These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Make Damage Control a passive module
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Foxicity
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-01-05 23:14:47 UTC
Swing the nerf-bat the other direction and reduce the effects of the DCU. It's a "no-brainer" on nearly all PVP buffer fits, and EVE prides itself on having very few "no-brainers".
Arla Sarain
#22 - 2015-01-05 23:37:41 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
They can't because the only way the code allows them to set [only one of this type of module] is by making it active.

Which is why DCU takes practically no cap to use.

(This was posted a long time ago by some dev who probably works at riot now).

Scan Acquisition Array is passive and you can only fit one.
Mario Putzo
#23 - 2015-01-05 23:42:50 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
They can't because the only way the code allows them to set [only one of this type of module] is by making it active.

Which is why DCU takes practically no cap to use.

(This was posted a long time ago by some dev who probably works at riot now).

Scan Acquisition Array is passive and you can only fit one.


Hmmm that is a good point.

What gives CCP?
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2015-01-05 23:51:51 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Arla Sarain wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
They can't because the only way the code allows them to set [only one of this type of module] is by making it active.

Which is why DCU takes practically no cap to use.

(This was posted a long time ago by some dev who probably works at riot now).

Scan Acquisition Array is passive and you can only fit one.


Hmmm that is a good point.

What gives CCP?


Inertia. Been that way long enough that aside from a subset of people that think it should be changed to passive, most people are more or less happy about the module.

And if it's not broke, don't fix it.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#25 - 2015-01-06 01:41:22 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Making this module passive, would remove the human element to error or otherwise fail to activate it when it is needed.

Every time you automate a detail, it makes it possible for all players with poor attention to detail able to compete more effectively.

We are competing against each other, and making mistakes is most certainly an aspect of this.
And your idea of mistakes is forgetting to do something that you couldn't possibly not want to do? The core of PvP in EVE is being able to correctly follow a checklist before the fight starts?

I (and the devs, judging by the recent clone change) think the basis of the competition between players is decision making - what you decide to do, not whether you remember to do it. Certainly mistakes are a part of it. Say you forget to launch your drones. But, there are good reasons not to have your drones launched. There is never a reason to turn off a DCU (that I can think of...?).


Regardless, a better solution might be for the game to automatically restore the on/off overheated/not state of you modules after each jump.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#26 - 2015-01-06 05:53:38 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Making this module passive, would remove the human element to error or otherwise fail to activate it when it is needed.

Every time you automate a detail, it makes it possible for all players with poor attention to detail able to compete more effectively.

We are competing against each other, and making mistakes is most certainly an aspect of this.
And your idea of mistakes is forgetting to do something that you couldn't possibly not want to do? The core of PvP in EVE is being able to correctly follow a checklist before the fight starts?

I (and the devs, judging by the recent clone change) think the basis of the competition between players is decision making - what you decide to do, not whether you remember to do it. Certainly mistakes are a part of it. Say you forget to launch your drones. But, there are good reasons not to have your drones launched. There is never a reason to turn off a DCU (that I can think of...?).


Regardless, a better solution might be for the game to automatically restore the on/off overheated/not state of you modules after each jump.

There is a reason why you wouldn't turn on the DCU though... not being at your keyboard. DCU on autopilot is too much. Active to counteract that is a good enough reason to keep it as is
Kakuzo Noud
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2015-01-06 09:13:23 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:

There is a reason why you wouldn't turn on the DCU though... not being at your keyboard. DCU on autopilot is too much. Active to counteract that is a good enough reason to keep it as is


Based on your logic, a shield extender, plates and appropriate rigs should also be active modules, or turned off during auto-pilot...
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2015-01-06 09:15:32 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Activation cost of 1gj means nothing but the most ridiculous neuting is going to stop it (and I'd venture at that stage of outnumbering, the DC isn't going to save you anyway Smile)


Been in a frig tournament before and completely neuted out by one other ship, nothing but projectile guns left.


Mashing it should have got it back on with the cycle time on neuts - even well staggered ones.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#29 - 2015-01-06 14:24:22 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
Crumplecorn wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Making this module passive, would remove the human element to error or otherwise fail to activate it when it is needed.

Every time you automate a detail, it makes it possible for all players with poor attention to detail able to compete more effectively.

We are competing against each other, and making mistakes is most certainly an aspect of this.
And your idea of mistakes is forgetting to do something that you couldn't possibly not want to do? The core of PvP in EVE is being able to correctly follow a checklist before the fight starts?

I (and the devs, judging by the recent clone change) think the basis of the competition between players is decision making - what you decide to do, not whether you remember to do it. Certainly mistakes are a part of it. Say you forget to launch your drones. But, there are good reasons not to have your drones launched. There is never a reason to turn off a DCU (that I can think of...?).


Regardless, a better solution might be for the game to automatically restore the on/off overheated/not state of you modules after each jump.

There is a reason why you wouldn't turn on the DCU though... not being at your keyboard. DCU on autopilot is too much. Active to counteract that is a good enough reason to keep it as is

Let me get this straight:

The idea that something you would obviously want to do, being grounds for making it automatic...
I have doubts that you seriously thought that logic through.

It may be one step, but that makes any active defense enhancer being flagged as passive one step closer to reality as well.

And just for the heck of it, we can set an alarm when shields reach a certain level, why not trigger a booster as well?
Make mission running much more practical, since it also is something you couldn't possibly not want to do.

Let's be clear: PvP often amounts to a conditional checklist of things you obviously want to do.
Remembering to do them at the right time makes ALL the difference.

Otherwise, the part of the game you control ends when you undock in a ship fitted to your specs.
Have your automated pilot file a report when it gets back, heck, maybe even let you hear the play by play as the action happens.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#30 - 2015-01-06 14:27:54 UTC
Kakuzo Noud wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:

There is a reason why you wouldn't turn on the DCU though... not being at your keyboard. DCU on autopilot is too much. Active to counteract that is a good enough reason to keep it as is


Based on your logic, a shield extender, plates and appropriate rigs should also be active modules, or turned off during auto-pilot...

Why don't we have at least batch operations?

Set certain modules to react to a 'Red Alert' button being toggled on.
(All defensive modules active, weapons loaded, targeting and sensor boosters active)

The flip side, perhaps, could be enhanced travel and sensor abilities due to the greater cap being available, as well as the shields and other functions not interfering with sensor readings.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2015-01-06 14:33:54 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Let me get this straight:

The idea that something you would obviously want to do, being grounds for making it automatic...
I have doubts that you seriously thought that logic through.

It may be one step, but that makes any active defense enhancer being flagged as passive one step closer to reality as well.

And just for the heck of it, we can set an alarm when shields reach a certain level, why not trigger a booster as well?
Make mission running much more practical, since it also is something you couldn't possibly not want to do.

Let's be clear: PvP often amounts to a conditional checklist of things you obviously want to do.
Remembering to do them at the right time makes ALL the difference.

Otherwise, the part of the game you control ends when you undock in a ship fitted to your specs.
Have your automated pilot file a report when it gets back, heck, maybe even let you hear the play by play as the action happens.


A case for hardners can be made where you would want them off so you can overload them at will without waiting the remaining cycle. They also have a somewhat relevant cap cost attached to running them.

I don't think they or a DCU should be passive but there are some difference between the two type still.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#32 - 2015-01-06 14:40:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Let me get this straight:

The idea that something you would obviously want to do, being grounds for making it automatic...
Yes. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether specific examples of automation are a good idea in EVE, in general anything which you would never not want to do should be automated. If, when you have finished automating, what is left is not a very good game, then it was not a very good game in the first place.

And being able to set modules to automatically activate in certain conditions doesn't sound like a terrible idea either. I mean, we already have automatic repeat cycling and reloading. By your logic these should be removed, as frantic mindless button mashing is the core of EVE PvP.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Ratchet Conway
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2015-01-06 14:46:55 UTC
Foxicity wrote:
Swing the nerf-bat the other direction and reduce the effects of the DCU. It's a "no-brainer" on nearly all PVP buffer fits, and EVE prides itself on having very few "no-brainers".



I'm on your side, DCU should be removed. It's a requirement on all ships that expect to take damage and removes creativity from fitting. If anything it needs a nerf.

I'm not sure what problem it was addressing in the first place, I guess people were dieing too fast? Not the way I'd handle it, but w/e. --One could argue it was for industrial/mining fits, but if so, this could be limited to those ships like Interdiction Probes.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#34 - 2015-01-06 14:58:40 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Let me get this straight:

The idea that something you would obviously want to do, being grounds for making it automatic...
Yes. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether specific examples of automation are a good idea in EVE, in general anything which you would never not want to do should be automated. If, when you have finished automating, what is left is not a very good game, then it was not a very good game in the first place.

And being able to set modules to automatically activate in certain conditions doesn't sound like a terrible idea either. I mean, we already have automatic repeat cycling and reloading. By your logic these should be removed, as frantic mindless button mashing is the core of EVE PvP.

Not at all, and I think you are perfectly aware that you are extending the logic well past it's intended limit.

I am pointing out, that it is player skill, not character skill alone, that should have the greatest impact on the results we get.

Player skill is obviously a part of choosing the ship hull, and then placing the right combination of modules onto it.

But what about after you undock? What should we be competing with, after we get to the point where ships meet in open space?

Just a race to see who locks, set's a course or orbit, and starts firing their weapons?
We already turned fleet fights into a game of 'Simon says...', is this going to be reduced to a lowest common denominator as well?

I fully agree batch operations are acceptable, even logical, but let's not simply eliminate player input for so-called obvious choices completely.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#35 - 2015-01-06 15:02:44 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Not at all, and I think you are perfectly aware that you are extending the logic well past it's intended limit.
Yes, to illustrate the fault.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
I am pointing out, that it is player skill, not character skill alone, that should have the greatest impact on the results we get.
If you define skill as remembering to press a button.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
But what about after you undock? What should we be competing with, after we get to the point where ships meet in open space?
Superior decision making.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
I fully agree batch operations are acceptable, even logical, but let's not simply eliminate player input for so-called obvious choices completely.
As I said, I'm not saying we should remove it, merely that if the game would be empty without it, then the game is already empty and is hiding it behind module whack-a-mole.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2015-01-06 15:09:22 UTC
As others have stated, it was originally meant to be passive but they made it active as a workaround to prevent the use of more than one. This old workaround has remained to today and since has developed a few new playstyles as shrewd players have taken advantage of its unique attributes.

Making it passive wouldn't break the game in any way, but would change it. Whether or not we want that change is really a question of which way we like the game better. I have a hunch CCP is pretty happy with the DC module where it is, because of the way players have altered its impact on the game. Players have created new content from it, and if we take away its uniquity, we take away that content. And CCP loves player-made content.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#37 - 2015-01-06 15:28:36 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
Nikk Narrel : Not at all, and I think you are perfectly aware that you are extending the logic well past it's intended limit.
Yes, to illustrate the fault.

Any point taken past it's intended limit is flawed.
The obvious counter argument about automating play is already addressed by the EULA, and the recent changes to rules about ISBoxer.

Over-extending a concept is a straw-man argument, and therefore proves nothing.

Crumplecorn wrote:
Nikk Narrel : I am pointing out, that it is player skill, not character skill alone, that should have the greatest impact on the results we get.
If you define skill as remembering to press a button.

The skill is referred to as attention to detail, or simply memory.

Considering the nature of the game controls, your objection seems to be more along the terms of having too many buttons to push.
Hence, my suggestion to enable batch operations.
(Like grouping weapons, you would need to configure which items were involved into a batch, granting more creative options in the pre planning stage instead of the heat of the moment itself of a fight)

Crumplecorn wrote:
Nikk Narrel : But what about after you undock? What should we be competing with, after we get to the point where ships meet in open space?
Superior decision making.

Deciding to remember details is a very human element, which many players have different levels of ability to do.
We forget, especially if we do not make an effort to remember when the heat is on us.

Even saying this, I agree with you up to a point. We should not be trying to recall an entire checklist.
Again, a batch operation makes sense to me here.

Crumplecorn wrote:
Nikk Narrel : I fully agree batch operations are acceptable, even logical, but let's not simply eliminate player input for so-called obvious choices completely.
As I said, I'm not saying we should remove it, merely that if the game would be empty without it, then the game is already empty and is hiding it behind module whack-a-mole.

Whether the game has genuine play value is a different topic.

Whether you need to remember one defense aspect, or 6, is a quality issue I believe. In the heat of battle, I would be happy hitting a red alert button and then going straight to the fighting tactics themselves.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#38 - 2015-01-06 15:43:05 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Over-extending a concept is a straw-man argument, and therefore proves nothing.
No. If having no-brainers to remember to do adds to the game, having more no-brainers to remember should add even more to the game.


Nikk Narrel wrote:
The skill is referred to as attention to detail, or simply memory.
Granted, memory is in some sense a skill. But my point is that if reducing the memory requirement slightly is such a big loss, there must not be much else to the game.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Considering the nature of the game controls, your objection seems to be more along the terms of having too many buttons to push.
I have no issue with the game as it currently is. I'm just discussing ideas.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Deciding to remember details is a very human element, which many players have different levels of ability to do.
We forget, especially if we do not make an effort to remember when the heat is on us.
Being able to pay attention to details under pressure is important, but I think EVE has plenty of important interesting details that need tracking in combat that make remembering to push a button at the start of a fight an inconsequential component.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Whether the game has genuine play value is a different topic.
Then that's the topic I'm trying to get to, to some extent. I think EVE has far more important components than remembering to press a button, and plenty of justifications other than a simple memory test for most modules not being passive or automated, so a memory test is a poor defense of the existing setup.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Previous page12