Does the nanobot overcharger work on capital reps?

Upset about 2k8 nano nerf.

Fix nanos, not my fault most of the eve player base is ********* as **** and ccant take a **** **** ****** up the *******. In short go **** ****** icelandic ***, fix nanos.

danke

inb4 suspension

sounds all very interesting, two things which came in my mind while reading:
- faction plates should be revisited. they have been forgotten as the T2 plates where balanced
- wouldn't a "Ancillary Resistance Booster" be more interesting for armor as a ancillary reper?

cool stuff! certainly looking forward to the changes

I have a question, what about 1600mm Plates? Why are they excluded from the bonus? I personally never use anything smaller than those for plates.

If i'm reading this correctly, 1600 plates are unaffected by the new skill? That would definitely be a small step towards making other plates viable - though tbh 1600s will most likely still dominate.

If i'm reading this correctly, 1600 plates are unaffected by the new skill? That would definitely be a small step towards making other plates viable - though tbh 1600s will most likely still dominate.

No, the skill effects all plates, and the listed plates get a base mass reduction as well (without the skill)

Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity.

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

The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus
The 800mm and 200mm change is to help narrow that gap a bit (I know it doesn't narrow it all the way) and the 50mm change is there just to keep OCD people happy.

1600s still get the benefit of the new skill.

This makes the hyperion very hard to fit, also your new mod is not as good as two faction reps.

You said
"The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus "

Then you said
"1600s Still get the benefit of the new skill."

Which is it?

I have to say, the speed > powergrid penalty swap thing does appear likely to blow a crap ton of armor fits off the table. Bye bye to anything but the tiniest guns on any armor fit at all.

I have to say, the speed > powergrid penalty swap thing does appear likely to blow a crap ton of armor fits off the table. Bye bye to anything but the tiniest guns on any armor fit at all.

Read his post again.

Some plates have a decreased mass penalty.

All plates have a new appropriate skill to further reduce mass penalty.

One thing, I really cannot see a reason why you would fit 2 vanilla reppers rather than a ancil and a vanilla.



Like, sure it will rep a bit less once it runs out of charges but surely its massively worth that?

Why not just buff all armor reps?
One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.

The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus

Just reading over these changes again... my beloved ishkur fit will not be possible after these changes due to a PG issue... here's how it currently sits:

Fit

And that's with ions :( ... looks like I'll have to refit to electrons post patch :(

With regards to the AAR -
"Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper"
Does this also include when being "fuelled" by a cap booster? If so, that means that cap boosters only fuel the increased rep amount, right?

I'd like to know the reasoning to limit the AAR to one per ship while not limiting ASB in the same way, "it's different" is not a reason in and of itself and there needs to be a balancing logic behind it. Not saying I'd want to have more AAR per ship but rather that I'd like ASB to be limited to 1.

Also fitting those AAR in combination with those new rigs is going to be hilariously difficult for some ships to a point where they simply can't do it.

lold

so :ccp:
are you even playing your own game?

armor is so bad not because reps rep nothing or because buffer is insufficient.

the problem with armor is generally because majority of armor boats cant do shet against kiting
and it follows that you cant escape shet when you need to. and all your super-slaved-buffers-with-bonus-legion will not help you.

im talking about solo-to-small-scale warfare.

Maybe that's the reason you should just take the other sizes out of the game and buff the ones people actually use instead . . .

People prefer these sizes because when you're fitting for buffer you want the most buffer you can fit, and these are the "biggest" you can get on in the relevant ship classes. People put MSEs on frigates and LSEs on everything else, leaving SSEs to have not that much use really, once your fitting skills are up. You might as well buff SSEs for no apparent reason just because nobody uses them either.

The problem here is that the "biggest" buffer modules we have are fittable on less than the biggest classes of ships, so you have pretty wide range where nothing else makes sense to use. Of course that's going to make them look "overused."

Ahhhhh, so THIS is what you had in mind for active armor tanking Fozzie.

These changes would only increase the PG need of that fit by between 0.5 and 0.25 (depending on your armor rigging skill). Still fits.

So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?

I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?

This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed?

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.

These changes would only increase the PG need of that fit by between 0.5 and 0.25 (depending on your armor rigging skill). Still fits.

It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction.

There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it.

You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.

So much for catching up to you in likes....

Does this change by extention mean that passive tanking shield rigs are getting velosity penalty? becouse one way to balance is to boost one thing, and other is nerf its counterpart. I think that this small boost wont get armor tanking anywhere near shield-tanking unless they get some good old nefbat treatment.

how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare?

its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR!

presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships!

Why not just buff all armor reps?

One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way.

I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.

At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.

You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.

And also super overpowered.

And also super overpowered.

Do you have any plans to take a look at the Proteus' cargo bay with the armor tanking subsystem? It doesn't have enough space for normal cap boosting, let alone AARs. IIRC there are several other Gallente ships that are expected to active tank and have relatively tiny cargobays.

-Liang

Just reading over these changes again... my beloved ishkur fit will not be possible after these changes due to a PG issue... here's how it currently sits:

Fit

And that's with ions :( ... looks like I'll have to refit to electrons post patch :(

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.

If it is super overpowered, how do you explain resist bonuses?

-Liang

Ed: I don't mean to get in your junk over this. Just that resist bonuses affect EHP as well, which would mean that they'd still be preferred over 7.5% rep bonuses. 1/.25 = 1.33333, 1*(.075*5) = 1.375. The difference in "effective received rep" isn't very great.

I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.

At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.

It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction.

There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it.

You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.

At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.

this.

i dont mean to be harsh fozzie but i have been waiting for this to be looked at for a long long long time and am rather disappointed that this has not been addressed...

with the most respect possible

- fuk

I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.

At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.

Ha! Now tell me, wouldn't it have made MUCH more sense to fix armor tanking FIRST, and THEN go and re-balance ships? Instead of rebalancing ships first, then fixing the mechanics that were broken but ships are bonused for, and then having to re-re-balance ships once again?

Aside from rep bonus, you'll probably have to take a look at things like cargo hold (for the charges for the new AAR), the PG (for the new rigs), the repair bonus (like with Incursus), etc. How awesome would it have been if you could re-balance ships in a single pass? Instead of tweaking the same ship several times in a 3 month period?

And think about the future. Remember all those shiney new drone boats? Tristan, Algos, Dragoon, etc? Remember those? What will happen to them when drones will get their review and re-balance? Those will have to be revisited once again to make sure they're not too weak or too strong. Like the Myrmidon under review now, what do you want to bet that someone will have to go back to that one after drones are rebalanced and rebalance it again?

So, doesn't it make sense to fix the core mechanics before re-balancing ships? Instead of doing multiple ship re-re-balances? Or am I just nuts?

Good changes though, at least on paper. I just wish they were done in order instead of donkey-backwards.

To be fair, there's been so much expectation (from and by the community) set around any armor tanking boost that there's no way CCP could ever have "gotten it right" without making armor tanking utterly overpowered. I'm pretty ok with not getting RR from active rep bonuses, but the assertion that it'd be "super overpowered" just rings slightly false to me.

/shrug

-Liang

My Brutix just got a boner.

I may have goofed with the maths, but the Nanobot Overcharger rigs look distinctly underwhelming. On an unrigged ship, heating a rep increases your HP/second by 29% (1.1x rep amount/0.85x cycle time). With an NO, that goes up to a 40% increase on heating (1.13x rep amount/0.805x cycle time). Unless I've done the maths wrong, that means there's never a situation where the NO is better than an auxiliary nano pump outside of potential edge cases where you're running into massive stacking penalties (triple nano pumps? does anyone do this?):

Unheated rep, no rigs: 1x rep amount
Unheated rep + heat rig: 1x rep amount
Unheated + auxiliary nano pump I: 1.15x rep amount

Heated rep, no rigs: 1.29x rep amount
Heated rep + heat rig: 1.4x rep amount
Heated rep + auxiliary nano pump I: 1.48x rep amount (1.29x rep amount for heat times 1.15x rep amount for the nano pump)

Your math is correct, my math was wrong. I had been approximating the rigs in our internal test server using stat changed modules and had gotten the math wrong on the bonus. To hit the benefits I was aiming for, the rig will double the heat bonus at tech one.

That's what I get for posting before all the authoring challenges are worked out, but thanks for catching it now instead of someone having to catch it later.

I've updated the OP

Is my title pretentious enough?
...

Why not just buff all armor reps?

One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.

and what about readjusting the active arour tanking ships pg? so that they cane still be reasonably fit with the armor rigs?
also will the rigg penalty changes be effecting the other our rigs or just the active tanking ones?

and then how does this balance with the asb which atm can fit more than one, cant be nueted off like the aar, and has more base rep tan the aar?

This effect is stacking penalized and gives no bonus when the reps are not overheated. Same calibration and build costs as a Aux Nano or Nanobot Acc rig.

Stacked with what, only with itself or the other two rigs as well?

Do rigs affect AAR cycle time?

Quick check looks like 10-slot AAR+MAR II tank is finally better than 4-slot dual XLASB on an all V's Myrmidon.

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.

If you didn't read the proposed BC changes, IIRC all the BCs (including Amarr), got larger cargos.

These changes would only increase the PG need of that fit by between 0.5 and 0.25 (depending on your armor rigging skill). Still fits.

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.

I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.

At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.

It will be interesting to see a rep/sec comparison between a hull with a 7.5% repair bonus and a hull with a 5% resistance bonus.

Not sure the repair amount hull bonus is helpful enough even after these changes to active armor tanking. Please don't give both Gallente BCs a marginally useful bonus.

Not sure the repair amount hull bonus is helpful enough

Some numbers to help us understand what the changes mean for active armor tanking.


A Prophecy outfitted with:

1x Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer
2x EANM II
1x DCU II

1x Aux. Nano Pump I
1x Nanobot Accelerator
1x Nanobot Overcharger I


An overloaded AAR with charges nets us a 550 dps tank which is very respectable. If we go with a dual rep setup, 2x medium armor repairer II nets us a 651 dps tank with half the overload time.

The Nanobot Overcharger is key here as overloading boost repair/sec by +71%.

What happens if we put 3x nanobot overchargers in there? Assuming the stacking penalties are the same as for all other modules (1x first, 0.86x second, 0.57x third) we're looking at overload boosting repair/sec by +171%. This would result in 646 dps tanked with the AAR setup.

And also super overpowered.

Can't you just keep it the same and skip having a small AAR? =<

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.

Trivial:
5% resist bonus: 1 / (1-(0.05*5)) = 4/3 = 1.33333. This applies to local repair, EHP, and incoming remote repair.
7.5% rep bonus: 1 + (.075*5) = 1.375. This applies to only local repair.
This should remain true for all of the changes in question.
-Liang

Definitely points out inequity between active repping bonus and active resistance bonus. Can somebody at CCP explain this logic?

Do they think the Gallente hulls are otherwise overpowered and should therefore only receive a 3% increase in self repping power over the Amarr tanking hull?

Secondly, I really think you should stop adding support skills to the game, you keep widening the gap between old and new players, you need to REDUCE support skill training time and INCREASE ship and weapon skill training time, so maximising in a particular specialty is quicker instead of needing 20mill sp in support skills to get the maximum from your t1 frig, it's fracking stupid and not at all condusive to keeping new players.

So does anybody still use ASBs? I ripped them out all of my fits as the "die in one minute" module. At least they were useful once when they could be fit in pairs and one module worked while the other reloaded but now we need three (or is it four?) for constant boosting and IMHO it became trash.

Will the armor asb share the same trajectory? I only ask because thie game doesn't have enough useless modules in it already it's definitely better introducing more crap instead of fixing what's already in it.

+1 on all the other proposed changes, though.

Also how about removing the speed penalty from armor modules altogether? It's space after all. Just leave the agility penalty thatr's enough IMHO.

Also how about removing the speed penalty from armor modules altogether? It's space after all. Just leave the agility penalty thatr's enough IMHO.

+1

Wouldn't that fix a lot of imbalances? What are the arguments against this?

Niceiiish.

But no cigar. For med reps and up rigs will make your reps eat even more grid, and armor reps already devour grid. I can't degrade further from electrons, can I?

And really really bad for not doing anything about existing armor reps!

People have been saying for years that active armor tank is sub par, and you mostly leave it alone and add one more new and unnecessary module. Again one with so contrived mechanics that you have to limit it to 1 per ship. You still need cap booster, you are just eating charges much faster and in two places, and its either limited duration boost and than sub part to t1 meta 0 repper or you have additional "normal" armor reps on.

I hereby support the idea of replacing current armor rig penalties with agility penalties across the board. This is so simple and brilliant !

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.

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.