DUST Search - reactive plates question.

Zatara Rought wrote:

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Zatara Rought wrote:

People have been asking since forever why not run a plate and a repper vs running 2 reactives.

I always assumed the purpose of the reactive plate was for fits that were low of available slots, but wanted some additional HP and reps at the same time. So to answer your question "Why should I run a reactive instead of a plate and repper" and my answer would be "If you only have one slot left". The advantage of the reactive plate isn't so much the HP or reps, but rather its slot-efficient.

Also I need to check the numbers, but I think reactives have a better HP/speed penalty ratio than normal plates? So in that regard, a reactive plate is really a mix between a Plate/Repper/Ferroscale, which again could be considered an advantage.

This is the conclusion I think all have come to as well. *tips hat*

But should they only be the most useful combo when considering 1 slot?

As previously stated, I wonder if it would be better if the differences were more pronounced between the options.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2995	Posted - 2014.08.28 15:58:00 - [1] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: People have been asking since forever why not run a plate and a repper vs running 2 reactives. I always assumed the purpose of the reactive plate was for fits that were low of available slots, but wanted some additional HP and reps at the same time. So to answer your question "Why should I run a reactive instead of a plate and repper" and my answer would be "If you only have one slot left". The advantage of the reactive plate isn't so much the HP or reps, but rather its slot-efficient. Also I need to check the numbers, but I think reactives have a better HP/speed penalty ratio than normal plates? So in that regard, a reactive plate is really a mix between a Plate/Repper/Ferroscale, which again could be considered an advantage.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2997	Posted - 2014.08.28 16:51:00 - [2] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Has anyone found using reactives as a primary tank option to be competitive? If so, what fit and why? Im brainstorming ideas to see if they can be more useful than "stopgaps" Lets look at it a little more closely (Assumed all Level 5 Skills on a gk.0 Assault) 2 Reactive Plates 50 CPU 16 PG +132 Armor HP +6 Armor Repair 4.9 Movement Speed 7.2 Sprint Speed 1 Complex Plate 1 Complex Repper 82 CPU 23 PG +148 Armor HP +9.4 Armor Repair 4.75 Movement Speed 6.98 Sprint Speet So in this case the Reactives offer less resource cost for marginally less HP (16 Armor HP) with less of a drop in speed but over 3 less armor repair.If you don't mind less reps and are short of PG/CPU, the reactives are actually not a bad choice for a 2 slot setup, especially with the lower speed cost. 3 Reactive Plates 75 CPU 24 PG +198 Armor HP +9 Armor Repair 4.85 Movement Speed 7.13 Sprint Speed 1 Complex Plate 1 Complex Ferro 1 Complex Repper 105 CPU 31 PG +231 Armor HP +9.4 Armor Repair 4.75 MOvement Speed 6.98 Sprint Speed So again you're getting less HP for better resource cost and speed. Armor repair at this point is effectivly the same, but the armor HP difference is more noticable. At this point its more a matter of "Do you want more armor? Or more speed with less resource cost?" 1 Complex Plate 1 Complex Repper 1 Complex KinCat 109 CPU 37 PG +148 Armor HP +9.4 Armor Repair 4.75 Movement Speed 7.86 Sprint Speed So now it gets kinda weird. Less HP than 3 reactive, marginally better repair rate. Stil more resource cost than the reactives are going to cost you, but you'll also be moving faster. So in this case you get more HP and less resource cost, or you get better movement speed with marginally better repairs. All in all, I don't think there is really any clear "winner". There are of course many combinations and situations that can call for different kinds of fits, so just experiment! Overall Reactives will give you better resource efficiency, but dont allow you to buff a specific stat. Like for me personally I prefer a ton of armor reps, so I stick with those more often than the reactives, so I might use 1 plate and 2 reppers. It all really just comes down to personal style, but overall I dont think one module combination is clearly better than the other in all situations.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2998	Posted - 2014.08.28 17:16:00 - [3] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: This last post more or less confirms my suspicions on the matter. Thanks. Behold: the power of math. Basically, if you can spare the resources, I'd use a mix of modules. If you're tight on PG/CPU, go with reactives to get a balanced fit that doesn't break the resource budget.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3006	Posted - 2014.08.29 05:54:00 - [4] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Zatara Rought wrote: People have been asking since forever why not run a plate and a repper vs running 2 reactives. I always assumed the purpose of the reactive plate was for fits that were low of available slots, but wanted some additional HP and reps at the same time. So to answer your question "Why should I run a reactive instead of a plate and repper" and my answer would be "If you only have one slot left". The advantage of the reactive plate isn't so much the HP or reps, but rather its slot-efficient. Also I need to check the numbers, but I think reactives have a better HP/speed penalty ratio than normal plates? So in that regard, a reactive plate is really a mix between a Plate/Repper/Ferroscale, which again could be considered an advantage. This is the conclusion I think all have come to as well. tips hat But should they only be the most useful combo when considering 1 slot? As previously stated, I wonder if it would be better if the differences were more pronounced between the options. I did a breakdown of combinations in a later post if you missed it, some interesting stuff happens with different combinations of them.