These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Droidster
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#921 - 2016-03-05 22:53:57 UTC
Right, we need to maintain the current suicide ganking "balance".Roll
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#922 - 2016-03-06 08:04:17 UTC
can we get blue DCU too? The price difference will be huge going from green to purple, but that EHP increase looks so good, I would love something inbetween.

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016
Ford Fugger
xXFuggerXx
#923 - 2016-03-06 19:29:34 UTC
Will rats have the base hull resists too?
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#924 - 2016-03-07 04:24:49 UTC
Ford Fugger wrote:
Will rats have the base hull resists too?


I suspect not. There's no reason to buff them in this manner.

Their modules do not behave like the ones we players use for one thing and no NPC that I've ever seen has structure resist above 0%, meaning if they had DCU's they never seem to use them. Ergo they don't seem to use them because they don't have DCU's. I don't even think they have hardeners as their resist tables never change under any circumstances once spawned.

For another thing, this is a move to balancing a module we players use. Buffing rat structure resist would be a general PVE nerf and has nothing to do with CCP's objectives with module tiericide.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#925 - 2016-03-07 04:34:30 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Ford Fugger wrote:
Will rats have the base hull resists too?


I suspect not. There's no reason to buff them in this manner.

Their modules do not behave like the ones we players use for one thing and no NPC that I've ever seen has structure resist above 0%, meaning if they had DCU's they never seem to use them. Ergo they don't seem to use them because they don't have DCU's. I don't even think they have hardeners as their resist tables never change under any circumstances once spawned.

For another thing, this is a move to balancing a module we players use. Buffing rat structure resist would be a general PVE nerf and has nothing to do with CCP's objectives with module tiericide.


You mean like freighters and ganking? Hmm

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#926 - 2016-03-07 08:03:38 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
You mean like freighters and ganking? Hmm
The different being that rats are currently somewhat balanced while gankers are OP. It's not in CCPs best interest to nerf PvE, there's nothing really to gain from it, but reigning in gankers a bit and brining freighter EHP more in line with other capital ships is a positive change.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jin Kugu
Make Luv Not War
Goonswarm Federation
#927 - 2016-03-07 11:37:19 UTC
ISD Max Trix wrote:
I removed some off topic post. This thread is no longer about the DC changes, its back to arguing about Ganking v Anti Ganking again. So I will keep the lock on here for 24.


Maybe that's because the damage control changes are mostly a zero sum game?

The only thing that is changing significantly is ganking so we're going to discuss that.
Cyrek Ohaya
Blazing Sun Group
#928 - 2016-03-07 17:05:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyrek Ohaya
Considering that almost everything from rigs, shield extenders, armor plates and hardeners, etc have a penalty associated with them, it baffles me up to this point that this well sought module has nothing to tax you on except for a low slot.

It just makes you think, a capacitor flux coil with 39% capacitor regeneration but a penalty of 20% less total capacitor makes it "balanced"(for example), but unattractive to use because of an inherent penalty, then do you think players will continue using a Damage control module if a -10% less armor penalty was attached to it? perhaps 20%? Yes, I absolutely think they will.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#929 - 2016-03-07 17:43:49 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
Maybe that's because the damage control changes are mostly a zero sum game?

The only thing that is changing significantly is ganking so we're going to discuss that.
It's not though, so there's that.

Cyrek Ohaya wrote:
Considering that almost everything from rigs, shield extenders, armor plates and hardeners, etc have a penalty associated with them, it baffles me up to this point that this well sought module has nothing to tax you on except for a low slot.

It just makes you think, a capacitor flux coil with 39% capacitor regeneration but a penalty of 20% less total capacitor makes it "balanced"(for example), but unattractive to use because of an inherent penalty, then do you think players will continue using a Damage control module if a -10% less armor penalty was attached to it? perhaps 20%? Yes, I absolutely think they will.
Agreed that would reduce the use further, but the problem they have is that the DC is already in heavy use, and if they cripple it too much they run the risk of throwing the ships that can but don't use it out of balance with the ones that do, as it would only be punishing the latter. I think they are being deliberately light footed in the approach to this to avoid too much of an issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see more changes down the line if use stats don't drop the amount they are aiming for.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#930 - 2016-03-07 20:12:51 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:


I suspect not. There's no reason to buff them in this manner.

Their modules do not behave like the ones we players use for one thing and no NPC that I've ever seen has structure resist above 0%, meaning if they had DCU's they never seem to use them. Ergo they don't seem to use them because they don't have DCU's. I don't even think they have hardeners as their resist tables never change under any circumstances once spawned.

For another thing, this is a move to balancing a module we players use. Buffing rat structure resist would be a general PVE nerf and has nothing to do with CCP's objectives with module tiericide.

Rats don't use modules. They have fake scripted behaviour instead. So they don't actually use their capacitor at all, and it's why quite a few modules don't actually work on rats, because they are scripted hard coded objects.
Quinten Sarn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#931 - 2016-03-08 16:46:13 UTC
my main issue with these changes is that you're effectively nerfing a lot of cpu tight fits, especially on frigates, because previously we had the 17CPU IFFA and now we'll only be getting a 20cpu variant. most of the frigs i use, especially minmatar and amarr, only fit by 0.1-1 cpu, and these changes might mess up a lot of nice fits that have been thought of over the years. I'd like to add that overall these are good changes in my opinion, just somewhat of a nuisance in certain aspects.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#932 - 2016-03-08 19:31:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jin Kugu wrote:
Maybe that's because the damage control changes are mostly a zero sum game?

The only thing that is changing significantly is ganking so we're going to discuss that.
It's not though, so there's that.


Its about the only thing that's changing. DCU will still be used on every ship that currently fits them with the same end result, the biggest change is to ganking simply because the freighters are getting a massive boost in EHP.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#933 - 2016-03-08 21:16:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jin Kugu wrote:
Maybe that's because the damage control changes are mostly a zero sum game?

The only thing that is changing significantly is ganking so we're going to discuss that.
It's not though, so there's that.


Its about the only thing that's changing. DCU will still be used on every ship that currently fits them with the same end result, the biggest change is to ganking simply because the freighters are getting a massive boost in EHP.

Except the fitting requirements are increased significantly (including the other changes), hence a lot of fits won't work anymore ...

I'm my own NPC alt.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#934 - 2016-03-08 22:28:29 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jin Kugu wrote:
Maybe that's because the damage control changes are mostly a zero sum game?

The only thing that is changing significantly is ganking so we're going to discuss that.
It's not though, so there's that.


Its about the only thing that's changing. DCU will still be used on every ship that currently fits them with the same end result, the biggest change is to ganking simply because the freighters are getting a massive boost in EHP.

Except the fitting requirements are increased significantly (including the other changes), hence a lot of fits won't work anymore ...

Fitting requirements for what have changed?
T2 still has the same fitting and attributes.
Meta 4 is the only loss but can be replaced with the Radical, which now has the same attributes as T2 for half the CPU.

Pretty much all fits that work now will work tomorrow, they just may cost a bit more for the meta DCU fits.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#935 - 2016-03-08 23:04:10 UTC
Just a bit confused on the whole DC thing.

Mainly because of the graph in the OP.

The problem is DC seems to be divided into two major variants.

The first line of DCs starts with Basic Damage Control.
The second line of DCs starts with Damage Control I.

The Basic variation list was basically all weaker and needed tiericide. But what happens to the modules not listed?

Basic Damage Control
F84 Local Damage System
GLFF Containment Field
Interior Force Field Array
Systematic Damage Control

Damage Control I
Emergency Damage Control
F85 Peripheral Damage System I
Pseudoelectron Containment Field i
Internal Force Field Array

The bold modules are not listed in the graphic. Are they being removed entirely or renamed?

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#936 - 2016-03-09 00:39:37 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jin Kugu wrote:
Maybe that's because the damage control changes are mostly a zero sum game?

The only thing that is changing significantly is ganking so we're going to discuss that.
It's not though, so there's that.


Its about the only thing that's changing. DCU will still be used on every ship that currently fits them with the same end result, the biggest change is to ganking simply because the freighters are getting a massive boost in EHP.

Except the fitting requirements are increased significantly (including the other changes), hence a lot of fits won't work anymore ...


If you cant fit the IFFA and absolutely need that 3 CPU you lost then you can get that CPU back by replacing your point with the civilian warp scrambler. I'm doing that with my bomber fit as it allows me to squeeze either a bomb launcher on or upgrade to t2 torps.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#937 - 2016-03-09 01:19:55 UTC
Iria Ahrens wrote:
Just a bit confused on the whole DC thing.

Mainly because of the graph in the OP.

The problem is DC seems to be divided into two major variants.

The first line of DCs starts with Basic Damage Control.
The second line of DCs starts with Damage Control I.

The Basic variation list was basically all weaker and needed tiericide. But what happens to the modules not listed?

Basic Damage Control
F84 Local Damage System
GLFF Containment Field
Interior Force Field Array
Systematic Damage Control

Damage Control I
Emergency Damage Control
F85 Peripheral Damage System I
Pseudoelectron Containment Field i
Internal Force Field Array

The bold modules are not listed in the graphic. Are they being removed entirely or renamed?
Going by whats on the test server the "unlisted" modules have been absorbed into the new modules. I had a few dozen Internal force field arrays (they were a good investment for those not quite enough cpu fits), which are now IFFA.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Seth Kanan
Virgins of Santa Maria
SONS of BANE
#938 - 2016-03-09 09:50:54 UTC
I like the changes a lot. The buff to freighters is needed since it became a lot easier and cheaper to maintain ganking alts with the skill extractor system. I would also like to see a counterplay for freighter-pilots who are actively piloting in highsec. It became ridiculously easy to gank and there is no way to fight back or to escape.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#939 - 2016-03-09 11:05:54 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Seth Kanan wrote:
I like the changes a lot. The buff to freighters is needed since it became a lot easier and cheaper to maintain ganking alts with the skill extractor system.


I don't see how that helps gankers any more than anyone else.

Seth Kanan wrote:

I would also like to see a counterplay for freighter-pilots who are actively piloting in highsec. It became ridiculously easy to gank and there is no way to fight back or to escape.


There are a lot of mods, skills and tactics already available that will reduce your chance of being ganked to 0.1% over 2.7 million jumps.

In the end, this is a change that is supposed to reduce the "must have" need of the DCU on almost every ship fit out there. This change doesn't do that, every ship that fits a DCU will still want to fit a DCU. The byproduct of buffing the hull on every ship is also going to have a huge impact on freighters which don't need such a huge buff to their tank. Its a bad change that does nothing to fix the problem its supposed to fix and impacts a totally different area greatly.

If CCP want to reduce the need to fit a DCU then they have to attack the shield and armour bonuses not the structure bonus.
Santo Trafficante
Kira Inc.
#940 - 2016-03-09 12:26:02 UTC
<<< Nerfed