These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#101 - 2013-01-30 06:28:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Pohbis
I really don't think a nerf to shield resistances ( or armor ) is merited, because of a design philosophy that CCP is not adhering to anyway.

First of all, the skill description is not hard to understand at all. X% bonus to active hardeners when modules are not active. That's not exactly Shakespeare.

Even if it was, since when are we removing mechanics we don't think are properly explained in the skill description, instead of changing the description?

Secondly, it is a big change. It'll have a huge impact on the anatomy of neut-range engagements, it removes the only benefit people are training the skills for, and, it is pretty much the final nail in the coffin for shield supers. Cap warfare is the alpha and omega when fighting supers.

The real question is, what has changed since the effect was introduced, to warrant this nerf? Semantics aren't really something to base balance changes on.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#102 - 2013-01-30 07:04:05 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
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!

Yes, because the hybrid Caldari line doesn't exist, nor did the Sansha ships.

Just pointing out the fact that not all shield ships use projectiles or missiles. And the Sansha ships use the most cap intensive weapons in game in addition to shields.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#103 - 2013-01-30 07:59:00 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...

I think I'd be unanimously supported - devs should play the game more.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
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

I cannot understand what does it mean, and considering your way of making stealthy updates - could you please comment, here in this thread, on the following multi-function modules:

  • drone omnilink - tracking & optimal
  • autotargeting system - autotarheting itself & +maxtargets
  • SeBo (local and remote) - range & scanres
  • dampeners - same
  • signal amplifier - range & scanres & +maxtargets
  • warp scramblers - warp-jam & MWD-jam & MJD-jam & jump-jam
  • signal distortion amps - optimal & strength
  • cap.batteries - +cap & neut-protection
  • power diag. sys - many
  • damage control - resists to shield & armor & hull
  • damage modifiers - damage & ROF
  • track.ench. - optimal & falloff & tracking
  • track.comp and links - same
  • track.dis - same
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#104 - 2013-01-30 08:39:56 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
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!


So should projectiles use cap, or should minmatar ships have their low slots capped?

I mean if "cap independence" is so very unreasonable.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#105 - 2013-01-30 09:36:52 UTC
Ummm.... I'm gonna nerdrage on this from an armor-tanker's perspective....

Wasn't the "passive bonus when hardeners are inactive" added because nobody was using the hardeners? And then when we still didn't use the hardeners for armor, you upped the CPU cost of EANMs to match hardeners so that we would "have to make a choice"? And y'know, after that the passive bonus did make the hardeners more attractive. Sure they used cap on an already massively cap intensive activity (especially when most armor ships already use tons of cap - Amarr lazors, Gallente blasters & MWD), but it was worth it cuz you had the back-up passive. And that passive bonus saved my ass on more then one occasion while a cap booster reloaded.

The question is, why would I fit an armor hardener now? It has the same fitting cost as an EANM, it's cap vulnerable, and when it's turned off it's worthless. This isn't like a MWD - when your MWD is off you can fall back on your tank. But when your tank turns off, you are dead. Slight difference between the two.

Seriously, stop and think about why the passive bonus was implemented in the first place. Think about why you had to boost the fitting reqs of EANM. Will removing the passive bonus put us right back in the previous situation?
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#106 - 2013-01-30 10:08:24 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
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...

I think I'd be unanimously supported - devs should play the game more.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
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

I cannot understand what does it mean, and considering your way of making stealthy updates - could you please comment, here in this thread, on the following multi-function modules:

  • drone omnilink - tracking & optimal
  • autotargeting system - autotarheting itself & +maxtargets
  • SeBo (local and remote) - range & scanres
  • dampeners - same
  • signal amplifier - range & scanres & +maxtargets
  • warp scramblers - warp-jam & MWD-jam & MJD-jam & jump-jam
  • signal distortion amps - optimal & strength
  • cap.batteries - +cap & neut-protection
  • power diag. sys - many
  • damage control - resists to shield & armor & hull
  • damage modifiers - damage & ROF
  • track.ench. - optimal & falloff & tracking
  • track.comp and links - same
  • track.dis - same



Then I think CCP should get rid of resist modules all together.

Want more EHP, we have plates/ layering membranes/shield extenders for that
Want more effective reps? use a shield boost amp
Resists boost EHP and effective reps, they are useful for both buffer and active tank, OPd!
Yet.... CCP is nerfing the incursus rep bonus....

If CCP doesn't like "multi function" - then lets change all resist bonuses to either % hitpoint bonuses (like the % armor hitpoints per command ship level for the damnation ) or booster effectiveness bonuses (like the mael and hyperion).

The EM and Thermal passive resist shield mods *might* see use, the Exp and Kin passive armor mods *might* see use - but fully one half of the resist skills will be utterly useless if this change goes through.

For those whining about fully cap independent ships (ASB+ missiles/projectiles + passive resist hardeners) - you forget about sansha and hybrid caldari ships - and I would recommend removing ASBs.
I absolutely hate that they are doubling down on these "ancillary boosters" with an ancillary armor rep...
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#107 - 2013-01-30 10:34:21 UTC
I don't really have a problem with this change, but I'd like to see the now even more useless shield compensation skills given a reason to exist. Some kind of a passive multi resist module does seem like an obvious candidate to give them that boost. I'd like to see it limited to 1 per ship though. This is something you've done with multiple armor tanking modules, that mimic similar shield modules, so it seems like an approriate limitation for a shield module mimicing an armor module.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#108 - 2013-01-30 11:22:33 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
I don't really have a problem with this change, but I'd like to see the now even more useless shield compensation skills given a reason to exist. Some kind of a passive multi resist module does seem like an obvious candidate to give them that boost. I'd like to see it limited to 1 per ship though. This is something you've done with multiple armor tanking modules, that mimic similar shield modules, so it seems like an approriate limitation for a shield module mimicing an armor module.

I dont mind nerfing active hardeners as well, as they are indeed preferred almost always (except for EANM).
What I disagree with is that it's a minor change and doesnt deserve proper discussion.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#109 - 2013-01-30 12:41:43 UTC
Put simply, this is an Adaptive Invul nerf. Outside a small bonus to a few niche PvE fits (yes, I'm looking at you, Gila), the main reason for training those skills (8 ranks worth!) was to keep an Adaptive Invul at 13-16% resistance when capped out.

But, according to Greyscale, this isn't intended as a nerf, just a commonly used game mechanic that offended someone's over-developed sense of aesthetics.

The compensation skills - both armor and shield - are already expensive for what they do, arguably the worst SP -> EHP ratio in the game (near best case is +9.375% resistance to 1/4 of the resistances, for a tech II amplifier or energized membrane). Although inefficient, the armor compensation variants get trained because they improve the ubiquitous EANM. The shield variants get trained to provide some protection against neuting of Adaptive Invuls, or because people don't know what they are doing.

I'm not sure it's good game design to remove the only commonly used function of a skill that on naive reading seems to be a "must have".

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Zhantii
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2013-01-30 14:25:11 UTC
After reading all the upcoming changes, it very CLEAR that CCP is only balancing the game with fleet pvp in mind... and having a discussion with a few of your fellow devs when not even asking the 50k players.
Its almost like you guys know exactly every minescule thing about everything in eve, or you are just forcing a playstyle on everyone.

Very bad choises, sorry CCP but you need to get more involved
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#111 - 2013-01-30 14:49:37 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


Wow they didn't think a change that would make most shield tanked ships significantly more vulnerable to cap warfare " was that big a change"... Ummm really?... LOL

Most armor tanked PVP ships use EANM's so this will not affect them.

Most shield tanked PVP ships use active hardeners so this will affect them. Before someone says oh there's passive shield hardeners there is no omni damage hardeners and it is not practical to fit multiple hardeners while still fitting a prop mod and tackle.

I understand CCP may want to make neuts more effective but making all shield tanked ships significantly more vulnerable to cap warfare isn't the answer. I'm not even saying active hardeners need a passive resist but if you're going to make only shield tanked ships vulnerable to this is just making armor OP. I don't fly cap ships so I can't comment about them but if this goes live you won't see me in a shield Drake or Hurricane.
Coreola
Disorderly Vagrants
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#112 - 2013-01-30 16:23:52 UTC
I enjoy the differentiation between shield getting active omni-hardners and armor getting passive omni-plates, but don't fully understand the reasoning behind having what most consider a useful armor compensation skill matched by a shield skill counterpart that most consider all but worthless.

Jump, jump, jump.

Perihelion Olenard
#113 - 2013-01-30 18:00:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...

  • 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.
...

I find it amazing you say that given how powerful the tracking enhancer's additional bonuses are to optimal and falloff.
Sakari Orisi
Doomheim
#114 - 2013-01-30 18:12:43 UTC
I don't see this change as very game-breaking. And certainly not the kind of change that would completely **** over shield tanking and doom them to the trash heap. (Really, are you serious ?).

It's a minor change in the grand scale of things, and really only affects shield tanking ships when you don't have enough cap to run your hardeners in the first place. In which case, let's be fair: You can't run your prop either, you can't web/scram your opponent either. In which case: you're already ****** anyway, and this change won't matter at all.
Annihilatus
Perkone
Caldari State
#115 - 2013-01-30 19:13:15 UTC
with the changes to armor tanking ( getting buffed pretty hard ) the lack of a shield EANM, crystals not affecting caps and shields not having a slave variant, shield caps ( what little they were used ) are about to be so bad there is no point in even owning one anymore unless its for pve, and even then, armor is better, and getting buffed

can people stop whining about nano-shield fleets? kind of about to kill caldari with these changes, once again, caldari is getting hit with the nerf bat, and next up is the only thing that they have going for them, ecm.. and we all know how much people whine about ecm.

RIP my 5B HM 3.5km/s 1100 dps at 120k with 1500 dps omnitank 8 mins stable with cap boosters and 65 sig 100mn tengu, it was fun! ( that was pretty crazy lol, but honestly they should have nerfed the ship, not heavy missiles)
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#116 - 2013-01-30 19:53:33 UTC
An argument with numbers:

I used EFT version 2.15.1 to get an appreciation of the effect of this change - and compared the impact on the Hel and the Nyx. The character used was All level V - modified with a slave set and SM-705 , EM-805 , SP-905 , HG-1005.

The Hel's tank comprised 4x Caldari Navy PWD, Damage control II, Pith x-types thermic x2 EM ward x2 Explosive & Kinetic and a Pithum A-type Adaptive Invulnerability field

The Nyx's tank comprised a damage control , corpus x-type EM , thermic , Kinetic , and explosive and centum A-type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane x2

Full active tank

Hel - EHP 29,188,908 - % EM S 89.8 TH S 91.8 K S 88.8 EX S 90.7 - EM A 66 T A 44.8 K A 36.3 EX A 23.5
Nyx - EHP 28,037,380 - % EM S 12 TH S 30 K S 47.5 EX S 56.3 - EM A 91.5 T A 89 K A 89 EX A 84.8

Capped out passive tank - Now

Hel - EHP 6,986,483 - % EM S 32.4 TH S 45.9 K S 55.6 EX S 63 - EM A 60 T A 35 K A 25 EX A 10
Nyx - EHP 11,981,970 - % EM S 0 TH S 20 K S 40 EX S 50 - EM A 79.5 T A 73.4 K A 73.4 EX A 63.2

Capped out passive tank - Proposed (simulated by removing the active modules)

Hel - EHP 5,477,807 - % EM S 0 TH S 20 K S 40 EX S 50 - EM A 60 T A 35 K A 25 EX A 10
Nyx - EHP 11,074,754 - % EM S 0 TH S 20 K S 40 EX S 50 - EM A 77.6 T A 70.9 K A 70.9 EX A 59.7

A Hel loses 27% of its neuted tank compared to the Nyx's 8%. You effectively can kill two Hel's in less time than it takes to kill a Nyx.

Hel pilots were regarded as passive tanks for the rest of the fleet (because you are bound to be shot first) but this change makes it a certainly that you will die first.

I've seen how you've argued your position - basically this is a done deal which you're not about to change. So can you please agree to allow Hel owners to park their ships in a station (perhaps by GM petition) for the 24-48 months that it will take you to revisit Capital ships so that their pilots can enjoy more than a rusty coffin.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#117 - 2013-01-30 21:02:39 UTC
Anyway tanking should be rebalanced in the first place.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#118 - 2013-01-30 22:07:51 UTC
Shield tankers tears ! Awesome ! And for a so insignificant change !
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2013-01-30 22:30:16 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Shield tankers tears ! Awesome ! And for a so insignificant change !

yeah , maybe just remove the armor resist from damage controlls who needs multi bonus modules anyway?
Besbin
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#120 - 2013-01-30 23:35:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Besbin
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Shield tankers tears ! Awesome ! And for a so insignificant change !


27% is insignificant? Suuuuuuure.... And 45 days of training (at max speed) is also insignificant? Jeez, some people...