No. Never. Largely because it can't be balanced to begin with, but also because it means that that kind of balancing requires costlier to be better, and that only ever causes imbalance. Cost was attempted as a balancing factor once in EVE. This left us with the never-ending headache that is supercaps.

apart from the fact the ASB ship loses, oh, 60% of his burst tanking capabilities since he has no hardeners.

A lot better than the 100% an armor ship loses.

Cost is indeed a balancing factor, on Tranquility and according to CCP balancing team themselves.

Have you considered that Armour Tanking ships are generally harder to kill than Shield Tank ships (speed aside)?

Source?

Go look at the market for 5 seconds.

So, no source then.

Source?
Oh, and if the ammo is really that problematic, I would agree that it's unfair that AACs can be kept supplied without having to rely on miningGǪ

That's like asking for a source on the existence of gravity.

The cap usage is bad, but to be honest that is the issue with all active tanking (except active shield tanking)

The claim was that the devs have explicitly said that cost is a balancing factor

Latest CSM minutes and Tranquility.

You will notice that a Thorax is cheaper than a Proteus. For example.

AARs use cap boosters and nanite paste, so you need both a complex PI setup and mining.

Yeah sorry it must be my fault for not flying a drake like literally everyone in Eve.

I just provided you the source, now go and read it.

Tell me then what is the balancing factors that prevents T3s from completely obsoleting cheaper ships?

Your Nomad is a freighter, what does it have to do with cost as a balancing factor between combat ships?

AARs still require a cap booster to keep it running on real-life fits, it does not combine two modules into one.

So you don't know either, then? Then how can you make any kind of claim about GÇ£unfairnessGÇ¥, much less about balance?

apart from the fact the ASB ship loses, oh, 60% of his burst tanking capabilities since he has no hardeners.

No. Never. Largely because it can't be balanced to begin with, but also because it means that that kind of balancing requires costlier to be better, and that only ever causes imbalance. Cost was attempted as a balancing factor once in EVE. This left us with the never-ending headache that is supercaps.

If you want to disagree with reality, then that's your problem. Try fitting any kind of battleship-sized armour repper on a BC or cruiser and see what happens. It's just one more way in which armour and shields differ. AARs following the same pattern only makes sense.

No, that's just a supposition. You have done very little to prove anything of the kind. You're harping on about cap and cost without showing what any of the modules translate into in terms of fits and cap usage and rep power and stamina and all the myriad of other things that will make any armour defence system differ from its shield counterpart.

CCP Fozzie from latest Dev Blog here:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74270

Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.

So cost DOES play a part, albeit a non-linear one.

CCP Fozzie from latest Dev Blog here:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74270

Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.

So cost DOES play a part, albeit a non-linear one.

Ok. So what's the actual effects of the cap usage? How does it translate into unfairness?
Cost is not a balancing factor, so that part is irrelevant.
Soft size restrictions are just of way in which armour and shield reps differ GÇö it's not a balancing factor to begin with, even less so since, just as with the cap, you don't illustrate how it translates into any kind of unfairness.

Please read full sentences and paragraphs before posting. I told you the reason just after telling that you, yourself, know the reasons very well.

Heavily neuted ASB tank still works. Heavily neuted AAR tank dies very quickly.

The problem is not that I disagree with reality. It's that you agree. Shield tankers fit multiple modules, armor tankers don't. [GǪ]
I will repeat it: ships FAMOUS for their armor tanking capabilities (Myrmidon) were better off using X-ASBs and wasting their bonus sets than using TRIPLE DEADSPACE REPPER fits.

No, excuse me. I am not harping on about anything. I'm not doing your EFT/SiSi homework for you.

The question here is whether the AARs bring enough of it or not. I think not. You see nothing wrong with armor tanking, but figures and CCP seem to disagree with you.

Heavily neuted ASB provides no benefit, since the ship can't do anything, and the ASB itself is operating at half efficiency since it has no hardeners. The AAR does not, since it can keep itself cap injected with the booster that it fits and that, according to you, the ASB does notGǪ oh, and it's an armour-tanking ship GÇö it sports EANMs. Should it want to go for active hardening, those hardeners live on the same cap injection as the AAR itself.

No, you really didn't.
You pointed me to a mass of text without any clear reference, and to a server that holds no quotes whatsoever.

So I'm leaning more and more towards your supposed source not existing at all, if you're this unwilling to support your claim, to the point where you desperately try to lead people onto snipe hunts GÇö you are trying to reference a source that cannot possibly contain the information in question.

Seleene brought up the issue of a cost difference, citing an example of the Thorax and Deimos. Since the
Deimos is significantly more expensive, Seleene reasoned, shouldn't it be more powerful? Fozzie agreed
to a point and said that the premium you pay for the Deimos should get something like a 20% bonus over
T1. Greyscale added that ships are quasi-balanced on cost, but so that a linear increase in power
correlates to an exponential increase in cost.

Like I said: availability.

The fact that it's more expensive. If cost truly was a balancing factor, that huge price tag would count for something. It doesn't. All that five-fold increase in cost gets me over a normal freighter is a jump drive and better agility (and a bit more HP, which doesn't really matter), but that is balanced against what you actually want in a freighter: cargo space, and even then, we have that much-complained about fact that the basic freighter costs three times more than the ships required to kill itGǪ

GǪaaah, so you mean we can't just look at things on their own, without a context? So the whole cap charges vs. nanite paste complaint of the OP is rather short-sighted? Who'd'a thunk it.

How is this fair?

CCP hates Amarr + They own the game = That's how it's fair.

And the same principle was also mentioned in the balancing dev blog. So yes, cost is a balancing factor and you were wrong.

There is no shortage of T3s or materials used to build them.

Yes, in a sense that he didn't realise that AARs cost cap boosters and nanites. It doesn't invalidate his argument of higher cost in any way, quite contrary.

Why don't you compare it with a ASB with a cap booster or a second ASB instead of comparing 1 module against 2 and pretending it's equivalent?

Tippia, you make tons of good posts but sometimes you're just trolling, like now.