These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#241 - 2013-02-13 00:01:09 UTC
Ong wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Besbin wrote:
I wish I could understand what you were trying to say, so I could tell you how stupid that is.




You can't already understand this change is not worst for shields than for armor.

Leave it alone reading comprehension.


Let me tell you about two modules the Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II and Adaptive Nano Plating II.

Every pvp armor ship as standard fits a DC, 1-2 of these modules and then 1-2 active hardeners to fill any resist holes depending on the ship. No matter how many neuts you have on you these modules will never turn off and always give you resists.

Lets use some examples here as your obviously having issues with understanding, lets take a myrmidon and a cyclone and assume that this is after the removal of skills effecting turned off hardeners.

A pretty standard fit for the myrms lows is 1 DC, 2 EANM's, 1 explosive hardener and 2 reps now assuming you get neuted out completely, even to the point where the DC is also tuned off, you will still have resists of: 70, 61, 61, 47, ie pretty freaking good still.

Now lets take the cyclone, again a pretty standard fit, a DC, MWD, scram, 1 boost amp, 1 ancillary shield booster, 1 invuln, again lets assume you are completely neuted out, you end up with resists of: 0, 20, 40, 50 even assuming you have an em and themal resist rigs you end up with resists of 30, 44, 40, 50.

Im going to use the first set of figures from the cyclone as we are not assuming rigs for either ship, lets put these together shall we:

Myrm: 70, 61, 61, 47

Cyclone: 0, 20, 40, 50

Do you see the issue where shield is far more effected then armor yet?

How about the fact that armor ships still have mids left to run 1 if not 2 cap boosters and thus make is even harder to completely neut out their hardeners.

Now combine this with armor ships having full tackle, and post armor buff also coming in the same patch, no speed side effects from their rigs, explain to me why anyone would choose a shield ship to brawl with post patch? And how this is not effecting shield more then armor.

You missed the part where the ASB still run without cap, keeping you alive, whereas the Myrm explode in a ball of fire because it have absolutely no buffer.
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#242 - 2013-02-13 00:14:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ong
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Ong wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Besbin wrote:
I wish I could understand what you were trying to say, so I could tell you how stupid that is.




You can't already understand this change is not worst for shields than for armor.

Leave it alone reading comprehension.


Let me tell you about two modules the Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II and Adaptive Nano Plating II.

Every pvp armor ship as standard fits a DC, 1-2 of these modules and then 1-2 active hardeners to fill any resist holes depending on the ship. No matter how many neuts you have on you these modules will never turn off and always give you resists.

Lets use some examples here as your obviously having issues with understanding, lets take a myrmidon and a cyclone and assume that this is after the removal of skills effecting turned off hardeners.

A pretty standard fit for the myrms lows is 1 DC, 2 EANM's, 1 explosive hardener and 2 reps now assuming you get neuted out completely, even to the point where the DC is also tuned off, you will still have resists of: 70, 61, 61, 47, ie pretty freaking good still.

Now lets take the cyclone, again a pretty standard fit, a DC, MWD, scram, 1 boost amp, 1 ancillary shield booster, 1 invuln, again lets assume you are completely neuted out, you end up with resists of: 0, 20, 40, 50 even assuming you have an em and themal resist rigs you end up with resists of 30, 44, 40, 50.

Im going to use the first set of figures from the cyclone as we are not assuming rigs for either ship, lets put these together shall we:

Myrm: 70, 61, 61, 47

Cyclone: 0, 20, 40, 50

Do you see the issue where shield is far more effected then armor yet?

How about the fact that armor ships still have mids left to run 1 if not 2 cap boosters and thus make is even harder to completely neut out their hardeners.

Now combine this with armor ships having full tackle, and post armor buff also coming in the same patch, no speed side effects from their rigs, explain to me why anyone would choose a shield ship to brawl with post patch? And how this is not effecting shield more then armor.

You missed the part where the ASB still run without cap, keeping you alive, whereas the Myrm explode in a ball of fire because it have absolutely no buffer.


We are talking about resists not rep mechanics here, but while you mention it, the myrm will have just under 27k ehp while the clone will have 19k, so yet again armor has an advantage over shield.
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#243 - 2013-02-13 08:44:35 UTC
Only read as far as DEV comment on first page.

Can't say I'm happy about a stealth nerf to modules that provide resists.

Poor Caldari State, they lose the uber range on the tengu, get whacked by the missile nerf, and now a stealth shield nerf on the top... :(

So are you gonna buff the amount that active resists provide when turned on then? What?

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#244 - 2013-02-13 10:07:26 UTC
Ong wrote:
We are talking about resists not rep mechanics here, but while you mention it, the myrm will have just under 27k ehp while the clone will have 19k, so yet again armor has an advantage over shield.

You use resist to tank, not only for the sake of having good resists. And the difference in buffer will be*largely* compensated by the *capless* ASB.

Though congratulation ! You just showed how screwed a neuted ship is ! That was completely unexpected !
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#245 - 2013-02-13 11:52:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Ong wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Besbin wrote:
I wish I could understand what you were trying to say, so I could tell you how stupid that is.




You can't already understand this change is not worst for shields than for armor.

Leave it alone reading comprehension.


A lot of things.




Well, tell me how much different it would end for that cyclone in YOUR specific 1v1 scenario? -nothing, just 2 or 3 shots+

An offline EM hardener alone gives you 15% resist, but gives you 66% EM resist Over Heated when online
2 offline Invuln gives you 26.1% Resist EM

An Em resist amplifier gives you 46.9% all the time, so no, you don't get 0 resist on your shield ship once you have no cap the moment you train your skills and change the usual fits often made of double invuln and nothing else but extenders/point/prop.

Train your resist compensation skills and find creative fits, shield ships often have generous fittings and slots/mods for this on top of capless weapon systems and ASB's.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#246 - 2013-02-13 14:02:33 UTC
Why must players always stumble on these changes accidentally, instead of CCP coming out and mentioning them straight away? Are you guys hoping no one will notice or what?
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#247 - 2013-02-13 14:42:12 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

Well, tell me how much different it would end for that cyclone in YOUR specific 1v1 scenario? -nothing, just 2 or 3 shots+


I was using two similar ships in comparison not saying they are fighting each other
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

An offline EM hardener alone gives you 15% resist, but gives you 66% EM resist Over Heated when online
2 offline Invuln gives you 26.1% Resist EM


You realise this entire discussion is about this mechanic going away right? and that I stated the figures were post chances not current?
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

An Em resist amplifier gives you 46.9% all the time, so no, you don't get 0 resist on your shield ship once you have no cap the moment you train your skills and change the usual fits often made of double invuln and nothing else but extenders/point/prop.

Train your resist compensation skills and find creative fits, shield ships often have generous fittings and slots/mods for this on top of capless weapon systems and ASB's.


Please tell me how your meant to even come close to replacing an invuln with 1 specific resist amp? Sure you can plug one hole but what about the other 3?

Thats why they should introduce an EANM type module, to give the option, say 10% resists across the bored + skills, would mean the invuln still provides more resist at 30% but you have a choice if your worried about heavy neuting.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#248 - 2013-02-13 17:57:08 UTC
Who has zero EM resist on a shield tank ship? Literally everybody fits an EM resist rig if you shield tank. Secondly, who the hell is letting their shield tank ship get close enough to a ship with neuts? You're pretty much done right there anyway.
CMD Ishikawa
New Eden Public Security Section 9
#249 - 2013-02-13 18:38:57 UTC
CCP Guys already said those changes are coming ... Sad

How about we focus on the passive modules, some people have stated that we could use a passive mod like the EANM and I think there is a good idea around there, passive shield buffering is almost useless right now.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#250 - 2013-02-13 20:06:49 UTC
CMD Ishikawa wrote:
CCP Guys already said those changes are coming ... Sad

How about we focus on the passive modules, some people have stated that we could use a passive mod like the EANM and I think there is a good idea around there, passive shield buffering is almost useless right now.



Yes I could use of an armor invuln hardener too, this would actually be a huge improvement for active tanking.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Solaris Ecladia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#251 - 2013-02-13 20:17:12 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
CMD Ishikawa wrote:
CCP Guys already said those changes are coming ... Sad

How about we focus on the passive modules, some people have stated that we could use a passive mod like the EANM and I think there is a good idea around there, passive shield buffering is almost useless right now.



Yes I could use of an armor invuln hardener too, this would actually be a huge improvement for active tanking.


Didnt you just get the reactive thingy?
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#252 - 2013-02-13 20:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Inkarr Hashur
To the people asking for an EANM or even just a ANP analogue for shields, want to discuss when you'd want to be using these instead of an Invuln on a day-to-day basis in pvp? It sounds like a stretch to me.

And no, it isn't as simple as "when I'm being neuted of course!"

Also, to the guy above, no one actually likes the reactive armor thingy. This might change if a T2 version was ever implemented but that would also come with T2 ASB which would be a whole new can of worms. The T1 ASB has the balance you want already, if anything rename the T1 ASB to T2 and implement a weaker version as T1 ASB.
DireNecessity
Mayhem-Industries
#253 - 2013-02-13 20:29:13 UTC  |  Edited by: DireNecessity
Solaris Ecladia wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
CMD Ishikawa wrote:
CCP Guys already said those changes are coming ... Sad

How about we focus on the passive modules, some people have stated that we could use a passive mod like the EANM and I think there is a good idea around there, passive shield buffering is almost useless right now.



Yes I could use of an armor invuln hardener too, this would actually be a huge improvement for active tanking.


Didnt you just get the reactive thingy?


Indeed the Armor Tankers did. Seems the Armor Tankers get both active and passive omni-hardening.

Meanwhile, Shield Tankers are having their passive omni-hardening options removed leaving only active omni-hardening available.

CCP - I presume it's your desire to give armor tankers more options than shield tankers. If I may be so bold . . . why?
Kobea Thris
Inquisition FiS Division
#254 - 2013-02-13 20:47:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Kobea Thris
Ong wrote:

A pretty standard fit for the myrms lows is 1 DC, 2 EANM's, 1 explosive hardener and 2 reps now assuming you get neuted out completely, even to the point where the DC is also tuned off, you will still have resists of: 70, 61, 61, 47, ie pretty freaking good still.

Now lets take the cyclone, again a pretty standard fit, a DC, MWD, scram, 1 boost amp, 1 ancillary shield booster, 1 invuln, again lets assume you are completely neuted out, you end up with resists of: 0, 20, 40, 50 even assuming you have an em and themal resist rigs you end up with resists of 30, 44, 40, 50.

Im going to use the first set of figures from the cyclone as we are not assuming rigs for either ship, lets put these together shall we:

Myrm: 70, 61, 61, 47

Cyclone: 0, 20, 40, 50



So, a ship using a 6 slot tank with 4 resist modules has more resistance than a ship with a 4 slot tank and 2 resist modules? I'm shocked. This example is terrible. For one thing, an XLASB on a Cyclone with a boost amplifier and nothing else already puts out more ehp/s than a Dual Rep Myrm does with everything running. For another, when it has cap, the Cyclone can overheat it's invuln, which is not an option for the myrm. The difference in buffer has quite a bit to do with the base HP as well, which will be going away soon anyway. That said, I still think this is a dumb change. Without an Adaptive amplifier, there just aren't enough good reasons to train the shield comp skills except maybe EM. Yeah, there are weird edge cases where you might use them, but considering the fact that CCP treats them through the certificate browser as requirements for the active and passive shield tanking certificates, they should be more broadly useful.

.

DireNecessity
Mayhem-Industries
#255 - 2013-02-13 21:09:22 UTC  |  Edited by: DireNecessity
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
To the people asking for an EANM or even just a ANP analogue for shields, want to discuss when you'd want to be using these instead of an Invuln on a day-to-day basis in pvp? It sounds like a stretch to me.

And no, it isn't as simple as "when I'm being neuted of course!"

Also, to the guy above, no one actually likes the reactive armor thingy. This might change if a T2 version was ever implemented but that would also come with T2 ASB which would be a whole new can of worms. The T1 ASB has the balance you want already, if anything rename the T1 ASB to T2 and implement a weaker version as T1 ASB.


Perhaps you are correct. To complain that CCP is taking away passive shield omni-hardening options may well be pointless since the active option is always better. Still, the passive back-up was a nice benefit many players found worthwhile training towards.

Your argument that active Invulns will be better than any EANM analogue appears to me to be a claim that even after the no passive bonus nerf, Invulns remain overpowered since no one would ever choose the EANM analogue. If I may ask, what about Invulns is overpowered in your future seeing eyes?
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#256 - 2013-02-14 08:17:41 UTC
To quote the Borg, "Resistance is futile!".... Big smile

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
CMD Ishikawa
New Eden Public Security Section 9
#257 - 2013-02-14 16:34:28 UTC  |  Edited by: CMD Ishikawa
Solaris Ecladia wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
CMD Ishikawa wrote:
CCP Guys already said those changes are coming ... Sad

How about we focus on the passive modules, some people have stated that we could use a passive mod like the EANM and I think there is a good idea around there, passive shield buffering is almost useless right now.



Yes I could use of an armor invuln hardener too, this would actually be a huge improvement for active tanking.


Didnt you just get the reactive thingy?


That module requires some work to be useful, the common idea is that almmost no one uses it.

I know that armor tanking is harder than shied tanking, even when armor tanking seems to have more options, but shield passive tanking is as useless as the "Reactive thingy" ... Ugh

EDIT:

Hazen Koraka wrote:
To quote the Borg, "Resistance is futile!".... Big smile


Nice one ... hehehe ... Smile
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#258 - 2013-02-15 08:50:52 UTC
Hey, I know. Let's just remove resists all together! That will work Shocked Then buff all ships hp by 100% :) IdeaUgh

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
Besbin
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#259 - 2013-02-15 10:48:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Besbin
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
To the people asking for an EANM or even just a ANP analogue for shields, want to discuss when you'd want to be using these instead of an Invuln on a day-to-day basis in pvp? It sounds like a stretch to me.

And no, it isn't as simple as "when I'm being neuted of course!"


Capital ships in general (case being that the way to kill a cap is to neut it). Running pve lvl 5 missions (due to neut towers). The Logistical Outpost cosmic anomaly and especially it's escalation (due to neut towers). C4 wormhole solo ratting due to sleeper neuting (maybe higher Cs too, never tried it (soloing those isn't much of an option ;-)).

Well, those are the cases I can think of off the top of my head. And also cases that are pretty much part of my daily (or at least weekly) operations. Admittedly, beyond caps, there's very little use to think of for it in a pvp scenario...but I wouldn't rule out the creativity of EFT warriors if such a mod had low CPU use. "It can't be used for [insert arbitrary case]" doesn't mean it can't be used.

Inkarr Hashur wrote:

Also, to the guy above, no one actually likes the reactive armor thingy. This might change if a T2 version was ever implemented but that would also come with T2 ASB which would be a whole new can of worms. The T1 ASB has the balance you want already, if anything rename the T1 ASB to T2 and implement a weaker version as T1 ASB.


T2 Reactive Armor could probably be a fine idea (CCP would probably wanna make sure the T1 works before expanding on that idea though...personally I don't much give a damn :-). I don't see the argument in "if X gets T2d, then Y has to be T2d also!" at all. Not the least. Whatsoever. But! If I were to oblige you, I would point out that T2ing doesn't necessarily have to boost a module's primary stat (in fact many existing T2 mods don't), so a T2 ASB could, for instance, have the same stats as T1, but maybe have a 50 sec reload time instead? Or can hold one more cap charge pr reload? Dunno...lotsa options...but I'm sure an improvement could be added without overly OPing it...
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#260 - 2013-02-15 14:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
DireNecessity wrote:
Solaris Ecladia wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
CMD Ishikawa wrote:
CCP Guys already said those changes are coming ... Sad

How about we focus on the passive modules, some people have stated that we could use a passive mod like the EANM and I think there is a good idea around there, passive shield buffering is almost useless right now.



Yes I could use of an armor invuln hardener too, this would actually be a huge improvement for active tanking.


Didnt you just get the reactive thingy?


Indeed the Armor Tankers did. Seems the Armor Tankers get both active and passive omni-hardening.

Meanwhile, Shield Tankers are having their passive omni-hardening options removed leaving only active omni-hardening available.

CCP - I presume it's your desire to give armor tankers more options than shield tankers. If I may be so bold . . . why?




If you really think Reactive Armor Hardener is a great thing you should fit those on your shield ships and tell us what happens.

Do you even read F&I and all the comments how badly designed/nerf this module is at the point no one or very little use them? -you clearly have no idea what it looks like to see your capacitor depleting just by shooting ammo, leave alone hardeners/prop mod and rep with.

After 3rd cycle this mod is completely useless, + easy to exploit from aggressor in small fights scenarios, and on top of it the higher your skill gets the more cap you throw away for little to no benefit.

But be my guess to explain us how awesome this module is and how much you would like to have one like that for your shields.

Edit: and to your last question I'd answer you to take a look at armor tanking thread and realize the first guys to be unhappy with are armor tankers, throw us new already nerf modules without balancing old ones and on top make us train even more skills for little benefit when major comfort after all these changes come from some ship stats changed (+fittings+capacitor recharge-pg/cap requirements for some modules) and some mods requirements changes.
We ask nothing more than already existing modules balance, not new ones with new fail mechanics and new skills.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne