On the idea of taking officer weapons away from warbarges:

That cuts down on a huge amount of meta gameplay, and definitly hurts player trade. You still need to invest some time and resources to produce officer gear. I like the idea that everyone who has saved thier own resources can produce something valuable. The only reason to trade officer weapons is that you dont have to worry about them becoming so rare that you are better off skilling into that weapon rather than trading them.

Personally, that would wreck my own meta, since i trade officer weapons for suits and skins. Strongbox drops just dont cut it.


Rattati's premise that officer gear should be for top PC corps:

Just, no. Instead of officer weapons being spread out according to the free market, what that entails is creating a marketplace bottleneck where only a relative few well have acess to large amounts OP gear.

That would drag PC's back into its elitist state, where up and commers will have alot of trouble going against a vet PC corp with bons's running about. And those same corps will turn around and stop the crap out of pubs. They have acess and nobody else does. Recipe for disaster that.

The shield module ideas are pretty good. Please look into the lower tier rechargers, energisers and regulators. The progression from militia to complex is pretty poor.

*edited out the rest. I think I see the CPM's perspective on regulators now. Fitting costs have been balanced here without consideration of regulators. I thought this was a problem, but when I think of the regen delay changes, I see that regulators are being relegated to a minor module to help shield tanking, rather than a main tanking module.

Due to the regulator's ability to discourage dual tanking, I think it's a bit of a shame to reduce it's importance. However I can see how it is easier to balance things in a world where regulators are less significant.
I guess the idea then would be that kincats are the shield tanker's equivalent of damage mods, as an assault module that can be fitted without sacrificing tank, to discourage dual tanking.

With this in mind, I like the numbers presented here for modules, having looked at both the regen penalties on reinforced extenders and the new CPU and PG stats for basic extenders. I think the increased fitting cost of reinforced extenders should follow a similar markup as armour plates, so needs to be a bit more costly. A plate costs 50% more than ferro, and gives about 75% more hp. The reinforced shield would give 50% more hp, so should cost about 30% more than normal extenders.

I do wonder though whether the regen penalty on the reinforced extender is enough. Have you considered adding a profile penalty? As well as increasing the sacrifice on all suits for getting the extra hp, it would particularly discourage scouts from using them, who otherwise may get a disproportionately high benefit from them. Don't shields increase profile in EVE?

I think the CPU/PG of flux extenders should be similar to normal extenders, in the same way that reactive plates are similar to ferroscale. For example, a reinforced extender and a fiux extender together give more hp, better regen and a shorter delay than fitting two regular extenders, and costs less PG.

I think you should have a look at some slightly lower hp configurations. Such as 2 rep 3 ferro, or 3 extender 2 energiser. All the examples are pretty high up in the hp scale. It would also be interesting to see the figures using the hotfix regen numbers. Perhaps I'll have a look myself.