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.

Reducing ganglink bonuses and increasing effectiveness in other ways
As I've said before, this is something we definitely want to do. Links are both too effective in their direct bonuses as well as their ability to be used off-grid. However getting this specific issue fixed is going to need to wait until after 1.1. Once we have the room to implement some changes to the way warfare links work from the ground up, expect changes to a lot of other modules and mechanics to happen at the same time.

Paradoxically, allowing oversized mods reduces player choice because the oversized mods end up being the better choice. Choices are only meaningful when it's not obvious which choice is best.

How many shield tanked frigates fits use small over medium shield extenders?

How many cruiser fits use 800mm plates over 1600mm plates?

How many people even use 50mm, 100mm plates and micro shield extenders?

If you disallowed oversizing of modules and instead gave each shipclass two types of plates/extenders/repairers (a "light" and "heavy" version) then you could balance them against each other within the class. Lighter plates/extenders wouldn't have to suck anymore when compared to the heavier plate/extender and you could bring the two closer together in terms of effectiveness to create some real choices. Right now you can't do this because they are shared by multiple shipclasses and what's balanced for one isn't balance for another.

In fact this system opens up the door for more variety as you could for example give light shield extenders a totally different penalty (say cap recharge) than heavy extenders (sig radius).

So all said, I think my proposal would be an excellent way to increase player choice while making balancing much easier (and arguably actually possible).

If fitting XLASB on Cyclone "is part of what makes Eve so great", make sure we can use XLAAR on Myrmidon!!

And if that will need fitting mods, find a way to let us split 6 lows between them plus armour tank PLUS damage mods.

Or is oversize mod fitting for shield only?

Currently X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster takes 200cpu and 500pg, and repairs 286ehp/s. Heavy Capacitor Booster II+X-Large Shield Booster II+Shield Boost Amplifier II takes 325cpu and 2476pg, and repairs 241ehp/s. Who would ever again use Shield Boosters after you introduced Ancillary? Yeah it needs to reload but so does Capacitor Booster, and you can fit two of them and still use less fitting space and mid slots than standard booster. It is so much better than standard boosters that no one is using them now. And you need less skills to use them efficiently / at all. That is a job poorly done.

Differences between Shield and Armor tanking as a whole
There has been a lot of discussion around the major differences between shield and armor tanking. The use of lowslots vs midslots, reps hitting at the start vs end of cycle, sig vs mass, crystals and slaves are some of the splits that separate armor and shield tanking and that can seriously complicate balancing.

Both signature and speed play major roles in the tracking formula, but the ability for the faster ship to dictate range, control the engagement and manipulate transversal more effectively make speed the much more important attribute overall.

Why are you active tanking an abaddon?

Further, how are you fitting it? Even with these rigs the aba can fit a LARII, 8 mega pulse II, heavy cap booster II, and 100mn AB II with room to spare. Unless you're talking about beams, in which case it's not a problem with the tank, beams are just fracking hard to fit.

Hurr hurr, I did just that. You know why? You can't fit Large Reppers on BCs and cruisers, but you can fit XLASBs.

Yes, because it's useless being able to tank tons of stuff if you you do know damage unless you're flying industrial ships. Only having a scram simply means anything with a AB or even an mwd fit with a web can escape you.

[quote=Roime]7.5% hull bonus is still underwhelming :)

Nanite paste instead of cap boosters for the AAR please?

Why pigeonhole ships into predifined roles? By your logic each and every amarr ship should be rendered totally boring, effectively losing an option of active tanking altogether.

Nanite paste instead of cap boosters for the AAR please?

This is wonderful.

What do you think would happen if they actually did this? The rage of the shield users would be immense, given that navy cap booster 400 costs almost 5x as much and has 120x the volume.

Hey, CCP, could you make ASBs run on water, please? ;)

And please drop the entire AAB idea, just buff armor repairers.

Active tank is "ok" only at solo and Alliance Tournament 100500 (becuase you know that they cant alpha your ship). Its not the solution at all.
Resist bonus hull works always and armor rep bonus hull works only with "special" module! You must fit it to use all potential of that bonus. it is ridiculous.
And ofc you forgot about logist. In rather big fleet (10+ppl) you just can pick 2-3 logists and it will be in 1000% useful then armor reps\shield boosts. So in fleets gallent su..."bad" becuase armor rep bonus is useless.

Its wrong topic name. It should be "solo and AT boost for armor ships..."

Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%

Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades.