Philsophically the nano paste fuel makes more sense.
That stuff is pretty expensive though,no? It would take upless space though.

I like the fact that you aren't homogenizing the Ancillary armor repper with the shield repper.

Fozzie, are you also considering the imbalance that is caused by slave-set-implants?

Don't forget, all these modules should only be available in tech 1. That way no one has to make any choices when fitting them.

I think fozzie needs to be ousted as balance dev tbh

CCP, please consider decreasing volume taken by Cap Boosters of all sizes by at least two times.

Thank you all for your valuable feedback!
You're wrong.
I am right.
See you on SISI, my pet beta testers!

This is wonderful.

We're switching the AAR to use nanite repair paste instead of cap boosters. What we're looking at now is for them to hold 8 reps worth of paste, with the smalls eating 1 per cycle, the mediums eating 5 and the larges eating 10.

Sounds good! Probably needs a bit of work to keep it from being grossly OP'd, but it's a decent idea. Sadly, Fozzie is married to the whole AAR module thing by now, so odds are we're stuck with it.

Burst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained for pvp.

But when I go up against high dps targets like blasters I don't need repairs nice and even, I need it bloody well now in the hopes that the boost lasts long enough for me to have gained the range necessary to mitigate damage, have capped the target out or killed him outright.

Ideal fight for shield tanker: you jump upon a camp, kill some and run away till reinforcement arrives; you defo need burst.
Ideal fight for armor tanker: you start a fight and as it escalates, your tank becomes even harder; you need a good buffer to hold incoming DPS till reactive hardener (or whatever) spools up. Keeping this buffer in a form of charges inside armor reps is a bit sneaky, but IMO it is a fair compromise.

yes they are going to fix that in its PI production costs

As size of nanite is 0.01m3, you can put a lot of nanite in the cargo hold, while compare the cap charges much larger size.

would it mean that you will nerver run out of nanite while compare with the limited amount of charges you can carry with normal cargohold?

I think that Nanite Paste for normal reppers is the way to go instead of having them consume cap.

The ability to fit Pith X-Type X-Large Shield Booster(twice oversized modul !!!!) at a Tengu (or BC) is compareble to fit
[Legion, New Setup 1]
6* TACHION BEAM LASER

Probably asking for too much, but could we see some small +5%' or 10%'ish resists for the plates below 400mm?

That said, the 800 plate is rarely used as most cruisers and all BC+ use 1600's but buffing one and not the others makes little sense. Were plates to have an additional benefit then let it synergize with AAR through a slight cap reduction on active mods (plate used as temporary capacitor) or increased rep amount (plate mass used for constructing additional nano-bots).

We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it.

Gotta say those changes are serious disapointment for PVE. So now MAR and LAR take 20% and 10% less pwg and rigs now take pwg instead of speed. Oh cmon is that ALL ?

1.ItGÇÖs MUCH more expensive to run an AAR and
2.The lack of GÇÿNavy PasteGÇÖ means that either large AARGÇÖs have a disadvantage over XL-ASBGÇÖs or, if you are balancing these rep amounts against *assumed* navy cap boosters, small AARGÇÖs have an advantage over small ASBGÇÖs (there is no navy 25 booster). Does this make any sense?

HonestlyGǪ remove the cap usage.

Constructive

Few minutes ago i tested AAR...
Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"?

This is a great point. They made a mistake. SO UNMAKE IT.

I do not think cap free ASBs are a total mistake. it is all but impossible to fit any kind of a cap booster on to Shield ships.

It has been suggested to make the ASB cost some cap even when loaded. That sounds very reasonable at first, but it would make ASB fits MORE vulnerable to energy neutralizing compared to a SB+cap booster combo. Once they get low on cap, there is no recovery because they wouldn't be able to fire the ASB even with charges loaded. Not a good idea.

A lot of questions have been coming in concerning alternate modes for the AAR such as being able to toggle the more powerful rep. That's not something we can do for 1.1 and we'd have to take time to consider it more fully but I won't rule out the idea.

WOW ! We will now have CHOICE !

Maybe you should consider what this module will allow to do instead of what it will not allow to do. It's called positivism.

This module will NOT obsolete plates or shield.
This module will NOT give your armor ship all advantages of a shield one.
This module will NOT make any ship a solopwnBBQmachine.

Please, stop seeing armor as a bad shield. It's *different*. Start thinking another way, a way where armor strength can be used.

Simply double the pg needs of the ASBs, leave the cpu as it is. That would sort a lot of the issues with the imbalance they create. Still leaves the cap immunity, but we'll worry about that after oversizing ceases to be a thorn in the side of armour tanking.

People use ASBs without navy boosters?
Taking your figure of 200k for the LAAR, an ASB takes something like 100k for the navy 400, close.

So either make it use cap boosters, invent a new thing for AAR fuel made just as easily as cap boosters, or move nanite paste out of PI and into the plain old fashioned BPO zone. I know none of these ideas will make you happy, but you can't deny that there is a fairness imbalance when it comes to feeding these two modules (ASB vs AAR).