These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Removal of passive resist bonus on shield/armour hardeners

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-01-28 15:18:08 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking.
I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this...



It's not a nerf, it's a hidden buff to passive mods. Bear

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#22 - 2013-01-28 15:20:09 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Pinky Denmark wrote:
This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking.
I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this...

If only you had some insanely OP shield boosting module that didn't run on cap. Hmmm


Doesn't count for much when you end up with a 0% resistance hole.

Plug it with a passive mod or rig?
Oh wait, that's making decisions, and we cant have that now can we?

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#23 - 2013-01-28 15:21:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners


This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:


  • We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
  • The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).



dam, this sucks, do we get a little extra bonus to the active resits bonus from the compensation skills we have trained?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#24 - 2013-01-28 15:35:36 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
Not a huge fan of this.

* Proper skills + 2x Adaptive Invulns at least gave a little bit of a resistance buffer when neuted out, somewhere on par with the lowest resistances on armour tanked ships. Vs armour which are almost always passive and have greater EHP to boot.

* It does make the Shield Compensation skills pretty much useless outside a small handful of roles.

* There is no shield equivalent to the EANM. Even if there was, at a lower resistance %, they would likely still fail pretty bad EHP wise compared to the armour fits.


I have a good idea, we'll swap. You get passive only omni for shield and armor gets an active omni instead. Yes? No?

If your answer is no then your whole post is silly nonsense, what you're whining about is having your cake and eat it. Same goes for the above poster.


If we're swapping fitting costs as well, then I'd make that trade.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2013-01-28 15:35:45 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners


This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:


  • We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
  • The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).


So basically you pushed through a buff that caused people to train up a bunch of skills, then not long after you pull the buff and instead make those skills have zero effect?

Ladies and gentlemen - CCP Greyscale.
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#26 - 2013-01-28 16:46:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ong
Oh good really glad I just finished training all the shield comps to 5 after putting it off for 5 years, just for those 'incase of getting neuted out' moments Roll

If your going to make this happen you really are going to have to introduce a passive shield mod similar to the EANM, no one uses the passive shield mods unless their trying for some permarun pve fit.

Why your changing it is beyond me though, I have literally never heard anyone ever complain about the mechanic in 6 years of playing this game, seems like a classic example of bored people being locked in a room looking for issues where non lie.
Nash MacAllister
Air
The Initiative.
#27 - 2013-01-28 16:53:14 UTC
I concur that if this change is coming to TQ, which certainly sounds to be true, then shield guys need a shield EANM. GIve me a passive module with across the board resistance buffs. I have no issue making choices, but right now there isn't one.

Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#28 - 2013-01-28 16:58:26 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners


This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:


  • We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
  • The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).


Eh. This is annoying. Yes, I understand that fitting tradeoffs can and should exist. But so should training tradeoffs, and you've just changed that calculus significantly. That's 16 ranks of skills that no longer offer a benefit that lots of us valued. Eight of those ranks were extraordinarily niche to start with, but we chose to train them anyway -- largely because we'd still get some benefit from inactive invulns. Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.

But now you've pushed it through. That's the second point for annoyance. In general, CCP is doing much better communicating with its player constituents about changes. Where exactly was the notice on this though? No discussion, no questions, nothing in CSM minutes even. It just pops up on SiSi one day as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Well, it's not. It's actually a significant change.

Anyhow. I've seen enough of these things to know that the odds of reverting this change now that it's hit SiSi are slim to none. I'd still like to see it, but I won't pretend I'll ragequit over it. Wrong direction though, folks. Poorly played.
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#29 - 2013-01-28 17:03:10 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:

Eh. This is annoying. Yes, I understand that fitting tradeoffs can and should exist. But so should training tradeoffs, and you've just changed that calculus significantly. That's 16 ranks of skills that no longer offer a benefit that lots of us valued. Eight of those ranks were extraordinarily niche to start with, but we chose to train them anyway -- largely because we'd still get some benefit from inactive invulns. Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.

But now you've pushed it through. That's the second point for annoyance. In general, CCP is doing much better communicating with its player constituents about changes. Where exactly was the notice on this though? No discussion, no questions, nothing in CSM minutes even. It just pops up on SiSi one day as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Well, it's not. It's actually a significant change.

Anyhow. I've seen enough of these things to know that the odds of reverting this change now that it's hit SiSi are slim to none. I'd still like to see it, but I won't pretend I'll ragequit over it. Wrong direction though, folks. Poorly played.


Very true, reminds me of the 'links not effecting remote rep mods' they sneaked in, while this is not as massive a change as that its still a pretty big and skill intensive change to not mention it at all.
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-01-28 17:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Alice Katsuko
(1) Unless you're completely illiterate, there is nothing confusing about the phrasing of the bonuses. The module provides a small resist bonus when inactive, and a big bonus when active; the skill boosts passive mods, and active mods while they're inactive. And if you do feel that the wording is bad, then change the wording. Your logic makes as much sense as burning a book because you don't understand all the words.

(2) The passive resist bonus is not a primary effect. No-one fits active hardeners because of the passive bonus. The passive bonus makes the module useful under neut pressure and under high-lag conditions (hint: look at that big supercap battle last night, and see how many ships couldn't get their hardeners to turn on due to lag).

In all, your reasoning makes no sense.
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2013-01-28 17:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Name Family Name
Zhilia Mann wrote:


Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.



Wholeheartedly agree.

I would never have trained these skills without that functionality. However that also shows another flaw: Passive shield mods are obvoulsy too weak - they're just not worth a slot - maybe on an AFK Trit-Hauling Badger or something - IDK - never ever even considered using one, but I still wouldn't consider now.

Now adding an EANM like module just for shields would take away too much flavour from armor and shield tanking respectively, but a group of modules nobody ever uses certainly needs to be looked at.

Well - sucks to be us I guess - more SP ballast on my character, but it could be worse - I could be a Supercarrier pilot with millions of wasted drone skills...
Helothane
Ascendent.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#32 - 2013-01-28 19:30:54 UTC
The only time I have consistently used shield resistance amplifiers has been when ratting Blood Raiders, due to their use of neuts and EM/Therm damage, which shields other than Minmatar T2/T3 have a weakness against.

The place this will really have an impact (as previously stated) is for shield capitals. There the resists provided are substantial, given the amount of shield you are talking about.
Illest Insurrectionist
Sparta.
#33 - 2013-01-28 19:32:41 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners


This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:


  • We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
  • The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).


So you were hoping not to get caught then claim it always worked that way as usual?
Funky Koval
Bad Artists
#34 - 2013-01-28 21:00:28 UTC
Yeah I have to chip in here too. It looks like a knee-jerk change that was not properly thought through.

Did you (CCP guys) even run a query to check how many people have shield compensation trained and will
possibly be affected by this?

Or do you intend to give a SP refund, like someone asked?

Also, the application of the skill to active hardeners is not obscure at all, apart from skill description itself you can actually see the passive bonuses when mousing over an active hardener installed on your ship.
Scorpyn
The Providers
#35 - 2013-01-28 21:23:20 UTC
So active shield hardeners will revert to the way they used to work?

Even though the game has obviously changed since then, I don't see how this can be considered to be a major problem.
Lynkon Lawg
Second Six Corporation
#36 - 2013-01-28 21:53:16 UTC
Ong wrote:
Very true, reminds me of the 'links not effecting remote rep mods' they sneaked in, while this is not as massive a change as that its still a pretty big and skill intensive change to not mention it at all.



Not to jack the thread but what do you mean by this? Are you saying siege and armor ganglinks do NOT affect remote shield boosters and remote armor reppers? When did this happen? I can find anything in the forums that indicate this?

To get back on track, I am completely against the removal of the passive boost of active shield mods. I also trained the compensation skills for this reason.
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2013-01-28 22:12:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Name Family Name
Scorpyn wrote:
So active shield hardeners will revert to the way they used to work?

Even though the game has obviously changed since then, I don't see how this can be considered to be a major problem.



I - and I don't think anyone else - have too much of a problem with the change as such except for the fact that people only trained the skills for the specific benefit that was just removed.

So my training time investment has been devalued on two characters whilst I'm still stuck with the SP which in turn now unnecessarily bloat my clone costs.

But yeah - CCP have done worse things to their customers, so I won't hold my breath on an SP refund or at least the option to delete the skills.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-01-28 22:20:56 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners


This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:


  • We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
  • The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).

WHEN YOU MAKE CHANGES LIKE THIS, ANNOUNCE THEM. This is far too important to be a stealth nerf.

Also, this change sucks. This basically makes the shield compensation skills even less worthwhile. Maybe remove the passive effects from the invulns, but leave it on the specific hardeners? Or just reduce the passive resist boost amount? It's a useful, albeit uncommonly used trait to have on the hardeners that adds a bit of flavor based on your compensation skills. I honestly see no reason why you'd change it.


CCP actually tell it's players what they're planning.... What madness do you speak of!?... LOL

On a serious note I'm sure it would have been included in patch notes.

This has helped me decide if I was going to spend 30 days taking the passive shield skills to 5. It was always a good safety net if active hardeners failed you would have at lest some resists. Now that it just effects passive hardeners it's not worth it for me.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-01-28 22:21:50 UTC
I was about to train EM ad TH to lvl 5, and bring kin and Exp to lvl 4

I now see this would be useless if CCP goes through with the planned changes


I'd vote against this, and I'm holding off training those unless CCP makes it clear this is not going through.
Scorpyn
The Providers
#40 - 2013-01-28 22:37:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Scorpyn
Name Family Name wrote:
Scorpyn wrote:
So active shield hardeners will revert to the way they used to work?

Even though the game has obviously changed since then, I don't see how this can be considered to be a major problem.



I - and I don't think anyone else - have too much of a problem with the change as such except for the fact that people only trained the skills for the specific benefit that was just removed.

So my training time investment has been devalued on two characters whilst I'm still stuck with the SP which in turn now unnecessarily bloat my clone costs.

But yeah - CCP have done worse things to their customers, so I won't hold my breath on an SP refund or at least the option to delete the skills.

I can agree with that, it was the major (but not only) reason for me to train those skills as I rarely use a purely passive tank.

If given the option I'd probably not move the sp to other skills though.