These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The use of Reactive Armor Hardeners

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Perihelion Olenard
#61 - 2012-11-09 17:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Now that the next expansion is coming out soon is this module going to be worth it at all, especially in PvP?
Bernard 2007
The Scarlet Storm
#62 - 2012-11-09 18:22:23 UTC
T1 version no, and in case you were wondering, this is the T1 version of the module. T2 one coming later.
Perihelion Olenard
#63 - 2012-11-09 20:34:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
So it'll take another half-year to get some use out of it (tech 2)?
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#64 - 2012-11-09 20:35:44 UTC
t2 version will be beast for sure.
Perihelion Olenard
#65 - 2012-11-09 20:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
The reason I bring this up is because I want armor tanks (active, specifically) to be viable. I already did the shield tanking in small-to-medium group PvP a few years ago with minmatar and caldari and I made this character to armor tank.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#66 - 2012-11-09 21:26:01 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
The reason I bring this up is because I want armor tanks (active, specifically) to be viable. I already did the shield tanking in small-to-medium group PvP a few years ago with minmatar and caldari and I made this character to armor tank.


I personally don't see this being as effective on active tanks as passive simply because of the cap usage and extra low that active tanking takes compared to passive. I think a t2 eanmII would be a better choice in most cases.
Perihelion Olenard
#67 - 2012-11-09 22:36:44 UTC
Makes me wonder why this module was even created.
Songbird
#68 - 2012-11-09 23:17:24 UTC
I'm wondering something else - the new module for shields was so overpowered it had to be restricted in tournament to 1 per ship. The new module for armor - well I'm a gallente pilot and I have yet to buy 1.

Ancillary shield boosters are like spitting in the eye of local armor tank which was already much worse than shield.

Shield tank has boost amp module, invulns , working in the beginning of cycle rather than the end, much shorter cycles , and of course the dead space boosters(esp pithum) which have some ridiculous bonuses compared to t2 or compared to deadspace armor reps. And I'm not even talking about the implant set which could raise your local shield boosting by another 50% . On top of that they had to add a shield booster that works with no cap, boosts twice as much as any other shield booster and is arguably broken.

And for armor they give us some module which , if the other side plays it's cards well, might actually be of no benefit for you.


Don't you guys feel like it should've been ancillary armor repper and reactive shield hardener? I think they switched them out by mistake.
Perihelion Olenard
#69 - 2012-11-09 23:51:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Some gallente ships are now shield tanked by some people, even the ships with an armor repair bonus. They get a good tank and a ton of damage with all those lows. I'd hate to see how absurd the T2 ancillary shield boosters will be.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-11-09 23:55:51 UTC
The skill is getting a 5% per level cap reduction and the module is being changed to adapt twice as much per cycle for retribution.

Will still need testing to see if it is worth it but these changes may push it into viable on passive fits and fits with cap injection.
Pobunjenik
Resbroko Liberation Fleet
#71 - 2013-01-27 04:03:51 UTC
It's good for closing gaps should your lowest resistance ever be attacked.
But if you already have >80% in a resistance and that's the one you're been hit at, it doesn't help much.

Although increasing resi from 80% to 85% is good - you cut enemy DPS by another 25%. Or am I just eftwarrioring?
Kieron Krodmandouin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2013-01-28 00:28:33 UTC
The module really does make me want to split the ammo in my ships guns between EMP and phased plasma, just to confuse the **** out of it.

More practically, means your interceptors should be shooting diffident ammo than everyone else to run up resists before the fight. Force them to reset it the moment they get damage applied.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2013-01-28 08:07:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Pobunjenik wrote:
It's good for closing gaps should your lowest resistance ever be attacked.
But if you already have >80% in a resistance and that's the one you're been hit at, it doesn't help much.

Although increasing resi from 80% to 85% is good - you cut enemy DPS by another 25%. Or am I just eftwarrioring?

You probably are, but I kinda fail to follow your math. To be more specific, with RAH you are looking at damage reduction* ranging from 0 to 60%, so if you have 80% resistance to certain damage type before RAH, I assume that you should have something like from 80% to 92%, depending on RAH's phase.

* - (after all other resistance applied, as per multiplicative stacking that is omnipresent in EVE, and also since RAH is stack-penalized only against DCU, but only if it provides less resistance than DCU's 15% against particular damage type (assuming T2 DCU ofc), in any other case it's DCU's resistance will be lowered as larger resistances go first).

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#74 - 2013-02-07 10:58:02 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
I haven't looked at this module but from what I'm reading about it's behavior on the forums, I'd say Gal, prolly not going to use it as much as min because of the differences in the cap requirements of the two races. Min guns = no cap, gal guns = lots of cap. Compounded with split resistances since you're usually getting hit by more than one damage type and well.....why add more of a cap burden?



I was reading this threat, until I saw your avatar, then laughed and am typing this before I go because it made my day.
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#75 - 2013-02-08 19:31:59 UTC
Let's be honest, the real use for these modules is the Trit compression. Nothing else really.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka
Colman Dietmar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2013-02-25 19:00:11 UTC
To become useful this module needs to react instantly, or at least much faster than it currently does. And the reaction must shift the resistances towards the optimal resistance profile based on both incoming damage and the existing resistances.

I would really like to use something like this, but right now it does too little, and the cap requirement is too harsh.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#77 - 2013-02-25 19:04:36 UTC
Just how fast do you think the module should react? IMO the biggest problem with it is capacitor.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ginger Barbarella
#78 - 2013-02-25 19:08:34 UTC
Colman Dietmar wrote:
To become useful this module needs to react instantly, or at least much faster than it currently does. And the reaction must shift the resistances towards the optimal resistance profile based on both incoming damage and the existing resistances.

I would really like to use something like this, but right now it does too little, and the cap requirement is too harsh.


If you want instant reaction, that's what the standard armor hardeners are for. This module is clearly for sustained aggro, assuming one has the cap to keep it running. If you want something to use for pvp that'll last a whole 15 seconds, CLEARLY this isn't the module for it. For sustained damage from L3 or L4 missions, or for huge ships in fleet battles, it has its uses.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#79 - 2013-02-25 19:10:15 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Some gallente ships are now shield tanked by some people, even the ships with an armor repair bonus. They get a good tank and a ton of damage with all those lows. I'd hate to see how absurd the T2 ancillary shield boosters will be.

I still maintain that what we have now needs to be renamed to T2 ASB, and implement a weaker version to be the T1 ASB
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#80 - 2013-02-25 20:02:49 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
t2 version will be beast for sure.



Same CPU/PG adapt faster and consumes +20% capacitor.

I can see it from here already, very useful indeed Lol

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne