These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#81 - 2012-12-06 20:08:44 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
wtf you on?
you know it takes 60-120 seconds to disappear after logging off regardless of what you have or dont have turned on right?
and that's not counting any timers you may have.

Sorry, but you are as wrong as wrong can be. There is now a "safe log-off" feature in eve, which, when activated counts down from 30, and at 0 your ship is gone from space. If any mod is active, you cant do this, so if your DC just started a cycle, you have to wait for it to deactivate, then hit safe log-off, making it 60 seconds, insted of 30.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-12-06 20:09:11 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
wtf you on?
you know it takes 60-120 seconds to disappear after logging off regardless of what you have or dont have turned on right?
and that's not counting any timers you may have.

He's referring to the fact that you can't safe logoff when you have active modules, so in order to log off safely you have to wait up to 30 seconds for the DC2 to deactivate.
Of course if you were actually using the DC2 instead of turning it on all the time for no reason at all, you'll have a 5 or 15 minute logoff timer anyway, so this is a moot point. Don't turn the DC2 on until you need it, problem solved.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Doddy
Excidium.
#83 - 2012-12-06 20:11:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
I think there is a logical fallacy involved here.
Not really. ECCM, hardeners, sebos, TCs and the like all match those reasons for why you want DCs to be passive: they're an annoyance to turn on every time; it's not like there's a good reason to have them off.

Quote:
How about we make all passive mods (ALL mods, shield extenders, etc etc) active, and they have a 30 sec timer and cost 1 cap. That must be great, yeah?
No. They all have penalties, limitations, and requirements that make up for their passive status. So really, the question should rather be: if the DC was made passive, how do you propose to nerf it to make up for this improvement?


See if they said "lets have an additional, passive damage control that is less powewrful to bring it in line with other mods" it would make far more sense than "dc should be passive cos i don't like having to repeatedly turn it on with my ocd", or "dc should be passive because tuxford (who obviously was always right ...) once thought that would be a good idea back when eve was a completely different game".
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#84 - 2012-12-06 20:12:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Not really. ECCM, hardeners, sebos, TCs and the like all match those reasons for why you want DCs to be passive: they're an annoyance to turn on every time; it's not like there's a good reason to have them off. So why should they stay active and not DCs?

They all have "comparable" modules which are passive. They also use up "a lot" of cap, compared to the DC.

Tippia wrote:
No. They all have penalties, limitations, and requirements that make up for their passive status. So really, the question should rather be: if the DC was made passive, how do you propose to nerf it to make up for this improvement?

I think rather, since this was supposed to be passive in the first place, add another module which is all so slightly more powerful? Maybe with 2-3 % more resist to shield or armor or both?

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Doddy
Excidium.
#85 - 2012-12-06 20:13:15 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
wtf you on?
you know it takes 60-120 seconds to disappear after logging off regardless of what you have or dont have turned on right?
and that's not counting any timers you may have.


This is the fundamental point. the number of people repeating some nonsense about "waiting for a mod to turn off before logging" is ridiculous.


Quoting my own failure so others don't have to.
Doddy
Excidium.
#86 - 2012-12-06 20:15:29 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Not really. ECCM, hardeners, sebos, TCs and the like all match those reasons for why you want DCs to be passive: they're an annoyance to turn on every time; it's not like there's a good reason to have them off. So why should they stay active and not DCs?

They all have "comparable" modules which are passive. They also use up "a lot" of cap, compared to the DC.

Tippia wrote:
No. They all have penalties, limitations, and requirements that make up for their passive status. So really, the question should rather be: if the DC was made passive, how do you propose to nerf it to make up for this improvement?

I think rather, since this was supposed to be passive in the first place, add another module which is all so slightly more powerful? Maybe with 2-3 % more resist to shield or armor or both?


The entire game has been repeatedly rebalanced since "what it was supposed to be" was envisioned. Including a 100% hp buff unless i am mistaken (idk when your quote is from exactly)
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#87 - 2012-12-06 20:18:03 UTC
Doddy wrote:

The entire game has been repeatedly rebalanced since "what it was supposed to be" was envisioned. Including a 100% hp buff unless i am mistaken (idk when your quote is from exactly)

So it's about time they rebalance the DC too then. For all I care it could well become an active module, but make it a "true" active module then, 10 cap, 10 sec cycle, or make it passive all together. The way it is now makes no sense at all.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#88 - 2012-12-06 20:18:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Hannott Thanos wrote:
They all have "comparable" modules which are passive.
No. They all have much less capable or much more costly modules that are passive. There's the difference.

Quote:
I think rather, since this was supposed to be passive in the first place, add another module which is all so slightly more powerful?
Power creep is bad. If you want a lazy-man's DC, ask for one that does what you'd expect a passive module to do: less or the same at a higher cost.

Since “the first place” happened before the current game balance was put in place, it is not a good target to aim for.

Quote:
So it's about time they rebalance the DC too then.
Why? What's wrong with the way it's balanced?
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#89 - 2012-12-06 20:22:59 UTC
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#90 - 2012-12-06 20:26:57 UTC
DC should quite obviously be a passive module. The test of whether a module should be passive or not is if there is any point in having the module switched off. I dont think anyone thinks it is better switch off the DC to save cap do they.

As for the argument that it is some kind of an elite skill to click a module on everytime,,, really? Using that failed logic why dont we also say you have to switch on every module; shield extenders, armor plates, signal amplifiers? Why not even say you have to deactivate the cloak manually and go through the engine start up process when moving away from the gate also, that would make the game even more elite and special right?
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#91 - 2012-12-06 20:29:24 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
I know this module was supposed to be passive from the beginning, and now with the safe logoff it really needs to happen. If you have the DC active, you basically have a 30-60 sec logoff because it has such a long cycle time.

Edit: I'll make a short for/against list here

For:
- It's basically always on anyway
- It's more or less impossible to neut off, and if that happens, it only cost 1 cap to reactivate
- It's a hassle to turn it on all the time (depends on point of view I guess)
- It up to doubles the safe log-off time in space
- It was supposed to be passive to begin with (quote CCP Tuxford)
- You don't have to undock to check EHP. loleftnoob

Against:
- It gives a lot of resistance across the board
- It's not such a hassle to turn it on (depends on point of view I guess)
- Idiots can forget to switch it on = comedy


I aggree with OP but dont expect alot of support from the basement dwelling trolls that frequent these forums they just love to argue.

Having this item passive seems like a no brainer.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#92 - 2012-12-06 20:31:45 UTC
was going to say in before Tippia but I couldnt beat the queen of contrary.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2012-12-06 20:33:22 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
was going to say in before Tippia but I couldnt beat the queen of contrary.

I don't always agree with Tippia but in no way does he/she qualify as a troll.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#94 - 2012-12-06 20:33:55 UTC
CCP Tomb wrote:
we changed the functionality of damage controls

Anyone remember the exact specifics of what the previous version was?

It appears that multiple damage controls were being used and it was deemed over powered. Thus they decided to limit it to only allow one to be fit and were forced to make it an active module to achieve that goal. But in order to function as close as possible to a passive module they gave it the long cycle time and using 1 unit of capacitor.

Or maybe I'm seeing what I want to see. Anyone have any previous stats and functionality? TUXFOOOOOOOOOORD!
Doddy
Excidium.
#95 - 2012-12-06 20:34:10 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much? Or maybe you only stay in one system ever, and never jump? It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary. If a pilot forgets to activate it, he would have lost the fight none the less imo.


You don't need to turn it on every system, you only need to turn it on when you are going to get shot. You don't need to turn hardeners on every system either. An inactive dc can easily lose fights in these days of logi fights (where if a ship lives 5-10 secs he will tank) and if you are flying a frig for example its quite common for it to be neuted off..

I can see where you are coming from with the safe log out thing, i didn't know about that. Still if 30 secs is an issue and you have no timer just log off normally, all you are losing is ultra ultra super certainty and tbh that is boring and a stupid change anyway (when has eve ever been about ultra ultra super certainty).
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2012-12-06 20:36:22 UTC
I think Damage Controls should just be removed from the game entirely. They seem rather arbitrary. Like they were created as a filler item to entice people to use them instead of something else that has a real purpose in the low slot.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#97 - 2012-12-06 20:39:19 UTC  |  Edited by: E-2C Hawkeye
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
was going to say in before Tippia but I couldnt beat the queen of contrary.

I don't always agree with Tippia but in no way does he/she qualify as a troll.

Didnt say he/she was a troll I said contrary. If Tippia isint a women he/she should be. Just like my wife will argue a point just for the sake of arguing and always has to try and get the last word in. Tippia seems to have a good understanding of the game but will never admit to being wrong.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#98 - 2012-12-06 20:39:34 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Do you really find it that much of a reward, having to activate this module so much?
I think that a
13% / 15% / 60% damage resistance is a pretty huge reward, yes.

Quote:
It's an extra click, and it's unnecessary.
Only in the sense that it's a click that is often not needed, same as with all other active modules. Beyond that, it's a click that can mean the difference between life and death — hardly unnecessary.

Emu Meo wrote:
DC should quite obviously be a passive module. The test of whether a module should be passive or not is if there is any point in having the module switched off.
There is a point in that it can be switched off: it makes the ship much weaker (especially when the ship least needs that to happen).

Quote:
As for the argument that it is some kind of an elite skill to click a module on everytime,,, really?
The only one making that argument is the OP. Apparently, the heroic effort required is nigh unbearable.
Doddy
Excidium.
#99 - 2012-12-06 20:43:48 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP Tomb wrote:
we changed the functionality of damage controls

Anyone remember the exact specifics of what the previous version was?

It appears that multiple damage controls were being used and it was deemed over powered. Thus they decided to limit it to only allow one to be fit and were forced to make it an active module to achieve that goal. But in order to function as close as possible to a passive module they gave it the long cycle time and using 1 unit of capacitor.

Or maybe I'm seeing what I want to see. Anyone have any previous stats and functionality? TUXFOOOOOOOOOORD!


Wondering that myself since i have been playing since 2003 and can't remember it ever being different, but then maybe i just wasn't using them cos they were crap.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#100 - 2012-12-06 20:52:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:
DC should quite obviously be a passive module. The test of whether a module should be passive or not is if there is any point in having the module switched off.
There is a point in that it can be switched off: it makes the ship much weaker (especially when the ship least needs that to happen).

Quote:
As for the argument that it is some kind of an elite skill to click a module on everytime,,, really?
The only one making that argument is the OP. Apparently, the heroic effort required is nigh unbearable.


Is this a serious argument? If you want the ship to be weak then you shouldn't fit a damage control in the first place.... And the choice between having a weak ship and a strong ship seems like rather a silly choice the game is asking us to make. If you apply logic to the question then there is really little reason to have DC as an active module. But I guess you can come up with any argument for leaving it as such. But as others have said I think the actual module is a little badly implemented and would like to see it reworked someday.