These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2013-01-28 22:44:43 UTC
somehow i get the feeling ccp is changing so many fundamental things at all that they should give all players a totall reset of the skillpoints and let the users decide where to redistribute them :-)
Kasutra
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#42 - 2013-01-28 22:57:40 UTC
Am I seriously looking at a bunch of people crying for an SP refund and shield-EANMs over this?

Seriously? A skill was nerfed. It happens.
Leetha Layne
#43 - 2013-01-28 23:07:12 UTC
Zhilia Mann 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).


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.



QFT
Leetha Layne
#44 - 2013-01-28 23:07:39 UTC
Maggeridon Thoraz wrote:
somehow i get the feeling ccp is changing so many fundamental things at all that they should give all players a totall reset of the skillpoints and let the users decide where to redistribute them :-)


Nice try..
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#45 - 2013-01-28 23:41:37 UTC
Lynkon Lawg wrote:
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?


With retribution 1.0 they removed links effecting capital armour remote and local rep with not a word in the patch notes, it was following some bad figures and they rolled it back when realised they ****** up, Still they introduced a massive change with zero patch noted or community communication.
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2013-01-29 00:02:07 UTC
Kasutra wrote:
Am I seriously looking at a bunch of people crying for an SP refund and shield-EANMs over this?

Seriously? A skill was nerfed. It happens.



yes i mean it serouis. ccp is touching atm so many different mechanics and changing them imho fundamently that i am asking myself if i shoudl skill toward something or not. t2 ships are atm not really worth fling , the t1 are allmost good as the t2. boosting will be changed. so skilling it or not , and so on...
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2013-01-29 00:03:18 UTC
The biggest effect this will have, will be on ganking people in highsec that forget to turn their mods on when jumping/undocking; and and that's not an insignificant change. What?
Funky Koval
Bad Artists
#48 - 2013-01-29 01:28:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Funky Koval
scratch that ;)
Certo Morte
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2013-01-29 01:35:43 UTC
Wow, nice. Now for all of us flying shield ships that are already vulnerable to neuting, you made it even worse off than before.

I want my comp skills refunded for shields
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#50 - 2013-01-29 01:51:52 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:



So what your saying is:
You couldn't correct a problem you caused yourselves,
So you decided to screw over 50% of you cash paying customer base.

And you figured if you told the customer base they were stupid,
That would make it sound official?
Adeena Torcfist
Right Hand Of The Legion.
Get Off My Lawn
#51 - 2013-01-29 05:50:01 UTC
well, ill tell you what. make ur reisistive skills effect rigs then.

since thats passive too, to your ship. & start adding invul/adaptive rigs Arrow
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#52 - 2013-01-29 05:50:40 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:



So what your saying is:
You couldn't correct a problem you caused yourselves,
So you decided to screw over 50% of you cash paying customer base.

And you figured if you told the customer base they were stupid,
That would make it sound official?


Glad to see someone is taking this super serious....Relax man lol

No trolling please
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-01-29 07:33:04 UTC
Adeena Torcfist wrote:
well, ill tell you what. make ur reisistive skills effect rigs then.

since thats passive too, to your ship. & start adding invul/adaptive rigs Arrow


If they made the comp skills affect rigs, then I'd think its a fiar tradeoff to remove passive boosts on hardeners....

but right now... its just a stealth nerf with no justification, other than "we're lazy, and don't like it"
If its bad for gameplay, you'd think some armor guy would have been complaining about it... or even some shield guy would have been complaining about it..... you know, like the poorly conceived ASBs.
But they double down on that and are adding AARs, and then doubling down on the bad active rep bonuses by lowering the incursus repping bonus to 7.5% - so that it is plainly inferior to a resist bonus

And its going to be another 2 years according to CCP's schedule of major rebalance changes.... leaving newer players to just wander aimlessly through skill trees, not knowing if the skill will even be useable.

Poorly done CCP
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2013-01-29 09:18:12 UTC
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.



There is no armor Equivalent to AIFs

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#55 - 2013-01-29 09:26:08 UTC
culo duro 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.



There is no armor Equivalent to AIFs


But there are active armor hardeners, and they're superior to shield hardeners as well (less fitting, longer cycle time)

The point being that the armor comp skills are far more useful than the shield comp skills now, and after this change, that gap will increase even further.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kasutra
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#56 - 2013-01-29 09:32:12 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
And its going to be another 2 years according to CCP's schedule of major rebalance changes.... leaving newer players to just wander aimlessly through skill trees, not knowing if the skill will even be useable.

Poorly done CCP

Yeah, the poor noobs, training and training, never realizing that the passive hardener augmentation skills are in fact not affecting the active hardeners. This must be restored! Think of the children who have all been slaving away, training support skills to maximize their use of inactive invulns at the expense of being able to fit T2 guns!
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#57 - 2013-01-29 10:20:57 UTC
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).
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
#58 - 2013-01-29 10:30:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Fergus Runkle
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?
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#59 - 2013-01-29 10:36:18 UTC
Well, unless a new passive invulnerability field is added the shield compensation skills will become all but useless in 99% of circumstances.

The reasons:

* Very new players who passive tank their new ships due to poor cap skills etc will get a greater benefit from training shield ops / management than they ever would from spending a week or more training shield compensation skills.

* Most people only trained the skill in the first place to give a little bit of a resistance when completly neuted.

If this is the case I don't see the point in having 4 racial shield skills. You might as well just add a single higher-multiplier skill that effects everything, and the same for armour to be fair to them.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2013-01-29 11:04:27 UTC
Kasutra wrote:
Yeah, the poor noobs, training and training, never realizing that the passive hardener augmentation skills are in fact not affecting the active hardeners. This must be restored! Think of the children who have all been slaving away, training support skills to maximize their use of inactive invulns at the expense of being able to fit T2 guns!


If the poor noobs can't read, then there is no helping them...

The description wasn't that bad... in fact it was the bonus to passive resist mods that was poorly worded.
If I have a passive resistance plating giving 37.5% resists, and I train a skill to get a 5% bonus, is it now 42.5% (ie 37.5+5) or 39.4 (ie 37.5*1.05).
That was where the ambiguity was... the bonus to active hardeners was clear.


As to there being no armor IFs... the EANMII, when at lvl 5 skills, is as good as a T1 IF - so its pretty close, and base armor resists are higher anyway. Nobody has complained that they can't get enough EHP with armor...
They complain about things like ASBs...

T2 EANM vs T2 IF -> 25% vs 30% resists... not a major difference, the difference really becomes apparent when one looks at deadspace invuln fields...
So buff those...

And while you're at it, you can buff the layering membranes so they give a greater % EHP boost than EANMs, at the expense of not boosting rep effectiveness.

But nerfing shield comp skills, which nobody has complained about, is dumb.