| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
285
   |
Posted - 2013.05.27 09:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
The skill "Armor Resistance Phasing" should be changed
from "-10% cycle time and -5% cap use" per level
to "-10% cycle time and -10% cap use" per level.
Currently training this skill is a complete crazyness since it raises the cap usage of the already very cap hungry Reactive Armor Hardener from level 0 to level 5 by 50%. This is a considerable issue if you fit this module on small ships like frigates. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
844
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 10:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
You want to change the module just so you can fit it on frigates (which gain very little benefit from it, how long do you expect frgs to be shot befre they die?). |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
285
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 10:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
With Skill level 0 the Reactive Armor Hardener works nicely on frigates. But it will stop working with level 5 which is nonsense. When I train a skill then it should not break or have negative effect on my ship since I am unable to "de-train" a skill again. This is the same discussion as we had with regards to the After Burner skill a half year ago. And this skill was changed so that now it is useful to train it to level 5 in every case. I just want the same procedure for Armor Resistance Phasing. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination
Nulli Secunda
235
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 10:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Meditril wrote:The skill "Armor Resistance Phasing" should be changed
from "-10% cycle time and -5% cap use" per level
to "-10% cycle time and -10% cap use" per level.
Currently training this skill is a complete crazyness since it raises the cap usage of the already very cap hungry Reactive Armor Hardener from level 0 to level 5 by 50%. This is a considerable issue if you fit this module on small ships like frigates. Other modules, such as smartbombs, have the same issue (The AB skill had an issue too, but wasn't cap specific).
I think it's alright that some skills or modules are cost/benefit, and in this case you could as easily argue to lower the cycle time bonus, with almost the same argument as yours.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, but your argument either way is pretty lacking.
When your module reacts to the damage you take and adjust accordingly, why shouldn't it increase in cost-of-use as it increases in effectiveness? |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
428
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 12:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
I am against any skill that when trained, results in negative effects.
Armor reppers use more cap/sec, true, but you can manually pulse them without losing a bonus.
Same for smart bombs.
Doing that with an armor hardener makes the resist bonus disappear.
You can manually slow the others without losing their positive effects, but you can't do that with the hardeners, and that is why this skill sucks.
*** Now... if it gave passive resists, and you had to activate it to allow those passive resists to shift, I'd be ok with it. *** |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5096
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 12:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Meditril wrote:The skill "Armor Resistance Phasing" should be changed
from "-10% cycle time and -5% cap use" per level
to "-10% cycle time and -10% cap use" per level.
Currently training this skill is a complete crazyness since it raises the cap usage of the already very cap hungry Reactive Armor Hardener from level 0 to level 5 by 50%. This is a considerable issue if you fit this module on small ships like frigates. Other modules, such as smartbombs, have the same issue (The AB skill had an issue too, but wasn't cap specific). I think it's alright that some skills or modules are cost/benefit, and in this case you could as easily argue to lower the cycle time bonus, with almost the same argument as yours. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, but your argument either way is pretty lacking. When your module reacts to the damage you take and adjust accordingly, why shouldn't it increase in cost-of-use as it increases in effectiveness?
It's a bit different exactly because you don't pay with extra cap just when the resists shift, you pay it all the time no matter whether or not you shift resist, so the cost is separate from actual increased effectiveness. This added with the fact, that this type of module is designed to be kept on constantly is what creates the problem. With other modules you can choose not to keep it active all the time without downsides, so manual management is not problematic. They also keep their relative effectiveness, so the same amount of used cap produces the same benefit. With a reactive hardener this is not the case, because the cost can happen without gaining a benefit, and shutting the module off is not a practical option because of the module and hardener mechanic. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |