The rig penalties for trimarks and resist rigs are staying the same..

Why?

The PG penalty is actually very mild and much easier to get around than the speed penalty.
The rig penalties for trimarks and resist rigs are staying the same.

And the AAR has less burst rep and more cap use than the ASB with the benefit of significantly better sustainability. If we need to tweak the stats after playtesting we definitely can.

If only we were letting you reduce the mass penalty of all your plates by 25%, and for active tankers remove the speed penalty on the rigs? That would be great maybe we should do that.

Because a sheet of metal is heavy and doesn't need power to be heavy.

And then the balance of what is functional and what isn't either waffles from shields to armor, or everything becomes equally useless, which is a pretty screwed up definition of 'balance'.

So yes your proposition will probably run Minmatar into the ground in one way, and then do the same to Caldari in another way because then they'll all have the speed of plated battleships, when plated battleships are now moving faster than them given that Caldari base speeds are already lower than everything else by quite a bit.

Actually on topic:

This is an interesting update to plates. The problem however is that I'm still not convinced that people will use plates that aren't 400 or 1600s on anything. (There's also the fact that there's no 'shield equivalent' to the 1600 plate, the 'Large shield extender' is closest to the 800, IIRC.)

I also echo the concern that balancing could have been more easily done by

- reducing armor rep cycle time (reps happen at the end of cycle anyway)
- reducing armor rep fitting costs
- reducing armor rep cap usage
- increasing armor rep hull bonuses to 10%

This proposed solution forces armor tankers to learn another new skill (we just had to train RAH skill), increases the already massive fitting cost imbalance even further while doing nothing to the cap issue or making the 7.5% hull bonus any more worthwhile.

Passive sield tank should have similar penalties becouse right now sigboost is nowhere near as important as speed-reducing one.

We're taking a look at cargoholds and making adjustments as we move through the classes. It's no coincidence that the Brutix gained cargohold in the BC changes.

And also super overpowered.

Fozzie, can we please get the armor rep to occur at the beginning of the cycle, or the shield rep to occur at the end of the cycle? One or the other, but right now, Armor tanking and shield tanking become further and further unequal the larger the fight gets, and once TiDi kicks in, shield tanking has a massive advantage with shield logi getting their reps in almost instantly.

If TiDi is here to stay, and I think its a great addition, than something needs to change with the armor reps and shield reps occuring at opposite ends of the cycle.

What is your opinion of this? I can show some pretty interesting evidence as to why shield tanking is just massively overpowered compared to armor tanking whats TiDi kicks in, especially at high TiDi levels.

I also echo the concern that balancing could have been more easily done by

- reducing armor rep cycle time (reps happen at the end of cycle anyway)
- reducing armor rep fitting costs
- reducing armor rep cap usage
- increasing armor rep hull bonuses to 10%

This proposed solution forces armor tankers to learn another new skill (we just had to train RAH skill), increases the already massive fitting cost imbalance even further while doing nothing to the cap issue or making the 7.5% hull bonus any more worthwhile.

Thank you for removing the speed penalty on armor rigs!!!

Where does it say that? Pumps and trimarks are keeping their drawbacks!

The Ancillary Armor Repairer : my first thought is that laser ships get screwed because they already need a cap injector for their weapons and tend to have low cargo capacity. Other than this it seems like an extremely potent module.