Of small shield boosters

There is something I would like to bring up because of the debate on the jaguar and the Hawk and that is small shield boosters.
If small shield boosters weren’t so terrible, it would open a lot of new fitting options for frigates.
I don’t know if anyone remembers but in the old forums there was a thread were someone made this nice sheet for tank mods and some other, which all fit on a sheet of paper.
Anyway. on this sheet (yes it is old) it states that small shield booster were designed for small ships - frigate class.
Medium shield boosters for destroyers and large for cruisers and battlecruisers.

In theory the small shield boosters should be close to the repair equivalent of a small armor rep but because of the way turrets work, it does not work at all.

Let’s look at the t2 small armor rep and the small shield booster.

  • The small shield booster II reps 35hp per 2 seconds
  • The small armor rep gives you 92hp per 4.5 seconds (with repair systems level 5)

The math tells us that 2x 35 is not 90hp, which would be the hp you should get if you run the small shield booster for 4 seconds.

To make matters worse, there are armor rigs that increase the repair amount per cycle by 20% or the equivalent of a standard blue pill (auxiliary nano pump)

The shield boosters do not have that option. There is the shield boost amplifier which is a powerful module when you can fit one but frigates do not have that option.
Most fits evolved to fitting a medium shield booster instead but it would be nice to have a viable small option.

My proposal is to increase the small shield boosters hp amount per cycle by 10 point, which would be closer to the small armor rep.
That way the small t2 shield booster would give 45hp per cycle instead of 35hp.


I suspect the reason for this difference is that shields will regenerate on their own whereas armor does not.


It’s about frigates. The shield regeneration thing is only so strong.


Understood, my only point is that with the right skills to buff shield regen, you have more parity than just comparing the rates of the shield boost vs. AR. In other words, the comparison is really shield regen + SB vs. AR as opposed to just SB vs. AR.

Just suggesting what CCP’s logic was behind that decision.

Also armor tanking eats low slots so fewer DMG mods, speed mods/etc


Weird thing about shields is their PG and CPU dont add up to the ship size they were ment for, its like medium stuff was ment for small ships, large were ment for medium ships, and stacking large for large ships (capital lines up nice)

Its almost as if they added small mods just to give a constant name order.

But this arguement is much like the 100mm plates, they are there because they are there, though I dont know why it exists.


I suspect because a lot of new players use them on pve frigates and such ccp considers them fine as they are,sort of like fitting a large yet less capintensive shield booster to a battleship for pve instead of x-large

I’m generally in agreement that SSBs are somewhat awful, but so is your math.

4.5/2 = 2.25 shield cycles/armor cycle
2.25*35 = 78.75 hp recovered by shield booster per armor cycle

92-78.75 = 13.25 more hp for armor during one cycle.

Now, boost that by 10 hp to 45 and we’re at:

2.25*45 = 101.25

101.25-92 = 9.25 more hp for shield during one armor cycle.

I’m not sure that was the intent.

Let’s look at some ancillary concerns. Again, I’m neither for nor against, but I think these deserve mention.

  1. Shield gets the option of fitting a medium. Armor really, really doesn’t. This to me points to the SSB needing to be less effective in some way than the SAR.
  2. Invulns are hard to fit on frigates; so are EANMs, but ANPs exist. Armor has to make fewer sacrifices to get decent omni resists. I guess this favors giving SSBs a bit of a kick.
  3. Rigs, which you covered already.
  4. Cap efficiency. SSBs run 35hp/18GJ = 1.94 hp/GJ. SARs run 92hp/40GJ = 2.3 hp/GJ. Armor is pretty clearly better there.
  5. Shields boost instantly. This is rather important on frigates where waiting out an armor cycle can be quite long.

So one option to maintain difference while hit some increased parity would be to increase SSB cycle time to, oh, 3 seconds. Increase cap use to 25GJ and take boost amount up to 55hp. Shields are now at 2.2hp/GJ and 18.3 hp/s. (Armor hp/s is 20.4, but at the end of the cycle.) Drop CPU on SSB fitting to under half MSB so that if you have the slots two SSB might actually be better than one MSB.

Tweak numbers as needed.


I am not fixated on the values and I know the math is a little of here but you get my point.

And of course there are small and medium ancillery boosters, which I still consider prototype modules.
My initial proposal with the 45hp for the t2 small shield booster came from fitting one on a Hawk, which gives the small shield booster 48hp per cycle with the bonus.

That could be too much in the direction of the medium one which also has 3 seconds cycle time but does more than 3x the hp (128hp for the c5 emergency meta one) of the small one (on a Hawk).

While informative this completely ignores the balance that could be achieved by just removing mediums shield boosters, increasing small shield reps up and the cap costs up and leaving it there.

Stop. Smalls exist for a good reason… because of small remote reps. Which is within the realm of being somewhat sustainable with cap charges on logi frigates. There is also the fact that small reps are what are sustainable for people using their racial corvettes.

The fact that most players just take that economic bootstrap from the tutorial and training agents to bypass that old introductory level of play and avoid playing logi doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a reason to exist.

That is not in question and the philosophical discussion about the existence of life is also not in question here.

My question to the experienced audience is, if you think a 10hp increase per cycle to the small shield booster would break EVE.

Fit up a dual small hawk. Then swap them for a single CL 5. I did this thought experiment last night and the difference is stark with the medium offering comparable performance for less fitting and more slots free.

1 Like

Ouuh that sounds interesting. I will give it a look.

Try a passive Harpy, you can often tank 1-2 T1 frigates with the regen.

Small deadspace shield boosters are good for some plexing fits (Worms in particular).

But yeah, I do get your point OP. We should also just delete the 100mm plate.


The Harpy just screams to buffer tank her, so yeah that’s what I have been doing.

I agree, the 100mm is as useful as toe fungus.

1 Like

[Malediction, Malediction fit]

Adaptive Nano Plating II
Adaptive Nano Plating II
100mm Steel Plates II
Damage Control II

J5 Enduring Warp Disruptor
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Warp Scrambler II

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Rocket

Small Low Friction Nozzle Joints II
Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II

The 100mm plate serves a purpose. On this malediction it makes almost zero impact to agility and adds 25% more ehp to the fit. Make any argument you want about fitting a repper or more speed but having virtually free extra 1k hp is enough for the scenarios where you’d take a male instead of a stiletto or whatever.


The inclusion of modules like the ones being discussed remind me that fitting is an art form. One of the best things to see in EVE is to watch a fitting guru use these modules to create things that probably should not exist. Without modules like these EVE would become a very cookie cutter place.


True. But back to my proposal, since I am not discussing armor plates but the small t1 and t2 shield booster, which is as useful as chlamydia.

1 Like

Talking about utility of viruses in the process of evolution, are you ?