+1 to that, it's also a bad nerf because it assumes that every incursus will be fitted with a AAR, what happened to the strapline about an exciting variety of fits and more room for player specialisation. Please reconsider this Fozzie.

CCP Frozzie... please consider the value of resist bonuses (Punisher) in comparison to Rep bonus.

A 5% Resist bonus is equivalent to a 7.5% Rep bonus... and the resist bonus is better at LvL 5 skills.
A Resist bonus is also extremely relevant to buffer tanking and remote repairs, where a Rep bonus provides no benefit under these alternative tanking scenarios...

Please, maintain the "active tanking" niche the incursus has by keeping it's bonus above 7.5%... If a ship is going to be pigeonholed by bonuses into a certain type of tanking, let it be superior at that role!!!

No its not.

Get a 3% pg implant they are very cheap.

Fozzie,

May I suggest nerfing the **** out of armored warfare links and building some of that bonus into all armor reps? I'm not asking to make linked active tanking better (though that'd certainly be welcome) - just move a lot of the viability out of the links and into the base modules themselves.

It also breaks metagame. Armor reps are never supposed to be burst-tanking.
Also, you substitute armor tanking with cargohold tanking, which makes me sick.
Not that I'm really a role-player, but that is a kind of tanking I'll never use, for ideological reasons.

As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.

Do you feel that armor tanking in PVE is currently balanced vs shield tanking, or are you hoping to do some follow up to balance armor tanking more generally at some point?

Always found the speed argument... odd. Ships are in space. Armor ships should have the same speeds as shield.

I can see them being less agile, and taking more time to get to full speed or stop however.


Just a random thought. ;)

This is not true, but you can't generally see the result in EFT.

-Liang

Ed: Also, sig is already in the tracking calculation. :)

As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.

Sig only has an effect on gun size/ ship sig, it has not effect on tracking whatsoever, its kind of stapled on there like an afterthought.

Essentially, if you could use the rep at 3/4 t1 amount until you activate the ancillary reps to give you a boost to repping when you most want it, rather than just at the beginning of the cycle, it would be a much better module!

Sig only has an effect on gun size/ ship sig, it has not effect on tracking whatsoever, its kind of stapled on there like an afterthought.

Sig only has an effect on gun size/ ship sig, it has not effect on tracking whatsoever, its kind of stapled on there like an afterthought.

I don't know if this is possible... but I think the Ancillary Armor repper would be much, much, much better if you could "chose" when to activate the "ancillary" portion...

Essentially, if you could use the rep at 3/4 t1 amount until you activate the ancillary reps to give you a boost to repping when you most want it, rather than just at the beginning of the cycle, it would be a much better module!

It's almost like the ancillary part should activate on overheat. And almost like you'd want to use nanite repair paste to get your module working again....

Not that I'm going to complain about buying/selling overpriced cap boosters.

-Liang

Resist Bonus vs Rep Bonus
There's a couple issues here that I'd like to address.
I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus we ever give T1 ships in fact. That being said ship balance can incorporate bonuses of varying degrees of power as long as the complete ships end up in the right place. The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.
In addition, my comment about the power level of active bonuses applying to remote reps was both unclear and exaggerated which was a mistake on my part. I have absolutely no desire to increase the effectiveness of T2 Logistics ships in fleets beyond their current state, or to push fleet warfare further in the direction of alpha being the only resort for breaking reps. Filling in the lower-end with less powerful repping ships that provide an upgrade path is another story, but I don't want to move beyond the current maximum. The extension of active rep bonuses to remote reps is something I feel would take fleets in the wrong direction, and if anything I am investigating ways to make resist bonuses a bit less powerful in those environments.

Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.