These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Reactive Armor Hardener

Author
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#41 - 2012-08-13 12:47:02 UTC
I couldn't be bothered to test it - basically, the properties appear extremely underwhelming - and on top of that, there's an associated skill that increases cap usage - maybe worth it on capitals, but mine are mothballed for the time being due to lack of interesting conflicts I'd field them in.

I'm sure some group like PL will come up with a fleet doctrine relying on them, whiping the floor with a couple of -A- fleets. or R&K modify their Pantheon fit to incorpprate them (unlikely, as refitting conventional hardeners appears more effective) and make a nice video.

Accordingly, Garmon, Will Adama or any other prominent solo pvp players will come up with some videos where they wipe the floor with some renter gatecamp, having an RAH fitted.

People will argue 'see? told you RAHs were totally OP', but the problem is that above examples would have went that way even if they had an empty lowslot instead.

Currently, I really wonder what CCPs plans are for armor and shield tanking are, respectively.
Looks like Immobile-Cap-Blob-Buffer-RR for armor, shield for everything else.

I don't really mind, as I have decent to maxed armor and shield skills on all my characters, but it sure seems Armor tanking keeps getting the shat end of the stick, wheras things like rig penalties should have been fixed a long, long time ago.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
PMolkenthin
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-08-13 21:28:01 UTC
Useless IMO. It needs to 'phase' much quicker. Even with the special skill to level 5, it's still too slow to help.

1) Make it a passive module to replace the EANM's
2) Make it fully shift in 5-10 seconds with maxed skill
3) Release T2 and faction variants that do number 2.

TomyLobo
U2EZ
#43 - 2012-08-14 04:20:34 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
In conclusion? This module ******* blows ass. We get 2 broken tanking modules in inferno, asb which broke small gag and reactive armor hardeners which just suck. Well done ccp... (I'm being sarcastic)

. . but truthful. Shield tanking got an op new module. Shield buffers were actually already doing better than armor buffers (even though the shield crowd likes to whine about 1600s v LSE) and continue to if you look at the monthly eve-kill top 20. Now active shield tanking is proving to be a necessity in small gang. This month is shaping up even more extremely tilted toward shield http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 .

Meanwhile armor tanking got a ****** active hardener that as many have said makes laser and hybrid users even more susceptible to cap warfare, and just got a change to the tech II 1600 plate that is a "say what?!"

I thought CCP had talked about making close range gunned armor tanking viable, but here we get more mass so congrats you are even more of a brick that can't apply your damage to buffer shield kiters or the new close range shield brawlers fittings asbs (merlins, hookbills, feroxes . . .). As some attempt at balance they propose an increase from 7.5 to 10% per level on active armor tanking. That will mean nothing except for pve (incursus and proposed for brutix - hyperion). It does not fix the necessity for mutliple (even 3 Roll) reppers with multiple cap boosters hoggin up all the grid and cap. The mass additions do nothing to fix the brick **** I can't get in range to apply damage buffer fits.

Overall I'm baffled by the continued racial blinders the dev team seems to have on. They apparently feel that only Caldari ships should get an optimal or range bonus, or twoRoll (cormorant etc.) and fail to see how range bonuses combined with asbs allows those ships to not only reign supreme at kiting but also in some cases outperform the armor close range setups.

They need to start giving range bonuses to non-caldari ships. They need to do something quick about armor tanking and the penalties they are only exagerating with their attempts to buff it.

The game should continue to have racial flavors, but unfortunatley they are making it even more pidgeonholed for roles. Lasers should have sniping options. Gallente ships should not all have to be blaster fit when they can fit rails. And minmatar should get some range on arty as well. It should not become a game of shield tanking missile and rail kiters, or asb fit brawlers, with no viable armor tanking schemes. If they do not do some corrections fast armor will be joining the dodo, and everyone will be flying Caldari and Minmatar.

Please, I'd restrain from ranting about tanking styles, if you are only going to look at it from one point of view. Armor tanking unlike shield tanking has always been and is still is the preferred tanking style for serious fleets. If it's a small skirmish fleet that highly depends on speed and kiting then CCP has done a very good job in making active shield tanking more viable in pvp but if it's a case of getting a reasonable amount of dps and logistics and holding your ground, armor tanking is still by far superior by a huge margin.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#44 - 2012-08-15 12:00:11 UTC
TomyLobo wrote:

Please, I'd restrain from ranting about tanking styles, if you are only going to look at it from one point of view. Armor tanking unlike shield tanking has always been and is still is the preferred tanking style for serious fleets. If it's a small skirmish fleet that highly depends on speed and kiting then CCP has done a very good job in making active shield tanking more viable in pvp but if it's a case of getting a reasonable amount of dps and logistics and holding your ground, armor tanking is still by far superior by a huge margin.


This point is slightly off-topic, the question being about the introduction of the RAH vs the ASB rather than armour tanking generally. Opinion seems to be almost universally negative, so is anyone at CCP monitoring this and able to offer some crumbs of comfort to armour users? I live in hope that a t2 version will become an option that sucks considerably less or that the skill will be adjusted to rein in the ridiculous cap usage of the RAH.
Lili Lu
#45 - 2012-08-15 15:41:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
TomyLobo wrote:
Please, I'd restrain from ranting about tanking styles, if you are only going to look at it from one point of view. Armor tanking unlike shield tanking has always been and is still is the preferred tanking style for serious fleets. If it's a small skirmish fleet that highly depends on speed and kiting then CCP has done a very good job in making active shield tanking more viable in pvp but if it's a case of getting a reasonable amount of dps and logistics and holding your ground, armor tanking is still by far superior by a huge margin.

What I love about these forums is that we have so little empirical evidence upon which to base our opinions. But even what little we do have is totally ignored and supplanted by the power of one's anecdotal experience or simply opinion from looking at figures that appear on a show info check or eft querry.

I'll present it again. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
1 Drake 202.5k
2 Tengu 168.7k
3 Maelstrom 138.7k
. . .
7 Hurricane 35k
. . .
10 Oracle 21.4k
. . .
15 Rifter 14.3k
16 Scorpion 13.9k
17 Capsule 13.8k
18 Zealot 13.2k
. . .

Surely the top three are armor tanking because as you say it is so much better for serious fleets. Only fools would shield tank those ships. Then we get to the Hurricane as another armor tanking candidate. Again only fools slap a thin shield tank on that ship and load up their lows with gyros and TEs.

Oracle, ditto. Well ok, people do love the power of a 1600 plate on them. But, you will never see a shield Oracle. Rifter, well it's just so awesome it swings both ways.

Scorpion, I must admit is probably armor tanking. One must cram every mid with wonderful ecm modules, but even if one didn't one would still be daft not to want the serious fleet tank of a 1600 and a couple low slot resist mods.

Capsule, of course all those were armor tankers that lost their ship and serious tank only because they were true warriors diving into a much larger shield tanked fleet like the true elite serious armor tanking heros they are. o7

Zealot, again I must admit that these are most likely armor tanked, as part of a serious armor HAC gang. But of course a thin LSE shield Zealot is never seen.

So basically you are correct that armor tanking is prefered for serious fleets. The statistical evidence supports your hypothesis. And people laughed at REACTIVE ARMOR HARDENER fit armor tanked Drakes, Tengus, and Maelstroms. I bet they aren't laughing now.Twisted
Previous page123