These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
QuickSwipe Collier
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2016-02-11 21:44:37 UTC
I do hope you are taking the appropriate steps to ensure that the overall EHP of freighters does not increase via a minor buffer reduction on hull, otherwise you risk a further nerf to hisec ganking which as we all know is already difficult enough as it is. Gankers have managed fine on dealing with 500 EHP wrecks, though the occasional troll thrasher is indeed annoying it isin't game changing. But increasing the hull buffer would be very skewed in favor of nerfing ganking. If you are going to buff freighters at least give the tornado a rate of fire bonus so a 3% hardwire would get 2 volleys off in a .9 system, that would be fair
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#62 - 2016-02-11 21:57:38 UTC
FW LP store DCU, did you not make it to the list!?

JUSTK is recruiting
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#63 - 2016-02-11 22:00:47 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
FW LP store DCU, did you not make it to the list!?




Now there's a good point.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Harkin Issier
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2016-02-11 22:01:42 UTC
There is no longer a meta DCU which costs less than 20 CPU. This is excessively harsh in my opinion. I think the "Compact" version should cost 17 CPU, especially considering it's significantly less effective than the current Internal Force Field Array I.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#65 - 2016-02-11 22:07:01 UTC
I didn't think you'd go this far with changing damage controls, but I have to say these are some excellent changes. Making DCs passive was something I was always hoping would happen and opens up a lot of interesting new options when fitting transport ships for high sec.

Also increasing the base hull resists and lowering DC resists was a great move. This is a massive change in respect to ship fitting. As a result I am going to have to re-evaluate pretty much every one of my fittings.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2016-02-11 22:07:24 UTC
This is too much, it makes things more even, buffs careless pilots, reduce room for piloting mistakes ... and what about neuts? You can't shut down a passive module with neuts! What?

This is a huge buff to the defense side of the game without proper compensation on the offense (DPS buff).

I'm my own NPC alt.
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
#67 - 2016-02-11 22:09:29 UTC
Freighter hp buff...probably not as important as fixing bump-tackling so that it as risky as module-tackling. I'm sure some freighter pilots will be happy to have more HP, although it will just mean that the costs for the gankers go up slightly but their tactics, and the "ease" of ganking won't significantly change.

Once consequence-free bump-tackling gets fixed we'll see more interaction opportunities. Maybe once bump-tacklers stop being protected by concord we'll see groups of people getting together to hunt bumpers. Perhaps gankers will use cheaper ships to bump, but more bumpers. Perhaps gankers will still risk expensive machariels, but sometimes we'll see machariel kills.

Fixing consequence-free bump-tackling will have a better impact on player interaction than this freighter HP buff.

Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck

Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.

Structure name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#68 - 2016-02-11 22:11:16 UTC
Messenger Of Truth wrote:
Freighter hp buff...probably not as important as fixing bump-tackling so that it as risky as module-tackling. I'm sure some freighter pilots will be happy to have more HP, although it will just mean that the costs for the gankers go up slightly but their tactics, and the "ease" of ganking won't significantly change.

Once consequence-free bump-tackling gets fixed we'll see more interaction opportunities. Maybe once bump-tacklers stop being protected by concord we'll see groups of people getting together to hunt bumpers. Perhaps gankers will use cheaper ships to bump, but more bumpers. Perhaps gankers will still risk expensive machariels, but sometimes we'll see machariel kills.

Fixing consequence-free bump-tackling will have a better impact on player interaction than this freighter HP buff.



+1
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#69 - 2016-02-11 22:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now.

I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits as long as the ship can handle the capacitor drain.

Adding in variations of RHs would be nice, it is about time we had a T2 version.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#70 - 2016-02-11 22:21:51 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now.

I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits as long as the ship can handle the capacitor drain.

Adding in variations of RHs would be nice, it is about time we had a T2 version.




ENAM would be better than a reactive hardener. Since the RH adjusts each cycle to damage taken during the previous cycle. Really only works if you're taking constant consistent damage, so pve mainly. ENAM gives you that nice, reliable, flat bonus with the same fitting requirements as a DCII.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#71 - 2016-02-11 22:32:10 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now.

I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits as long as the ship can handle the capacitor drain.

Adding in variations of RHs would be nice, it is about time we had a T2 version.




ENAM would be better than a reactive hardener. Since the RH adjusts each cycle to damage taken during the previous cycle. Really only works if you're taking constant consistent damage, so pve mainly. ENAM gives you that nice, reliable, flat bonus with the same fitting requirements as a DCII.

A RH is superior to an EANM after the second EANM. So it only takes 3 slots now instead of 4 before a RH becomes viable.
exiik Shardani
Imperial Spacedrill and Logistics
#72 - 2016-02-11 22:33:33 UTC
please buff loot from all anomalies and missions, because now worth DC, neuts,web,scram and few other modules have very low price...

profit from looting going to be much reduced... Sad

sry for my English :-(
Sugilite
Perkone
Caldari State
#73 - 2016-02-11 22:50:04 UTC
Keep it an active module. One that can potentially be turned off by neuts or forgotten about after jumping thru a gate (totally didn't notice someone turned mine off the other day, d'oh.) It's interesting at least the one trank module you have to sort of pay attention to in a buffer tank.

Or is the goal to make it a better EANM that's required on everything?
El Space Mariachi
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#74 - 2016-02-11 22:56:24 UTC  |  Edited by: El Space Mariachi
really though I like the idea of an EHP nerf from damage controls but I question the wisdom of the flat 33% hull resist to compensate. Ship EHP creep is already a problem in this game if you ask me and I'd rather see DCUs - and all resist modules - have their efficacy reduced rather than just their importance. This is a not insignificant stealth buff to armour ships in some ways (and they don't really need one) due to DCUs being effectively less useful, freeing up a slot for an armor EHP module and increasing useable buffer, while shield ships remain more reliant on a DCU. Many popular doctrine fits already did this and so they gain a much-unneeded (minor) EHP boost from this with no drawbacks.

This slew of (useful) drone officer modules is a good call though and may validate the existence of drone officers more, which is good.

gay gamers for jesus
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#75 - 2016-02-11 22:56:38 UTC
damn, obelisk goes from 367k to 447k ehp. With just 3 bulkheads.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#76 - 2016-02-11 22:58:58 UTC
Rowells wrote:
damn, obelisk goes from 367k to 447k ehp. With just 3 bulkheads.



I'm pretty sure JF's clear 800k ehp with 3x bulkheads.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#77 - 2016-02-11 23:02:24 UTC
Rowells wrote:
damn, obelisk goes from 367k to 447k ehp. With just 3 bulkheads.


You're bad at maths, it's 367k to 501k (omni but the increase is the same for all damage types). 33% resistances means a 50% ehp increase.
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#78 - 2016-02-11 23:03:13 UTC
as will freighters continue to pop, tho some *effort* may be required in target selection, which imo is a good thing ....
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#79 - 2016-02-11 23:04:46 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
as will freighters continue to pop, tho some *effort* may be required in target selection, which imo is a good thing ....


They already select targets.

Again, why do you feel 99.9% safety in highsec while in a freighter is not enough?
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
#80 - 2016-02-11 23:05:12 UTC
0) Why not an Amarr Navy DC control? Amarr FW LP store has no decent wide-spread modules/ships ATM and argurably the worst LP store by wide margin after introduction of RF MSE and buff of RF BCU.

1) Current "compact" DCU is Internal force field array at 17 CPU, why new "compact" is 20?

2) I whould like to see DCU with better fittings than a t2 and better Shield/Armor buff at the cost of hull hp buff.

22-23 CPU is a sweet spot between 17 and 30 (30 is bit too much in my opnion)

enduring DC 15/12.5/35 @ 22 CPU ( t2/t2/"compact for hull hp)