These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Human Cola
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#261 - 2013-02-15 15:31:07 UTC
Why does no one in this thread seem to realize that Caldari use hybrids too?

So many people keep saying "Caldari use capless guns so they dont have to worry about being neut'd"

I'm sorry, but i think hybrids use cap. And.... Merlin, Corm, Moa, Ferox, Naga, Rokh... First three are flown rather commonly in Faction war, Nagas as well.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#262 - 2013-02-15 17:53:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Well I made the decision some time ago to train those compensation skills to level V so that I had resistences against being neuted, though I never did get explosive to 5, even so so this is a bit of a kick in the teeth. This is not a minor change by any means and to treat it as so is mind boggling to me. In fact the changes to certain shield ships which are already very profound and role changing have been made even more important with this.

I just checked my preferred Chimera fit which had two Invulns and an EM Ward and a Thermic Dissipation, replacing them with passive hardeners gives you about the same EHP as you would get with the current passive bonus to the active hardeners. Oh well at least I should be able to jump into an Archon a bit quicker and leave my Chimera to gather dust, so on the basis of having to adapt, you are implementing this change at the same time as the changes on skill requirements to level 4 BS for carriers I hope, so I can take action quite quickly to get into a ship that actually works, such as an Archon?

And as the poster directly above me points out the blaster ships such as the Moa which I was just looking forward to trying out will snap back into being useless, please think this through again, the original game designer did this for a very good reason, without it shield ships would be at too great a disadvantage against neuting, think it through.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Mister Tuggles
Dickhead Corner
#263 - 2013-02-16 00:32:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Tuggles
Viceran Phaedra wrote:
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.



Then you will be sorely disappointed. There is no "master plan" here. If you read some of Greyscales posts it seems they are making this change for one of two reasons. A) they broke something in the code and are too god damn lazy to fix it, or B) "Just because"
I am leaning towards option A on this one. CCP is not known for wanting to fix code they broke. This is why we have the current POS system. Crap code = them not wanting to touch any part of it any time soon.


There is no logical thinking to this change. There is no rhyme or reason behind it. No one ever complained about getting a minimal amount of resist from an offlined active resist mod because the time involved to train them to 5 is a pain for how little they actually do. Now you are saying you don't want to do a skill reimbursement because "the change is small". Well that is complete bull in and of itself. This is NOT a small change. This is a huge change to a set of skills/game mechanic that has been in use for YEARS with no complaints about it.

Greyscale, if you actually are reading this thread, which it seems you are not since you haven't posted in it for the past 11 days, please take note that NO ONE is agreeing with this change. No one wants this change. Go back to doing something productive. I know that is a far stretch for you, but please stop working on things that have never been, and will never be a problem. You are like the harbinger of terrible news on these forums. Everything you touch just pisses your customers off.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#264 - 2013-02-16 00:57:57 UTC
LOL it's so funny looking at all the complaining about a passive bonus being removed from an active module!

Get over it you lot!

It's an active module therefore if should provide ACTIVE bonus not passive ones. This is just common sense and may also make some of those compensation skills actually worth training for.

This is following the line of making things in eve have a purpose and not being all encompassing! If you fit for active tanking you need to be concerned with cap requirements (however small they seem) to power your active modules (be that actual cap or cap charges) where as passive gives you cap safety but usually at a lower efficiency (resists, buffer etc)

This is probably one of the big indicators (along with ship rebalances) that CCP has finally got their head screwed on properly and are thinking of the bigger picture more than ever before!

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Elloise Kashada
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#265 - 2013-02-16 01:47:53 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).





Tranlation of CCP Greyscale speak : Sorry guys, we broke a thing, we haven't ran the numbers on how it will affect shield tanking in general, or any of the most commonly shield tanked ships in particular.

Since it's looking like a good excuse at the moment, here's a nonsensical theory about design direction for the future of modules in EvE. Anyway, it was rather ugly, and since I don't really understand what it does, and that it's too much effort to try making it clear for myself and for the players, we couldn't be bothered to try fixing it back.


Is this really CCP's stance?
Who exactly took the decision? Is CCP Greyscale able to make these decisions?
How come he is allowed to communicate with the playerbase? Someone please stop this madness, reign this guy in.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#266 - 2013-02-16 02:06:42 UTC
I love how many armchair coders and game devs are out there.

The issues around the coding and whatnot just brought it to their attention. And once there they realised what a stoooopid idea it was to have PASSIVE bonus on an ACTIVE module.


You carebear whiney fucks just need to HTFU and get over yourselves!

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Illest Insurrectionist
Sparta.
#267 - 2013-02-16 02:17:09 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
I love how many armchair coders and game devs are out there.

The issues around the coding and whatnot just brought it to their attention. And once there they realised what a stoooopid idea it was to have PASSIVE bonus on an ACTIVE module.


You carebear whiney fucks just need to HTFU and get over yourselves!


So um. I emphasized in your post where you are being an "armchair coder" and a "game dev".

Have a nice day.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#268 - 2013-02-16 02:45:35 UTC
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:
I love how many armchair coders and game devs are out there.

The issues around the coding and whatnot just brought it to their attention. And once there they realised what a stoooopid idea it was to have PASSIVE bonus on an ACTIVE module.


You carebear whiney fucks just need to HTFU and get over yourselves!


So um. I emphasized in your post where you are being an "armchair coder" and a "game dev".

Have a nice day.



Why thank you.

Nice to see someone is actually paying attention!

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Noddy Comet
Lysdexic Agnostics - Thier is no Dog
#269 - 2013-02-16 02:48:35 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
LOL it's so funny looking at all the complaining about a passive bonus being removed from an active module!

......

It's an active module therefore if should provide ACTIVE bonus not passive ones. This is just common sense and may also make some of those compensation skills actually worth training for.



So,please explain exactly how is it worth training 4 skills to level 5 now that previously gave a bonus and are now worthless to most of us that trained them in the first place?



[i]"The biggest problem with quotes on the Internet, is that just because it's on the Internet too many believe them to be real" -[/i]Abraham Lincoln's "Berlin Wall" speech at the 1984 Winter Olympics.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#270 - 2013-02-16 03:11:22 UTC
Elloise Kashada wrote:

Is this really CCP's stance?
Who exactly took the decision? Is CCP Greyscale able to make these decisions?
How come he is allowed to communicate with the playerbase? Someone please stop this madness, reign this guy in.

So you would rather there be no communication and we still be speculating about whether it was intentional or not? And as Greyscale is a dev in game design I'd say it's his job to make decisions like these. Not to mention it would appear he's not the only one to hold this opinion on active hardners with passive bonuses.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#271 - 2013-02-16 07:48:00 UTC
Noddy Comet wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:
LOL it's so funny looking at all the complaining about a passive bonus being removed from an active module!

......

It's an active module therefore if should provide ACTIVE bonus not passive ones. This is just common sense and may also make some of those compensation skills actually worth training for.



So,please explain exactly how is it worth training 4 skills to level 5 now that previously gave a bonus and are now worthless to most of us that trained them in the first place?





Because they give a bonus to passive modules!

Really I shouldn't need to explain this to carebears.....go figure it out. stop wasting my oxygen in making me think for you!

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Sorran Tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#272 - 2013-02-16 11:44:52 UTC
ITT: Greyscale strikes again
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#273 - 2013-02-16 12:58:08 UTC
So if you do decide to do this, then remove the sig radius penalty on shields then!!!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Noddy Comet
Lysdexic Agnostics - Thier is no Dog
#274 - 2013-02-16 16:41:54 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Noddy Comet wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:
LOL it's so funny looking at all the complaining about a passive bonus being removed from an active module!

......

It's an active module therefore if should provide ACTIVE bonus not passive ones. This is just common sense and may also make some of those compensation skills actually worth training for.



So,please explain exactly how is it worth training 4 skills to level 5 now that previously gave a bonus and are now worthless to most of us that trained them in the first place?





Because they give a bonus to passive modules!

Really I shouldn't need to explain this to carebears.....go figure it out. stop wasting my oxygen in making me think for you!

Perhaps you should use less oxygen hyperventilating over carebears and think for a second yourself, this thread is full of those who trained these skills for something that is being taken away (The passive resist on ACTIVE hardeners that has been available for years)
Again, how are these skills worth a damn now to those who solely trained them for the reason that is being removed.,... ACTIVE shield tankers??

They are not.

We are now stuck with 4 skills trained to lvl 5 for something we will most likely never even use now.

But please, blame it on the careberars and anyone who doesn't play in the sandbox according to your rules rather than a stupid nerf ending up with worthless skills taking up clone costs now.
I'm sure the community will be just as empathetic when the stealth nerfbat comes around and hits an entire skill set you took the time to train to lvl 5 and is now just as worthless.

[i]"The biggest problem with quotes on the Internet, is that just because it's on the Internet too many believe them to be real" -[/i]Abraham Lincoln's "Berlin Wall" speech at the 1984 Winter Olympics.
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#275 - 2013-02-16 16:47:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Marian Devers
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74270

New dev blog, still no mention...

"It's ok guys, no one will even notice. Or care! Also let's move the topic from test server feedback or features and ideas to someplace no one will ever read it"
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#276 - 2013-02-16 18:11:44 UTC
Well, well, well... The real problem now is not that “the active hardeners no longer have the passive resist element, and that change are going live to TQ without any official CCP note about it (aka stealth nerf)” but about the usefulness or not of the compensation skills.

For some play base this change do not meaning nothing, but for other player base this change all they play style. So, the real question is if the compensation skills should be reimbursed or not, because it´s a set of lvl 5 skills that become obsolete.

I think that the fair is that should be a one time question at login asking if you want to be reimbursed or not, and this solve all problem. The one who are affected by the usefulness of the skill are reimbursed, and the one who want to keep it are ok either.

And, of course, better communication between CCP and the player base are always welcome (no more stealth nerfs). Remember, I did not said no more changes, but no more unannounced changes, please.

Castelo

Best post ever!
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#277 - 2013-02-16 18:50:08 UTC
The Armour Hardeners work the same way too, the amount of passive resistence is linked to your Armour compensation skills, so if they are removing it from the shield modules they better do the same to the armour ones!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Illest Insurrectionist
Sparta.
#278 - 2013-02-16 18:56:46 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
The Armour Hardeners work the same way too, the amount of passive resistence is linked to your Armour compensation skills, so if they are removing it from the shield modules they better do the same to the armour ones!


They are.

It doesn't matter as much.

After the changes my tengu will un-dock with 0 em resist.

With armor ships they have a passive omni-resist items already. These are rather popular. As such folks don't feel cheated.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#279 - 2013-02-16 19:13:17 UTC
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
The Armour Hardeners work the same way too, the amount of passive resistence is linked to your Armour compensation skills, so if they are removing it from the shield modules they better do the same to the armour ones!


They are.

It doesn't matter as much.

After the changes my tengu will un-dock with 0 em resist.

With armor ships they have a passive omni-resist items already. These are rather popular. As such folks don't feel cheated.


Yep your right sorry, was just focussed on the reason I had trained those skills to 5, my bad.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#280 - 2013-02-16 23:45:00 UTC
Quote:
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


Please emphasize more on the trade-offs as much as possible. Still a lot of iwin and fotm stuff around. Breaking the ice is alwas good.
But one user is right, please announce those little changes too. Stealth nerfs or unnoticed changes really hurt.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.