These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
iLLeLogicaL
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#141 - 2013-01-31 17:30:16 UTC
After the poses are but a small part of the community I feel you're making a big mistake again CCP.
Leave those mods as they are, or at least reimburse the sp we put into those skills.

Way to go, what happend to communication!
Solaris Ecladia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#142 - 2013-01-31 17:30:55 UTC
Hey, I just wanted to drop by and personally shake the hand of CCP greyscale for once again proving that the motto at CCP has been and always will be: If it aint broke, fix it until it is. And thanks so much for trying to sneak this major fitting and skill change in. That means alot to us players that you respect us enough to tell us about big changes like this in advance. And even moreso that you would like our feedback before going ahead with it.

Thanks CCP, you rock.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#143 - 2013-01-31 18:47:33 UTC
Dultas wrote:
My sisi isn't up to date so I can confirm this but I would think the compensation skill would effect it with or without the base 1% so you would still get the 15% from the compensations skills.

The compensation skills only affect the base passive stat. If the stat is gone the skill no longer boosts it. it would be nice since now the compensation skill only applies to passive modules, could it be increased a bit?

Some of the faction resist amps with max skills can get close to the same resists without needing to be turned on or use cap. They are useful on tight fits, or in PVP when neuts turn off your hardeners. A large buffer fit with high passive resists, and projectile guns is completely immune to nuets.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#144 - 2013-01-31 20:32:09 UTC
ChaseX wrote:
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.


passive drake/rattlesnake/ishtar for dealing with neuting lv 5s.

that said I never really had a reason to train the shield comps. at best I'll bother to get them to level 4 just for a slightly neater looking character sheet.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#145 - 2013-01-31 21:24:08 UTC
Solaris Ecladia wrote:
Hey, I just wanted to drop by and personally shake the hand of CCP greyscale for once again proving that the motto at CCP has been and always will be: If it aint broke, fix it until it is. And thanks so much for trying to sneak this major fitting and skill change in. That means alot to us players that you respect us enough to tell us about big changes like this in advance. And even moreso that you would like our feedback before going ahead with it.

Thanks CCP, you rock.


I couldn't have said it better. Thanks CCP!
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2013-01-31 23:09:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Zilero
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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


I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. As has been stated here this leaves any shield PVP ship immensely vulnerable to being neuted as compared with armor ships.

With no omni-resists shield module that does not consume cap this change is at best stupid, at worst shows the devs once again do not play their own game.

Those 5 seconds longer you last with a little resist compared to 0 resists can be the difference between surviving and dying - and you just removed that for pretty much ALL shield pvp ships.

The fact that this change was considered "minor" and did not deserve any discussion with the players shows once again total disregard for the player base.

Way to go CCP, giant nerf to all shield PVP. There can't be that many people using shield ships for pvp out there.... right? RIGHT?

Here I was, looking forward to the BC changes in Retribution 1.1. Now I no longer look forward to Feb. 12th,....
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#147 - 2013-02-01 01:16:22 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:
*list*

Apparently, these are the exceptions.

Luckily I had my shield compensation skills at 3 or 4 at max. These SPs are totally wasted now.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#148 - 2013-02-01 05:41:05 UTC
Zilero wrote:
Way to go CCP, giant nerf to all shield PVP. There can't be that many people using shield ships for pvp out there.... right? RIGHT?

You may be exaggerating about all ships, but it's definitely a nerf to shield super-capitals. Like if they are so ower-powered now. In a recent battle in Asakai, this Hel is rumored to go down because it couldnt switch on hardeners due to lags. With the new changes, it would have almost insta-popped.

I was trying to make a decision which capital ships I will be training - shield or armor. Now the decision is made. Thank you, CCP Grayscale, you made my life so much easier.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#149 - 2013-02-01 05:46:49 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:

  • 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

Still waiting on comments from CCP.
Jovat
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#150 - 2013-02-01 10:55:14 UTC
Perhaps we could make compensation skills affect active hardeners at 2% per level. These are currently terribly situational skills that does little outside pure passive neut resistance. Weakening 8 highly situational rank 2 skills for some minor aesthetic purpose doesn't strike me as great design.

If this change must be hammered through, make compensation skills actually do something for active hardeners.
Mister Tuggles
Dickhead Corner
#151 - 2013-02-01 17:39:08 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:


  • 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).



This is a pretty huge nerf to active shield tanking which already sucks pretty bad as it is. Completely unwanted, and unneeded.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#152 - 2013-02-01 18:53:46 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:

  • 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

Still waiting on comments from CCP.

There is a difference between one mod doing two related thing when active, and a mod doing something when active, and something else when inactive. Hardener are doing two *function* : active resist mod, and passive resist mod ; mods you talk about do one function, and above all, do not take the function of another module.

The only exception is the warp scrambler, though it is balanced with warp disruptor by range limitation.
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#153 - 2013-02-01 20:13:56 UTC
ALRIGHT! And here I thought I would get through an update without a massive hit by a nerf bat. Yeah, I'm pissed off have burned weeks of training time to get all my Shield Comps to V. I guess all I can do is hope they might make a passive omni someday.

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#154 - 2013-02-01 21:02:20 UTC
Vilnius Zar 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.


I have a good idea, we'll swap. You get passive only omni for shield and armor gets an active omni instead. Yes? No?

If your answer is no then your whole post is silly nonsense, what you're whining about is having your cake and eat it. Same goes for the above poster.


I don't get this whole "armor tankers" versus "shield tankers" bit. You can train anyskills you want and people use both kinds of tank.

I hope CCP doesn't make shield and armor tanking exactly the same other than in name, to appease these two groups, and other simple minded people.

I don't think these active hardeners were too overpowered that they had to have this little extra bonus removed. There were tradeoffs to putting an active hardener on a ship before. In fact it was pretty rare that they were used in pvp.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#155 - 2013-02-02 00:15:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alice Katsuko
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Alice Katsuko wrote:
Players do not use EANMs because they like being cap-resistant; they use EANMs because they have no other choice. Players will choose active hardeners over passive hardeners every time, even with this nerf, because of the higher resistances and opportunity to overheat.
Well if an Armor Invuln Field existed, then yes players probably would choose that over EANMs. But it doesn't exist... So not really sure why you are basing an argument around this imaginary module.

All we have is the active Armor Hardeners that cover one specific resistance. They are used far less often than EANMs and will now become even less attractive then they were before. CCP will realize this a few years down the line, and the EANM/Hardener cycle will repeat itself yet again. Joy.


I'm bringing it up as an example of player behavior. The active resistance modules are substantially superior to passive resistance modules in all situations but one -- where the player is at zero cap and has no way of getting cap back. If there was an armor version of the Invuln Field, it would almost completely displace the EANM, except where players would be forced to use it due to fitting issues, much as the ANM is today.

I really do not see this as a big change, except maybe for shield supercapitals. But even then, I will paraphrase an alliance member's response: "So what?" Because if a super is at zero capacitor, it's already dead. For high-lag situations, supercapitals and capitals already should have a full set of passive modules for refitting. Granted, shield supers do not have passive omni resist modules, but we all know CCP hates those anyway. Ugh

So this change doesn't actually change anything. Active resistance modules will still be better in almost all situations, and players will still overwhelmingly prefer them to passive resistance modules. As far as balancing passive and active modules, this will be a complete failure.

I dislike this change in large part because it feels as though it's being pushed through out of dev lazyness, or for mostly aesthetic reasons.
Solaris Ecladia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#156 - 2013-02-02 01:40:29 UTC
Cearain wrote:

There were tradeoffs to putting an active hardener on a ship before. In fact it was pretty rare that they were used in pvp.



Ok Im sorry, I have to ask when the last time you went out and even glanced at a killboard or maybe even PvP'd yourself? But i suppose that would require "effort". And looking at CCPs newest round of miner buffs and shield nerfs because the wording was confusing to one little pleb 3 days old I should cut you a break.

Next expansion Im sure CCP will make it so as soon as you assemble a ship, it fits itself. No effort whatsoever. You heard it here first, look for the next expansion "Effortless" coming soon™.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#157 - 2013-02-02 02:46:52 UTC
Alice Katsuko wrote:
Active resistance modules will still be better in almost all situations, and players will still overwhelmingly prefer them to passive resistance modules.
Ahhh.... you are comparing the active hardeners to passive one-resistance mods (rather than EANMs). Well yeah. You're right, people don't use the passive one-resist mods. Mostly because those passive mods are completely obsoleted by rigs. But nerfing active hardeners is not gonna change that. It's just gonna make crappy armor tanking even crappier.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#158 - 2013-02-02 12:26:58 UTC
Tangent: what if the various compensation skills were changed to: "Grants 2% armor|shield EM|Thermal|Kinetic|Exposive resistance per level". (or even 1%)

This would make the skills worthwhile, without the odd imbalances caused by only affecting the passive modules (or active modules in passive mode), and then the various passive resistance modules could be rebalanced so they compete directly with the active ones (or the active ones could be nerfed slightly).

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Rita May
State War Academy
Caldari State
#159 - 2013-02-02 12:51:35 UTC
Solaris Ecladia wrote:
Hey, I just wanted to drop by and personally shake the hand of CCP greyscale for once again proving that the motto at CCP has been and always will be: If it aint broke, fix it until it is. And thanks so much for trying to sneak this major fitting and skill change in. That means alot to us players that you respect us enough to tell us about big changes like this in advance. And even moreso that you would like our feedback before going ahead with it.

Thanks CCP, you rock.

QFT

cu
Kali Omega
Diamond Dogs.
Mercenaires Sans Frontieres.
#160 - 2013-02-02 20:36:31 UTC
Isn't this guy going to get fired anytime soon?