An idea for a reactive armor hardener II

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Hey again, I’ve got an idea for a tech II reactive armor hardener.

Each resist starts off at 20 with the module activated, 15 when it’s inactive. (I’m easy on this, not neccessary)

Each resist can have a maximum of 50 points. each resist can ‘send’ 6 points at a time until it falls to 20% or below, then it can give 4 points at 20%, 4 points at 16%, (It can give 4 points at 13%) 3 points at 12%, 3 points at 9%, (3 points at 7%) 2 points at 6%, 2 points at 4% (2 at 3%), 1 point at 2% and 1 point at 1%.
each resist can gain a maximum of 6 points at a time from 0-20 (This includes gaining 6 at 18, 5 at 19), then it gains a maximum of 4 points from 20-31, then a maximum of 3 points from 32-40, then 2 points from 41-46, and 1 point from 47-50.

I feel like giving points when a resist is low on points takes more effort, and when it’s on high points it takes less effort. Receiving points is the same, easier to recieve points when your resist value is low then when it is high. I enjoy modules making functional sense like this, adds to the realism and i think it’s really cool.

I feel that the Damage control is for frigates and shield tankers whilst being in an armor tanking slot, the DCU gives a shield tanker a huge buffer whilst also adding to it’s shield resists untaxed by other hardeners, which gives it great survivability in additional time to rep up. It also takes up a low slot rather than a shield tanking mid slot, unlike armor tankers which have to choose between the buffer granting DCU and the (hopefully much improved) RAH whilst also juggling damage and speed mods.
I’d like the armor tankers to have something that’s as good for armor tanking as the DCU is for shield tanking.

You can do that 2 damage type split like you did with the tech I RAH where the resists go up to 40% in EXP and KIN when facing Fusion ammo regardless of resist holes, for example.

It might be asking too much but I’d like a bit of buffer aswell, maybe 20% additional structure resistances with the RAH added. Or make it so only 1 of DCU or RAH can be added to a ship at a time and give the RAH the full 40% Structure resists.

I like the power of single target tanking vs multiple subject DPS for solo players, buff solo play!

Lynchy226.

2

So you want this to be passive, active and a buffer? Was Santa good to you for Christmas?

I think the simplest solution for a T2 variant is just to increase the resistances from 60% to 72% and bump the fitting and activation requirements, ie:

T2 Reactive Armor Hardener
Activation Cost: 60.0 GJ
Activation Time: 10.00 s
CPU Usage: 36.0 tf
Powergrid Usage: 2.0 MW
Resistances: 18% to each (may still be too high)

3

The passive isn’t neccessary, I just wanted it to line up with the DCU.

4

The DCU is a passive module whereas the RAC is an active module. Unless we’re comparing it to an ADC which is both passive and active.

Another solution could be to remove the stacking penalty on the RAH so that you’re not penalized when using it with a DCU and/or armor membranes/hardeners.

5

My point here is that the RAH replaces the DCU in armor tanked cruisers and higher, the DCU is for frigs and shield tankers.

I read this and agreed with it, I want more out of the RAH.

Once again the passive 15% resists aren’t necessary, just thought it’d be nice.
The 20% to structure resists I’d like, though. When using the RAH over the DCU, you have absolutely no buffer, unlike a shield tanked ship. There’s no time for the RAH to cycle if you’re in an active tanked ship.

6

I’m not sure if you’d be able to sell a passive/active RAH. Maybe if the T2 variant was a passive 40% and active 60%, so if capped out it still provides 10% to each resistance type. That I could see working (since it’s not overly changing the power). It would still need a higher fitting/activation cost to balance it out, though.

7

I do like the idea of a minimum resistance number of 5 or 10% with the extended base range.
So 5/5/35/35 against fusion sounds good.

8

I don’t think 80% would fly (much as I’d like it). Somewhere in the 64-72% range (because the T2 would become the new meta).

They could always make a series of mutaplasmids for it…

9

I think 80% could fly with base minimum resists of 5%?

10

80% is still quite a bit, considering it can potentially adapt to just a single resistance. 80% split 4 ways is still fairly substantial as well (even stacking penalized). This could be why we’ve never seen a T2 variant…

11

The tech I RAH is ludicrous vs a single damage type. I propose we cap the RAH at 45% max (50 would be cool but it is very strong, the tech I was 60%!) for a single resist.

And this new RAH would have the resistances stack up slower the closer it approached 50%

Also don’t forget the imperial navy multispectrum is 25.3% resistances across the board, and you can have multiple.

12

I don’t think you can easily “cap” it the way it’s designed. It’s meant to shift as needed and plug holes. I think asking for a T2 variant is one thing; asking for it to be fundamentally changed is another.

As I see it, a T2 RAH could simply have less phasing time (-5s), higher activation and fitting costs. Then the T1 RAH is still more attractive on smaller hulls where the T2 RAH would be more advantageous on larger hulls.

I’d rather see the membranes buffed a bit more on the armor side.

13

I’d rather see the membranes buffed a bit more on the armor side.

That’s fair enough.

I’d rather see a sweet 80% T2 RAH with a structure resist bonus.
That gets smaller shifts as the resistance stacks up capping out at 50%

I’d even go so far as to make it so only a RAH OR DCU can be fitted to a ship at a time and give the RAH the full 40% structure resists.

Or adjust the DCU and RAH structure resists to 30% each.

14

We do have Faction DCUs and mutaplasmids for DCUs.

15

Mutaplasmids for DCU’s?

Learn something new everyday. Damn shield tanks are spoiled.

Got to take a closer look at these abyssals, their scope is wider than I initially thought.

16

Yep - 6 variants (although the highest one is stupid expensive). Like Officer rolling kind of expensive…

17

You fail to explain why this is needed. The RAH is already one of the most powerful and commonly fit mods. Why does it need any changes or alterations.

As for your assessment on the dcu… well it seems you don’t have the strongest grasp on fitting theory. The dcu is almost useless on many shield ships and often times simply not used do to how little it boosts shield resists.

It’s also not generally a dcu or rah for armor. Since they don’t staking penalize a dcu is often added along side the dcu of you’re going for maximum resists. If you’re not you normally just opt for the rah.

Damage controls used to be a default pick on any ship this changed after they added base structure resists to all ships.

1 Like
18

If you have a spare low slot, a DCU (especially Faction) does help with a shield fit.

19

It’s a shield tank module that gives large amounts of buffer that fits in a low slot instead of a medium slot.
That’s crazy value. It allows you to spread your tank between low and medium slots, which armor tanking can’t do. (The closest thing out there is a guidance disruptor, which is dependant on a missle ship being present.) (And part of the reason I’m arguing for the guidance and tracking disruptor be combined into 1 module with range and precision scripts and taking an 8% less effective nerf to balance combining the modules.)
Also the more buffer you have, the more shield reps you get in, which increases your EHP even further. And it provides buffer in the form of Shield (primary) as well as Armor AND Structure.

It’s a shield tank mod that fits in a low slot, it’s bloody amazing for shield fits.
One of a kind.

I would disagree with the faction comment, though.
I’ve found the performance gains to be minimal at best, and not worth 200mill.
On second thoughts, I could see the faction DCU’s possibly being good for a shield fit, I was thinking armor, where they’re a waste of money IMO.
The CPU fitting benefits on the other hand…
It gives you an excuse to go down that path, not worth it unless your using the extra CPU.
The ‘Radical’ is quite nice.

20

Let’s use the moa as an example as it is a shield ship specializing in tank and has a 4th low making it much less competitive for an extra damage mod.

We have a couple of options. The dcu II will give us a total of 48.4k ehp with 41.5k in the shields with 111ehp/s at peak.

A power diagnostic will give allow for a fit with 45.6k ehp 41k in the shields and a peak of 119 as well as the peak window itself being wider.

It also let’s us give up our utility mid for a max tank of 59.3k total 54.6k in the shield and a 159 ehp/s peak.

In this case assuming you wanted to maintain the utility mid using a dcu comes down to the size of the fight you’re looking for. With a larger fight benefiting from a dcu and a smaller fight benefiting from a pds.

However in the larger end the utility mid will be less valuable pushing you more towards the extreme buffer and again a pds.

This disparity grows larger when you start introducing faction/complex mods or T2 ships where the benefit of a dcu is future diminished. Or when they are fewer than 4 lows where it’s often times just better to go with an extra damage mod over a dcu.

Even back when dcu were “auto picks” the most likely ships to see go without them were shield ships. This is for several reasons.

Shield ships have several options to increase tank in the lows

Dcu gives the least benefits to shield resists naturally.

The nature of shield taking often leads to higher resists over armor further reducing the amount of resists given by any additional mod including DCU.

So while yes it is “easier” to plug a dcu into a shield ship than it is an armor ship it’s benefits are also less than on an armor ship.

1 Like