These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Make DCU passive module, and upgrade ingame fitting tool

Author
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2014-05-07 16:57:02 UTC
So, as it says, DCU already consumes literally no capacitor, serves as extra button presses whenever you enter a system, just make it passive.

Or, barring ability to do that, implement what every 3rd party fitting tool already has (tabbing out to mess with other tools on the fly is a pain in the ass when im tryign to put something together for somebody ingame), allow us to activate/deactivate modules while in the fitting screen so we can see what are resists are, and reps/sec are.

that second one is the real important one, because when im sitting in jita tryign to throw a last-minute fit together for some lowsec pvp, i HATE HATE HATE having to undock/dock all thetime to see what my resists/EHP are because of all the active modules (DCU, any repper, ALL shield tank mods worth fitting). just seems unneccessary to not be able to see your ships actual stats unless your undocked, and again, docking/undocking just to swap aroudn pieces of a fit becaus eyou have no idea what the stats are unless undocked is SILLY.

apologies, for spelling errors, will fix it later after my allergy medicine kicks in (fuggin summer), just wanted tog et this down before i forgot i wanted to type it.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2014-05-07 17:03:59 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
So, as it says, DCU already consumes literally no capacitor, serves as extra button presses whenever you enter a system, just make it passive.


That would only encourage more afk travelling in high-sec, you should have to be active at your keyboard to reap the benefits of such a powerful module.
Vadeim Rizen
TYR.
Exodus.
#3 - 2014-05-07 17:05:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vadeim Rizen
damage control is already OP as it is.


edit: maybe not overpowered, but is one of the strongest modules in the game. adding something like this to make it even more mindless accomplishes nothing except making people lazier.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#4 - 2014-05-07 17:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
So, as it says, DCU already consumes literally no capacitor, serves as extra button presses whenever you enter a system, just make it passive.


That would only encourage more afk travelling in high-sec, you should have to be active at your keyboard to reap the benefits of such a powerful module.



I suppose we should make all passive modules active to punish a certain group of players you don't like just because you don't like them as well? It's bad game design to punish players for doing something. Mainly because you're reinforcing a negative idea in players about that action and anything related to it and you build up a certain resentment from those players towards you. It's better to reward them or better yet make them think they're being rewarded for doing something else.

Honestly the OP is suggesting a quality of life improvement that just simply removes a small bit of micro from the game. Only thing that really suffers from a change like this is cap warfare and to be honest, cap warfare has a hard enough time trying to keep a DCU offline as it stands because of their long cycle times and low capacitor usage.

I'm all for removing esoteric design choices that yield next to no benefits. This is certainly one of them.

Edit: What you could do is make it increase capacitor recharge time by a similar percentage(makes more sense) or set value to maintain that tiny tiny drain on capacitor if you're going to be super OCD about it.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-05-07 17:22:15 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
So, as it says, DCU already consumes literally no capacitor, serves as extra button presses whenever you enter a system, just make it passive.


That would only encourage more afk travelling in high-sec, you should have to be active at your keyboard to reap the benefits of such a powerful module.



I suppose we should make all passive modules active to punish a certain group of players you don't like just because you don't like them as well?


Don't put words in my mouth.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#6 - 2014-05-07 17:34:26 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
So, as it says, DCU already consumes literally no capacitor, serves as extra button presses whenever you enter a system, just make it passive.


That would only encourage more afk travelling in high-sec, you should have to be active at your keyboard to reap the benefits of such a powerful module.



I suppose we should make all passive modules active to punish a certain group of players you don't like just because you don't like them as well?


Don't put words in my mouth.


I'm not, you're only comment says afk playing is bad(Which implies it need something done about it). Making a module passive doesn't necessarily encourage or discourage afk playing. That's a broad assumption you are making. I will agree a large set of circumstances where if you made an active module passive it would encourage playing with less care and attentiveness, but in this case it's a module that is already switched on and forgotten about in most ingame scenarios. All this does is streamline a process for a module that is already (if you allow me to exaggerate) 98% passive to begin with.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2014-05-07 17:36:05 UTC
Actually, it'd be nice when jumping into ridiculous TiDi as it is such a key module to not be sitting wondering if it is 'on' or not.
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#8 - 2014-05-07 17:38:35 UTC
DCU was intended to be a passive module, but due to technical problems, they implemented it as it is. No idea if that's changed or if the Dogma work is going to help.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#9 - 2014-05-07 17:39:56 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Actually, it'd be nice when jumping into ridiculous TiDi as it is such a key module to not be sitting wondering if it is 'on' or not.


Very alt, such afk, wow, much subtle.

Ignoring the character name the idea is sound however. This is a widely used and distributed module. Making it passive would remove the need for the server to keep checking and processing activation requests.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#10 - 2014-05-07 17:42:20 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:
DCU was intended to be a passive module, but due to technical problems, they implemented it as it is. No idea if that's changed or if the Dogma work is going to help.



Having it active makes it possible to shut it off with neuts and NOS though, and I feel that is an important drawback for a module that is otherwise so very useful.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#11 - 2014-05-07 17:47:16 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Jessica Danikov wrote:
DCU was intended to be a passive module, but due to technical problems, they implemented it as it is. No idea if that's changed or if the Dogma work is going to help.



Having it active makes it possible to shut it off with neuts and NOS though, and I feel that is an important drawback for a module that is otherwise so very useful.


Not really, as someone who deals with neuts on a fairly constant basis, I can tell you just from my own personal experience that no matter how many neuts you have the ship's own passive capacitor regeneration can sustain a DCU cycle(which is quite long) with a single tick of regeneration.
This basically means all you have to do it press it really fast. (Such StarCraft)
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#12 - 2014-05-07 17:53:42 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Jessica Danikov wrote:
DCU was intended to be a passive module, but due to technical problems, they implemented it as it is. No idea if that's changed or if the Dogma work is going to help.



Having it active makes it possible to shut it off with neuts and NOS though, and I feel that is an important drawback for a module that is otherwise so very useful.


Not really, as someone who deals with neuts on a fairly constant basis, I can tell you just from my own personal experience that no matter how many neuts you have the ship's own passive capacitor regeneration can sustain a DCU cycle(which is quite long) with a single tick of regeneration.
This basically means all you have to do it press it really fast. (Such StarCraft)


But the pilot has to notice it has been shut off and have the opportunity to press it in the middle of dealing with the other tasks required for the fight. By this same logic the armor hardeners I use on my Legion should be passive, because my Legion regenerates enough cap in between enemy neut cycles to bring them back on.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-05-07 17:54:57 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
That would only encourage more afk travelling in high-sec, you should have to be active at your keyboard to reap the benefits of such a powerful module.



I suppose we should make all passive modules active to punish a certain group of players you don't like just because you don't like them as well?


Don't put words in my mouth.


I'm not, you're only comment says afk playing is bad(Which implies it need something done about it). Making a module passive doesn't necessarily encourage or discourage afk playing. That's a broad assumption you are making.


I didn't say afk playing is "bad", stop putting words in my mouth. Maybe "encouraging" is the wrong word to use, but changing the DCU to being passive takes away a choice from players: Relatively safe active piloting or taking a bigger risk and using the auto-pilot. (A DCU in many cases will deter solo gankers from killing your ship under gate guns)
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2014-05-07 17:57:01 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Jessica Danikov wrote:
DCU was intended to be a passive module, but due to technical problems, they implemented it as it is. No idea if that's changed or if the Dogma work is going to help.



Having it active makes it possible to shut it off with neuts and NOS though, and I feel that is an important drawback for a module that is otherwise so very useful.


Not really, as someone who deals with neuts on a fairly constant basis, I can tell you just from my own personal experience that no matter how many neuts you have the ship's own passive capacitor regeneration can sustain a DCU cycle(which is quite long) with a single tick of regeneration.
This basically means all you have to do it press it really fast. (Such StarCraft)

and as a dedicated neut pilot, i can tell you that keeping most any ship low enough that it actually has to manually activate a DCU of all things is so few and far between as to just not happen.

again, it was originally designed as a passive module, it be nice to have that revisited.

and again, 2nd part fo the proposal, as an alternative to making it passive, at least letting em see my active resists/reps without undocking would be wonderful
Ryan Paladin
Reckless-Endangerment
Manifesto.
#15 - 2014-05-07 18:11:26 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
That would only encourage more afk travelling in high-sec, you should have to be active at your keyboard to reap the benefits of such a powerful module.



I suppose we should make all passive modules active to punish a certain group of players you don't like just because you don't like them as well?


Don't put words in my mouth.


I'm not, you're only comment says afk playing is bad(Which implies it need something done about it). Making a module passive doesn't necessarily encourage or discourage afk playing. That's a broad assumption you are making.


I didn't say afk playing is "bad", stop putting words in my mouth. Maybe "encouraging" is the wrong word to use, but changing the DCU to being passive takes away a choice from players: Relatively safe active piloting or taking a bigger risk and using the auto-pilot. (A DCU in many cases will deter solo gankers from killing your ship under gate guns)


I'll say it then. If you afk pilot in high sec in a ship that people might think is gank worthy or carrying cargo that might be considered gank worthy because you think it is safe you are bad and deserve to lose your ship, not have an extra layer of defense to protect you lazy self.

It's a sad day when I am more harsh than a GSF member lol.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#16 - 2014-05-07 18:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Bohneik Itohn
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

and as a dedicated neut pilot, i can tell you that keeping most any ship low enough that it actually has to manually activate a DCU of all things is so few and far between as to just not happen.

again, it was originally designed as a passive module, it be nice to have that revisited.

and again, 2nd part fo the proposal, as an alternative to making it passive, at least letting em see my active resists/reps without undocking would be wonderful



Grab a Bhaalgorn and NEUT THE WORLD... That'll shut off their DCU.

I've had my DCU shut off a few times being neuted, and I'll admit I don't have a heavy focus on PvP. It is pretty chancy that one of your neut cycles lands in the same server tick as the DCU, but it's far from a rarity. Getting used to staggering my cycles so that I can shut off every module someone has active after I finish these last couple skills for my neut boat is something I am interested in.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#17 - 2014-05-07 18:44:43 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

and as a dedicated neut pilot, i can tell you that keeping most any ship low enough that it actually has to manually activate a DCU of all things is so few and far between as to just not happen.

again, it was originally designed as a passive module, it be nice to have that revisited.

and again, 2nd part fo the proposal, as an alternative to making it passive, at least letting em see my active resists/reps without undocking would be wonderful



Grab a Bhaalgorn and NEUT THE WORLD... That'll shut off their DCU.

I've had my DCU shut off a few times being neuted, and I'll admit I don't have a heavy focus on PvP. It is pretty chancy that one of your neut cycles lands in the same server tick as the DCU, but it's far from a rarity. Getting used to staggering my cycles so that I can shut off every module someone has active after I finish these last couple skills for my neut boat is something I am interested in.


Even then, keeping a DCU shut off is extremely difficult. No amount of bravado can cover up the fact all you need is a single server tick and quick enough finger on the button to simply turn it back on.

Really this is a module that suffers from being caught in a weird limbo between passive and active. It's clearly meant to be a passive module, but for what ever reason it's an active module that behaves very atypically.

Honestly, it should become a full on active module with higher capacitor usage and better bonuses, or full on passive. The current system is gimmickie and doesn't interact well with energy neutralizers.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-05-07 19:14:29 UTC
Where in the DCU Descrip does it say it's meant to be a passive module?

Or did I miss that?

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#19 - 2014-05-07 19:23:07 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

and as a dedicated neut pilot, i can tell you that keeping most any ship low enough that it actually has to manually activate a DCU of all things is so few and far between as to just not happen.

again, it was originally designed as a passive module, it be nice to have that revisited.

and again, 2nd part fo the proposal, as an alternative to making it passive, at least letting em see my active resists/reps without undocking would be wonderful



Grab a Bhaalgorn and NEUT THE WORLD... That'll shut off their DCU.

I've had my DCU shut off a few times being neuted, and I'll admit I don't have a heavy focus on PvP. It is pretty chancy that one of your neut cycles lands in the same server tick as the DCU, but it's far from a rarity. Getting used to staggering my cycles so that I can shut off every module someone has active after I finish these last couple skills for my neut boat is something I am interested in.


Even then, keeping a DCU shut off is extremely difficult. No amount of bravado can cover up the fact all you need is a single server tick and quick enough finger on the button to simply turn it back on.

Really this is a module that suffers from being caught in a weird limbo between passive and active. It's clearly meant to be a passive module, but for what ever reason it's an active module that behaves very atypically.

Honestly, it should become a full on active module with higher capacitor usage and better bonuses, or full on passive. The current system is gimmickie and doesn't interact well with energy neutralizers.



I can agree. Upon retrospect for larger ships like BS's getting capped out has a very slim chance of knocking out your DCU. Cycle times are too long for heavy neuts. It seems like a good time to re-evaluate the balance of DCU's.

Maybe a reactivation delay and a modest increase in cap cost? That's not too unreasonable.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#20 - 2014-05-07 19:23:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Kenrailae wrote:
Where in the DCU Descrip does it say it's meant to be a passive module?

Or did I miss that?


Assuming you're not being facetious(which is a very very long shot(one that I'm not personally assuming), it's about implied intent. Take a look at it's in game behavior and values, and then come back with a more informed and constructive response.


Bohneik Itohn wrote:

I can agree. Upon retrospect for larger ships like BS's getting capped out has a very slim chance of knocking out your DCU. Cycle times are too long for heavy neuts. It seems like a good time to re-evaluate the balance of DCU's.

Maybe a reactivation delay and a modest increase in cap cost? That's not too unreasonable.



That's actually not a bad idea. A reactivation delay would certainly solve the neut problems.
12Next page