EVE Search - Reactive Armor Hardener Cap Scaling (Paper Cut 1001)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Reactive Armor Hardener Cap Scaling (Paper Cut 1001)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Svodola Darkfury Heaven's End League of Infamy 359	Posted - 2014.02.07 08:00:00 - [1] - Quote Hi all, I've been enjoying the hell out of the Reactive Armor Hardener on my buffer Proteus. The major concern I'm sharing today is the penalty you receive for training the skill, Armor Resistance Phasing. While I enjoy the 50% faster cycle time to more quickly adjust my resistances, the trade-off of energy cost over time is concerning. At level 5, I spend 31.5 GJ per 5 seconds (6.3 GJ per second). At level 4, I spend 33.6 GJ per 6 seconds (5.6 GJ per second). At level 1 (for comparison) i spend 39.9 GJ per 9 seconds, (or 4.43 GJ per second). The higher you train the skill, not only does the module become more costly per second, but it also becomes increasingly more costly for the same benefit (1 second change every-time). This means that training level 5, which shaves a mere additional second, represents a 12% increase in cap cost for the module from 4-5. While this a relatively meaningless amount of cap on a larger ship (Battleship/Caps) the Reactive Armor Hardener is exponentially more effective on ships which have an inordinately large armor with comparatively small structure (given that they often replace the damage control on the ship). In short, they provide the most effective health on something like a Tech 3, which has a much smaller cap pool, than something like a single-plated Dominix, which still has a large structure pool with which it can benefit from a damage control. The fix is relatively simple; match the % decrease in cap to the % decrease in time (this maintains a 4.2 GJ cost per second at all levels, netting no cap benefit for training to 5). In something as irreversible as skilling up your character, I can't see why we should be penalized for maxing out skills. It's not comparable to the Repair Systems skill because while that does introduce cap instability, it's also on a module that can benefit from finishing a cycle and being turned off (if your armor is topped up, you're good), the same of which can not be said for maintaining a resistance pool, especially since the mod does not maintain it's resistance profile from being on-off-on. Thanks for reading, Svo. CEO of Heaven's End; Bad League of Legends Player.
Sara Yazria Lucky Holdings LTD 4	Posted - 2014.02.07 09:29:00 - [2] - Quote This.
Svodola Darkfury Heaven's End League of Infamy 363	Posted - 2014.02.08 18:55:00 - [3] - Quote Hoping for a dev reply to say "this is something on our radar" or "no Svo we're dream crushers!" Svo CEO of Heaven's End; Bad League of Legends Player.
Linkxsc162534 Traps 'R' Us Bask of Fail 41	Posted - 2014.02.08 19:04:00 - [4] - Quote Perhaps make a second line of rah that is unaffected by the skill. Thus players with l5 of the skill can choose the faster response time or the more cap friendly version
JetStream Drenard EVE University Ivy League 2	Posted - 2014.02.08 19:10:00 - [5] - Quote +1 It really doesnt seem to make sense. I saw another post about this and it is definitely in need of review by a DEV. Or at least a justification of why they wont fix it would be nice.
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 135	Posted - 2014.02.08 19:11:00 - [6] - Quote Linkxsc162534 wrote: Perhaps make a second line of rah that is unaffected by the skill. Thus players with l5 of the skill can choose the faster response time or the more cap friendly version Or, y'know, give the skill 10% cap use reduction to go along with the cycle time reduction.
Seranova Farreach Biomass Negative 650	Posted - 2014.02.08 23:04:00 - [7] - Quote iirc the sweet spot for that modual is Level 3 skill. _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
Svodola Darkfury Heaven's End League of Infamy 366	Posted - 2014.02.08 23:14:00 - [8] - Quote Seranova Farreach wrote: iirc the sweet spot for that modual is Level 3 skill. Agreed; which doesn't make sense. You shouldn't have a level below 5 that has a "sweet spot" for the mod you're training for. 7 second cycle time with the lower capacitor need is plenty for most situations. What I want is for the 5 seconds to be worth taking without being slowly penalized as I level up. Svo. CEO of Heaven's End; Bad League of Legends Player.
Sigras Conglomo 667	Posted - 2014.02.08 23:45:00 - [9] - Quote What if you made the Cap per cycle a function of how much resistance adjusted that cycle? IE it shifted from 15/15/15/15 to 10/10/30/10 that cycle, so the module takes 33 cap that cycle, but when its fully adjusted it takes no cap for those cycles.
Jessica Danikov Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 278	Posted - 2014.02.09 00:36:00 - [10] - Quote I agree that, in principle, a module shouldn't have a sweet spot that isn't with Level 5 of the skill. The downside to this is that CCP may balance the module at the 6.3 GJ/s mark or at somewhere between that and the 4.43 GJ/s mark, so you may not get what you want when they fix this.

Gigan Amilupar No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 164	Posted - 2014.02.09 01:53:00 - [11] - Quote Jessica Danikov wrote: I agree that, in principle, a module shouldn't have a sweet spot that isn't with Level 5 of the skill. The downside to this is that CCP may balance the module at the 6.3 GJ/s mark or at somewhere between that and the 4.43 GJ/s mark, so you may not get what you want when they fix this. Imo it would be better game design just to nerf it like you said and have the skill functioning perfectly, then it is to have a good module with a broken skill attached to it. The skill really should be looked at. +1
Hesod Adee Kiwis In Space 263	Posted - 2014.02.09 02:09:00 - [12] - Quote Sigras wrote: What if you made the Cap per cycle a function of how much resistance adjusted that cycle? IE it shifted from 15/15/15/15 to 10/10/30/10 that cycle, so the module takes 33 cap that cycle, but when its fully adjusted it takes no cap for those cycles. It may be simpler to have the skill also reduce the cap use with each level.
Svodola Darkfury Heaven's End League of Infamy 367	Posted - 2014.02.09 08:19:00 - [13] - Quote Sigras wrote: What if you made the Cap per cycle a function of how much resistance adjusted that cycle? IE it shifted from 15/15/15/15 to 10/10/30/10 that cycle, so the module takes 33 cap that cycle, but when its fully adjusted it takes no cap for those cycles. Unique, would fit the mod. I like it. Maybe reduced cap instead of no cap? Svo. CEO of Heaven's End; Bad League of Legends Player.
Sean Parisi Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T 504	Posted - 2014.02.09 11:12:00 - [14] - Quote Yes. This skill is very similar to tactical shield manipulation. Skills should always be better at higher levels.
Lina Theist Rosendal Research and Development 39	Posted - 2014.02.09 12:05:00 - [15] - Quote I would be fine with it's current iteration if it was possible to swap between high cap/short cycle and low cap/long cycle. Also, it's high time they renamed the inferno prototype modules and gave us meta/T2 variants.
crazy0146 Boris Johnson's Love Children Awakened. 58	Posted - 2014.02.09 15:03:00 - [16] - Quote +1
Svodola Darkfury Heaven's End League of Infamy 367	Posted - 2014.02.11 05:08:00 - [17] - Quote Svodola Darkfury wrote: Hoping for a dev reply to say "this is something on our radar" or "no Svo we're dream crushers!" Svo More hope for an answer! Svo. CEO of Heaven's End; Bad League of Legends Player.
Seliah 0mega. 3	Posted - 2014.02.11 11:08:00 - [18] - Quote +1. I think I like the idea of having the module cost no cap / reduced cap when fully adjusted rather than having the skill compensate for the cap usage. Makes more sense imo.
Svodola Darkfury Heaven's End League of Infamy 368	Posted - 2014.02.13 06:05:00 - [19] - Quote Seliah wrote: +1. I think I like the idea of having the module cost no cap / reduced cap when fully adjusted rather than having the skill compensate for the cap usage. Makes more sense imo. I like that idea. CEO of Heaven's End; Bad League of Legends Player.
Ellendras Silver My second corp 114	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:06:00 - [20] - Quote Seliah wrote: +1. I think I like the idea of having the module cost no cap / reduced cap when fully adjusted rather than having the skill compensate for the cap usage. Makes more sense imo. i liked this also i want another change but not sure how realistic it is. I would like diffrent versions for all hull sizes now you can`t use such a module on a T1 or T2 cruiser because it wil drain your cap in the blink of an eye. if you make a version for frigate/destroyer one for cruiser/battle cruiser and one for battleships and or capitals you have 3 or 4 versions each with their own cap use that is adjusted for the hull size. needless to say that you cant fit a frigite version on a capital. i also like to add that if you have the skill at lvl 5 it should use less cap then lvl 4 etc. final i realy would love to have a T2 version aswell

Ellendras Silver My second corp 114	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:10:00 - [21] - Quote maybe it would even be nice to make a passive version of it, one that uses no cap but has a smaller effect in resistance shifting
Meditril T.R.I.A.D 367	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:41:00 - [22] - Quote +1 This is a huge issue, especially if you are fitting Reactive Armor Hardners on frigates. I use them occasionally on frigates and I do not train the skill for this reason. Once you trained it up then you simply can't use effectively this module on frigates any more.
Jaro Essa Dahkur Forge 10	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:37:00 - [23] - Quote The proposed change would be a ridiculously strong buff to the RAH. Matching the 10% cycle reduction with a 10% cap reduction would mean the skill delivers pure benefit with no downside. While there are a number of other 'no downside' skills in the game, they typically max out at 5% benefit per level, with many offering lower percentages (eg. 3% per level for Surgical Strike, or 2% for your T2 turret skills). If CCP were to alter this skill into a no downside version, I doubt they would stick with the 10% cycle reduction, they'd likely cut it to 5% and keep the cap reduction to 5%. But I don't think CCP will do that, because the RAH is already well-adapted to its niche: trading cap and armour buffer for fitting flexibility (eg. replacing a second set of active hardeners, and thus freeing up a low slot for more damage mods, or balancing out an omni tank with just a single module, etc). As it stands, the skill enables pilots to simply shift the balance of tradeoffs - a RAH that moves to the optimal distribution of resists twice as fast consumes less armour buffer to get to that point, at the cost of increased cap consumption. So maybe you can fit one fewer Trimark and fit a damage rig instead, etc, or keep a big buffer and spend less cap on your Armor Repairer. Granted, it is a little unusual that you can't really go back on the choice once you've made it, but I don't know that a huge buff is the solution (the module could probably do with a buff anyway, but that's a separate discussion). A better approach might be to eliminate the bonuses currently attached to the skill - or reduce them from 10%/5% to, say, 2%/1% - and introduce a T2 variant that unlocks at Armor Resistance Phasing V, that exhibits the same stats you see today on the RAH with that skill at V. This would resolve the choice issue without having such an impact on balance.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 182	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:46:00 - [24] - Quote Maybe give the RAH a cap penalty at installation (like mining laser upgrades reduce overall CPU available) and then make it only consume cap whilst cycling to shift the armour resists. Once resists are at a point you like you deactivate the mod which then maniatins them until you shift it again to counter a new threat.
Lloyd Roses Blue-Fire 501	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:12:00 - [25] - Quote I'd also like to max a skill without said skill penalizing me for doing so. I shouldn't be less able to run a mod having a skill to V as compared to keeping it at 1 (I got it at one to strap it to cruisers <.<) "I honestly thought I was in lowsec" Moving pictures: The Enyo
Tchulen Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult 714	Posted - 2014.02.13 13:17:00 - [26] - Quote +1 It's pretty mental that it works like this.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 183	Posted - 2014.02.13 13:21:00 - [27] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: I'd also like to max a skill without said skill penalizing me for doing so. I shouldn't be less able to run a mod having a skill to V as compared to keeping it at 1 (I got it at one to strap it to cruisers <.<) Agreed and this ties with my proposition The skill would then shorten then cycle time to either get you to max resists faster (at the same cap cost but in less time) or you could pulse the module to manage your cap.
Seliah 0mega. 13	Posted - 2014.02.13 13:36:00 - [28] - Quote double post fail. ignore.
Seliah 0mega. 13	Posted - 2014.02.13 13:37:00 - [29] - Quote Jaro Essa wrote: The proposed change would be a ridiculously strong buff to the RAH. Agreed on that point, but the values could be lowered a bit if necessary. Jaro Essa wrote: Matching the 10% cycle reduction with a 10% cap reduction would mean the skill delivers pure benefit with no downside. While there are a number of other 'no downside' skills in the game, they typically max out at 5% benefit per level, with many offering lower percentages I strongly disagree. You're talking about a "number of no-downside skills in the game", but in my opinion that's like 99% of the skills. Skills with a downside are a very rare exception, and that's the way it should be. As people said, you want to be able to max your skill to specialize yourself in something. A skill isn't some sort of slider you can adjust to chose between, in this case, more capacitor stability or more efficient resistance phasing. Jaro Essa wrote: A better approach might be to eliminate the bonuses currently attached to the skill - or reduce them from 10%/5% to, say, 2%/1% - and introduce a T2 variant that unlocks at Armor Resistance Phasing V, that exhibits the same stats you see today on the RAH with that skill at V. This would resolve the choice issue without having such an impact on balance. I like this idea. While finding a solution to remove the downside from maxing the skill is good, adding a cap usage reduction bonus on top of the cycle reduction bonus sounds a bit odd. Your solution would make specializing in RAHs by maxing the skill a completely valid tactic, in line with most of the T1 - T2 relationships of other modules, where T2 is always more efficient at an extra capacitor cost.
Thirtythousand Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 33	Posted - 2014.02.13 13:42:00 - [30] - Quote +1 love the proposition of keeping the cap use the same! love the module as it has replaced many an EANM on my bc/bs fits. if resists persisted when the module was off, that would be great. Support the updating of rookie ships! Join the discussion https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4222786#post4222786



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.