig penalty?
Dzajic
#497 - 2013-01-22 23:23:57 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
for instance the TE and TCs



when is this getting fixed

all you have to do is drop TEs to 7.5% falloff or something



Pretty please?



And blasters get nerfed hard again. Thank you very much. NO! Leave TEs, if you have to do something change minmatar ammo and ship bonuses.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#498 - 2013-01-22 23:28:07 UTC
Spc One wrote:

Sure when you run out of power grid, remove 2 guns and you'll be just fine.
Who came up with that stupid idea to get power grid penalty ?

Abaddon will now have to remove 3 guns from high slots so that it has enough powergrid to fit rigs.
Another ccp nerf and very bad idea.
How more stupid can it get ?
Shocked

Why are you active tanking an abaddon?

Further, how are you fitting it? Even with these rigs the aba can fit a LARII, 8 mega pulse II, heavy cap booster II, and 100mn AB II with room to spare. Unless you're talking about beams, in which case it's not a problem with the tank, beams are just fracking hard to fit.

thhief ghabmoef
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#499 - 2013-01-22 23:32:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Addition of new skills and modules
Many people have expressed objections to the addition of new skills and modules to the game rather than rolling all the changes into existing modules. I understand the feeling many people have that skills create a gap between older and new players, but that logic can be applied to any existing skills as well. Skill systems in games like Eve do provide a certain advantage gained over time, but the diminishing returns over levels helps to balance the playing field. I disagree that Armor Upgrades is any more a "must train skill" than any other support skill, and many players will find quickly training it to level 2-3 will get them most of the way to the bonus enjoyed by an older player at a far lower time commitment. Also note that half the plates are receiving mass reductions completely unconnected to the skill.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you here, sir. Adding new skills to the game that would enrich it in some way would not be opposed, by many players, I'm sure.

But considering the skills that have been introduced (RAH skill) or proposed (Armor Upgrades), combined with the fact that it takes longer for T2 tanks for armor tankers is just bad form. Want to use a RAH effectively? Train a skill. Want to use a ASB more effectively? Equip it. Where is the skill that says "allows you to fit 5% more cap boosters into ASB/level"?? Why are new skills oriented toward armor tanks only? And why, sir, when it takes longer to achieve the same combat effectiveness anyway?? Shield tankers don't have to train TSM or SU to V first, like armor tankers have to train HU to V...in addition to the Armor Resist skills....

I'm all about tanking styles being separate. And I'm not calling for nerfs to shield tanks or new skills for that tanking style. Just stop ADDING new skills for armor tankers to have to learn to be competitive.

And your comment about "this is true of every other skill...", I call foul on. That statement would be true if EVE were a PVE game. But in the PVP game, you *have* to train those skills to keep up to be competitive. One *has* to train the sensor str skills to keep up parity with vets against ECM drones. And similarly, armor tankers, even new players, would have to train the AU skill to be as agile and quick as the vets.

Coming from a newer player standpoint, I don't have the luxury of stopping other skills to train up a new skill added as a whim. I'm not stopping Advanced Weapon Upgrades V or Capital Turret V...I'm having to stop XX Cruiser V or Medium Turret V. It's too much. Fill up the "top" of the game with new skill books. Implement a Capital Repair Efficiency Skill at 8x. Let the vets have fun with new, complex skills that affect their Caps. But ffs, leave the newbs alone....at least for a while.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#500 - 2013-01-22 23:38:21 UTC  |  Edited by: chatgris
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The AAR is a unique mechanic that fills the same general game niche as the ASB while remaining quite different in operation and gameplay. It does put more pressure on cargoholds, however keep in mind that an AAR goes through cap boosters much much slower than an ASB.


This is a dangerous sentiment to express as it can be taken to extremes, but in general I think you'll see more negative than positive feedback in these threads, and a lot of positive feedback is never given. But to balance it a bit

I think the AAR is a fantastic mechanic. A single AAR should be as effective as two reppers for about 2 minutes, and then it will drop off but still be effective. While it doubly effective

- It only takes the capacitor of a single repper
- Less slots, PG, cpu etc
- It won't take any more cargospace because you load the AAR in station (it's unlikely in a pvp situation you are going to wait 60 seconds and live to reload anyways, given only one can be fit at any given time)

The drawback for rigs is great, PG is a better drawback than speed, without it being free.

I'll echo that other things such as resist vs active repping bonus's should be looked at, as resist is pretty much the better way. But that's a completely different discussion.