Its worth noting that the regen nerf is probably not the reason shield tanks arent used anymore, more likely the problem for shield tanks is that armor tanks are way, way better.

Can we get back to the topic at hand? The proposal Aeon drew up?

The foundational method makes the situation easier to assess and address.

Giving all caldari suits the current scout regen with sentinel depleted delay could help offset the disparity brought on by secondary regen sources available to armor.

its widely believed that the gallente assault is over performing,

Thats true, but looking at it from a practical perspective, I find it doubtful and I feel like if it did turn out that way it would make Cal suits pretty rediculously overpowered in a low teamwork environment (1v1 fights or pubs for example).

You can think of it this way:
If a Cal suits regen is so good it can compete with armor tank + repair tool then wouldnt 1 Cal suit vs. 1 armor tank alone just be a complete blowout? Im sure you could find a balance between factors somewhere but sounds unlikely. I'd much rather have some neat equipment shield users can exploit to achieve teamwork induced parity.

Are there any plans to look into the disparity of equipment? Availability of triage hives and rep tool support is a real spoiler that takes away the one advantage shield suits (at least currently) have, primary tank repair speed.

Which seems to be what people aren't getting. As I understand it, this thread is about finding a foundational method that makes more sense than the other ones, so we have a predictable framework to work within

I don't see how it would be overpowered, scout would be the same, sentinel the same, assault a little better, commando quite a bit better.. not even close to an armor stacked player with a rep tool.. no delay on armor reps or damage threshold which is a huge bonus to armor. Not to mention damage mods. 700 shields vs 700 armor shooting at eachother for 2 seconds will have the armor suit repping for 2 straight seconds while the shield suit will still have a delay when it stops taking damage.. apples=/=oranges with Ehp.

"not even close to an armor stacked player with a rep tool"

Then shields still fail in the overall meta. Thats why I was asking about support equipment.

If shield suits cant compete as a team against armor based suits, its still not balanced.

It's interesting to note that for my recovery time based proposal, I have only had to make very minor changes to assaults. They already have approximately the same shield recovery times as each other.

Perhaps this is already CCP's design, at least as far as assaults are concerned.

so why do you have the minlogi taking a shield regen nerf?

that makes zero sense in any context. 15 regen/sec makes shield rechargers and energizers largely useless

You seem to object to heavy HP suits getting a shield buff, but all of your armor tanked suits get some kind of shield buff.

I think you are misunderstanding the premise of my proposal. It is based on shield recovery time. Minmatar logis have unusually low shields, and more armour to compensate. With less shields it takes less time for them to regen, therefore they don't need as high a regen rate. If their shield and armour hp values were rebalanced they could retain their regen.

And since when am I against heavy HP suits getting a shield buff? My proposal has Caldari commandos receiving the largest buff, and in general commandos and sentinels are getting buffed more than the others. Min scouts the possible exception.

Mainly though, in comparison to the OP's proposal, sentinel shield regen will be considerably faster when compared to assaults and logis. So this is a much better deal for heavies than the OP's proposal.

the other half of the proposal aeon is working on is mine, I'm doing the depleted delays and shield module tweaks. Aeon's assessment of where the recharge delays appears to be spot on.

the objective is to make shields GOOD again, on par with armor for utility IF you take it on a 1 for 1 basis and throw the armor tool out the window for the consideration.

If shields are good across the board, then the caldari and minmatar benefit most solidly no matter what because the shield regeneration modules start with a sronger baseline to work from.

Further, the min logi can shield tank rather well, it's slot layout determines that it can speed tank, armor tank, shield tank or DPS tank. Using the baseline shield/armor stats is taking a small piece of the picture and making that the sum.

This is not a stealth "Buff armor suits" thread.

This is hunting a cohesive and coherent curve that can be used as a baseline so that if things need adjusting the whole curve can shift equally instead of the haphazard shuffle of balance we have had in the past.

We, the CPM are seeking a LINEAR, and LOGICAL progression of shield recharge delays that does not use arbitrary metrics.

For example:

Making gallente and amarr shield stats the same is a bad idea IMHO because the amarr have a higher proportionate armor to shield ratio than the gallente assault does. since the amarr are less dependent on shields and more focused on armor buffer, why should they enjoy equal shield protection to the other armor race who cannot match them for raw HP?

Yeah if shield suits are not able to hold a viable place then balances is skewed.
Equally, if 1 merc (running shields, or armor, or a pink bunny suit, doesn't matter) is as potent as 2 mercs running an alternate fitting type then we still don't have balance.

Having the possibility of shield support actions thus becomes rather important because then it's down to player and team choices which options to bring to the field. It's opportunity cost.

Currently there's some degree of catch 22 in that if a squad of 4 shield based mercs can't stand against 4 armor based mercs 1-2 of which are support then there's clearly not functional balance.

However if 1 shield based merc can stand against 1 armor based merc with reps (meaning the shield merc is winning a 2v1) then there is also not functional balance.

It is also why the first step, the codification of a clear conceptual method, is so vital and cannot be done within the context of tweaking current numbers especially on mods etc
It is needful to break it down into it's simplest possible state and move upward from there into details which will tune things.
Honestly almost any number set is going to end up being altered after its actual in game effects are seen, so getting caught looking for the perfect set of numbers prior to deployment will likely just bog down making any changes at all.

Aeon's also creates a linear progression along that same slant, what is the major objection to his numbers?

What makes them bad?

Why is this curve he proposes a bad thing that needs to be opposed and changed?

If the answer is "I don't like it" then that's a valid answer, but the issue is getting confused by irrelevant and seemingly random statements from various individuals ranging from "Gallente are overperforming" which has nothing to do with this proposal or in my assessment, reality, to "King HP" and "Spin and win" which are both anecdotal, deliberately inflammatory and irrelevant.

I've already TORTUROUSLY picked Aeon's proposal apart screaming to the point where he was willing to give up talking to me entirely in private, and I am now finally satisfied with what he's cooking in the stew pot. Cross has picked apart Aeon's proposal (much more politely than I have) and so have the others.

So tell me, objectively, with numbers. What is insufficient in Aeon's shield regeneration overhaul proposal that is worth the amount of vehement opposition I have seen in this thread?

As Valroth CORRECTLY assessed:

This proposal is about a method. the numbers can be tweaked to fit the setup we need, at will.

Meh, maybe it will all be fine.

If scouts need buffing CCP could always role back some of the cloak nerfs a bit.

If sentinels need buffing CCP could always role back some of the HMG nerfs a bit.

If shield tanking needs more of a buff, there are ways.

Maybe people won't dual tank.

dual tanking will always be a thing unless doing so is directly penalized.

I've suggested doing so, but I'm outvoted.

you dont outright penalize dual tanking. you make it impossible to make a viable fit. meaning the pg and cpu cost of a dual tank would leave you running sidearms with no equipment. that would solve everything naturally.

"King HP" and "Spin and win" are both (1) anecdotal, (2) deliberately inflammatory and (3) irrelevant.

King HP is in for a surprise ...