Player Features and Ideas Discussion

As pointed out, the suggested ideas are pretty much horrible. I will not reproduce all the reasons for it but make some suggestions:


Why does active and passive tanking actually have to be used in the same situations? Right now, active tanking is great if you are exposed to relative constant damage over a larger period of time (and if you can manage cap stability).

At the same time, passive tanking is great if you fly in a gang that has a logistics ship. The increased hp will give the logistic pilot enough time to lock you and repair you. Also, even if you receive more dps than your logistics can handle, increased hp increase the time they repair you. And because of that the total damage you withstand is higher.

Maybe the question should not be: How to give them the same efficiency, but when would you want a power consuming, hp-regeneration module.

Imho: If you are exposed to constant damage, and have enough cap-regeneration to repair more damage than you receive. Like in a 1on1 situation or in solo PvE situations. Basically if you can outperform the remote repair power of a single logistics ship, you will have balanced active tanking. (Because it becomes viable in solo/very small group PvP AND PvE)

Unfortunatly, in order to be efficient, the logistics ships can compensate a lot of dps AND stay cap stable while doing so. But giving the repair-power of a logistics to a single ship would also be a bit problematic.

A possible solution could be to rework signature tanking, aswells as reworking the active tanking modules and rigs.

The rigs:
Something that helps sig-tanking would be great. Would allow smaller ships to specialise in fight against larger ones, while doesn't help that much against smaller ships.

Tanking modules:
"All power to the tanking module and over heat it aswel" should be possible. Overheating would increase the hp/cap amount, while scripts or another mechanic will let you regulate the cycle time to some extend, allowing you a cap conservative slow regeneration of your tank aswell as an cap-intense fast armor repair.

Balance between shipclasses and module sizes : Signature tanking
Balance is already achived because the capacitor on a smaller ship is much smaller and regenerates much less power than on a bigger ship. Module sizes would just change base values (e.g. 100, 200, 400, 800 shield per 2sec Cycle @ 100, 200, 400, 800 energy. Scripts could then modify this values btw random values just to explain concept, Scripts could come wit 25% 50% 75% 100% 150% and 200% repair amount per cycle).

Signature tanking:
In order to make this not "The strongest capacitor tanks more and wins" Signature tanking, should be used to give smaller ships an edge over bigger enemies. Reworked NOS and Neuts will also help to maintain a versatile and complex combat environment.


Oh, and about armor vs. shield tanking:

Give armor tanking ships something to put in those free midslots. Like some working e-war... just don't overdo with it like you did in the past.

Armor tanking:
Highslots: Weapons
Midslots: Ewar propulsion tackle
LowSlots: Tank
Does less dps, but negates enemies dps to some extend

Shieldtank:
Highslolts: Weapons
Midslots: Tank Propulsion Tackle
Lowslots: Damage mods, propulsion mods
Does more dps, but doesn't negate enemies dps at all.

(just again, balance this, 99% less sensor range is stupid, But 50% reduced sensor range of 80km base sensor range are stupid aswell if you have to be at 10km to achive this)

In general the proposed penalties are not a good idea.

First of all it encourages a less versatile use of the rigs, while the rigs were introduced as an additional variable to ship fitting.

Secondly, the suggested synergies actually would penalize some of the few viable active tanking setups, particularly for minmatar. For fleet PvP the doctrine will largely remain the same, you'll just have a bunch of slow ships that aren't quite as slow.

Something to consider:

• Armor rigs give a slight penalty to shield total or recharge, and Shield rigs have a slight penalty to armor?
• Increased sig radius for both shield and armor rigs.
• Get rid of the penalties and limit the bonuses with calibration.
• Increased PG or CPU requirements for armor/shield modules.

Cant you just double or triple sheild/armor rep on the modules. This would make it viable to active tank but still in big fights you would need buffer.

Unsticking this since this is not going to be released for Inferno, or without any kind of serious balancing on passive / active tanking.

We'll keep an open eye on this thread though, as there are some good suggestions here.

What if shield and armor rigs had no drawbacks other than the stacking penalty? Would this be too much?

in the light of boosting active tanking with rigs...

why dont we just remove the penalties from active tank shield/armor modules
( nanobot accs, aux. nano pumps, operational soldifiers, capacitor safeguards)



active tanking is boosted and no one is hurt

I think the active tank boost is a solution in search of a problem.

Remote reps are by design much more powerful than local reps, as this encourages specialization and teamwork. Unless this one fact changes, then the advantage will always be to mix fleet comp of buffer DPS + logi, no matter what the ship bonuses are. In order for a local rep bonus to be big enough to make it viable in a fleet scale engagement, it would be massively OP for solo/small gang/PVE.

The fact is all four races will need ships bonused for fleet engagements and ones bonused for small gang/solo work. If you insist on racial bonuses, you will end up with some races which are suboptimal for fleet scale work or which have significant holes in their ship lineup.

Maelstrom says you are wrong on this.

So, it's now 2 months since you scrapped that concept (a very promising one).

One might think that you've got something else then. I, for one, am eager to hear what exactly are you thinking of in this regard.