| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
8
   |
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:19:00 -
[61] - Quote
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. |
Bouh Revetoile
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:39:00 -
[62] - Quote
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. |
PinkKnife
The Scope
Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 17:21:00 -
[63] - Quote
So, the skill for the new target breaker module both reduces cap use, AND cycle time. Why does the skilbook for this module only reduce cycle time? |
Aldeb Haraz
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:44:00 -
[64] - Quote
I actually quite like the idea and mechanics behind this module; it adds a new dynamic to armor tanking (as well as an option for an active omni-resist module).
However, I feel that the new skill isnt quite what it should be. With the skill at level 0 (-4.2 cap/s), it is still abnormally cap hungry for a resist module (invuls are -3.2/s) but it is still a viable choice on cruisers and battlecruisers. This, in my opinion, is a very reasonable drawback for what the reactive hardener provides for the ship in terms of tank/resist added.
With the new skill, however, the cap usage shoots out the window all the way to -8.2 cap/s. This is high enough for a battleship to have to seriously consider whether the module is worth it over a second/third EANM, given that it essentially gives the same effect in regards to cap usage as a small energy neutralizer constantly being applied on your ship. As for ships smaller than a BC (at least ones that arent cap injecting constantly), the Reactive Armor Hardener is now really not a viable option, given the already low base capacitor on these size ships.
Thus, with the indelible nature of skillpoints you must choose whether to make the hardener a viable options for smaller ships or to increase it's effectiveness on battleships/caps. This is obviously a big problem in terms of game design, especially in EVE where the idea of a"sandbox" is constantly toted.
TLDR:
The idea of a skill that INCREASES an already high cap use as you level it higher is plain bad game design. Either the base cap use at Level 0 needs to be lowered, or the skill needs to reduce cycle time as well as cap use (maintaining the old 4/2 cap/s drain) |
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
405
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 07:41:00 -
[65] - Quote
^ ccp please fix. people are tired of just using shield buffers.
and when will you revisit active tanking? thanks. |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 08:56:00 -
[66] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:So, the skill for the new target breaker module both reduces cap use, AND cycle time. Why does the skilbook for this module only reduce cycle time?
I think they did not do it because of consistency. Non of the armor active modules have cap reduction possibility (the only exception being remote armor repairer). Even local armor repairer gets more cap hungry with shorter cycle time with no possibility to compensate.
However having cap usage comparable to medium armor repairer on module which is marginally better than T2 EANM makes no sense. |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
193
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 14:20:00 -
[67] - Quote
My feedback:
1) Armor Resistance Phasing should reduce cap usage by 10% per level. Raising a skill should never have a direct and significant drawback.
That said, I think there's a case to be made for removing the cap cost alltogether. Armor tanked ships almost always have a higher cap consumption than shield tanked ones already and are more susceptible to energy neutralizers. Also, even if Armor Resistance Phasing reduced cap usage by 10% as suggested, the cap cost would still be problematic on smaller hulls.
2) The cycle time is too slow. Even with Armor Resistance Phasing V, it takes 75 seconds to get +30% resistance to two damage types.
3) I have not been able to find out whether +60% resistance to one damage type is possible, but if it is, then this is probably overpowered in some situations.
4) The module has currently limited applications as far as I can tell. In PvE, it is useful as third tanking module after having fitted two armor hardeners. It should be good in capital ship fights that often last long. As far as making armor tanking more appealing for regular PvP, the reactive armor hardener does basically nothing in my opinion.
5) Overheating the module only reduces cycle time somewhat. Personally I think overheating should increase the resistances gained instead.
6) The reactive armor hardener should not lose its resistance profile when it is turned off.
7) Do I like the general concept? Yes, I think it has potential. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
990
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 18:21:00 -
[68] - Quote
Make it have a passive mode that costs no cap to use but lowers your total cap ammount or cap recharge for one
Then make it cost cap charges to use active.
When active it has a fast fast adaptation cycle.
When you turn it off the armor resistances won't change
Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |