It's not even competitive. That gets it into tanking range of a shield-tanked Myrm, but it then does ridiculously low damage compared to the shield Myrm (which still tanks a bit more DPS while fitting three Drone Damage Amps). It's really, really sad that a Myrm with every single low slot, every rig, and half it's med slots devoted to tank still doens't quite tank as well as a shield-tanked Myrm with half of its low slots devoted to Drone Damage Amps. The only reason anyone ever armor-tanks a Myrm is they foolishly read the description and thought that rep bonus should get used, but never actually ran the numbers.

The large armor reps aren't that great either, even fitting requirements aside.

On the other hand, that will just widen the gap between the shield and armor fit Myrmidon's dps. The shield version will still be able to fit more damage amps than the armor...

It tanks less with new bonus+SAAR than with old bonus Dual SAR II, but only for 7 cycles while still using half as much cap.

I know what happened to hml and hams so you dont need to tell me that. Youre the one who dont understand game mechanics. Ammor tanking is getting huge buff which makes it OP towards shield tanking. Im talking about the skill that reduces armor tanking penalty. Thats why we need skill that reduces shield tanking sig radius penalty to make shield tanking balanced towards armor tanking.

You can try pull you BS anbout me not knowing game mechanics but fact is your just want to pwn shield tank ships with OP buffed armor tank...

Soo L2P 1st and come back on forums then...

Ignorance seems indeed to bless for people like urself but let me explain it to you.

Armor tanking downside is mass penalty on plates and rigs while shield tanks have sig radius penalty on shield extenders and rigs. Now if ccp gives skill that reduces armor tanking downside but doesnt make skill that would reduce shield tanks downside. Yes it makes armor tanking OP towards shield tanking.

[
Well yea i can agree with this.. And yea maybe mass penalty is bit rough compared to sig penalty. But to give another skill that reduces its penalty while not giving anything to other..

However on other note did you know tengus price has dropped in jita because all the alliances are selling their tengus and replacing that doctrine with different armor doctrines. Do you know that loki hull costs alot more than tengu hull? What does it tells? It tells next fotm will be armor tanked ships and ahacs specially i believe.

And whatever if this skill giving advantage to armor tanking goes trough you can be sure next thing il be proposing will be skill that reduces shield tanks sig penalty to balance shield tank vs armor tank untill we get one..

Reposting in a way that is hopefully better understood.


@Fozzie: a system where the same armor plates, shield extenders and shield boosters are used across multiple ship classes is just a bad system that makes it hard to balance things. You have almost no flexibility to adjust things.

Consider a system where each ship class gets real choice between two armor plates, two shield extenders, and cannot oversize its shield boosters. Then balancing becomes easy.

It could look like this:

"Reinforced Frigate Armor Plating"
"Frigate Armor Plating"

"Reinforced Frigate Shield Extender"
"Frigate Shield Extender"

"Frigate Armor Repairer"
"Frigate Shield Booster"

"Frigate Ancillary Armor Repairer"
"Frigate Ancillary Shield Booster"

Repeat this series for all ship classes (including destroyers and battlecruisers) and suddenly many balance problems would be easy to address.

I don't care much about the neut immunity of the ASB. What I don't like is that we can only fit 1 AAR, whereas they can fit as many as they like. Let's face it, shield module balance is just as important to this as armour itself.

They should restricted both to the maximum of 2 per ship or even just 1. Boosted the amount the AAR gives to 3 * t1, then reduced large armour rep PG fitting by 20%. If that happened, we'd start to see some actual improvements and I'd be happier.

The play the same role in the tracking formula and it should perhaps be revised. With enough webbing signature radius becomes completely irrelevant. Perhaps this is intentional but with strength bonused webs it means that even the largest guns in the game can hit the smallest ships in the game and it's becoming a problem. In my opinion signature radius should provide a minimum damage reduction against larger turrets, the same way missiles work.

My point is more about flavour. We have the advantage that we use paste and could carry more. They have the advantage that they are immune to neuts, but are limited to how many boosters they carry. That's why I'm fine with the neut immunity.

Oh I agree, which is why I mentioned the restriction we have of only 1 AAR while the ASB can fit multiple units. If those restrictions were equal, neut immunity can stay as far as I'm concerned. As it stands now you are right, it is too lopsided.

This may be an armour tanking thread, but the fact that the ASB is so OP in comparison to the new AAR, needs to be addressed at the same time. Not necessarily changed now, simply stating it will change would be fine and show balance is going to be made.