These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Adaptive Hardeners Feedback

First post
Author
Stealthshot
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-05-15 00:28:47 UTC
Dont forget to make some meta-x with longer cycle times so they have less cap use on active tanks or even better just use less cap.
Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2012-05-15 11:13:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbie D0ll
Shpenat wrote:
Copine Callmeknau wrote:


Why is this even a thing anyway?
Can't we go back to discussing how this module is basically useless except on the tightest rep fits?


The module is quite useful. Meta 0 EANM gives +15% to all resists, +20% with all compensation skills at max.

Adaptive hardener gives +15% to all resists before adaptation. Will shift to +30% against NPCs (as all of them uses at least 2 damage types) and +60% if being shot by single damage type (missiles).


If we get T2 variant with +20% base resists it would compare to T2 EANM quite nicely.

T2 EANM with all skills: +25% to all resists.
T2 adaptive hardener base: 20% to all resists.
T2 adaptive hardener against 2 damage type NPC: +40%
T2 adaptive resist against single damage type: 80% Shocked now this is probably overpowered.


T2 adaptive resist against single damage type: 80% isn't overpowered, its just a matter of knowing what the current hole is and loading the appropriate ammo in your artillery on your tornado

I would think of this more as a module for strategic cruisers. maybe we could have a version of this module for T3s or have it get a good sized bonus if equipped to Tech 3 ships

another thought, I think this would be more appropriate to be able to get from sleepers, or you would get a chance of getting a BPC from researching sleeper defensive systems.
Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Ixion Defence Systems
#43 - 2012-05-15 11:48:57 UTC
Morgan North wrote:
I've experimentedwith the module, but insofar I've not considered it too usefull. Seems like a good old EANM is better in all situations.

EANM is better if you expect various types of damage.
If you are being attacked with kinetic only (or a combo of two at most) then the adaptive hardener is not bad. If it didn't use any cap (which it does), i would say that it's better than EANM.

Roime
Shiva Furnace
#44 - 2012-05-15 11:54:56 UTC
So the idea of this module is make Caldari and Minmatar, the races with selectable damage types, even more OP than Amarr and Gallente?

.

Lordess Trader
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#45 - 2012-05-15 12:31:46 UTC
I dunno, this resist module just doesnt seem to be worth it without a buff to make it more interesting....

As it stands, for mor euniversal fits for PVP an ENAM makes more sense.
and for PVE specifically fitting the 2 damage types of the rats is insanely more useful...

Both of which are currently how armor fittings are done...

As it is the adapt doesnt seem very fast to me atleast, and the buff doesn't seem that much better than just fitting standard enams and a resist to fill your racial ships hole. but thats my 2 cents
Lordess Trader
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#46 - 2012-05-15 12:33:48 UTC
Mithrantir Ob'lontra wrote:
Morgan North wrote:
I've experimentedwith the module, but insofar I've not considered it too usefull. Seems like a good old EANM is better in all situations.

EANM is better if you expect various types of damage.
If you are being attacked with kinetic only (or a combo of two at most) then the adaptive hardener is not bad. If it didn't use any cap (which it does), i would say that it's better than EANM.



The issue with this in a pvp situation in its current incarnation is the following,

Fit this mod, be ratting get dropped by an enemy, since the way the mod works your still taking say EM damage from the rat, and now your also taking damage from the enemys fireing say Explosive, instead of the module adapting back to a standard ENAM style resistence or even EM+EXP split that would be useful, what the module does is purposefully hold your resistences in a way that you have a huge hole to the new agressor.
Shpenat
General Defense Union
Transgress
#47 - 2012-05-17 09:31:58 UTC
I think there is easy way to fix this module. Instead of current system where you subtract 1% from every damage type not applied and add corresponding amount to incoming damage, do the following

Step 1) Subtract 1% from every non 0 damage no matter the incoming damage

Step 2) Evaluate incoming damage

Step 3) Distribute available resistance points cyclically starting from highest incoming damage type.


This scheme will have same calculation complexity as the checking conditions did not change (only in case of totally adapted module it will be more complex).

Pros: - The module will always adapt to incoming damage
- Coding should be easy as it is just switch of two operation (checking for non-zero resists + subtracting and checking incoming damage types)

Cons: - Need some dev time to code and QA time
- The adaptation speed will not be constant (+3% per cycle when adapting from default state, +1% per cycle when adapting from single damage type to another). This can actually be addressed in this new system quite easily by always subtracting 4 points from whatever damage are non 0
- needs more server time when completely adapted


Can anyone from devs please confirm that they read the post and whether there is still enough time to change this before inferno hits (or whether this is bad idea because I missed something)?
Perihelion Olenard
#48 - 2012-05-17 11:15:51 UTC
Lordess Trader wrote:
Mithrantir Ob'lontra wrote:
Morgan North wrote:
I've experimentedwith the module, but insofar I've not considered it too usefull. Seems like a good old EANM is better in all situations.

EANM is better if you expect various types of damage.
If you are being attacked with kinetic only (or a combo of two at most) then the adaptive hardener is not bad. If it didn't use any cap (which it does), i would say that it's better than EANM.



The issue with this in a pvp situation in its current incarnation is the following,

Fit this mod, be ratting get dropped by an enemy, since the way the mod works your still taking say EM damage from the rat, and now your also taking damage from the enemys fireing say Explosive, instead of the module adapting back to a standard ENAM style resistence or even EM+EXP split that would be useful, what the module does is purposefully hold your resistences in a way that you have a huge hole to the new agressor.


Can the module still be reset by deactivating it and reactivating it? It will then adjust to the new proportion of damage.
Shpenat
General Defense Union
Transgress
#49 - 2012-05-17 11:36:13 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:


Can the module still be reset by deactivating it and reactivating it? It will then adjust to the new proportion of damage.


Yes. Deactivation resets the module.
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2012-05-17 14:20:06 UTC
Haven't tested this mod but I feel in order for it to be effective, it needs to be at it's 100% potential within 2 shots. 2 shots is not overpower and would give the ship time to adapt.
Crellion
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-05-18 09:00:33 UTC
Roime wrote:
So the idea of this module is make Caldari and Minmatar, the races with selectable damage types, even more OP than Amarr and Gallente?



Actually the opposite... but don't expect it to impact primarily pvp anyway...
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-06-01 13:34:45 UTC
Morgan North wrote:
I've experimentedwith the module, but insofar I've not considered it too usefull. Seems like a good old EANM is better in all situations.


I disagree. In PVP this is a good module. Primarily because it is active, you can over heat it. in my opinion if you have armour tanks that were fitted previously with two EANM II's I would keep one and switch the other one to this module.

This module will become standard in armour tanking much like dmg cntrl II is now.
Abraham Moneybags
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-06-04 18:30:43 UTC
Anyone tested how well these work with Gang links?
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-06-11 23:20:24 UTC
Inferno feedback 1.1 thread is locked so.

Plugged in the new skill, 10% reduction in cycle time per level, now 5 second cycle.

This is a lot better.

Apart from the cap, this is now a lot of cap is this being changed?

Still feel that fundamentally the formula needs adjusting to better match damage patterns.
Shpenat
General Defense Union
Transgress
#55 - 2012-06-12 19:57:41 UTC
Cool. Now the hardener is even better than before. The only drawback I see is the rising cap usage. Maybe we can get cap reduction skill as well?

I agree the formula probably need some tweaking, but devs are afraid not to break it completely. TBH I understand them.
carmelos53
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-06-18 00:32:34 UTC
Still not worth using in pvp.... Way to much cap usage. Really really needs a t2 module released. Overal eanms are still way better.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2012-06-18 14:57:47 UTC
i hope this isnt the only answer to the OP nature of shield tanking. if all damage mods are to remain lows, then this tanking mod needs to matter more.
Shpenat
General Defense Union
Transgress
#58 - 2012-06-19 11:09:19 UTC
Would it be possible to lower the activation cost a bit? With the new skill in place the capacitor requirement exclude this module from use on frigates and nearly on cruisers as well.

The basic module uses 42 GJ of capacitor every 10 seconds which translates to -4.2 capacitor per second (CPS)
with lvl 5 of cycle time skill it will rise to -8.4 CPS which is very much comparable to cap usage of small armor repairer.

Together these modules draw over 17 CPS. On the other hand small capacitor booster using 400 navy charge can provide 18.2 CPS. Given the nature of adaptation module you need to run him permanently. Using the small armor repairer at the same time puts you at risk of losing all capacitor and excludes the use of any other active module.

I propose lowering the activation cost to 32 GJ or even lower. As long as this module has more than 15 GJ activation cost it will use more cap than armor hardener.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#59 - 2012-06-19 12:19:59 UTC
And what if you create a shield version of this module ?
Also, currently, the only race it advantages is minmatar, with missiles I loose my bonus in kinetic if I need to switch, plus 10 seconds cooldown. Knowing that the user just need to switch off the adaptive to reset the resists make the damage-swamp tactive just as useless as possible.

So no possibility to use the "holes" as said, and no possibility to equip it myself.. great.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#60 - 2012-06-19 12:39:22 UTC
Shpenat wrote:

I propose lowering the activation cost to 32 GJ or even lower. As long as this module has more than 15 GJ activation cost it will use more cap than armor hardener.

I would be logical for an adaptive hardener to use more capacitor than a standard hardener, but a value more in line with shield hardener would be more manageable.
Considering this skill doubling the cap use of a very cap hungry module, it's then difficult to sustain.