These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
Jayai Syndicate
#141 - 2016-02-12 13:55:37 UTC
boo passive DCU. Sad

btw what will happen to the hecate hull resistance bonus?
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#142 - 2016-02-12 14:04:22 UTC
Xoceac wrote:
Can someone answer me this?

What is going to be the total hull resistance now? Since the T2 one was 60% in total and all ships get 33%, but the T2 is going to be dropped to 40%, does that mean 40% from 33% or 40% + 33%? Or something else?

Do you even math bro?



60
Denidil
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2016-02-12 14:46:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Denidil
PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant)


[Mackinaw, 2MLU]
Internal Force Field Array I
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II
Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I
Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hammerhead II x5

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.

Gliese Casserres
Huopatossutehdas
#144 - 2016-02-12 15:14:46 UTC
Dear lord this thread is going places...

While I see faction DCU's good, I feel that compressing the meta DCU tree is unnessessary. Most of the virgin tight pro fits will suffer and the value of certain spaces dropping those juicy meta 4 will decrease.

Overall in my opinion, CCP is trying to make way too many changes at once. Mull this over for a while.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#145 - 2016-02-12 15:24:59 UTC
Gliese Casserres wrote:
Dear lord this thread is going places...

While I see faction DCU's good, I feel that compressing the meta DCU tree is unnessessary. Most of the virgin tight pro fits will suffer and the value of certain spaces dropping those juicy meta 4 will decrease.

Overall in my opinion, CCP is trying to make way too many changes at once. Mull this over for a while.


A lot of frigate fits are going in the bin with this change but there are a few that are getting an unwanted buff with this. The breacher for example will be more of a pain and the Hecate is getting a fairly big buff it really doesn't need. Black ops are also getting the squeeze via this and other changes to the CPU required.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#146 - 2016-02-12 15:54:03 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
I have removed a few pages of off topic post and those referring to them. I left the edge cases up. If you feel your post was removed in error please file a support ticket.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#147 - 2016-02-12 19:12:25 UTC
as per CCP Darwin on reddit, he wanted us to post fits that might be affected. Granted, this isn't relating to the DCU, but webs/scram tiericide.

[Caldari Navy Hookbill, Polarbill]
Power Diagnostic System II
Ballistic Control System II

'Langour' Drive Disruptor I
'Langour' Drive Disruptor I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Republic Fleet Medium Shield Extender
5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive

Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket
Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket
Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket

Small Core Defense Field Extender I
Small Core Defense Field Extender I
Small Bay Loading Accelerator II

This is my polarized hookbill (which keep in mind, polarized launchers use less fitting than t2). I'm using meta 2 webs and meta 3 scram for CPU reasons.

I have 205.57/206.25 CPU and 48.3/49.03

Scram/web changes will make it impossible for me to fit this without using implants. The hookbill already has terrible CPU, now with these adjustments i can't even fit tackle on it. I mean hell, the fit has 0% resists and only like 4.7k EHP, its not like its super tanky. Its just good at range controlling and doing damage and getting out.

RIP polarbill

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#148 - 2016-02-12 19:15:02 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
Subotai Khan wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default.



Why add base hull resistance, and not raw hull HP instead?




Damage controls give resists, so CCP is just moving it from the module to the hull itself. If you just gave a raw 33% hp buff to hull, then adding a DCU on top of that would multiply it again.



EDIT: Tippia, I'm not seeing any argument from you other than assuring us that despite your lack of activity in EVE, you're totally "with it" and know that freighter gankers are desperately in need of help. Whereas kills would seem to indicate that there is no shortage of multibillion isk freighter kills.


I think we're just seeing the **** poor gankers complaining here, while the competent ones are already calculating exactly how many catalysts they need to hit buffed freighters. (while also hitting freighters AS WE SHITPOST) CODE slapped one earlier tonght, 70m isk in catalysts for a 3b isk freighter.


Compared to the amount of freighters that are flown each day, the amount that are ganked is shockingly low. Less than 0.01% low from what we can gather. Giving them 33% hull resists is hardly on the same level as the wreck hp change.

Freighters really dont need the buff.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#149 - 2016-02-12 19:15:25 UTC
Shouldn't you want the DCU to emphasize hull at the expense of shield/armor?

Counter Proposal: Shift shield/armor resistance increase to hull resistance increase.

1. Increase DCU resistance a bit from this current proposal so that the total EHP of ships stays about the same.
2. Decrease or remove shield/armor resistances to armor/shield.

Reason: Armor dudes have EANM's. Shield dudes have Power Diagnostic Systems.

Vatik Yomem
Origin.
Black Legion...
#150 - 2016-02-12 19:22:20 UTC
This has probably been taken up to greater detail before, but the already struggling brawler cruisers are going to have a much harder time with the CPU creep.

Quote:
[Moa, Moa]

Co-Processor II
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extender
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I


Null M x2000
Void M x1000


The Moa is difficult enough to fit as it is, and with the new web and scram tiercide, the range and effectiveness will take a hit.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#151 - 2016-02-12 19:23:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Dom Arkaral
X Gallentius wrote:
Shouldn't you want the DCU to emphasize hull at the expense of shield/armor?

Counter Proposal: Shift shield/armor resistance increase to hull resistance increase.

1. Increase DCU resistance a bit from this current proposal so that the total EHP of ships stays about the same.
2. Decrease or remove shield/armor resistances to armor/shield.

Reason: Armor dudes have EANM's. Shield dudes have Power Diagnostic Systems.


Shields have invuln you mean?
And I do have to agree on the proposal to remove/lower armor and shield bonuses whilst favoring hull resist.
I wouldn't buff any ship resist profile as the balance would pretty much dissappear
[edit] wreck HP got buffed, but that applies to everyone whilst the hull bonuses pretty much only target the freighters that anti-tank 8n highsec.
I would only give a suspect timer to the wreck shooter instead of criminal status to balance.

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#152 - 2016-02-12 19:24:38 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
as per CCP Darwin on reddit, he wanted us to post fits that might be affected. Granted, this isn't relating to the DCU, but webs/scram tiericide.


A good point. A lot of the tiericides seem to be increasing CPU across the board. Is it my imagination?
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#153 - 2016-02-12 19:25:53 UTC
Xoceac wrote:
Can someone answer me this?

What is going to be the total hull resistance now? Since the T2 one was 60% in total and all ships get 33%, but the T2 is going to be dropped to 40%, does that mean 40% from 33% or 40% + 33%? Or something else?

Do you even math bro?

Hull resists with a T2 damage control will be 59.8% - 0.33 for the new innate hull resistance, plus (0.44*0.67) for the boost from the damage control.
Aethan Deimos
Trillium Invariant
Honorable Third Party
#154 - 2016-02-12 19:32:06 UTC
Denidil wrote:
PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant)


[Mackinaw, 2MLU]
Internal Force Field Array I
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II
Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I
Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hammerhead II x5


The 'Radical' Damage Control is strictly better than the Internal Force Field Array I. It has the resistance stats of the DCUII and uses one less CPU than the IFA I. You will actually have an extra CPU with the fit. Also, the DCUII will be obsolete.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#155 - 2016-02-12 20:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
A redditors feedback on using meta mods to make up for the new shortfall - not me props go to dotpoint90
Perhaps I should have said "modules that are commonly meta'd without gimping your ****".

Webs? Nope, 20 CPU meta web.

New meta web is ~10% weaker than current meta 4 web, and saves 2 CPU. To get the same strength as current meta you need to upgrade to T2, which is an extra 8 CPU.

Scrams/disruptors? Nope, 26/32 CPU meta scram/disruptor.

New 26 CPU scram has 7.5km range, literally worse all-round than the 26 CPU meta 1 that already exists. To get slightly less gimped, you have to upgrade to a 30 CPU meta scram, which is still worse than the currently popular J5b and Faint Epsilon scrams, which are essentially as good as T2. This and the web changes is a fairly significant nerf to brawlers IMO.

New 32 CPU Disruptor is literally the same thing as the 32 CPU Faint Warp Disruptor I, except the new version uses 4 more cap per cycle. Not many people use the Faint Warp Disruptor. I don't think we'll see that change.

ECM? Nope.

32 CPU ECMs are getting a 10% jam strength reduction and a 20% optimal reduction relative to their current stats. To get the same performance as current meta 4, spend an extra 16 CPU to upgrade to T2.

Tracking computers? Nope.

Yeah, these got buffed.

Damps? Nope.

The new meta damps are all worse than the current meta 4 in both range (~15% worse) and strength (only a little worse), but the T2 that does the same job as the current meta 4 costs 14 extra CPU.

Target Painters? Nope.

New 16 CPU TP is weaker than the current 16 CPU TP, but they all received a falloff bonus and the T2 got some extra optimal. Not really that significant a change?

Cap batteries? Still nope.

These modules are basically irrelevant, even post-buff they use eighty billion CPU to fit (60 CPU FRIGATE MODULE WTF) and offer less cap than a single cycle of a booster. Only relevant in the very specific niche where you expect to need to reflect bhaalgorn neuts during triage or something.

Sensor Boosters?

The only module to deserve the changes in CPU, IMO, because of the new functionality as ECCM.

It's also worth noting that in addition to these 2 CPU nerfs there is also a new compact damage module variant saving a whole 5 CPU each for turrets and a whopping 9 CPU each for missiles.

The meta damage mods are relevant for missiles, but I'm not so sure about the 5 CPU discount for what is currently meta 2 stats. The DPS hit is fairly significant - for example, three meta 2 heatsinks on a Zealot with Heavy Pulse Lasers does 531 DPS, but two T2 gets 510 DPS and saves you a slot and an extra 20 CPU.

>>The amount of ******** hurf blurf without thinking in this thread is unreal. Yes, a handful of extremely tight fits that don't use damage mods are going to be broken now but as gorski points out here not much is really going to be changing.

Except for a near universal reduction in web strength and scram range among T1 frigates, but I'm sure that's not relevant to anyone's gameplay.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/45e57o/can_we_talk_about_the_cpu_bloatplease/czxg07y


I'll try and fix the quotes later, on a phone atm
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#156 - 2016-02-12 20:07:05 UTC
Aethan Deimos wrote:
Denidil wrote:
PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant)


[Mackinaw, 2MLU]
Internal Force Field Array I
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II
Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I
Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hammerhead II x5


The 'Radical' Damage Control is strictly better than the Internal Force Field Array I. It has the resistance stats of the DCUII and uses one less CPU than the IFA I. You will actually have an extra CPU with the fit. Also, the DCUII will be obsolete.


Storylines aren't really suitable for generic use.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#157 - 2016-02-12 20:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
This is actually a pretty great change, especially the passive module-ness!

However, for the love of Bob, PLEASE make the Compact DC use 17 CPU instead of 20! I have a LOT of ships that currently use the Internal Force Field Array which is 17 CPU and this will totally break them with no alternative (way overpriced Radicals or **** Civilians are not alternatives). If you need to drop the resist benefit a tiny bit to justify reducing the CPU by 3 I'm totally fine with that.

You might have missed the news, but you don't need the DC anymore. Throw it away and put on a tracking enhancer or something similar, if you really insist on the extra resists then you now have to make a sacrifice elsewhere. I don't think some people are quite getting how fundamental this change really is going to be to ship fitting. Before you could effectively minus a low slot on every ship as you knew that it was where the DC would go and you would be stupid to think otherwise (barring a few niche fits).
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#158 - 2016-02-12 20:26:09 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
This is actually a pretty great change, especially the passive module-ness!

However, for the love of Bob, PLEASE make the Compact DC use 17 CPU instead of 20! I have a LOT of ships that currently use the Internal Force Field Array which is 17 CPU and this will totally break them with no alternative (way overpriced Radicals or **** Civilians are not alternatives). If you need to drop the resist benefit a tiny bit to justify reducing the CPU by 3 I'm totally fine with that.

You might have missed the news, but you don't need the DC anymore. Throw it away and put on a tracking enhancer or something similar, if you really insist on the extra resists then you now have to make a sacrifice elsewhere. I don't think some people are quite getting how fundamental this change really is going to be to ship fitting. You could basically minus a low slot on every fit as you knew it that was where the DC would go and you would be stupid to think otherwise (barring a few niche fits).


You don't sacrifice anything if you only had the DC bonus
Sure you can get more options, but a DC will still be the better option for most fits

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist

Aethan Deimos
Trillium Invariant
Honorable Third Party
#159 - 2016-02-12 20:27:23 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Aethan Deimos wrote:
[quote=Denidil]PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant)


[Mackinaw, 2MLU]
Internal Force Field Array I
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II
Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I
Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hammerhead II x5


The 'Radical' Damage Control is strictly better than the Internal Force Field Array I. It has the resistance stats of the DCUII and uses one less CPU than the IFA I. You will actually have an extra CPU with the fit. Also, the DCUII will be obsolete.[/quote

Storylines aren't really suitable for generic use.


Ahh, good point. I assumed it was a new module since I've never seen it before. It would seem, then, that some points made are somewhat justified.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#160 - 2016-02-12 20:30:04 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
This is actually a pretty great change, especially the passive module-ness!

However, for the love of Bob, PLEASE make the Compact DC use 17 CPU instead of 20! I have a LOT of ships that currently use the Internal Force Field Array which is 17 CPU and this will totally break them with no alternative (way overpriced Radicals or **** Civilians are not alternatives). If you need to drop the resist benefit a tiny bit to justify reducing the CPU by 3 I'm totally fine with that.

You might have missed the news, but you don't need the DC anymore. Throw it away and put on a tracking enhancer or something similar, if you really insist on the extra resists then you now have to make a sacrifice elsewhere. I don't think some people are quite getting how fundamental this change really is going to be to ship fitting. Before you could effectively minus a low slot on every ship as you knew that it was where the DC would go and you would be stupid to think otherwise (barring a few niche fits).



You really do, not fitting one is insane. People seem to forget the hull bonus is but a part of its use.

What is bizarre is the hitting of only certain ships, seemingly at random. Frtigates are taking nerfs all over the place in effectiveness, cyclones, various BLOPs etc.

Certainly nothing I've seen any real complaints about.

If the aim was to create a feeling of choice, nuking the fitting is the wrong way to go about this.