Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Damage control sounds like something active. It makes sense for the module to be active also.

I rather keep it active with the connected chance of failure and energy neut risk than have it passive with significantly reduced stats.

Seen it happen though.

or just make it so you can set an active module to "autorun" IE turns on by itself after a session change whenever it is off unless you previously turned it off after the last session change. I would find this useful for invul fields or active armor hardeners for example. If the only time you need to perform a meaningful UI interaction for those hardeners would be to turn them off, then I don't see a reason to not be able to automatically have them turn on.

If you look back at the original reasons for why it was created as an "active" module (when it's clearly intended to be a passive module), you will note that the technical limitations were regarding the inability to limit damage controls to 1 per ship. At the time, they were able to limit damage controls to one active per ship, so they did that.

As I mention in the OP, there have since been a number of modules that have limits on how many can be fitted to a ship. Given these other modules, the technical limitation clearly no longer exists. This leads me to my question: why are damage controls still active modules?

~edit~ I have no idea why that link isn't taking you directly to the relevant post, but scroll down to post #27 if you want to read the relevant dev post.

Damage control module is very powerful. The requirement of keeping it active is necessary to balance auto piloting.

I have to agree. Also I would suggest that armor plate and shield extenders also be turned into active modules because they also provide a huge bonus to autopiloters (who need to be nerfed).

Damage Control as a passive...makes no sense unless it becomes a regen like shield tank drakes for "controlling damage" . You also got bulk heads that add hit points, which are passives, cause + resist or + hitpoints are basically the same thing at a given level (1000 hp x .25 resist or 1000 hp + 250 hitpoints = 1250 hitpoints regardless) but EVE has that weird stacking ability to add + resist and more hitpoints . Damage controls aside from the resistance bonus that helps cap out you resists to armor/shield....do nothing, but are a staple PVP mode for buffer for that last layer in the hull. If anything, it needs a massive nerf in the hitpoint bonus to hull so ships go boom faster

You have 9 mods (and 3 rigs) that are all "passive" on your gimmick passive tank fit you've posted. As the other person that quoted you glibly pointed out, these are all contributing to the EHP of your fit. In fact, both of your MSE IIs individually contribute significantly more than the Damage Control II does. By the logic you're currently using, the only consistent thing to do would be to make all of those mods active.

Furthermore, my point was that "ganking AFK ships" isn't even relevant to the question. CCP originally said the only reason it ISN'T a passive module is because they COULDN'T make it a passive module. It's not a giant leap to assume that, if it does BECOME possible in the future, the best course of action would be to change it. You're defending the status quo with made up reasons when it wasn't ever really intended to be this way in the first place.



There are already passive hardeners for both armor and shield. All they do is increase resistances. Suggesting that shield rechargers are the only type of "passive" tank mod is not reflective of the options available in the game.

In addition, I think you're limiting the usage of damage controls well beyond their actual scope. One of the ways people use damage controls is to cap out their EHP by squeezing a little more out of their hull hit points, sure. Another very valid and very common use is to use the increased resistances to increase the effective tank on your ship (whether it's a local rep or remote reps). IE, repairing 100 shield/second because twice as good if you go from 0% -> 50% resists. Damage Controls add another non-stacking-penalized layer of resistances, as you mentioned. I would argue that, in fact, this use case is even MORE common than the use case you have put forward.

For solo PvP, you're probably right that the EHP bonus is all that really becomes relevant.

In small gang warfare, both EHP and increased resistances are going to be relevant at different times. Many types of small gangs have local or remote reps, or are planning on warping off when targeted, etc. Trying to "outlast" someone with your extra hull EHP would be the exception in this case, not the rule. Nevertheless, let's call small gang a wash in terms of which is more relevant.

For large groups, you're always relying on either superior tank or some other way of controlling the engagement (dictating range and assuming you'll take minimal damage during fights, for instance). In these situations, the EHP from hull is nearly completely irrelevant. The increased resistances, however, are vitally important in being able to tank all the more incoming damage without breaking your logistics.

On a per capita basis, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to say that more pilots are involved in large fights than are involved in solo fights. There are plenty more solo fights, but each big fight involves dozens to hundreds of players.

Regardless, the question of whether Damage Controls need a "nerf" to the hull resistances they add is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the question of whether it should be changed to a passive module instead of the pretend-passive-but-really-active-because-we-couldn't-make-it-actually-passive module it is right now.