Some cruiser and Battlecruiser sized armor tanks.

You've kind of missed the point. Apart from these ships being T2+3 ships, none of them ignore capacitor. It might be possible to keep a Legion running through neuts with a combination of batteries and vampires though. I don't really want to turn this argument into Drake vs Legion.

That's the point, your challenge was pointless, as its impossible to have an armour tank that can repair ANYTHING without using capacitor.

[quote=Paikis]I have no point.

Also, crystals don't work on capitals. Slaves do.

1. Reduce the CPU use of tracking computers
2. Reduce PG need of armor repairers a lot, making oversized armor reppers a thing
3. Change the speed penalty into a agility penalty, 100mn AB cruisers is popular for a good reason, let armor be that but with more reasonable numbers

Hasn't CCP already stated they recognize there is a pretty big problem with the differences in shield/armor tanking, and are looking at ways to revamp it?

You're having trouble fitting an oversized battleship class module on a cruiser. Something tells me CCP isn't going to be sympathetic. You can barely fit an XL shield booster on a cruiser too, that's the same situation here.

Every aspect of armor and shield tanking has a trade-off, most have been mentioned here.

Armor uses low slots, restricting damage mods. Shield uses mid, restricting ewar.
Armor has higher base resists, shield has passive recharge.
Armor rep hits at end of cycle, shield at beginning. (I got nothin on this one)
Armor has a passive omni module (EANM), shield has active (invuln)
Armor has an oversized passive module (1600 plate), shield has oversized active module (XL booster)
Armor plates reduce speed and agility, shield extenders increase sig radius (CCP has said they want to adress this, they know it's not balanced)

There's more examples, this is all I care to list for right now. Discussing balance is great, just make sure you're looking at the big picture. CCP doesn't nerf or buff single items in a vaccuum, so talking like they will is pointless.

Hasn't CCP already stated they recognize there is a pretty big problem with the differences in shield/armor tanking, and are looking at ways to revamp it?

The idea is to come up with ideas that can influence this...

What do you mean by armor has higher base resists?

I dont understand the comparison of 1600 plates to ASB's either, oversized comparison works, but wouldnt that be extenders vs plates? plates vs EXTENDERS would be a comparison, but even there its a loooot easier to stuff large extenders on something then it is 1600's.

one of the huge things that might need to be looked at, any ideas on how to effect passive shield regen that doesnt destroy passive shield tanks but makes it so that you dont get a free repper's worth of stats without even using a mod/rig that directly effects regen?

Now if it was a shield modual i could understand the capaitor drain ,as thats energy to offset DPS (somehow the devs always overlook that fact for shield tanks).The modual isnt even boosting anything ,its changing the armour resistances so why it has a capatior drain is total nonsense to me.

The reason it is a loooot easier to stuff a large shield extender on something than it is for a 1600mm plate is that the LSE is the equivalent of the 800mm plate. It's quite easy to put an 800mm plate onto cruisers and above as well.

Let's be honest though, the passive regen is not that fantastic unless you emphasize it by fitting modules specifically to increase it.

1. Reduce the CPU use of tracking computers
2. Reduce PG need of armor repairers a lot, making oversized armor reppers a thing
3. Change the speed penalty into a agility penalty, 100mn AB cruisers is popular for a good reason, let armor be that but with more reasonable numbers

I'm shocked this is turning into a "nerf the other guys way of playing while buffing my style" thread. Eventually CCP will get involved and f*ck up the game. GG all.

1) plates reduce BOTH agility and speed, while LSEs only increase sig radius, which is negligble for BC+ sized hulls - even battleship guns track armor or shield ships more or less the same;

Not true, plates increase mass which affects acceleration but not max velocity. Armor rigs on the other hand reduce speed and they are almost always fitted on the same ship.

Ancillary Shield boosters are ridiculously powerful at present. They are actually better than officer level shield boosters, yet CCP seems to think this is fine. Go figure. Anyways, ignoring the ASBs, armor and shield tanking are pretty well balanced in my opinion. When I started playing EVE it was armor tanking all day every day. If you tried shield tanking you were laughed out of most PvP fleets. The only thing that has really changed is the ASBs, yet now people seem to think shield are the bee's knees.

To address your points.

Imagine your shields to be a battery. Your ships' reactor (or solar panels) will provide some power to the shields, and some to the capacitor. We have modules that can shift some of this power one way or the other. Shields regenerate, because the energy from the ship's reactor is being constantly fed into it. Same deal with capacitor.

Shield and armor tanking penalties have different effects depending on what you are being shot with.

Increased signature radius means:
- You are targeted faster, meaning you are being shot/jammed/tackled faster.
- Missiles and larger weapon systems will hit you harder.
- You are easier to track.

Reduced speed and agility means:
- You cannot run away as easily.
- You are easier to track
- You take longer to align, meaning there is a longer window where you can be tackled/jammed/shot at.

These penalties seem mostly balanced. both of them mean you are easier to tackle, and easier to hit. It would appear that a shield tanker will be taking more damage, but will have an easier time disengaging. This doesn't seem that imbalanced to me. Armor tanking has other advantages over shield tanking, just as shield tanking has advantages over armor tanking.

Balance does not mean that the two systems should be the same.

The reasons these issues arise is the very large penalties applied by rigs. Without rig penalties, no one would be complaining about this. Perhaps the "solution" (to a problem I'm not sure is actually a problem) is to simply improve the various rigging skills to be 15% reduction to rig drawbacks per level (at V, 75% reduction in penalties).

I do know this though, a blanket buff to armor tanking is not the answer, and neither is a nerf to shield tanking. The two styles are more or less equal, but have different areas in which they are slightly better.

You may begin flaming.

It always does. I'm not surprised. Previous to people 'discovering' (because no actual game changes were made) that shield tanking was pretty good there were frequent calls for shield tanking to be buffed and armor tanking nerfed.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.