No one is saying that it should consume cans full of the stuff, SAAR could perhaps load 100 and use up 25 per cycle, MAAR loads +50% and LAAR another +50%, at 20k per unit that is 2M per reload for frigs, 3M for cruisers/BCs and 4.5M for BS which is well within reason considering that it is used on a PvP god-tank.

There are loads of numbers to tweak, if it goes south (which is will, because this is Eve ), then CCP can manipulate market value by changing the relevant PI numbers

With 8 charges AMAR will repair 4275hp, with 8 uses MARII will repair 2560. And in one minute it takes AMAR to realod MARII will repair another 1600hp, or 4160 total, and this is assuming you have a ship with unlimited cap and run it constantly. So basically any time frame the so called burst module is plain better, even if you are completely ******** and start the repair cycle when its obvious that the fight will end soon and that you should just rep at 3/4.

Since anyone will obviously use this module instead of one repairer no matter what they do or want to accomplish, and it definitely wont make ppl reduce the number of reps (if i think that armor repairer will serve me better than anything else in that slot you can be sure i will think the same after you buff it). Since it is just a plain boost amount buff you acknowledge that the buff to reps is needed, why not just boost reps? This makes no sense at all, and all that burst tanking talk is bs.

New skill that reduces plate mass will hit new players. And also getting such a small buff to speed in practice does not solve anything, and will just force us to train another mediocre skill just because speed is that important. If you think plates are too heavy just reduce their mass.

The only problem with tanking in general is the stupidly powerful ASB and the fact that the signature radius, the main advantage of armor tanks, is less significant because mwd will boost it so much for both armor and shield that the difference will be too small to make a difference. Tweak that, dont introduce new modules and skills.

It's massively better than speed penalty in burst tanking, but yes, it will cause problems.

Still the PG needs of medium and large reppers are ridiculously out of whack compared with their repping amount.

If the incredibly low base rep amount, yes- the core, origin and reason of every whine about active armor tanking is not fixed, then maybe balance the fitting so that people can start flying dual LAR Myrmidons? Or nerf oversizing shields.

90 hp/s.

That's the raw "power" of LAAR + Heavy Capacitor Booster II.
Two slots, both a low and mid.
3925 PG. Battleship size module.
Hard limit of 1 per ship.
Can be neuted out.

196 hp/s.

That's what you get with a single mid slot and 500 PG if you go shield. Twice as good, almost eight times easier to fit. Fit as many as you like. Cruiser size module. Cap immune.

Now it's up to you to decide what is the correct measure of balance:

ASB rep amount
LAR rep amount
ASB fitting
LAR fitting

but something has to change, the relative balance is just too bizarrely out of whack.

My suggestion would be to fix:

- ASB fitting so that oversizing is not possible
- Lift the base rep amount of all ASBs and armor reppers (so that < 3 appropriate sized mods are actually viable on current TQ)
- Decrease cycle time of armor reps because the repping happens at the end of cycle
- Decrease cap usage of armor mods *
- Then base the AARs on these stats because 2.25 times way too little != enough

* damage reduction if opting for armor tank is two-fold; you need to downgrade guns, and you can't fit dmg mods. So why shouldn't there be a concrete advantage then in the form of more efficient reps?

In the end, AAR really does not fix any of the core issues. It simply accepts the core issue - armor reps rep too little, and tries to work around it by turning one module into 1.68 modules for 8 cycles. Active armor hull bonuses are left as they are, barely better in their niche than universally good resist bonuses. Cool, we'll take this if that's the only option, but what we still have is lower damage with less reps if we opt for active armor tank instead of shields.

Very good analysis.

The AAR is a neat toy, certainly worth putting one on in place of a regular rep in a dual or triple rep setup - but come on Fozzie... throw a little love at active armor tanking performance too please. It's cap intensive, fitting intensive, slot intensive, and still sub-par.

CPU increase going from medium to large armor rep: 28 -> 55 (+96%)
PG increase going from medium to large armor rep: 173 -> 2300 (+1229%)

CPU increase going from large to x-large shield booster: 115 -> 230 (+100%)
PG increase going from large to x-large shield booster: 165 -> 550 (+233%)

Evidently the powergrid requirements of large armor repairers are so high to make it impossible to fit them on cruisers because that would be overpowered

Also note that 2x rep are roughly equal to shield booster + boost amp in terms of power, yet the boost amp is easy to fit.

Well, armor tankers got more PG than shield ships. The maelstrom got a ton, but that's because artillery used a ton.

New update, we're planning at the moment to reduce the powergrid use on medium and large armor reps.

Mediums by 20%
Larges by 10%

We were hoping to get these and all the other latest versions of the changes up on Sisi today, but we had an unrelated issue with our Sisi build system. ETA for Sisi is as soon as possible, sorry for the delay.

The ARR and its stupid restrictions (cap use and 1 per ship limit) these can be solved by giving the ASB the same handicaps.

At least some advantage is gained from using nanite paste instead of cap boosters.

It is the main weakness, and they are pre-nerfing the ARR with the limit, a limit that has been recommended to the ASB multiple times yet they instead remover charge amount completely destroying single ASB fits.

Cap use would be nice just so that neuts are more useful, and so that the neut resistance on cap boosters are more useful.

Using nanite paste is great and all and if lets say they limited ASB's to 1 per ship then im all for giving them neut immunity.

But to get comparable repping power (with greater sustain for armor, burst for shield) you need a cap booster, which also holds charges along with the nanites for the ARR, which is susceptible to cap warfare, just seems a little lopsided.

Of courses the best outcome is if there was no cap for the ARR either, which would do volumes for the punisher, since its reliant on cap and can run it rep independent of its guns.

You are right but the are more angles to this, why should shield have better speed/damage and cap immunity.

Looks like I might have a reason to train Thermodynamics to V now

Using an AAR without using up its charges is actually a very valid point. Splitting the button in half, one side for charges, the other for without, should do the job.
I'm not sure about forcing the tie in with heat though. It means that unless you have trained in the heat skill, this mod would be useless. It gets a healthty benefit from heat already, as you pointed out about ASBs.

A module similar to the shield boost amp, but for armour could be helpful. At preset, a triple rep fit is totally dependant on cap boosters, normaly being forced to use at least 2 at a time. With a module that grants 30% - 35% more per rep, that triple rep fit, especially combined with an AAR, could be viable with only two repping modules and probably only one cap booster. This would be workable on more hulls.

People kept asking for it, now we have to suffer the consequences of it. At least it doesn't take up much space.

That weird mechanics like the one you're describing are being considered in a desperate attempt to fix the problem just goes to show what a horrible idea cap warfare immune ASBs are.

Instead of the ASB being a shield booster plus cap booster in one, moving Shield Boost Amps to a low slot might have been a better way to give shield tanks an extra mid.

That way shield tanks don't get a freebie slot and are subject to cap ware in the same way as everyone else.