These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
NextDarkKnight
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#301 - 2013-02-18 18:36:10 UTC
Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.
Lili Lu
#302 - 2013-02-18 18:58:22 UTC
NextDarkKnight wrote:
Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.

Is that solo pve? Anyway, it looks like you will have to contemplate resistance resist rig + amp(s) usage in conjuntion with one invuln, as opposed to extender rig + specific hardener(s) plus invuln, or multiple invulns, if you want to close/reduce a resist hole. What you may lose with overall resist profile you may gain back partially with some added cap stability. Old fitting paradigms are going to have to change.

This change does not necessarilly mean shield resist skills will be lost training, One will have to refit with resist amps to take advantage. It does make eanms look better in comparison to specific hardeners for armor. But then often that was already the case. It also makes resist rigs for both tanking types look more attractive as opposed to simply fitting CDFE or trimark rigs.

Regardless this is about the only recent nerf to the existing advantages of shield tanking over armor tanking in pvp. Even this combined with the minor buffs being given to plated (because the new armor reppers and active armor bonuses will still suck) armor tanking, through the honeycombing skill and plate mass reduction on 800 and 200 versions, will probably not be enough to shift the imbalance much. I predict many ships with more lows than medium slots will continue to use nano'd shield tanks over armor tanks.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#303 - 2013-02-18 20:41:47 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

Tao, you seem to want to engage with me on this, in terms of Axe's comment, my backing of his comment was in regards to which ships it had the biggest impact on, though I do still think the Talos is viable, his comments aimed at your style of play or your comments on this thread have no interest for me whatsoever. Your own comments have done the talking for you, I don't need to add anything to them, rather like when I let off steam on this in terms of the signature radius penalty on shields, perhaps shields will get some skill along the lines of armour honeycombing, or perhaps not which is the point I was trying to make. No matter what your comments are, the fact is that without a passive module covering all resists for shields, the neuting of shield ships is going to be a lot more effective. That CCP decided to do this knowing full well that the passive bonus was originally added to nerf neuting shows that they are likely to want this to stop people using shields on armour ships and use the new armour modules. The knock on effects of this are profound in some areas, while a Chimera is not really a very effective PvP carrier, it can be fitted for PvP for when you get caught, however the fit now has to be based on passive modules and nerf's its tank by around 8% on the best fit I could come out with, however its acceptable. Like always I will sort out my new tactics around the current situation, however I am sad to not be able to use a couple of ships in their full glory now that this is being applied tomorrow. Have fun...


Hi Drac

I can't comment on the carriers abilities etc but I can see your point in not being able to use them in way you have become used to.
As for the effect of neuting on shield ships, one of the biggest complaints by armour tankers in general is that ASB's are neut immune and armour tanking is by far more neut prone.
This being said though There has been comments by ccp dev that they are reducing the number of ships with utility highs to reduce the effect of cap warfare somewhat. Just look at the rebalance that have happened so far. A lot of the frigs and cruiser don not have utility highs anymore.

The specific skills themselves are now probably more usefull for armour tanks as they are more likely to fit a passive resist module than a shield tanker but this is fine as we don't need to have the tanking systems to be he same.

But it is good to hear that you'll adapt and make it work for you. We need more people to do this rather than just complain.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
NextDarkKnight
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#304 - 2013-02-18 21:01:12 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
NextDarkKnight wrote:
Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.

Is that solo pve? Anyway, it looks like you will have to contemplate resistance resist rig + amp(s) usage in conjuntion with one invuln, as opposed to extender rig + specific hardener(s) plus invuln, or multiple invulns, if you want to close/reduce a resist hole. What you may lose with overall resist profile you may gain back partially with some added cap stability. Old fitting paradigms are going to have to change.

This change does not necessarilly mean shield resist skills will be lost training, One will have to refit with resist amps to take advantage. It does make eanms look better in comparison to specific hardeners for armor. But then often that was already the case. It also makes resist rigs for both tanking types look more attractive as opposed to simply fitting CDFE or trimark rigs.

Regardless this is about the only recent nerf to the existing advantages of shield tanking over armor tanking in pvp. Even this combined with the minor buffs being given to plated (because the new armor reppers and active armor bonuses will still suck) armor tanking, through the honeycombing skill and plate mass reduction on 800 and 200 versions, will probably not be enough to shift the imbalance much. I predict many ships with more lows than medium slots will continue to use nano'd shield tanks over armor tanks.


I'm talking capital escalations with no triage carrier where every bit of resistance counts. Without the extra resistance I have lost tengus for some of toons under heavy neut. It raise the direct cost of fielding a PVE Tengu and Loki.
Solomunio Kzenig
Incursions Missions and Mining
#305 - 2013-02-18 21:06:19 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
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).


Eh. This is annoying. Yes, I understand that fitting tradeoffs can and should exist. But so should training tradeoffs, and you've just changed that calculus significantly. That's 16 ranks of skills that no longer offer a benefit that lots of us valued. Eight of those ranks were extraordinarily niche to start with, but we chose to train them anyway -- largely because we'd still get some benefit from inactive invulns. Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.

But now you've pushed it through. That's the second point for annoyance. In general, CCP is doing much better communicating with its player constituents about changes. Where exactly was the notice on this though? No discussion, no questions, nothing in CSM minutes even. It just pops up on SiSi one day as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Well, it's not. It's actually a significant change.

Anyhow. I've seen enough of these things to know that the odds of reverting this change now that it's hit SiSi are slim to none. I'd still like to see it, but I won't pretend I'll ragequit over it. Wrong direction though, folks. Poorly played.


QFT
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
#306 - 2013-02-18 21:56:30 UTC
So to get anything out of these skills we need to use the passive amps, fine. How about giving shield tankers an Adaptive Nano Plating equivalent then?

The ANP / ENAP modules are what make the armour compensation skills worthwhile.

Come one throw us a bone, give us a multispectral amplifier.


please?
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#307 - 2013-02-18 23:34:09 UTC
NextDarkKnight wrote:
Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.



DCU II = 12.5%

Maybe you need to change your fits a little bit and play differently but it's not that much of a big change as you guys claim to be.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#308 - 2013-02-19 00:06:29 UTC
NextDarkKnight wrote:
Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.


Tengu with sub +10% shield per level

1 Pithum B-Type Em (cheapo for wh guys)
1 T2 Explo Amplifier
1 DCU II
1 T2 EM rig
2 T2 LSE

No invuln fitted, resist profitle = 72.7 - 82.5 - 73.8 - 76.8

Add 1 T2 invuln and you get = 77.4 - 88.3 - 81.6 - 82.8 -change that T2 invuln and other mods for a dead space/faction ones and you get the lowest resist at 80%, add OGB and it becomes insane even with invuln off line.

Not trying to prove anything else than the simple fact you had a base 15% passive effect gone that wouldn't even provide those 15% once offline because stack penalty.

With HAMs you get a nice 750DPS without much pimp for 40km range (CNSHAM], add implants and a bit of pimp and it's about 850 without overheat for a cruiser with over 50K EHP and 680m/s with cheapo C-Type afterburner.

No big deal

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
NextDarkKnight
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#309 - 2013-02-19 03:59:50 UTC
What your saying is to carry a second Tengu per person to off set the 12%.
Human Cola
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#310 - 2013-02-19 12:26:21 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
NextDarkKnight wrote:
Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.


Tengu with sub +10% shield per level

1 Pithum B-Type Em (cheapo for wh guys)
1 T2 Explo Amplifier
1 DCU II
1 T2 EM rig
2 T2 LSE

No invuln fitted, resist profitle = 72.7 - 82.5 - 73.8 - 76.8

Add 1 T2 invuln and you get = 77.4 - 88.3 - 81.6 - 82.8 -change that T2 invuln and other mods for a dead space/faction ones and you get the lowest resist at 80%, add OGB and it becomes insane even with invuln off line.

Not trying to prove anything else than the simple fact you had a base 15% passive effect gone that wouldn't even provide those 15% once offline because stack penalty.

With HAMs you get a nice 750DPS without much pimp for 40km range (CNSHAM], add implants and a bit of pimp and it's about 850 without overheat for a cruiser with over 50K EHP and 680m/s with cheapo C-Type afterburner.

No big deal



So.. to offset this nerf, just fly around faction fit loot pinatas, no big deal?
Tor Gungnir
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#311 - 2013-02-19 13:19:28 UTC
Oh dear sweet Satan, they actually went ahead with it! ARGH! Evil

Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#312 - 2013-02-19 15:55:48 UTC
Human Cola wrote:
So.. to offset this nerf, just fly around faction fit loot pinatas, no big deal?


Because farming Tengus are known to be T1 fitted?
Wh dudes crying about isk? -WTF???

If you're in some WH (like OP) and can't afford to put 1 or 2 B in your farming ship, change to a better WH corp/alliance.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Human Cola
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#313 - 2013-02-19 18:09:17 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Human Cola wrote:
So.. to offset this nerf, just fly around faction fit loot pinatas, no big deal?


Because farming Tengus are known to be T1 fitted?
Wh dudes crying about isk? -WTF???

If you're in some WH (like OP) and can't afford to put 1 or 2 B in your farming ship, change to a better WH corp/alliance.


I care not about worm holing, but I care about hits my FW ships take.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#314 - 2013-02-19 19:03:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Given the drastic effect this has on exposing the EM hole on a shield tanked ship (T2 min resists aside) - even armor tanked ships with the nasty explosive hole have a bit of coverage from EANMs usually this seems like a badly thought out decision. Switching a large part of the fitting focus over to covering this eventuality seem a poor gameplay decision.

EDIT: Not that bothered by the change itself other than it means the prowler in a proper blockade runner fit has a small amount less EHP when invulns aren't active which isn't ideal, just that the EM hole exposure on a fair number of ships taken in isolation seems rather drastic compared to the overall effect.
Malice Redeemer
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#315 - 2013-02-20 07:14:23 UTC
This is a pretty major nerf, especially to the 4 skills that are now all but useless. Also you are showing how little you know about your game again, and its pretty sad.
Hexxas kozak
Hexxas kozak Corporation
#316 - 2013-02-20 09:32:05 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
well CPP is killing the game , they ****** up the battlecruiser class , the drake got its hp reduce and lost a missile launcher slot as well , and the now the damm resistant modules they are ******* with too , thats is it for me , im quiting , new players dont have fair chance in this game , Drake was a very good lvl 3 mission runner ship for new commers but after CPP desided to nerf this ship , i see no reason for me and my alt account to stay in the game any more . thanks alot for ruining the game for me and others that dont have 7 billion skill points to counter the stupid changes you made in retribution 1.1

instead of messsing with the game like this mabee you should try and focusing on make new stuff.

*Do not bypass the profanity filter* - CCP Eterne
Alayna Le'line
#317 - 2013-02-20 13:09:27 UTC
AxeMan2 wrote:
Especially pilots who try and shield fit their Armor ships.


This might be entirely intentional and I'm not even sure it's such a bad thing.
Bloody Wench
#318 - 2013-02-20 14:02:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloody Wench
Adding my voice to the change it back chorus.

I have 3 characters with shield resist comps to 5 especially for the Invul while neuted crap.

Change it back.

When you alter how a skill interacts I believe it's customary to refund those skill points. Change it back or refund those points.

32-33 days training per character is no fuckin joke Greyscale.

[u]**Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: **[/u]  CCP should not only make local delayed in highsec, but they should also require one be undocked to use it. Then, even the local spammers have some skin in the game. Support a High Resolution Texture Pack
Malkev
Tribal Liberation Force
#319 - 2013-02-20 14:53:51 UTC
Hexxas kozak wrote:
well CPP is killing the game , they f_u_c_k_e_d up the battlecruiser class , the drake got its hp reduce and lost a missile launcher slot as well , and the now the damm resistant modules they are ******* with too , thats is it for me , im quiting , new players dont have fair chance in this game , Drake was a very good lvl 3 mission runner ship for new commers but after CPP desided to nerf this ship , i see no reason for me and my alt account to stay in the game any more . thanks alot for ruining the game for me and others that dont have 7 billion skill points to counter the stupid changes you made in retribution 1.1

instead of messsing with the game like this mabee you should try and focusing on make new stuff.

I'm thinking you need to learn how to fit a Drake if you think it can't handle level 3 missions anymore.

Also, continue to ignore the fact that its damage bonus was doubled.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#320 - 2013-02-20 15:21:44 UTC
Hexxas kozak wrote:
well CPP is killing the game , they ****** up the battlecruiser class , the drake got its hp reduce and lost a missile launcher slot as well , and the now the damm resistant modules they are ******* with too , thats is it for me , im quiting , new players dont have fair chance in this game , Drake was a very good lvl 3 mission runner ship for new commers but after CPP desided to nerf this ship , i see no reason for me and my alt account to stay in the game any more . thanks alot for ruining the game for me and others that dont have 7 billion skill points to counter the stupid changes you made in retribution 1.1

instead of messsing with the game like this mabee you should try and focusing on make new stuff.

*Do not bypass the profanity filter* - CCP Eterne


Did you know that there are other BCs than the drake?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016