These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mag's
Azn Empire
#841 - 2016-02-29 23:03:14 UTC
It's not that I didn't do my homework, it's that the dog ate it.

True story.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#842 - 2016-03-01 00:48:08 UTC
Mag's wrote:
It's not that I didn't do my homework, it's that the dog ate it.

True story.


Not sure what's better, that he thinks losing 1/3 of his ehp isn't going to cripple him or that he thinks "eft warroring" isn't required in a thread asking for feedback on a ship mod change.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#843 - 2016-03-01 08:10:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
Not sure what's better, that he thinks losing 1/3 of his ehp isn't going to cripple him
It's not, and this shows how incredibly dishonest you are being. Ah well, i you don;t want to make valid points, I'm not going to force you. Enjoy the buff!

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#844 - 2016-03-01 10:45:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Not sure what's better, that he thinks losing 1/3 of his ehp isn't going to cripple him
It's not, and this shows how incredibly dishonest you are being. Ah well, i you don;t want to make valid points, I'm not going to force you. Enjoy the buff!


You will have 1/3 less ehp than everyone else, you will die first every time.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#845 - 2016-03-01 12:19:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

You will have 1/3 less ehp than everyone else, you will die first every time.


Seinfeld wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with that

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#846 - 2016-03-01 15:07:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Okay, so you can't post a current fit that does have a DC, but post patch won't.

Whatever. Roll
It's not that I can't, it's that I won't. I'm not turning this it an EFt war over how you guys would fit your ships. Yes, By keeping the DC, it gains a heap of defense, but when defense isn't the only thing you care about, the loss of less defense following this change when removing the DC will encourage at least some people to not choose the DC. Saying that it makes zero difference is a lie, and to be quite honest I'm surprised that you of all people are letting him slide with that one.


Well, in a strict sense you are right. Taking a DC off of a ship post patch won't "hurt" as much as it would pre-patch. However, from my stand point and in a functional sense you are wrong. For me if a ship had a DC before the patch it will still have one after the patch.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#847 - 2016-03-01 16:09:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
You will have 1/3 less ehp than everyone else, you will die first every time.
Once again, only if you are talking about a fleet of ships, the same ship in fact. A battleship without a DC isn't going to have 1/3 less EHP than a frigate. Again you are only thinking about a small subset of ship fits and uses.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Well, in a strict sense you are right. Taking a DC off of a ship post patch won't "hurt" as much as it would pre-patch. However, from my stand point and in a functional sense you are wrong. For me if a ship had a DC before the patch it will still have one after the patch.
And for me not all of them will. I'm not at all disputing that CCP could make the DC less important than they currently have planned and not even disputing that it would be a good thing for them to do so (though depending on how they did it, ships that can fit a DC but don't already would be seriously buffed or seriously nerfed), I'm simply disputing the idea that the change will have zero uptake, which baltec is claiming.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#848 - 2016-03-01 16:57:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Once again, only if you are talking about a fleet of ships, the same ship in fact. A battleship without a DC isn't going to have 1/3 less EHP than a frigate. Again you are only thinking about a small subset of ship fits and uses.


Ok battleships it is.

Solo armageddon loses 23.5% in EHP

Baltec fleet mega loses 15.6% in EHP

Imperium Mach fit loses 14.7% in EHP

Raven loses 22.7% in EHP

Solo rattle loses 17.4% in EHP

Of note, shield ships would suffer the most it seems if they forgo the DCU with armour ships not able to match the ehp with any other mod and any damage or tracking increase is far below the advantage given by the DCU.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#849 - 2016-03-01 17:23:18 UTC
Well, it's been pushed to sisi now and it seems that Fozzie's response to the controversy is...

...to make the unwarranted buff a tiny bit bigger, at exactly 34% hull resistances.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#850 - 2016-03-01 17:31:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
Ok battleships it is.

Solo armageddon loses 23.5% in EHP

Baltec fleet mega loses 15.6% in EHP

Imperium Mach fit loses 14.7% in EHP

Raven loses 22.7% in EHP

Solo rattle loses 17.4% in EHP

Of note, shield ships would suffer the most it seems if they forgo the DCU with armour ships not able to match the ehp with any other mod and any damage or tracking increase is far below the advantage given by the DCU.
And your point is what? We all know that defense decreases when you remove a defensive module, yet people still forego defensive modules for other modules. Again, you are only ever coming from a point of view where the only thing that matters is raw EHP, which is not the only thing players look for. That's no possible way you still don't get this, so stop trolling.

Masao Kurata wrote:
Well, it's been pushed to sisi now and it seems that Fozzie's response to the controversy is...

...to make the completely warranted buff a tiny bit bigger, at exactly 34% hull resistances.
That's good news, thanks.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#851 - 2016-03-01 17:42:20 UTC
Ok so I'm getting 13% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure on the DCU II. Combined with the buff to the hull its nets me 61% structure resists.

CCP buffed the DCU, its more of a must have mod now than ever.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#852 - 2016-03-01 18:20:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Masao Kurata wrote:
Well, it's been pushed to sisi now and it seems that Fozzie's response to the controversy is...

...to make the unwarranted buff a tiny bit bigger, at exactly 34% hull resistances.


So actually even better than before. Figures. Roll

Edit: New hull resist will be 60.4%.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#853 - 2016-03-01 18:22:33 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Well, it's been pushed to sisi now and it seems that Fozzie's response to the controversy is...

...to make the unwarranted buff a tiny bit bigger, at exactly 34% hull resistances.


1% difference, everyone break out the pitchforks!

rabble, rabble, grrr CCP, grr freighters

/s

this thread... priceless

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#854 - 2016-03-01 18:24:07 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


1% difference, everyone break out the pitchforks!

rabble, rabble, grrr CCP, grr freighters

/s

this thread... priceless


The goal is to make it less of a must have mod, making it better than before to fit one does not exactly help to meet that goal.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#855 - 2016-03-01 18:44:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


1% difference, everyone break out the pitchforks!

rabble, rabble, grrr CCP, grr freighters

/s

this thread... priceless


The goal is to make it less of a must have mod, making it better than before to fit one does not exactly help to meet that goal.


There are a few ships i don't put DCU's on, this doesn't really change that. A kiting vagabond is a great example of this. If you're brawling, almost every fit is going to have a DCU. Kiting fits that use a DCU before may not use them after (even with the enormous 1% hull resist gain), as they mainly use a DCU to have some kind of hull resist to not bleed structure, or to supplement shield/armor resistances. Now they put in an eanm or another armor resist mod in since they have 33% base hull buffer to work with instead of 0%.

They may find now with the 33% base resist, that they would like to add a TE, more damage/resist etc instead of the DCU. I don't see how this makes it a "must have" mod when what the DCU change is providing already gives some room to adjust fits as needed.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#856 - 2016-03-01 18:51:52 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


There are a few ships i don't put DCU's on, this doesn't really change that. A kiting vagabond is a great example of this. If you're brawling, almost every fit is going to have a DCU. Kiting fits that use a DCU before may not use them after (even with the enormous 1% hull resist gain), as they mainly use a DCU to have some kind of hull resist to not bleed structure, or to supplement shield/armor resistances. Now they put in an eanm or another armor resist mod in since they have 33% base hull buffer to work with instead of 0%.

They may find now with the 33% base resist, that they would like to add a TE, more damage/resist etc instead of the DCU. I don't see how this makes it a "must have" mod when what the DCU change is providing already gives some room to adjust fits as needed.


DCU adds more to a ships tank than any other mod you can fit. The same reasons we all fit it now still apply.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#857 - 2016-03-01 19:53:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The goal is to make it less of a must have mod, making it better than before to fit one does not exactly help to meet that goal.
It is, since the module does less. How are you still not getting that?

baltec1 wrote:
DCU adds more to a ships tank than any other mod you can fit. The same reasons we all fit it now still apply.
The same reason you fit it still applies, because apparently you don't care if your ships moves at 3m/s, can't target or damage for **** as long as it's EHP is really high. People who don't only care about EHP now have more choice with slightly less crippling repercussions.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#858 - 2016-03-01 20:25:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The goal is to make it less of a must have mod, making it better than before to fit one does not exactly help to meet that goal.
It is, since the module does less. How are you still not getting that?


What part of "its better than what its replacing" do you not understand?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#859 - 2016-03-01 21:04:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The goal is to make it less of a must have mod, making it better than before to fit one does not exactly help to meet that goal.
It is, since the module does less. How are you still not getting that?
What part of "its better than what its replacing" do you not understand?
What part of "the module does less" do you not understand?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#860 - 2016-03-01 21:35:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
What part of "the module does less" do you not understand?


And where is that?

Again, after this change the DCU provides slightly more tank than you get today, no other module will provide a better alternative and no damage mod is worth fitting over the DCU. The DCU is just as needed after the change as before, thus the whole change fails to do what it is supposed to do.