These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#101 - 2012-12-06 20:54:25 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.


Yes, let's make all hardeners, sensor boosters, tracking computers and ECCM passive. Why not?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#102 - 2012-12-06 20:57:32 UTC
Andski wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.


Yes, let's make all hardeners, sensor boosters, tracking computers and ECCM passive. Why not?


Hardeners and other such modules use quite a bit of capacitor and so there is a good reason to allow the pilot to choose to activate them or not. So a bit of a stupid suggestion there to be honest.
Doddy
Excidium.
#103 - 2012-12-06 20:59:48 UTC
Damage control was buffed in red moon rising, all its says is "Damage Control has been improved, the module now requires activation and gives resistance bonuses to all hit point layers." I guess that before it was a passive module that only effected structure resists and were pretty useless. Tuxford worried that people would stack the no stacking pen resists hence the single mod limit and the requirement for them to be active.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-12-06 21:00:03 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:
Andski wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.


Yes, let's make all hardeners, sensor boosters, tracking computers and ECCM passive. Why not?


Hardeners and other such modules use quite a bit of capacitor and so there is a good reason to allow the pilot to choose to activate them or not. So a bit of a stupid suggestion there to be honest.


But turning them on is obviously such a chore given the complaints in this thread so why not have them automatically turn on when they're needed? Clearly we need to reward the dumbs and/or AFK.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Zhade Lezte
#105 - 2012-12-06 21:01:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhade Lezte
Add a new passive module with 25% hull resists, I guess. (I don't see the point when you have reinforced bulkheads, honestly, but vOv)

Make the damage control use a nontrivial amount of cap?

The OP has convinced me that the dcu is in fact too good for how little cap it costs.
Doddy
Excidium.
#106 - 2012-12-06 21:03:01 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:
Andski wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.


Yes, let's make all hardeners, sensor boosters, tracking computers and ECCM passive. Why not?


Hardeners and other such modules use quite a bit of capacitor and so there is a good reason to allow the pilot to choose to activate them or not. So a bit of a stupid suggestion there to be honest.


So lets increase damage control cycle time and thus cap use. Fixed without buffing cloaked ships, success.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#107 - 2012-12-06 21:03:51 UTC
Andski wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:
Andski wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.


Yes, let's make all hardeners, sensor boosters, tracking computers and ECCM passive. Why not?


Hardeners and other such modules use quite a bit of capacitor and so there is a good reason to allow the pilot to choose to activate them or not. So a bit of a stupid suggestion there to be honest.


But turning them on is obviously such a chore given the complaints in this thread so why not have them automatically turn on when they're needed? Clearly we need to reward the dumbs and/or AFK.


Its not difficult, but it serves little purpose. Also it gets annoying if your doing multiple jumps and have to keep switching it on everytime. Try doing a 30 jump trip with an orca and see if switching a DC on x30 adds any additional fun to the journey. I think you'll find not.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#108 - 2012-12-06 21:04:03 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:
Andski wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.


Yes, let's make all hardeners, sensor boosters, tracking computers and ECCM passive. Why not?


Hardeners and other such modules use quite a bit of capacitor and so there is a good reason to allow the pilot to choose to activate them or not. So a bit of a stupid suggestion there to be honest.

It's Andski. If you are expecting him to be anything more than a troll you are sadly mistaken.

One thing to keep in mind is nothing should be sacred from the balance gods. Even if a module, ship, game mechanic or whatever else you can think of seemed to be fine when it was introduced or even changed years ago; everything should be subject to balance if needed.

Although knowing the full history of something is helpful to understand the subject at hand.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#109 - 2012-12-06 21:04:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Emu Meo wrote:
Is this a serious argument?
It's not an argument — it's game mechanics. It is not about intention, but about effect: the difference a DC makes means there's a point to turning it on and point to trying to get it to turn off. It may not be easy, but it can be done and it makes a world of difference.

The fact that it's there as a mistake for the pilot to make (or for the enemy to induce) means that there is a point to its being an active module. The herculean task required to turn it on is also rewarded by the pretty astonishing benefits it brings with it (which would have to be removed or reduced if it were ever made passive).

Quote:
But as others have said I think the actual module is a little badly implemented and would like to see it reworked someday.
In what way?

Emu Meo wrote:
Its not difficult, but it serves little purpose. Also it gets annoying if your doing multiple jumps and have to keep switching it on everytime.
Good news: you don't have to switch it on every time.
Doddy
Excidium.
#110 - 2012-12-06 21:04:43 UTC
Zhade Lezte wrote:
Add a new passive module with 25% hull resists, I guess. (I don't see the point when you have reinforced bulkheads, honestly, but vOv)

Make the damage control use a nontrivial amount of cap?

The OP has convinced me that the dcu is in fact too good for how little cap it costs.


This is what i am beginning to think too. Current dcu - stays as is with increased cap use. New dcu = passive with hull only buff.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2012-12-06 21:07:36 UTC
I like my idea better.
Current DCU stays as is with same cap use, new DCU is a fantasy in OP's mind.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#112 - 2012-12-06 21:08:46 UTC
Zhade Lezte wrote:
Add a new passive module with 25% hull resists, I guess. (I don't see the point when you have reinforced bulkheads, honestly, but vOv)

Make the damage control use a nontrivial amount of cap?

The OP has convinced me that the dcu is in fact too good for how little cap it costs.


Im thinking something along these lines. When DC was originally nerfed to just one and making it active, I believe stacking penalty didnt apply. Make the module passive and weaken it but allow the stacking penalty to apply. That would actually add a little more choice and make the decision on whether to fit it or not a little more interesting. I get the feeling a lot of these posters take the game very seriously and forgetting that in fact games are about having fun. So any element in the games design which is not adding to this is not good game design.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#113 - 2012-12-06 21:11:17 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:
Andski wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.


Yes, let's make all hardeners, sensor boosters, tracking computers and ECCM passive. Why not?


Hardeners and other such modules use quite a bit of capacitor and so there is a good reason to allow the pilot to choose to activate them or not. So a bit of a stupid suggestion there to be honest.


So lets increase damage control cycle time and thus cap use. Fixed without buffing cloaked ships, success.


I would agree with this suggestion also. Either it should be one or the other, completely passive, or properly active. Where it is now is just a fail in the game design.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#114 - 2012-12-06 21:18:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:
Is this a serious argument?
It's not an argument — it's game mechanics. It is not about intention, but about effect: the difference a DC makes means there's a point to turning it on and point to trying to get it to turn off..


And so making the module properly active would aid these goals you are setting out above. Using a proper amount of cap and shorter cycle time would actually allow players in a meaningful way to switch off the DC. And deciding when to activate the DC would now matter as you wouldn't want to go into an engagement with half cap. So Im glad you agree. ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#115 - 2012-12-06 21:23:06 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:
And so making the module properly active would aid these goals you are setting out above.
As luck would have it, it's already properly active — no change needed.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#116 - 2012-12-06 21:25:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:
And so making the module properly active would aid these goals you are setting out above.
As luck would have it, it's already properly active — no change needed.

It's about as properly active as a passive module that draines 1 cap every 30 seconds is properly passive, lol.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#117 - 2012-12-06 21:27:44 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Yeah but the dc being active adds only good things to the game.

How so?


Iidots can forget to switch it on = comedy
It can get neuted off = more combat variation (a very rare occurence to be fair).

The latter happens surprisingly often when small neuts are involved. A Cruor or Sentinel (or I guess now Dragoon) on your face will turn off your DC and it will hurt.

The best of both worlds on this change would be "active but cycle-less", like cloaks are. Still, it's not a super-critical change that ~needs to happen~. It's not that hard to stay safe until it turns off.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#118 - 2012-12-06 21:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Emu Meo
Tippia wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:
And so making the module properly active would aid these goals you are setting out above.
As luck would have it, it's already properly active — no change needed.


Are you just trying to troll now or what? Adding a noticeable amount of cap use to the DC and giving it a small cycle time should make you happy and alleviate the problems of AFKing and not being able to nuet it off you were complaining about above?? I guess there is no pleasing some people.
Vandango Audene
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#119 - 2012-12-06 21:34:44 UTC
If you can not take the effort to push a simple key then you lazy as hell.


Yes the DCU is kind of annoying when you are trying to "Safe Logoff" but personally if you are THAT PARANOID you have to safe log off then you can wait 60 seconds so your **** can stay in 1 piece then being blown up

to clarify btw

When you safe log off this will happen

  1. A 30 Second Timer will show up, your ship will not move during this time.
  2. Once this timer reaches 0 , your client will disconnect.
  3. Your ship will THEN INITIATE EMERGENCY WARP (If anything was stopping you from warping you would not be able to safe log off)
  4. After your ship EXITS EMERGENCY WARP it will disappear immediately


When you log off normally

  1. Your Client disconnects Regardless what is happening in the game world ( Modules, PVP Timers , Warp scramblers)
  2. Your Ship will attempt to initiate emergency warp if anything stops it , it wont do anything for 15 minutes (Because somthings prolly warp scraming you.)
  3. After your ship exits emergency warp it will SIT IN SPACE FOR 30 SECONDS 1 MILLION KM FROM WHERE YOU LOGGED OFF IN A RANDOM DIRECTION, ANYTHING DURING THE 30 SECONDS MEANS YOU CAN BE PROBED THEN KILLED , ROBBED , RAPED and PILLAGED
  4. After 30 seconds have passed and someone hasnt probed you down And Attacked you your ship disspears from space =)


if you really cant be bothered to push your DCU Every time you jump a gate, then your prolly to lazy to cloak your ship every time you jump a gate in a viator with 2 billion isk worth of ****
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#120 - 2012-12-06 21:36:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Hannott Thanos wrote:
It's about as properly active as a passive module that draines 1 cap every 30 seconds is properly passive, lol.
Since those two are each other's opposites, nope.

Emu Meo wrote:
Are you just trying to troll now or what?
Nope. Why would I be?

Quote:
Adding a noticeable amount of cap use to the DC and giving it a small cycle time should make you happy if and alleviate the problems of AFKing and not being able to nuet it off you were complaining about above?
You're confusing me with someone else. I haven't complained about AFKing or about not being able to neut it off, so I have no idea what you're on about.

I just see no reason why it should be made passive, much less a reason that outweighs the problems with such a change. At the same time, I see no reason why it should be nerfed — it's not like it's horribly overpowered in its current state or causing any real issues.