Ancillary armor reps are going to drain cap even when loaded, so any cap stability will be improved slightly at best .

are you sure about this? the wording on the text, even when clearly copy pasted from the shield boosters, its still updated enough to see that they wont.

they aren't seeded yet, so i cant confirm or deny, and as usual stats are probably going to change.

are you sure about this? the wording on the text, even when clearly copy pasted from the shield boosters, its still updated enough to see that they wont.

they aren't seeded yet, so i cant confirm or deny, and as usual stats are probably going to change.

One LAAR on a Hyperion, assuming one nano pump rig for simplicity:

450 x 3(loaded AAR) x 1.375(bonus) x 1.1(rig) x 1.1(overheat) x 8 (number of cycles) = 17968.5 armor repped? That doesn't sound bad at all.

Also keep in mind - MARs are losing 20% pg requirements. LARs are losing 10%. Active tanking rigs increase the pg requirement on reppers now rather then increasing mass.

One LAAR on a Hyperion, assuming one nano pump rig for simplicity:

450 x 3(loaded AAR) x 1.375(bonus) x 1.1(rig) x 1.1(overheat) x 8 (number of cycles) = 17968.5 armor repped? That doesn't sound bad at all.

Also keep in mind - MARs are losing 20% pg requirements. LARs are losing 10%. Active tanking rigs increase the pg requirement on reppers now rather then increasing mass.

over 102 seconds (12.75 cycle with heat)

or 176.16 armor repped per second that sounds bad.

vs the unbonuses/unrigged XLASB which does 980(base rep)*5(second cycles)*7(cap 400s that fit) = 34,300 shield hp repped.
or 196 shield hp repped per second.

and thats before heat.
and doesnt require ship cap
and has the same reload time

you need a rig, heat, and a ship bonus to make your aar less effective then the base stats of the asb.
Oh and i forgot to mention -
->The aar requires the same amount of cap that a t2 repper does,
->requires nanite paste to function properly (or else it does less rep then a t2)
->has the same duration that a t2 has
->and the same basic fitting stats that the t1 has (which is 300 pg and 5 cpu less then the t2).
-> is restricted to one per ship (unlike the asb)

stop being stupid. this module is garbage

over 102 seconds (12.75 cycle with heat)

or 176.16 armor repped per second that sounds bad.

vs the unbonuses/unrigged XLASB which does 980(base rep)*5(second cycles)*7(cap 400s that fit) = 34,300 shield hp repped.
or 196 shield hp repped per second.

and thats before heat.
and doesnt require ship cap
and has the same reload time

you need a rig, heat, and a ship bonus to make your aar less effective then the base stats of the asb.
Oh and i forgot to mention -
->The aar requires the same amount of cap that a t2 repper does,
->requires nanite paste to function properly (or else it does less rep then a t2)
->has the same duration that a t2 has
->and the same basic fitting stats that the t1 has (which is 300 pg and 5 cpu less then the t2).
-> is restricted to one per ship (unlike the asb)

stop being stupid. this module is garbage

ASB being poorly balanced is not a reason to make any newer module as imbalanced as it is.

ASB being poorly balanced is not a reason to make any newer module as imbalanced as it is.

Alt scrub, incorrect maths, wrong conclusion... ah that would be the Eve-O forums then.

On topic, I'm looking forward to these, these past 6 months have seen more changes to my Megathron fits than the past 6 years, loving it.

980 * 1.1(overheat) * 9(navy cap boosters) = 9702 over 38.25 seconds or 253.65 shield per second
If you add in a shield boost bonus that becomes 13340.25 shield or 348.76 hp/s.

Now go back to the AAR. The Repair systems skill reduces the duration by 5%. At level 5 you get to cut your cycle time by 25%. That 15 seconds becomes 9.56 s with overheat. Add an armor nanobot accelerator and you are looking at 8.13 s cycles. An ASB ship will use resist rigs to plug holes. An active tanking armor ship is going to take advantage of the nanobot accelerator rigs and nano pumps.

Recompiling using a 65 second base and you get 201 hp/s for a non bonused ship and 276.44 hp/s for a bonused one. 38.25 seconds vs 65 seconds. Writing it off is a bit presumptuous.

So it's basically a regular armor repair that reps a bit more the first ~40s, then you must take a choice : stopping it for 60s (lol) or keeping using it but it's worst than a T2 rep.

It's... bad. Most of the active/armor fights I experienced lasted (a lot) longer than 40s. And the charges are way too expensive, making it a truely PVP module that carebears farming lvl4 will never ever use.

Half the paste & [cap while eating paste nanites] consumption and maybe it could be used.

Armor gets the short end of the stick yet again. Enjoy your cap consumption for a little more rep than t2 lar. I'll stick with the ASB, thank you.



Even if cost isn't an issue, it consumes cap and doesn't rep enough compared to XLASB. Both will have to be fixed to make it viable/competitive.

the formula is wrong. how are any of the other conclusions wrong?


THe aar is garbage and you all know it

I've pretty much *always* seen these sort of threads pop up when something new is introduced, and seen them proven incorrect 3 - 6 months down the line when the tinkerers complete their tinkering and the meta catches up...

You were out by a factor of five and the central plank to your "it's garbage" argument was based upon the comparison of repaired amount over a complete 'fuel' load.

AAR is very different to ASB, there are a range of fits out there which will get a significant boost once this hits TQ - no, I'm not going to tell you how to fit your ship. maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age - I've pretty much *always* seen these sort of threads pop up when something new is introduced, and seen them proven incorrect 3 - 6 months down the line when the tinkerers complete their tinkering and the meta catches up...

The worst thing Fozzie et al could have done is recreate the ASB in armour form.

ASB being poorly balanced is not a reason to make any newer module as imbalanced as it is.

Everything being about choices and options available, the available options after inferno 1.2 being what they are, the main question remains: why use AAR over ASB if you don't gate/station camp?

Fair enough :

XLASB (9 cycles) : 980*9 = 8820 hp ; 5s*9 = 45s ; 196 hp/s
LAAR (8 cycles) : 600*2,25*8 = 10800 hp ; 8*11,25s = 90s ; 120 hp/s

Though it is a bit unfair (armor have auxiliary nanopump too), here the numbers with one rig and heat
Heat (boost amount +10% ; cycle time -15%) + cycle time reduction (-15% cycle time) :
XLASB (9 cycles) : 8820*1,10 = 9702 hp ; 4,25s*9 = 38,25s ; 253,6 hp/s
LAAR (8cycles) : 10800*1,10 = 11880 hp ; 8,128*8 = 65s ; 182 hp/s

Nobody use cycle time rigs before auxiliary nanopump or resistance rigs, and you can easily use a LAR on top of the LAAR to earn XLASB like hp/s, at the cost of a required cap booster though.
LARII : 800/11,25 = 71 hp/s
LAAR + LARII : 253 hp/s

Most armor fit use auxiliary nanopump, sometimes 2 of them, because that increase both burst and efficiency whereas active shield fit use resistance rigs, the only way to increase efficiency, but far less efficient for this than ANP. This is then a bit hard to compute a comparison without a fitting tool, and that may very well end in a fitting war. IMO, in the end, efficiency/burst/hp amount are pretty balanced, the only odd thing being the capless feature of ASB.

As Bouh Revetoile beat me to it, there's not much else to say on the numbers (key difference being that ASB drops flat after half the time) except that going way way back, armour vs shield has always been balanced as 1 XL shield booster vs 2x Large armour repairers - now clearly you can't fit two AAR, but comparing XLASB vs LAR + LAAR is valid in my opinion, particularly considering the ships that will be using them.

I guess to sum it all up; don't try to directly compare ASB to AAR, you need to see how fits evolve rather than jumping straight on the "it's garbage" bandwagon - like I said, there are viable fits that will see immediate beneft from switching in this module.