These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mra Rednu
Oyonata Gate Defence Force.
#161 - 2013-02-02 21:21:53 UTC
Zilero wrote:
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,....


How does this leave a shield ship more immensely vulnerable than an armour ship ? ( btw people stating something doesn't automatically make it a fact. )

I honestly am at a loss to see how you think a shield ship is at a disadvantage to an armour one.

Taking supercap's out of the argument, this really is a very very minor change which will hardly effect anything, I can't ever remember a time I was neuted out in a shield tanker so totally my Invul wouldn't cycle yet often in a armour tank i been neuted dry that I can't activate anything.

Also " giant nerf to all shield PVP " lol really ? you really believe we won't be seeing sheild pvp after this massive nerf, nothing much will change, we won't be seeing a massive upturn in Curse fleet doctrines to counter the shield fleets.

This is only effecting active mods when they aren't active, shield has strengths which not do revolve around having an Invul turned off to be effective , living for 5 more seconds in a small gang senario may make you feel better but its the getting neuted which makes you dead, not the lower resists the the inactive invul gives.

Panic less shield dudes, this is not a big change, or much or a change at all, you will still be able to kite about shooting at stuff which is slower than you and if a nasty Curse shows up just pull range and shoot them from farther away ! :P
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#162 - 2013-02-02 22:20:23 UTC
This change will make it easier to kill supers. Therefore, I support the change!
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#163 - 2013-02-02 23:54:33 UTC
Mra Rednu wrote:
Zilero wrote:
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,....


How does this leave a shield ship more immensely vulnerable than an armour ship ? ( btw people stating something doesn't automatically make it a fact. )

I honestly am at a loss to see how you think a shield ship is at a disadvantage to an armour one.

Taking supercap's out of the argument, this really is a very very minor change which will hardly effect anything, I can't ever remember a time I was neuted out in a shield tanker so totally my Invul wouldn't cycle yet often in a armour tank i been neuted dry that I can't activate anything.

Also " giant nerf to all shield PVP " lol really ? you really believe we won't be seeing sheild pvp after this massive nerf, nothing much will change, we won't be seeing a massive upturn in Curse fleet doctrines to counter the shield fleets.

This is only effecting active mods when they aren't active, shield has strengths which not do revolve around having an Invul turned off to be effective , living for 5 more seconds in a small gang senario may make you feel better but its the getting neuted which makes you dead, not the lower resists the the inactive invul gives.

Panic less shield dudes, this is not a big change, or much or a change at all, you will still be able to kite about shooting at stuff which is slower than you and if a nasty Curse shows up just pull range and shoot them from farther away ! :P



Said the guy who flies armor ships or speed tank ships.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#164 - 2013-02-03 17:41:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Marlona Sky wrote:
This change will make it easier to kill supers. Therefore, I support the change!



Nope, it should make it even harder.

Because those A-Type resist Amplifiers will give you more tank than those A-Type hardeners once offline.

I can fit both armor and shield, this change does not affect me that much on shields usually using capless guns, but bothers me a little bit plus about armor hardeners on ships using the most cap hungry weapon systems and already suffer, by far, from cap warfare .

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
bufnitza calatoare
#165 - 2013-02-03 22:31:09 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
so will there be any passive omni shield resis mods being introduced?



about the same time as a active invuln for armour is introduced.

armour has passive.
shields have active.

a passive shield invuln at around 20% for all resis.
and a active enam giving 30%

I wold be happy as larry if ccp did that
Mra Rednu
Oyonata Gate Defence Force.
#166 - 2013-02-03 23:26:35 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:


Said the guy who flies armor ships or speed tank ships.


Thats right, I do fly Armour and speed tanked ships, also Sheild tanked ships. whats you're point ?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#167 - 2013-02-04 06:39:39 UTC
bufnitza calatoare wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
so will there be any passive omni shield resis mods being introduced?



about the same time as a active invuln for armour is introduced.

armour has passive.
shields have active.

a passive shield invuln at around 20% for all resis.
and a active enam giving 30%

I wold be happy as larry if ccp did that


Why should armor get an active as good as an invuln when shield doesn't get a passive as good as an EANM?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#168 - 2013-02-04 07:33:53 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
bufnitza calatoare wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
so will there be any passive omni shield resis mods being introduced?



about the same time as a active invuln for armour is introduced.

armour has passive.
shields have active.

a passive shield invuln at around 20% for all resis.
and a active enam giving 30%

I wold be happy as larry if ccp did that


Why should armor get an active as good as an invuln when shield doesn't get a passive as good as an EANM?


He suggested one on par with an EANM. T2 EANM's give base 20% before comp skills.
Viceran Phaedra
Instar Heavy Industries
#169 - 2013-02-04 14:02:50 UTC
TL;DR people read the bold paragraph.

CCP I honestly think you should discuss this change further, at more 'morning meetings' (when clearly everybody is at their mental peak for the day...). The most important posts I see here are the ones from people simply asking 'why?' when clearly the vast majority of EVE players, who you work for, by the way, are concerned and questioning this unnecessary change.

You need to do some fast and thorough damage control to explain this action. 'Sorry' and 'I forgot' are unacceptable excuses in the business world, and your player base is possibly the sharpest and most creative of all MMOs who expect the best product for the time and effort they invest in the universe you've created. If this is part of some kind of larger plan (for example, 'making every module single effect only', heaven forbid), you need to at least make us aware of that plan, for perspective, to restore the confidence of the player base. You've provided your investors with a disincentive; 'to make things simpler' and 'because we don't like it' are exactly the wrong things to say to an EVE player. They lack justification, and I'm going to slot them right up there with 'Sorry' and 'I forgot' in terms of sounding convincing. If you're doing the right thing, you don't have to apologise.

So if you are making this change with no visibility of a greater plan that you can justify is consistent and designed to go in a particular direction, what are you doing? Changes for the sake of changes? That's called wastage.

When you go to your next morning meeting, find your Balance Team quality control guy, or whoever is at the end of the production line, and tattoo 'Transparency' to his forehead. Every single change needs to be documented and made known to the customer, through patch notes, when it hits Tranquility. Every. Single. One. Even Blizzard Entertainment is capable of doing that, and thinking you can make a change to the product you provide your customer without telling them will fill your customer base with the same warm fuzzy feeling they get when they discover a secret bank fee on their savings account, guaranteed.

This post has been brewing ever since I noticed the increasing number of times a CCP employee has said 'sorry' in the forums. If you 'care more' and 'work harder' to 'establish and nurture a trust relationship with customers', you need to go back to your teams, and implement a consistent reporting procedure that ensures no-one has the right to omit information because they don't consider it important. Communication is key in business, and we need to know everything that affects what we've invested in your company.

I know these words are hard, but I gripe because I care. Behaviour like this was a fundamental cause of the Jita riots, and I don't want to see them repeated.

You ****** up. Now fix it.

As for the changes themselves, if there's no larger plan at work here, don't fix them; they aren't broken. Listen to your investors, and justify your decisions.

Chief Executive Officer

Instar Heavy Industries
Shi Akiga
Phrogs of War
#170 - 2013-02-04 14:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Shi Akiga
Ok, lets try some bold suggestions to stealthy-buff passive modules without making the compensation skills useless for most setups:


- Remove the skillboni from all active and passive hardeners

- Additionally buff passive modules to some reasonable level (say equivalent to having level 4 compensation skills)

- Change the various shield- and armor compensation skills to affect the hull directly, obviously by a smaller factor of maybe 1-3% per skill-level


Math example for a 2-slot shieldtank with a LSE and a t2 Invul (with all 5 compensation skills and 3% per level):
- would give 15% resist when the hardener is off (on weakest resist obviously)
- would give 40,5% resist when its on

Lets exchange the invul for a t2 EM hardener:
- this gives you ~61,75% on EM when it is on

Alternatively, you could use a passive EM resistance amp.:
- would give you ~47,88% with the stats now and no skills
- would give you 53,25% with the proposed change (build level 4 compensation skill into the module to give it 45% default)

Numbers might require some tweaking...


Good, bad, terrible?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#171 - 2013-02-04 15:05:51 UTC
Viceran Phaedra wrote:
TL;DR people read the bold paragraph.

CCP I honestly think you should discuss this change further, at more 'morning meetings' (when clearly everybody is at their mental peak for the day...). The most important posts I see here are the ones from people simply asking 'why?' when clearly the vast majority of EVE players, who you work for, by the way, are concerned and questioning this unnecessary change.

You need to do some fast and thorough damage control to explain this action. 'Sorry' and 'I forgot' are unacceptable excuses in the business world, and your player base is possibly the sharpest and most creative of all MMOs who expect the best product for the time and effort they invest in the universe you've created. If this is part of some kind of larger plan (for example, 'making every module single effect only', heaven forbid), you need to at least make us aware of that plan, for perspective, to restore the confidence of the player base. You've provided your investors with a disincentive; 'to make things simpler' and 'because we don't like it' are exactly the wrong things to say to an EVE player. They lack justification, and I'm going to slot them right up there with 'Sorry' and 'I forgot' in terms of sounding convincing. If you're doing the right thing, you don't have to apologise.

So if you are making this change with no visibility of a greater plan that you can justify is consistent and designed to go in a particular direction, what are you doing? Changes for the sake of changes? That's called wastage.

When you go to your next morning meeting, find your Balance Team quality control guy, or whoever is at the end of the production line, and tattoo 'Transparency' to his forehead. Every single change needs to be documented and made known to the customer, through patch notes, when it hits Tranquility. Every. Single. One. Even Blizzard Entertainment is capable of doing that, and thinking you can make a change to the product you provide your customer without telling them will fill your customer base with the same warm fuzzy feeling they get when they discover a secret bank fee on their savings account, guaranteed.

This post has been brewing ever since I noticed the increasing number of times a CCP employee has said 'sorry' in the forums. If you 'care more' and 'work harder' to 'establish and nurture a trust relationship with customers', you need to go back to your teams, and implement a consistent reporting procedure that ensures no-one has the right to omit information because they don't consider it important. Communication is key in business, and we need to know everything that affects what we've invested in your company.

I know these words are hard, but I gripe because I care. Behaviour like this was a fundamental cause of the Jita riots, and I don't want to see them repeated.

You ****** up. Now fix it.

As for the changes themselves, if there's no larger plan at work here, don't fix them; they aren't broken. Listen to your investors, and justify your decisions.



The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.
Provence Tristram
Doomheim
#172 - 2013-02-04 15:33:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Provence Tristram
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.

Well that certainly does gloss over 9 pages of most people requesting you to somehow justify this move, albeit in the most minimalistic and, I daresay, passively flippant way possible. You have a lot of people asking you 'why are you doing this?' and the answer I'm basically seeing here is: 'cuz.'

But, hey, what do I know? I'm new here.
Viceran Phaedra
Instar Heavy Industries
#173 - 2013-02-04 16:00:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Viceran Phaedra
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Viceran Phaedra wrote:

..passionate outpouring...



The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.


Thank you for the prompt response, Greyscale, and letting me get that off my chest. I look forward to seeing the master plan behind these changes.

Chief Executive Officer

Instar Heavy Industries
Uncle Gagarin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#174 - 2013-02-04 16:34:25 UTC
Hi,


Let me suggest some new approach which I believe will be "consensus"
for both - armor and shield tankers.
CCP already created some rules, modules and skills for tanking.
CCP has data describing how something works, what is overpowered or simply abused
or just to weak and thus never used.
Finaly CCP have us, players who are giving constant stream of feedback.

1. Let CCP do not change anything right now.
(ASB are nightmare, not solution, now same is applied to armor - bad way, maybe good ideas but poorly implemented).

2. Let CCP develop from scratch both armor and shield tank rules
3. Let CCP develop a new skill set suporting new tank rules, old skills will be deleted and reimbursed.
4. Let CCP develop from scratch a set of modules to support new rules of tanking
(that way CCP will have total freedom in choosing ways how to fix both tanking systems, and how to implement changes,
players will feel safe by promised partial skill reset and reimbursment, they will support CCP efforts rather than oppose them)

5. Let CCP develop a fixes to slot layouts and bonuses of ships to support new rules.

6. Let it be announced a half year before implementation and be followed by open discussion with community.

7. After discussion and correcting whole new design let tests begin
8. After tests let it be implemented on TQ with skill reimbursment.

I deeply believe that any other way of changing armor or shield tanking will hurt bigger of smaller part of community.
Unfortunately change in that area is to vital to the game to be considered "minor" at any part.
Eve mechanics is a "game of single percentiles" thus a theoretically small change has huge impact
just like butterfly effect.

Finaly, what I see is constant nerf of Caldari ships. Missiles and shield tanking, ECM is discussed ...
The problem is that as Caldari I don't have ability to fly armored ship (whis is not defined by:
"hits like girl, hard to get rid like ex-wife"). The problem is Caldari weapon systems are already
worse than others.
You say missiles always hit ? Can you screen from other weaponry by set of ships with smartbombs ?
And what you say to Phoenix pilot ?
Why all tier 3 BC but Caldari one support main racial weaponry ? Naga torp/cruise would be to OP
or to gimped with it.
Why Caldari pilot asking on forum which dread to train hear - other race ?
Now, after that change this will be more true than before.

I'm absolutely against change of shield compensation skill, I invested my time to train it and
in proposed skill definition it could be changed to "Snowball launcher" skill with same effect
to my gameplay. Both will be waste of my SP.

And last question - if CCP is unable to properly balance armor vs shield tanking maybe
it's time to remove one of them or merge both ?

Cheers,
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#175 - 2013-02-04 17:02:15 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.


Douglas Adams The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy wrote:

There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now."


Do you perhaps also write appalling poetry too?
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#176 - 2013-02-04 17:15:29 UTC
Provence Tristram wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.

Well that certainly does gloss over 9 pages of most people requesting you to somehow justify this move, albeit in the most minimalistic and, I daresay, passively flippant way possible. You have a lot of people asking you 'why are you doing this?' and the answer I'm basically seeing here is: 'cuz.'

He already presented the justification. One of the reasons being "I didnt know it was important" - which I can understand, also dont appreciate. But other reason was "multi-purpose modules must die". That is something I've never heard before, but the details on this matter were not revealed.
Shall we see damage control to loose it's shield and armor bonuses? Will there be a split of tracking enhancers into two or more modules? What is the fate of capacitor batteries? Get ready for surprises, folks.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#177 - 2013-02-04 20:27:18 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
He already presented the justification. One of the reasons being "I didnt know it was important" - which I can understand, also dont appreciate. But other reason was "multi-purpose modules must die". That is something I've never heard before, but the details on this matter were not revealed.
Shall we see damage control to loose it's shield and armor bonuses? Will there be a split of tracking enhancers into two or more modules? What is the fate of capacitor batteries? Get ready for surprises, folks.

There's not so many multi-purpose module, and considering tracking enhancer as one of them is plain stupid, if not hypocrisy.

Do not mistake multi-purpose and generic.
Besbin
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#178 - 2013-02-04 21:00:23 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.


Douglas Adams The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy wrote:

There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now."


Do you perhaps also write appalling poetry too?


Hee hee! Spot on :-D
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#179 - 2013-02-04 23:13:00 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Do not mistake multi-purpose and generic.

Tracking Enhancers have the generic purpose of making it easier to hit things, and shield hardeners have the generic purpose of increasing your shield resistance Roll
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#180 - 2013-02-05 02:57:31 UTC
Why not make the comp skills effect the hulls?
+3% to base hull resist.
That solves the issue doesnt turn them into a hmm well I am going to use that mod in a week might asw ell get the most out of its one use.