These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#81 - 2013-01-29 14:29:20 UTC
I have no real direct issue with the fact the passive boosts are being removed, although it is a design decision that I believe will make shield cap ships lag even further behind their slave-buffed armour tanked cousins. I'm resigned now that for cap ships warfare I'm going to be forced to cross-train to be effective even though I really wanted to keep specialized racial characters.

What I DO have an issue with is that you are essentially telling me that the subscription money that I have paid for to train my compensation skills to V on my specialized cap ship characters (Caldari & Minmatar) was completely wasted and I may as well have just left the skill queue inactive for weeks?

Thanks CCP. Sad

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Fearghaz Tiwas
Perkone
Caldari State
#82 - 2013-01-29 14:34:46 UTC
I'm not one prone to nerd rage, in fact this is the first time I've posted on here to moan, but this is BS. As others have said, including the post above, aside from the fact that shield tanking itself is affected, it has effectively made this skill useless. It could now easily be consigned to the bin along with learning skills and nobody would miss it one bit. Short of removing the skill, or just not making the change in the first place, the only decent suggestion I've seen is to make it apply to rigs.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#83 - 2013-01-29 14:56:25 UTC
Maybe we need a shield version of an EANM?

Now it's "Oh crap I'm capped out my shields are going down"....After the change it's going to be "Oh crap I'm capped out... aaahh I'm in a pod". Without any resists once you get neuted shields are done. I have a feeling after this change neuts will be very common in PVP. I'm soo glad I can armor tank !

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#84 - 2013-01-29 15:05:57 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).


If you do this (which I actually think is well argumented if you would include stuff like RR and dominance of passive armor omnitanks and invuln only shield tanks) you will really have to adress the velocity drawbacks on the remaining armor rigs. At least until you get time to give all rigs a properly rebalancing? Some of those groups just doesn't make sense...

Pinky
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#85 - 2013-01-29 16:21:17 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).



OK, well, the 2 huge and blatent effects I see are:

This should effectivly affect slot usage of all shield tank ships. Where you could have a small amount of EM resist before, now you almost certainly have to fit an EM specific module. You lose a slot in essence if you shield tank.

Armor tank ships. They all have a base resist in every catagory. Amarr ships have the lowest hole at 20% resist. Minmatar and Gallente have the lowest resist at 10%. Some Minnie ships shield tank...but its not like those ships/fits are known for uber tank.

You use the terms 'rebalancing' and 'development'. I don't see how this change fits into the description that either of those terms would imply. Unless you give all ships a base 10% shield resist, or just leave the mod alone...
Cambarus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2013-01-29 16:23:15 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Maybe we need a shield version of an EANM?

Now it's "Oh crap I'm capped out my shields are going down"....After the change it's going to be "Oh crap I'm capped out... aaahh I'm in a pod". Without any resists once you get neuted shields are done. I have a feeling after this change neuts will be very common in PVP. I'm soo glad I can armor tank !


pfaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahaha
hahahaha
hahah
haha
No.

Extra cap warfare vulnerability has always been one of the downsides to shields (at least before the ASB was a thing). If shields need an EANM, then armor needs an invuln, and a SBA, and an XLAR etc etc etc. Then we give shields a XLSE, less cap-hungry reps and so and and so fourth until everything is "balanced".

As it stands this really isn't as much of an issue as you seem to think it is. If you have 2 people shooting each other, one armor and one shield, and they each cap each other out, guess who wins? (hint: it's the one that can still shoot without cap, not the one that still has resists with no cap)
Zanmaru
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2013-01-29 17:15:51 UTC
So basically our Armor Compensation skills only apply to Energized Adaptive Nano Membranes. Because, lets face it, no one uses any of the other passive hardeners (some fits resort to standard ANMs, but that's about it). Not a fan of this. How about consolidating the 4 armor and shield comp. skills into 1 each?
Flardowell
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2013-01-29 17:21:36 UTC
Looking at it from a capital and supercapital perspective:

We already know how vulnerable shields are to both neuting, overheating faster, and having a few other issues compared to armor (not having slave sets). There is no real point to passive shield tanking a super with the new a-type invulns out. While capped out, the passive bonuses allowed a slim of a chance for shield ships to survive, but it was still a chance.

Taking that away, and its almost a guaranteed kill if someone is able to neut you out, which shield ships are MUCH more vulnerable too anyway.

If you're going to make this change with passive mods, at least give something that compensates that loss. Whether it be a longer cycle-time on shield hardeners (like armor) or something equivalent which will keep shield ships on par with the bajillion types of armor bs thats going on right now.

Or at LEAST give us something that you're looking at shields vs armor, and will put them closer to on-par.

Armor now have a aux booster, good rig changes, slave set etc. Shields got a-type invulns, aux booster, and...yea

Help the few shield tankers in the game out before everything goes armor.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#89 - 2013-01-29 17:31:00 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Maybe we need a shield version of an EANM?

Now it's "Oh crap I'm capped out my shields are going down"....After the change it's going to be "Oh crap I'm capped out... aaahh I'm in a pod". Without any resists once you get neuted shields are done. I have a feeling after this change neuts will be very common in PVP. I'm soo glad I can armor tank !


pfaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahaha
hahahaha
hahah
haha
No.

Extra cap warfare vulnerability has always been one of the downsides to shields (at least before the ASB was a thing). If shields need an EANM, then armor needs an invuln, and a SBA, and an XLAR etc etc etc. Then we give shields a XLSE, less cap-hungry reps and so and and so fourth until everything is "balanced".

As it stands this really isn't as much of an issue as you seem to think it is. If you have 2 people shooting each other, one armor and one shield, and they each cap each other out, guess who wins? (hint: it's the one that can still shoot without cap, not the one that still has resists with no cap)

Just... just wondering.... do you really want an XLAR? I mean REALLY want it? Because by following the fitting requirements as they are now, you're looking at using like 5000-10000 PG and ~80-90 CPU for a single XLAR. You *can* put that on a ship, but that's about all you could put on a BS, at least as far as useful mods go.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#90 - 2013-01-29 20:29:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhilia Mann
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).


Well, thanks for revisiting it. I have to grudgingly respect that CCP holds its ground; god knows that if players got everything they wanted then this wouldn't be a game I'd like to play.

However, I'm still concerned about two things, and they're related. The first is that I don't understand the logic behind this change, and judging from this thread no one else does either. What exactly is your thinking and how does it override the points brought up here?

The second thing remains the lack of transparency around the change. This really was going to stealth its way in. The fact that you planned to note it in the patch notes does nothing to mitigate the fact that we didn't know further ahead of time. Sharing your logic would be helpful on this front as well; sharing it proactively would have been vastly preferable. But we are where we are now and you can still help by actually illuminating how you're thinking about the problem.
Zanmaru
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-01-29 22:35:18 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:

Well, thanks for revisiting it. I have to grudgingly respect that CCP holds its ground; god knows that if players got everything they wanted then this wouldn't be a game I'd like to play.


Oh I'll get over it. I still don't see why we need 4 skills to get the most out of a single, basic module though.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#92 - 2013-01-29 22:57:16 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Zhilia Mann wrote:
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).


Well, thanks for revisiting it. I have to grudgingly respect that CCP holds its ground; god knows that if players got everything they wanted then this wouldn't be a game I'd like to play.

However, I'm still concerned about two things, and they're related. The first is that I don't understand the logic behind this change, and judging from this thread no one else does either. What exactly is your thinking and how does it override the points brought up here?

The second thing remains the lack of transparency around the change. This really was going to stealth its way in. The fact that you planned to note it in the patch notes does nothing to mitigate the fact that we didn't know further ahead of time. Sharing your logic would be helpful on this front as well; sharing it proactively would have been vastly preferable. But we are where we are now and you can still help by actually illuminating how you're thinking about the problem.


For the why, see my first post in this thread for the short version :) Essentially we came to the conclusion that 1) in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules, and 2) in this specific case we strongly dislike the implementation and the presentation thereof. If this is unclear, please ask more questions, just don't expect the general thrust to change significantly! Smile

The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change, and that I felt "the case for the prosecution" was strong enough that extended discussion wouldn't serve much purpose. If I'm totally honest, I'll also admit that I'd forgotten this was going to SiSi this week, as I've had other projects on my mind Oops
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#93 - 2013-01-29 23:02:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Verity Sovereign wrote:
I was about to train EM ad TH to lvl 5, and bring kin and Exp to lvl 4

I now see this would be useless if CCP goes through with the planned changes


I'd vote against this, and I'm holding off training those unless CCP makes it clear this is not going through.


Base % Shield Explosion resist amplifier

Base % Armor Reactive resist

Base % Armor Energized Reactive resist


It's never useless to train those passive skills at least at 4, even if Invuln looses the passive thingy.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#94 - 2013-01-30 01:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ong
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Essentially we came to the conclusion that, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules


If this is the official line that ccp does not like multi function modules then when can we expect the removal of scrams turning off MWD's? They already fill the role of stopping people warping that have stabs. So following this president you are setting then I look forward to the removal of scrams effecting mwd's.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change, and that I felt "the case for the prosecution" was strong enough that extended discussion wouldn't serve much purpose.


Seriously? You didnt think this much of a change, and in no need of discussion? With this change you are pretty much resigning shield ships that brawn to the trash heap. Why would you ever brawl in a shield ship now when armor ships have eanms and tackle? If they get neuted out they still have a chance, brawling shield ships pretty much do not. Following this change you will pretty much only see shield on nano from now on imo.
Crestor Markham
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2013-01-30 01:49:40 UTC
I find this to be a bummer...

I trained those skills a few levels only to help my tank not completely flop when I get neuted. The bonuses to passive resist modules are too small to be taken seriously. Honestly, I wouldn't train them until I got like 80m SP without that bonus for active modules.

Anyway, even with that bonus I didn't even get them to IV, because they were already not nearly good enough to justify FOUR (rank TWO) skills for EACH tanking type.

For the love of Pete, increase the passive bonus if you're intent on doing this. Or condense the skills from 4 down to 1. Or make it rank 1. I nomintated these for "most useless skills" polls even before this nerf to them.

You're right that the description is really confusing, though :P

Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#96 - 2013-01-30 02:17:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change, and that I felt "the case for the prosecution" was strong enough that extended discussion wouldn't serve much purpose. If I'm totally honest, I'll also admit that I'd forgotten this was going to SiSi this week, as I've had other projects on my mind Oops


Was that the CSM's reaction when you told them about it?


Doctorkaba
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2013-01-30 02:58:13 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Was that the CSM's reaction when you told them about it?




Probably something along the lines of: We all make mistakes, who the heck cares about something like that.... Try better next time etc etc.

Please note he never said that BECAUSE he forgot, he didn't make a bigger announcement. In fact he never says his forgetfulness and the nerf to invuls are related.

Want some pvp help? Like to fly small and fast frigates? Then join the in game channel Tenori_Tigers!

Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#98 - 2013-01-30 05:56:44 UTC
Ong wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Essentially we came to the conclusion that, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules


If this is the official line that ccp does not like multi function modules then when can we expect the removal of scrams turning off MWD's? They already fill the role of stopping people warping that have stabs. So following this president you are setting then I look forward to the removal of scrams effecting mwd's.

+1
It also affects jump drive, and micro-jump drive.
ChaseX
The Executives
#99 - 2013-01-30 05:57:15 UTC
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.


Well I heard of complete passive fitted Drakes tanking level 5 missions to counter the massive neuting. Never did any myself but I think it was done with them, at least before NPCs were switching targets.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#100 - 2013-01-30 06:20:45 UTC
Ong wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Essentially we came to the conclusion that, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules


If this is the official line that ccp does not like multi function modules then when can we expect the removal of scrams turning off MWD's? They already fill the role of stopping people warping that have stabs. So following this president you are setting then I look forward to the removal of scrams effecting mwd's.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change, and that I felt "the case for the prosecution" was strong enough that extended discussion wouldn't serve much purpose.


Seriously? You didnt think this much of a change, and in no need of discussion? With this change you are pretty much resigning shield ships that brawn to the trash heap. Why would you ever brawl in a shield ship now when armor ships have eanms and tackle? If they get neuted out they still have a chance, brawling shield ships pretty much do not. Following this change you will pretty much only see shield on nano from now on imo.
lolol your tears are funny. Maybe your shield ships--I dunno--don't use their cap for their weapons (and hell, not even for their tank with ASB). You're just crying out to be completely cap independent. How unreasonable is that?

To CCP-- +1 on this change!

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<