These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Damage Control needs to be passive, now more than ever.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#61 - 2012-12-06 19:00:07 UTC
Except that it's nearly impossible to run out of cap to activate the DCU. And it's a defensive untargeted system. This is not the case for weapons.

About your problem... Woops, Hannott and Marlona just answered.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#62 - 2012-12-06 19:01:53 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Having active modules makes no difference to log off timer whatsoever ...... They only issues damage control being active has is a) you might forget to turn it on and b) it can get neuted off (very rare thanks to long cycle/tiny cap use). So basically its fine.


you fail at reading patch notes.
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#63 - 2012-12-06 19:02:30 UTC
IMO, DCU is fine as is.. comedy ensues from people not turning it on.

Given the description, I like to think of it as 'red alert!'
Pitrolo Orti
Doomheim
#64 - 2012-12-06 19:03:18 UTC
Damage control really needs to be passive. I forget to turn it on every time I go PVP...

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#65 - 2012-12-06 19:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Hannott Thanos wrote:
People don't see the problem with DC being an active module? Really?
No. I see some issues with making it passive though.

Pitrolo Orti wrote:
Damage control really needs to be passive. I forget to turn it on every time I go PVP...
That is indeed a good reason to keep it active.
Spurty
#66 - 2012-12-06 19:24:33 UTC
I now want laser / Photon Torpedos!!

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Diamond Bull
Doomheim
#67 - 2012-12-06 19:27:58 UTC
I can see why it would be passive. It is just a system that assists repair systems in keeping the ship intact. Yes?


I see no good gameplay reason for it to be active or passive. The typical counter to active tanking mods is neuting but my god how hard would it be to neut out a DC? Of course that is also why there isn't a reason to make it passive.


There is the logoff issue but I haven't ever needed to log off that fast. The few times I have wished I could log off to escape I knew that wouldn't help so I just left my tank on and went to watch YouTube while my ship got blown up.


Of course Tippia is opposed to making it passive so that can only mean there is some way to use it being active to be a jerk. Therefor I vote making it passive is probably the better choice.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#68 - 2012-12-06 19:31:02 UTC
Spurty wrote:
I now want laser / Photon Torpedos!!


You got an option already, jeez

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#69 - 2012-12-06 19:36:03 UTC
Diamond Bull wrote:
Of course Tippia is opposed to making it passive so that can only mean there is some way to use it being active to be a jerk.
No, it can only mean that I see issues with it being passive (most notably the massive non-penalised omni-damage multi-layer EHP improvement it provides and that, while it's difficult to get the timing right — it's mostly luck, really, you can neut it). There's also the interactivity of it, as illustrated by the poor fellow above who forgets to turn it on.

In contrast to these reasons not to do it, I can't think of any good reason for making it passive.
Slash Harnet
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2012-12-06 19:41:40 UTC
I don't really see why it matters one way or another. It would be nice if we could set modules to retain their activation status after a jump, but its really a non-issue.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#71 - 2012-12-06 19:49:25 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Now I'm sure Andski is scrambling trying to find a way to convince us Tuxford and the other programmers meant they wanted the DC to be an active module the whole time, but there is no way that is implied at all in what he said. It is implied they wanted it to be passive, but was impossible to program it that way at the time.


and yet despite the fact that they surely have the means available to make it a passive mod in 2012, they have not done so and nobody involved with game development has brought it up in discussions

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Doddy
Excidium.
#72 - 2012-12-06 19:53:43 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I think it works perfectly well just as it is.

I think the simplist solution is simply to start remembering to turn it off when you plan to log off, instead of trying to make the game compensate for your forgetfulness. Smile

It's not so much that I forget it, it's more of an annoyance that I have to turn it on every time I jump. It's not like I want it to be off, ever. And it's not like it's gonna come off before I explicitly tell it to. So I see no reason it's not passive


So, active hardeners, eccm, sensor boosters, tracking computers, these should all be passive as well then?
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#73 - 2012-12-06 19:55:44 UTC
You'd be surprised how many people don't turn their DCs back on, after they have been neuted dry, because they are busy micromanaging other parts of the ship.
So many ships have died because of this, the active DC is a valuable addition to the combat mechanics.
Doddy
Excidium.
#74 - 2012-12-06 19:57:18 UTC
Altrue wrote:
I laugh about the guys saying that it is important to have this module active... Or others saying that pros are empire afkers...

I don't know about you, but for my part I have plenty of other interesting things to do in EVE rather than having to activate my DCU each time I jump through a wormhole / decloak / log. Seriously.

If you're considering that clicking on your DCU is an amazing activity that is a major contribution to the fun you have in EVE... Well.. You should consider choosing another career.



Why do you have to turn your dc on any more than hardeners? idgi The only reason to have a dc on with no hostiles on grid is if you are warping to a gate in a frig and there might be a smartbomber. Another effect this would have would be making cloaked ships like recons and bombers massively stronger against bombs (hint this is not agood thing).
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#75 - 2012-12-06 19:59:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
Doddy wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I think it works perfectly well just as it is.

I think the simplist solution is simply to start remembering to turn it off when you plan to log off, instead of trying to make the game compensate for your forgetfulness. Smile

It's not so much that I forget it, it's more of an annoyance that I have to turn it on every time I jump. It's not like I want it to be off, ever. And it's not like it's gonna come off before I explicitly tell it to. So I see no reason it's not passive


So, active hardeners, eccm, sensor boosters, tracking computers, these should all be passive as well then?

I think there is a logical fallacy involved here. Grow up man.

How about we make all passive mods (ALL mods, shield extenders, etc etc) active, and they have a 30 sec timer and cost 1 cap. That must be great, yeah? You see the problem with this kind of arguing?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Doddy
Excidium.
#76 - 2012-12-06 20:02:44 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Andski wrote:
If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not.

I take it reading was never your forte? See the following quote:
CCP Tuxford wrote:
At that point we didn't really have the luxury of programming time and we did not have any tools to create a module where only one could be fitted. We did however have a functionality where we could only activate x module at a time so we decided that the damage control would have to be activated but have really low cap need.

Now I'm sure Andski is scrambling trying to find a way to convince us Tuxford and the other programmers meant they wanted the DC to be an active module the whole time, but there is no way that is implied at all in what he said. It is implied they wanted it to be passive, but was impossible to program it that way at the time.

Now in no way am I for making the DC passive for the sake of logging purposes, but for the sanity of less clicking. The DC was never intended to be an active module so maybe now they can make it so. Also make the drone control unit passive. Now before you climb on top of our soap box and proclaim a passive DC will make supers impossible to kill consider the idea of passive DC not being allowed to be fit on capitals, but instead required to use a a different sized DC that uses as much cap as an active shield/armor hardener. Or maybe all damage controls functions as a passive module and when fit to capitals it is an active one. Magic! Lets also not forget about the opportunity to introduce faction, dead space and officer DCs.

So here is the opportunity to add a vast amount of flavor when it comes to the DC hull tanking department. Lets explore that I say.


Damn that marlona and using actual facts.

I don't care one way or another, but a DC being passive would make sense.


How does a module that projects powerful containment fields throughout the ship gives redundancy for the ships systems using no energy "make sense". If anything it should use far more cap for what it provides. Or if we are going to pretend it somehow has all these systems plus an internal power source how the hell is it so small with such small fitting requirements? "Makes sense" is the stupidest argument ever.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-12-06 20:03:38 UTC
wtf you on?
you know it takes 60-120 seconds to disappear after logging off regardless of what you have or dont have turned on right?
and that's not counting any timers you may have.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Doddy
Excidium.
#78 - 2012-12-06 20:04:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Doddy
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I think it works perfectly well just as it is.

I think the simplist solution is simply to start remembering to turn it off when you plan to log off, instead of trying to make the game compensate for your forgetfulness. Smile

It's not so much that I forget it, it's more of an annoyance that I have to turn it on every time I jump. It's not like I want it to be off, ever. And it's not like it's gonna come off before I explicitly tell it to. So I see no reason it's not passive


So, active hardeners, eccm, sensor boosters, tracking computers, these should all be passive as well then?

I think there is a logical fallacy involved here. Grow up man.

How about we make all passive mods (ALL mods, shield extenders, etc etc) active, and they have a 30 sec timer and cost 1 cap. That must be great, yeah? You see the problem with this kind of arguing?


Explain how rather than trying to pass it off with a one liner. There is fundamentally no difference between a dc and these mods. You are the one saying there needs to be a change not me.
Doddy
Excidium.
#79 - 2012-12-06 20:05:45 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
wtf you on?
you know it takes 60-120 seconds to disappear after logging off regardless of what you have or dont have turned on right?
and that's not counting any timers you may have.


This is the fundamental point. the number of people repeating some nonsense about "waiting for a mod to turn off before logging" is ridiculous.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2012-12-06 20:07:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Hannott Thanos wrote:
I think there is a logical fallacy involved here.
Not really. ECCM, hardeners, sebos, TCs and the like all match those reasons for why you want DCs to be passive: they're an annoyance to turn on every time; it's not like there's a good reason to have them off. So why should they stay active and not DCs?

Quote:
How about we make all passive mods (ALL mods, shield extenders, etc etc) active, and they have a 30 sec timer and cost 1 cap. That must be great, yeah?
No. They all have penalties, limitations, and requirements that make up for their passive status. So really, the question should rather be: if the DC was made passive, how do you propose to nerf it to make up for this improvement?