These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#201 - 2013-02-09 17:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
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).


I trained all those skills *because* I wanted to still have a chance in case of being neuted to hell.
Since I don't fly anything passive I have no use of that SP, actually corp recruiters / characters purchasers will break the balls because they'll see those as wasted SP.

Also thanks from all those who purchased shield tankers supercap BPOs, your "insignificant change" is really going to help them be rewarded for the few ISK they cost!

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#202 - 2013-02-09 17:31:22 UTC
I was thinking about the Invuln field mod...

Almost every shield tank ship in EVE fits it. It would be the PRIMARY mod on those ships. Might be the most widely used mod in all of EVE.

How can any developer change that mod, and act like it has little or no effect on the players? How can they post in the forums (like it was a Jita scam?) and try and sell that crap?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#203 - 2013-02-09 17:32:56 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:
I was thinking about the Invuln field mod...

Almost every shield tank ship in EVE fits it. It would be the PRIMARY mod on those ships. Might be the most widely used mod in all of EVE.

How can any developer change that mod, and act like it has little or no effect on the players? How can they post in the forums (like it was a Jita scam?) and try and sell that crap?


Well, it's not new. When you see CCP Punkturis posting you know she's going to bring in something nice, well thought on, good and said in a competent tone and with care for us players.

When you see others... well you can form your own idea about them.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#204 - 2013-02-09 17:43:29 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:
I was thinking about the Invuln field mod...

Almost every shield tank ship in EVE fits it. It would be the PRIMARY mod on those ships. Might be the most widely used mod in all of EVE.

How can any developer change that mod, and act like it has little or no effect on the players? How can they post in the forums (like it was a Jita scam?) and try and sell that crap?


Yeah, that's still nagging at me. We haven't even gotten a "well, ok, so it wasn't a minor change, and we should have mentioned it sooner, but it's still going in". A simple admission that this was handled very poorly might at least generate a bit of good will.

I still don't think the logic has been explained at all though. "We decided over coffee that we don't like mods that do two things as a post hoc exercise for justifying some changes we were making anyway" really does seem to sum it up.

Annoying. Still annoying.
Mister Tuggles
Dickhead Corner
#205 - 2013-02-09 18:09:48 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
I was thinking about the Invuln field mod...

Almost every shield tank ship in EVE fits it. It would be the PRIMARY mod on those ships. Might be the most widely used mod in all of EVE.

How can any developer change that mod, and act like it has little or no effect on the players? How can they post in the forums (like it was a Jita scam?) and try and sell that crap?


Yeah, that's still nagging at me. We haven't even gotten a "well, ok, so it wasn't a minor change, and we should have mentioned it sooner, but it's still going in". A simple admission that this was handled very poorly might at least generate a bit of good will.

I still don't think the logic has been explained at all though. "We decided over coffee that we don't like mods that do two things as a post hoc exercise for justifying some changes we were making anyway" really does seem to sum it up.

Annoying. Still annoying.



It is because CCP doesn't see this as the huge nerf that it is. They see it as a minor change to a mechanic they don't like. I found it highly amusing Greyscale said they dislike multi-functional modules when probably about 50% or more of mods in this game have an effect on more than one stat/mod.

But noooooo, it isn't like this mechanic has been in the game for years or anything.... Oh wait, it has, and no one has had even the remotest of problems with it.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#206 - 2013-02-09 18:21:14 UTC
Also, I invite people who trained the skills:

1) Undock. Possibly a ship with both an inv field and something else like i.e. EM mod. Turn on the mods.

2) Hover the mouse over the modules. Read the numbers and write them here and tell how ~minor~ they are.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
amurder Hakomairos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#207 - 2013-02-09 18:21:18 UTC
In my opinion, this change is a load of crap and for devs to get on here and basically say "oh well, too bad" screams "we don't give a **** about our customers"

Changes to modules that invalidate skill trains should only be made ONLY if there is some compelling reason, not on a whim. And they should be publicly announced and debated as well.
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#208 - 2013-02-09 19:59:50 UTC
A while back, the same developer decided to take it upon himself that certain items that no longer dropped in the game such as mines and their blueprints should be removed. So one patch later, players noticed that their collectable trinkets were suddenly missing. Of course, the same developer acted all nonchalant that it was no big deal since these same trinkets could not be used in the game so their removal should not have been an issue. After an extensive forum thread, I believe "most" of the items were returned - I think there was one item Entity was still arguing about gaining back. But similar to the meat of this thread - no discussion, no debate, just "I can do whatever I want".

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this same developer the one that "nerfed" under the guise of "fixing" null sec money making avenues through running dungeons and hidden sites?

And the same developer that stated that fixing player owned stations would be too much work for too few people to enjoy?

To me, a one man wrecking crew that does not even play the game, yet seems to have carte blanche to whatever he feels to the game without another countering with checks and balances. While others at CCP seem to be a part of a larger team, this one developer seems to be a rogue without a clue.
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#209 - 2013-02-10 00:19:03 UTC
:Greyscale:

wumbo
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#210 - 2013-02-10 01:12:19 UTC
heh 11 pages of pretty much the same question, aside from a few troll remarks, and nothing better of an answer then:

"because f"*k you that's why"

high five Greyscale high five
AskariRising
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#211 - 2013-02-10 06:15:23 UTC  |  Edited by: AskariRising
Ong wrote:


high five Greyscale high five


i wanna high five his face

p.s. dont ban me bro
Tolkenmoon
Hogan's Heroes
#212 - 2013-02-10 11:09:19 UTC
I never thought this would get so long a thread, and never though ccp would push something like this which really is a mistake through.

All i seem to see lately is change for the sake of change its as if the new devs are trying to justify there jobs by altering so much. The passive shield resist bonus has been around for years and because you the new devs don't like it you want to change it for no other reason than YOU want to! and sod everyone else because you are always right, well you are WRONG so very wrong.

All i start to see you as are a joke and a stubborn company who don't listen to your players.
Ty Delaney
Gambit Roulette
#213 - 2013-02-10 15:56:18 UTC
Once again, Greyscale encounters complicated code and, rather than fix it, just removes it.
Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
#214 - 2013-02-10 17:06:21 UTC
Does this mean my Compensation skills will now affect my Rigs?
Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#215 - 2013-02-10 17:44:36 UTC
Ong wrote:
If your going to make this happen you really are going to have to introduce a passive shield mod similar to the EANM, no one uses the passive shield mods unless their trying for some permarun pve fit.
In the words of you shield tankers when we asked for a similar ASB module for armor: "Shield tanking and armor tanking are different. That's what makes the game unique. Shield tanking and armor tanking aren't supposed to have the same modules."

And for everyone claiming that their skills are "useless" now, because you'll have a "0% resist hole", guess what! There are modules you can fit to your ship called Shield Amplifiers that will plug that resist hole without cap and takes advantage of your "useless" skills.

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

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

General Escobar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#216 - 2013-02-10 17:54:29 UTC
I was just about to train that crap... good thing someone noticed as those skills are useless as useless can be now!! Minor change, laughable...
Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
#217 - 2013-02-10 17:54:57 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:

And for everyone claiming that their skills are "useless" now, because you'll have a "0% resist hole", guess what! There are modules you can fit to your ship called Shield Amplifiers that will plug that resist hole without cap and takes advantage of your "useless" skills.

Shocked ... How DARE you suggest such a thing?!?!? ... P
Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2013-02-10 18:06:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Falin Whalen
Maximus Andendare wrote:
And for everyone claiming that their skills are "useless" now, because you'll have a "0% resist hole", guess what! There are modules you can fit to your ship called Shield Amplifiers that will plug that resist hole without cap and takes advantage of your "useless" skills.

Don't tell them that. I wanted to see more impotent rage, wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth. Sad

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Arec Bardwin
#219 - 2013-02-10 19:19:36 UTC
This change will significantly boost the efficiency rating of Greyscale's morning meetings, and I therefore wholeheartedly support it.
Varesk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2013-02-10 19:44:39 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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



why not make the shield/armor comp skills apply to the base stats for the hull of the ship. doing this will give you the mods doing one thing and people would be happy about training for 2 months to get all the comps to V.