Test Server Feedback

You do know both ancillary reps work different, yes? Ancillary shield boosters boost shields slightly better then normal boosters and take no cap as long as they're filled with cap boosters. Ancillary armor reps repair a shitload of hp when filled with nanite paste, but still take cap.

I see nothing wrong with allowing more then one anc armor rep, mind you. It would just be hilarious to see how many people fit enough anc armor reps to cap themselves out after the first cycle.

On the other hand, smart people could find ways to keep their ships cap stable with multiple armor reps, which would make them insanely OP, I think. And there's nothing keeping people from doing the same thing with normal armor reps + one anc armor rep, which would still be an obscene active tank, but not OP.

Thinking about shield boosters, you can stack the ancillary ones, but you would have to either stagger their use or make compromises like with multiple armor reps to keep them cap stable. If you're not careful, your anc shield reps would suck you dry as soon as the cap boosters run out. Contrast this with anc armor reps, which just keep running with the same cap amount regardless. Far more reliable to plan around for.

Then there are the two other facts: Ancillary shield boosters aren't as strong as ancillary armor reps and demand a lot of CPU to be fitted, like all shield modules. Stack several of them and you'll have to do a lot of compromises at the same time, severly limitting your ships usefulness. Armor reps are comparatively easy, ancillary or not: Cap, grid, done.

To summarize, as long as both types of ancillary reps aren't rebalanced (and they shouldn't, they're quite good as they are now), allowing more then one ancillary armor rep isn't necessary.

Edit:

Also, shouldn't this be in Features & Ideas?

ASB does not increase your sigRad. Only extenders and shield rigs do that.



ASB < AAR? what are you smoking? Get rid of it. Its bad. ASBs rep more and so long as you have cap charges in it, they use 0 cap. If you go chargeless, then they suck you dry in seconds. This is the trade-off.

AARs are different in that when they run out of nanite paste, they will continue to rep at a reduced rate using the same amount of cap. When loaded with paste, they do not perform better than an ASB.

ASBs are no more difficult to fit than AARs. Do they require a different fitting profile than an equivalent-sized AAR? Sure. But that can be said of all modules. For example, a Hawk can be fit with double M-ASB at the expense of additional resists or tackle. A Deimos can fit double reps if you are willing to compromise for the necessary PG. (Don't forget your cap booster.)

Please, the kind of logic that consists in taking two modules side to side outside of any sort of context, can only lead to wrong conclusions. (Mostly talking to the OP on this one)

ASBs and AARs are balanced right now as it is, and honestly, after playing with each of them quite a bit, I can assure you that they shouldn't even be compared.

Yes they were added at the same time, but no their use isn't conflicting with eachother. Even if I was able to fit two AARs, I wouldn't use them the same way I use ASBs.


Still, if you want to stay in the narrow comparison field... I'm still waiting on a reactive shield invulnerability field before they start rethinking AARs.