These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#61 - 2013-01-29 11:05:03 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.


To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:

- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active
- Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners


To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).


Agreed that this doesn't merit a skill reimbursement.

What it does merit is a shield version of Adaptive Nano Plating (NOT EANMs, as the armour tankers should retain the edge in passive omni resists) so that there's some viable use for shield comp skills that isn't a ridiculously marginal edge case.

"Shield ANPs" would still be significantly less powerful than EANMs, and provide a valuable low-CPU fitting but skill-intensive option that shield tanking completely lacks.

Whilst symmetry would also seem to call for a low-powered active armour omni hardener, the principle of making it less good than the shield active omni (ie: the T2 version would be 25% resists) would basically make it no better than the EANM, so it would be pretty pointless. I guess it might be good for people who haven't yet trained the armour comp skills.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#62 - 2013-01-29 11:06:55 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.


To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:

- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active
- Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners


To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).


The first thing is hard, but ok it is possible to live with it...
But the fact that armour and shield compensation won´t give any bonus to active moduls is to hard.
What would be if they give a 1 % bonus to active hardeners instead.
So an Invulnerability Field I would give with EM shield compensation on two and the other three shield compansations on one 27 % EM resistance and 26 % resistance to the other three elements. The same for the other hardeners.

In every other case the shield tankers really need a passive modul like what EANM is for armour.

Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
ChaseX
The Executives
#63 - 2013-01-29 11:48:57 UTC
Fergus Runkle wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:

- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active
- Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners



Will these skills still apply to the energised armour platings?

if so when do the shield tankers get their active but not really active hardeners?


The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-01-29 12:08:29 UTC
ChaseX wrote:
The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap.


If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline....

Wow, that'd sure be awesome.
Nemo deBlanc
Resource Acquisition Unlimited
#65 - 2013-01-29 12:08:54 UTC
Am I missing something, or does this not make the already garbage shield caps even worse? And why is CCP looking to buff neuts, which are already arguably some of the strongest mods in the game?
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#66 - 2013-01-29 12:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Hashi Lebwohl
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.


To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:

- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active
- Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners


To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).


Compare and contrast the Nyx and the Hel in their standard fittings.

The weakest supercap tank will have no tank once neuted.

I believe with these changes you' ve made ccp Fozzie very happy by making sure that jumping a Hel into a fight is certain suicide - a high probability obviously wasn't good enough for you. I think more corps will be celebrating, as Ccp Fozzie mentioned in another thread that his corp did, the absence of Hels.
Kasutra
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#67 - 2013-01-29 12:20:15 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
ChaseX wrote:
The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap.


If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline....

Wow, that'd sure be awesome.

It uses cap.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#68 - 2013-01-29 12:35:54 UTC
It might as well not for the massive boost it gives.
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#69 - 2013-01-29 12:35:59 UTC
Kasutra wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
ChaseX wrote:
The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap.


If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline....

Wow, that'd sure be awesome.

It uses cap.


Being armour tanked it also has a bunch of mid slots free for cap injectors etc.
ChaseX
The Executives
#70 - 2013-01-29 12:39:58 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
ChaseX wrote:
The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap.


If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline....

Wow, that'd sure be awesome.


Yeah, beside the module works completely different from ASBs and is not x-large.
Darth Felin
Monkey Attack Squad
Goonswarm Federation
#71 - 2013-01-29 12:41:23 UTC
It is very bad communication from CCP, I trained shield comp skills only to gert some resists while neuted so it is a waste for me now. I doubt that anything will be changed even through imho should compensate those SP for BOTH armor and shield and than anyone who need them in new situation can apply them back.
ChaseX
The Executives
#72 - 2013-01-29 12:47:52 UTC
Darth Felin wrote:
It is very bad communication from CCP, I trained shield comp skills only to gert some resists while neuted so it is a waste for me now. I doubt that anything will be changed even through imho should compensate those SP for BOTH armor and shield and than anyone who need them in new situation can apply them back.


How about, no?
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2013-01-29 12:54:24 UTC
Will someone please post a reasonable fit (no officer/deadspace mods, please) that would ever make use of the shield comp skills, if they don't give a bonus to active hardeners?

If a viable one cannot be provided, then one must conclude that CCP will make the shield comp skills worthless.
Besbin
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#74 - 2013-01-29 12:55:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Besbin
"Lucky" me. I already decided to only take shield comp skills to 4/4/4/3 (3 in expl) since I personally see absolutely no use in the passive shield mods available now and have never ever fitted one, so I only trained them for the passive resists on active hardeners. I do agree the wording in the description is bad (the word "passive" just has too many connotations in regards to tanking), but that is obviously an easy thing to fix by, duh, changing the wording.

This reeks of "lazy programmer".

That said, I do believe Eve mechanics is better off without this niche effect...PROVIDED passive shield mods (shield resistance amplifier (also: have Punkturis look at the naming conventions here plz)) are made into a viable mechanic. Namely by introducing a passive omni resist mod.

For the later, I think Malcanis' suggestion sounds very viable:

Malcanis wrote:

What it does merit is a shield version of Adaptive Nano Plating (NOT EANMs, as the armour tankers should retain the edge in passive omni resists) so that there's some viable use for shield comp skills that isn't a ridiculously marginal edge case.

"Shield ANPs" would still be significantly less powerful than EANMs, and provide a valuable low-CPU fitting but skill-intensive option that shield tanking completely lacks.

Whilst symmetry would also seem to call for a low-powered active armour omni hardener, the principle of making it less good than the shield active omni (ie: the T2 version would be 25% resists) would basically make it no better than the EANM, so it would be pretty pointless. I guess it might be good for people who haven't yet trained the armour comp skills.
Besbin
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#75 - 2013-01-29 12:56:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Besbin
Verity Sovereign wrote:
Will someone please post a reasonable fit (no officer/deadspace mods, please) that would ever make use of the shield comp skills, if they don't give a bonus to active hardeners?

If a viable one cannot be provided, then one must conclude that CCP will make the shield comp skills worthless.


It's not impossible. A pve passive shield lvl 5 mish ratting tengu for instance (lvl 5s are often stuffed with big ass neuting towers). For PVE they make mucho sense. For PVP, not even the slightest bit.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2013-01-29 12:58:41 UTC
At least lower the cap need for active shield resist mods. 3.2 cap/sec is huge it is more than what large guns need.

Armor tank has better base resists than r shield, and the 5% moreesist doesnt justify the huge cap need and neut countered invu field. Also damage controlls favour armor resists.
The only advantage the invu has it that you can overheat it . But at battleship and larger you can easily fit 3+ active armor resist mods to compensate eamn stacking, and they need much less cap too than shield mods :I


Oh and the shield compensation skills should be removed and just increase the base resist on passive shield resist modules. I think most of use learned those skills only to have a small resist even when our shield tanked ship got neuted, now that its gone the skills should gone too. At least i cant see a reason why would anyone learn them for some modules hardly ever used.

Ive checked my alli fittings and none of them had any passive shield resist modules none.You can check killboards with same result.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#77 - 2013-01-29 13:13:18 UTC
Armor reppers can be capped out, ABSs not. Invulns can be capped out, EANMs not. What's the problem?



.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2013-01-29 13:21:04 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Ive checked my alli fittings and none of them had any passive shield resist modules none.You can check killboards with same result.


QFT
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2013-01-29 13:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.


To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:

- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active
- Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners


To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).

1. Why did you not announce this intended change before getting called out in a forum thread?

2. WHY do you feel that this is the correct change?

3. Why do you feel that the shield compensation skills should be so utterly worthless?
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#80 - 2013-01-29 14:00:02 UTC
Roime wrote:
Armor reppers can be capped out, ABSs not. Invulns can be capped out, EANMs not. What's the problem?





In 0.0 fleet and cap fights the ASB is not a factor - active shield and armor hardeners and EANM plus a damage control is fundamentally what most tanks are built upon. Shield resistance for pvp is therefore exclusively active in nature, and therefore this change places a greater disadvantage upon shield based tanks where their cap is compromised or delayed in activation, for instance when jumping into a system.