I have always had an issue where absorbs and reflects generally did the exact same job but in a slightly different way. This can be drawn out into a big discussion itself but I would mostly like to suggest a change to differentiate the two more.
Simply put, I was thinking either reflects or absorbs could stop covering all damage types in exchange for becoming stronger in their specific damage. It does not seem appropriate for reflects, especially considering that the reflects act as the soldier's primary pseudo-health increase, so I believe absorbs are the best candidate. I will give examples of how I believe it would work.
As an example from the proposed nano changes:
Superior Fortify = 2000 to all absorbs, 10 second cooldown
Superior Fortify (Physical) = 4000 to melee and projectile absorbs, 10 second cooldown
Quite simple change where I doubled the strength but the absorb is now highly limited in the same manner as the reflect/damage shield bracers are now. This increases the skill based knowledge of the absorb casters in pvp and pvm, but also forces other players to alternate damage types rather than the only tactic necessary against absorbs now is for a player to have two weapons of the same damage type.
Temporary absorb boosters like bio cocoon and the nanomage booster I would keep as covering all damage types to account for the long recharge in use. For the team-based absorb nanos I would also keep them as covering all damage types at the weaker levels of absorbs to make them more reasonable in team/mass pvp situations. As for how the absorbs would work, so we can avoid enforcers and NTs having 50 different absorb nanos to cast, is to simply scale up the strength of the absorb based on their casting skill levels.
The four variations in damage type absorbs would have a scaling strength based upon the caster's nanoskill levels. The team-absorbs could be kept the same as proposed or made into a single team nano which functions as I proposed.
A small change that makes pvp and pvm more dynamic always seems like a good change to me, but I hope to hear some other viewpoints on this suggestion.