These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Damage Control needs to be passive, now more than ever.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Doddy
Excidium.
#21 - 2012-12-06 15:45:01 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Andski wrote:
If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not.

It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time.


So? You have not given any valid reason why should change other than tuxford first envisioned it that way.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-12-06 15:45:24 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Andski wrote:
If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not.

It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time.


And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#23 - 2012-12-06 15:52:15 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Andski wrote:
If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not.

It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time.


And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons.


I would be curious to know these good reasons.

DC should be passive IMO.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#24 - 2012-12-06 15:52:29 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Andski wrote:
If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not.

It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time.


And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons.


TBH, they've probably left it that way because changing it to fit the original design has an unattractive effort/reward ratio relative to, say, fixing the parts of the game that are seriously in need of repair.

That's a good enough argument for leaving it as is, at least until more pressing concerns are addressed.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Doddy
Excidium.
#25 - 2012-12-06 15:56:00 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Andski wrote:
If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not.

It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time.


And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons.


I would be curious to know these good reasons.

DC should be passive IMO.


Why? Passive DC makes literally no sense.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#26 - 2012-12-06 16:45:46 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Andski wrote:
If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not.

It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time.


And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons.


I would be curious to know these good reasons.

DC should be passive IMO.


Why? Passive DC makes literally no sense.

Except that it's a module you literally never want to turn off, you have to turn it on every damn time you jump, it's more or less impossible to shut if off with neuts because of 1 cap use and like I quoted, it was supposed to be passive to begin with. Oh and it makes it possible to see EHP in station

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2012-12-06 16:47:46 UTC
it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2012-12-06 16:48:48 UTC
everyone wanting it passive is an empire afker, basically

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#29 - 2012-12-06 16:53:33 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay

Vast numbers he says. List them, he does not.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#30 - 2012-12-06 16:55:33 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay

Vast numbers he says. List them, he does not.

And yet your sole reason for making them passive is because you either can't remember or are too lazy to turn it off (along with any other modules you may be running) before you log off.

Really?!? Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-12-06 17:01:38 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay

Vast numbers he says. List them, he does not.


the fact that it boosts resistances across the board, for instance

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#32 - 2012-12-06 17:02:29 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay

Vast numbers he says. List them, he does not.

And yet your sole reason for making them passive is because you either can't remember or are too lazy to turn it off (along with any other modules you may be running) before you log off.

Really?!? Smile

read my post 4 post up maybe?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#33 - 2012-12-06 17:03:01 UTC
Andski wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay

Vast numbers he says. List them, he does not.


the fact that it boosts resistances across the board, for instance

Yes. So does every other passive hardener, and even active ones with skills too. Your point being?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-12-06 17:04:09 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Except that it's a module you literally never want to turn off, you have to turn it on every damn time you jump, it's more or less impossible to shut if off with neuts because of 1 cap use and like I quoted, it was supposed to be passive to begin with. Oh and it makes it possible to see EHP in station


gee based on your convincing arguments here let's make all hardeners passive

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-12-06 17:06:24 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
everyone wanting it passive is an empire afker, basically

are you ready to put on your shield extenders every time? Is it ok to them to be passive?
what about armor plates, signal amplifiers, overdrive injectors?

DIRTY 0.0 AFKER! Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#36 - 2012-12-06 17:06:25 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay

Vast numbers he says. List them, he does not.

And yet your sole reason for making them passive is because you either can't remember or are too lazy to turn it off (along with any other modules you may be running) before you log off.

Really?!? Smile

read my post 4 post up maybe?

I read them, so did everyone else. "Most" of your reasons could be applied equally well to most active defensive modules in the game.

Look we are trying to be polite here (for a change) but this is more than a little ridiculous ... not to mention trivial.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-12-06 17:06:59 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Yes. So does every other passive hardener, and even active ones with skills too. Your point being?


no they don't

all the passive hardeners are amplified by compensation skills and they only boost a single resistance, or in the case of EANMs, only armor resistances

unlike passive hardeners, the DC does not require compensation skills or literally anything other than the skill required to use it to be at its peak effectiveness, and it boosts /all/ resistances, not just hull

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#38 - 2012-12-06 17:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
Ranger 1 wrote:

I read them, so did everyone else. "Most" of your reasons could be applied equally well to most active defensive modules in the game.

Look we are trying to be polite here (for a change) but this is more than a little ridiculous ... not to mention trivial.

I guess it's a matter of opinion. But by your definition of my definition(?), DC should have some resist applied to the ship when it is inactive?

Edit, many things are trivial. They are usually posted in the little things thread, and those things make eve oh so much better :)

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-12-06 17:09:34 UTC
oh and training a category of compensation skills to 5 takes as long as training a battleship 5 so don't compare damage controls to max-skilled EANMs

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#40 - 2012-12-06 17:11:16 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I read them, so did everyone else. "Most" of your reasons could be applied equally well to most active defensive modules in the game.

Look we are trying to be polite here (for a change) but this is more than a little ridiculous ... not to mention trivial.

I guess it's a matter of opinion. But by your definition of my definition(?), DC should have some resist applied to the ship when it is inactive?

I think it works perfectly well just as it is.

I think the simplist solution is simply to start remembering to turn it off when you plan to log off, instead of trying to make the game compensate for your forgetfulness. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.