Ships & Modules

I'm not sold. If you introduce a third damage type, even if it is tiny, the RAH goes completely stupid. So its a liability waiting to happen in PVP, right? If you're fighting npcs then your lows are a premium because you need to squeeze in damage mods and you're using hardeners which have a bigger benefit anyway.

The fact that I'm not seeing people in this thread posting fits with the RAH tells me quite a lot.

I dunno man. The RAH looks pretty baller for PVE armor tanking to me. It basically takes the place of a -insert favorite deadspace active hardener here-. LAR+EANM+RAH looks to be completely solid for almost all high sec/low sec PVE tanking. With regards to PVP, I'd expect it to be pretty great as long as you have the capacitor to run it.

The real question is: how much does the resist have to change before fitting a RAH is better than fitting a DC II? If the cap use weren't so freaking terrible I'd expect to see them fit in place of a DC on most active armor tank ships.

/shrug

-Liang

Ed: Also, I have a RAH fit to 3-4 active armor tank ships. The most notable one is a Devoter.

Making it using almost no cap wouldn't be good IMO. We don't need more capless things. Current cap use may be too high, the module should still use cap I think, to the level of an invulnerability field maybe ?

Terrible pre-nerfed piece of **** module. The attempted buff was pre-nerfed. Maybe they will pre-nerf the removal of this module from the game.

Now if they wanted to introduce something new and useful it would be an improved regenerative plating. One that actually gave a decent hp buffer and had a very slow actual regen effect (i.e. of no practical benefit in a fight, but something that one could run while safe spotted for a half hour or hour). This would help a ship like the Pilgrim be what it has always tried to be. A deep nullsec hunter killer. It would also help ships stuck with ****** active armor bonuses and designed pushes toward the shortest range guns. I'm of course talking about the runts of the litter like the Brutix, Myrm, Hyperion.

As for the RAH I don't even think about it anymore. Unless I read S&M and see a thread that mentions it.

It's a great module for archons with a few active hardeners and an eanm, just like at some stacking levels of armor resist a damage control will do you more good then more armor resist mods, the RAH gets its value because of non-stacked resists.

Consider it when you already have a few resist mods.

Don't consider it in the case of: I have no resist mods and have to choose between an eanm and an RAH.

Hopefully the improvements will be in the form of total resistance value rather than a significant increase in overall cap consumption. Moving this module off the DR with a damage control could also be a good idea.

I look forward to any and all results of your testing, elaborated on in excruciating detail. This module needs actual documentation, and the devs have given us nothing.

Imho this module is only interesting in hulls like this one for instance and becomes very powerful if you ad armor links.

Without links and hull bonus it's awful.

First, this is the perfect anti Drake-fleet pro armor-bs fleet module. CCP did not even need the HML nerf!

It stacks with DC2, which means apart from all other armor resistances, active or passive modules, and ganglinks. In my opinion it's even better in armor fleets with logis than on active tanked ships, because of ganglinks.

It's already as good as DC2 at the first cycle for armor resists. And then, provided you are not hit by perfect omni-damage, it becomes gradually better than DC2 for armor EHP/tank.
And when fully switched, in case your enemy focus on one or two main damage types, it allow for some mad tank on specific setups... Imagine, it's an unstacked additional 60% resistance against drakefleets...

The only problems are:
1. cap usage which is too intensive and actually make having a skill at 5 much worse than having it at two (not very logical on this, ccp). A way to fix it is to make it a semi-passive module: you have to activate it so it "update" its resistance, and then once shut down it keeps them. Would probably make sense with the skill then, you use less cap and less time to do the 3/4 cycles it takes to achieve "good" resistance ratio, and then you turn it off.
2. Weird behaviour sometimes. Or at least, I cannot predict its behaviour accurately yet, which bother me a lot. I need to do more testing. Or find someone who did :)

I would even say this module is a bit overpowered, and give buffer-tanked BC, BS, T3, Capitals and aHAC fleets (whose fits should be updated with this module for almost every ship, btw) another tank advantage they definitely didn't need...

Active Armor tank is in need of a boost, I don't think this module will suffice, and Non-Drake shield buffer fleets need a boost.

CCP with ancilary SB gave a boost to active shield (which already have Crystal set...) and with this module a boost to passive buffer armor (which already have Slave set).
Not a rebalancing, more like saying again and again "CCP wants you to solo active tank your shield ship and fleet buffer tank your armor ships" "Fly Amarr and Minmatar".

800mm + RAH + MAAR + EANM II + DCU II = Solo AHAC low rack of Win