These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
soliketotallydude
Doomheim
#881 - 2016-03-02 11:03:05 UTC
What is the pricing on the Syndicate damage controls in the syndicate LP stores going to be, and will they be available as 5-run BPCs like other hardeners or just as the finished module?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#882 - 2016-03-02 11:03:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
baltec1 wrote:

Ok so I'm getting 13% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure on the DCU II. Combined with the buff to the hull its nets me 61% structure resists.

CCP buffed the DCU, its more of a must have mod now than ever.

That is what I said. Please stop trying to attribute an argument to me that I never made.

Except it's NOT A BUFF.
Because the old DCU gave 13% to shields, 15% to armour and 60% to hull. And if we still had the old DCU with the hull resist buff you would be getting 73.6% Hull resists.
So NERF! The base hull resist change is a separate change from the DCU stats, so you can't roll the two into one and claim the module has been buffed.
Seriously, you are outright lying or have turned into a complete idiot unable to do basic maths in the last week. I'm favouring the former because I really don't think you are that stupid.

And you did move the goalposts because you tried to make it an argument about 'you missed the context' when you specifically were replying to the numbers of the DCU itself. So you are lying yet again on that front. I guess you are trying to just throw enough mud that something sticks so you can pretend you were right.

And Morrigan, we know that's your argument, but it's irrelevant, because the DCU is still getting nerfed. It's just not a big nerf. Lucas & I have never said most fits won't change because the Shield & Armour resists are the same. But some fits do use a DCU in order to have some hull buffer. And since the RAH shares it's stacking penalty with the DCU certainly armour can consider a wider range of fits.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#883 - 2016-03-02 12:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Except it's NOT A BUFF.
.


What happens when we fit a DCU

Pre changes 12.5% shields, 15% armour, 60% structure.

Post changes 13% shields, 15% armour, 61% structure.


It doesn't matter that the 34% of the hull comes from the buff to the ship because that is part of this change and you must take that into account in the final result. You cannot just look at the DCU because that is only one part of the picture in a larger change. You are trying to argue a technicality. Yes, the DCU lost 20% to the structure bonus but when you combine the DCU with the added structure resists you come out with slightly better resists when you fit the DCU as opposed to today. Lucas was trying to argue that fitting a DCU post change would not net you the same as what you have today. No goalpsts were moved, you just joined in mid way though Lucas trying to spin his way out of an argument he had lost. The reason for me calling it a buff was because I was expecting the result from fitting a DCU to be 2% less than we see today so yes, the results of fitting a DCU is buffed slightly from what we had before despite the fact they nerfed the DCU by 20% in the structure bonus.

The DCU nerf is a nerf that hasn't really happened, by baking part of the resits into the hulls themselves all CCP has done is buff every ship that either didn't fit or could not fit a DCU. The ships that actually do fit the DCU are going to see at worst no change and at best a slight increase. That is until we get to the faction and officer DCU's which will provide better results than we see today.

So end result of this is nothing changes for any ship that fits a DCU today, ships that dont fit a DCU (pve boats, miners, haulers, specialized pvp ships) they will see a buff of 34% to their structure and ships cant fit the DCU at all will see 34% added. This fails the original goal of making the DCU less of a must have mod.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#884 - 2016-03-02 16:01:27 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Except like I said the hull resists are absolutely NOT EVER why this is fit outside of bullshit snowflake stuff.

IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR
IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR
IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR
IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR
IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR
IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR



Is it clear enough now?
No, because YOU ARE STILL ONLY TALKING ABOUT EHP

Ships have more stats than just that, so yes, if your only objective is to make your EHP as high as possible, the DC is a must have module, but if you aren't only interested in EHP, other modules will now be slightly more reasonable choices as you don;t zero out your hull resist buffer, but gain the benefit of the other modules. A lot of the reason people fit a DCU is because they don't want to instantly pop when they hit their hull, and the DCU makes evaccing in hull a possibility on a wider range of ships. These native resists will now do that, so people who fitted a DCU for that reason alone will certainly look at other options.

baltec1 wrote:
It doesn't matter that the 34% of the hull comes from the buff to the ship
Of course it does when you're considering the appeal of the DCU. The DCU does less therefore has less appeal. No matter what way you spin it, that is the reality.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#885 - 2016-03-02 16:22:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course it does when you're considering the appeal of the DCU. The DCU does less therefore has less appeal. No matter what way you spin it, that is the reality.


The DCU is still the best mod to fit.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#886 - 2016-03-02 16:34:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course it does when you're considering the appeal of the DCU. The DCU does less therefore has less appeal. No matter what way you spin it, that is the reality.
The DCU is still the best mod to fit if you only care about EHP and ignore all other ship stats.
FTFY.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#887 - 2016-03-02 16:37:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
A lot of the reason people fit a DCU is because they don't want to instantly pop when they hit their hull, and the DCU makes evaccing in hull a possibility on a wider range of ships. These native resists will now do that, so people who fitted a DCU for that reason alone will certainly look at other options.


The fact a heap of people clearly have no clue how these things actually work doesn't invalidate it as a must have module. Balancing around stupid people is a bad place to start. You're going to end up with stupid results, like this.

Besides, in every case I checked, the primary tank gain (shield or armor) was greater than the hull gains. I'm sure there are some hilarious snowflake fits where this is not true but it holds for the majority. The smart player is not giving up a DC, ever, for a serious fleet.

And all these geniuses who ditch the DCU, well they're all going to hit hull a hell of a lot faster and the pissant native resists on it is not going to save them.


The correct way to make this change was to hammer the shield and armor resists and do nothing else. Then the module looks less attractive.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#888 - 2016-03-02 16:38:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
FTFY.


As you have been shown many times nothing you can fit in that slot will out preform a DCU. Hence why even you fit them on all of your combat ships.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#889 - 2016-03-02 16:58:21 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
The fact a heap of people clearly have no clue how these things actually work doesn't invalidate it as a must have module. Balancing around stupid people is a bad place to start. You're going to end up with stupid results, like this.

Besides, in every case I checked, the primary tank gain (shield or armor) was greater than the hull gains. I'm sure there are some hilarious snowflake fits where this is not true but it holds for the majority. The smart player is not giving up a DC, ever, for a serious fleet.

And all these geniuses who ditch the DCU, well they're all going to hit hull a hell of a lot faster and the pissant native resists on it is not going to save them.


The correct way to make this change was to hammer the shield and armor resists and do nothing else. Then the module looks less attractive.


Yes. Precisely this. In fact, I'd say you have to seriously nerf the shield resist before it becomes more desirable (or at least debatable) to put on a Power Diagnostic. And for armor, you have to hammer it to the point where it becomes debatable against a second EANM or a reactive. Until you do both of those things, it's still going to be the single-best module to put on your ship.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#890 - 2016-03-02 17:15:18 UTC
Oh, and by the way, passive module? My Blockade Runners are going to love this. My lowslot is ready.
Violet Crumble
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#891 - 2016-03-02 17:28:44 UTC
Just in case Fozzie is still reading this, this Extra Cedits video provides a good explanation of the issue I have with the blanket change, especially the summary statement at the end:

http://youtu.be/ea6UuRTjkKs

In the end, this change reduces challenge for players like me and just becomes more punishing for the players that normally present the challenge I need to plan for.

It's a bad change for both of us, for a module that isn't even relevant to the class of ships I fly most often.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#892 - 2016-03-02 17:45:05 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Besides, in every case I checked, the primary tank gain (shield or armor) was greater than the hull gains. I'm sure there are some hilarious snowflake fits where this is not true but it holds for the majority. The smart player is not giving up a DC, ever, for a serious fleet.
But again, you are still only talking about raw EHP. It's perfectly reasonable that someone wasn't willing to zero off their hull resists to gain some damage, but would be willing to cut them to 34% for the same.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
And all these geniuses who ditch the DCU, well they're all going to hit hull a hell of a lot faster and the pissant native resists on it is not going to save them.
But that doesn't matter, since the point is to act as an emergency buffer. The problem is that ships fit for non-hull tank, armor more often than shield, hit hull and their HP vanishes in an instant before they have time to react. A 33% resist significantly increased that emergency buffer. Up until now you pretty much had to sacrifice a low slot to do that, but now you won't.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
The correct way to make this change was to hammer the shield and armor resists and do nothing else. Then the module looks less attractive.
Except then ships who previously did fit the DCU get crippled, ships that didn't become OP and balance is broken anyway. The idea here isn't to remove the DCU, but just blunt it down just a fraction.

baltec1 wrote:
As you have been shown many times nothing you can fit in that slot will out preform a DCU. Hence why even you fit them on all of your combat ships.
Oh does it now? OK, explain to me how a DCU outperforms an overdrive if I want my ship to go faster. Again, you are only ever looking at EHP. I don't fit a DCU on all my combat ships, far from it, and after this change I'll be removing it from some of my PVE ships too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#893 - 2016-03-02 17:49:03 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Yes. Precisely this. In fact, I'd say you have to seriously nerf the shield resist before it becomes more desirable (or at least debatable) to put on a Power Diagnostic. And for armor, you have to hammer it to the point where it becomes debatable against a second EANM or a reactive. Until you do both of those things, it's still going to be the single-best module to put on your ship.
So you're saying make other modules better than it, thus make it completely useless, and in at the same time totally cripple ships that currently use a DC relative to ships that don't. Good job.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#894 - 2016-03-02 18:13:55 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:
Oh does it now? OK, explain to me how a DCU outperforms an overdrive if I want my ship to go faster. Again, you are only ever looking at EHP. I don't fit a DCU on all my combat ships, far from it, and after this change I'll be removing it from some of my PVE ships too.


PVE ships dont tend to fit them anyway and that overdrive isnt going to help you from having a noticeably weaker tank than any of your enemies in a likewise ship. All that overdrive is going to do is let you piledrive into an enemy faster and then die.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#895 - 2016-03-02 18:18:34 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Yes. Precisely this. In fact, I'd say you have to seriously nerf the shield resist before it becomes more desirable (or at least debatable) to put on a Power Diagnostic. And for armor, you have to hammer it to the point where it becomes debatable against a second EANM or a reactive. Until you do both of those things, it's still going to be the single-best module to put on your ship.
So you're saying make other modules better than it, thus make it completely useless, and in at the same time totally cripple ships that currently use a DC relative to ships that don't. Good job.

Why are you still here? You have no idea what you're blathering on about, and last time I checked you inferred that people having opposing opinions to yours was some sort of conspiracy.

I shouldn't dignify you with a response, because people might mistake that for you having something valuable to add to the discussion and normally worthy of response. But, like an evolution denier with an hour-long infomercial on TV, we can't just let that go unchallenged.

Now with your latest fail, you quoted me saying that the DC should be competitive but not outright better than certain modules, but then you went ahead and accused me of asking for it to be completely useless. Seriously Kell, you have no apparent connection to reality, you can't even remain connected to the very thing you're posting. Quit EvE. Sparing everyone else having to read your posts is possibly the only good thing you can contribute at this point.

In case you also cannot understand what is inferred without being outright said, I'll repeat myself: DCU too powerful for primary defense layers. If the Devs want to actually achieve their goal of making the DCU "Good, but not a must have", then they can't keep DCU stats as strong as they currently are. Hence, nerf shield and armor resists."

There. Now with that having been said three times (original post, twice here now), be gone, don't return until you establish some sort of connection to the real world. Capiche?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#896 - 2016-03-02 19:15:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
PVE ships dont tend to fit them anyway and that overdrive isnt going to help you from having a noticeably weaker tank than any of your enemies in a likewise ship. All that overdrive is going to do is let you piledrive into an enemy faster and then die.
Faster ships always die?

Seriously, the point is that unless you only care about EHP, choices vary, and now will vary slightly more. Every single argument you have about it comes back to "but you have less EHP" which everyone knows but isn't the only factor if you care about other stats too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#897 - 2016-03-02 19:32:54 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:
Faster ships always die?


They tend to when you randomly stick an overdrive on it rather than fit tanking mods.
Lucas Kell wrote:

Seriously, the point is that unless you only care about EHP, choices vary, and now will vary slightly more. Every single argument you have about it comes back to "but you have less EHP" which everyone knows but isn't the only factor if you care about other stats too.


And yet everyone fits them today. They provide the same advantage after this change as they do today, if you fit it now you will be fitting it after this change.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#898 - 2016-03-02 21:13:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Besides, in every case I checked, the primary tank gain (shield or armor) was greater than the hull gains. I'm sure there are some hilarious snowflake fits where this is not true but it holds for the majority. The smart player is not giving up a DC, ever, for a serious fleet.
But again, you are still only talking about raw EHP.


No Lucas, that is a straw man you have made up. Everyone is pointing out that the EHP gains from this module outstrips the benefits of other modules, be it other tanking modules or say modules to improve damage output.

Pre and post-patch the DC will end up adding pretty much the same EHP to a ship, yes? Note, I am not saying the stats are the same, but at the end of the fitting process a given ship with a DC II will have the same EHP before and after the patch. You'll still get the same boost to shield resists, the same boost to armor resists, and with the boost the hull resists the same boost to hull resists...so the EHP will be the same (actually slightly better post patch by 0.4% for hull EHP, but put that aside).

Now it is true that the hull EHP will not be reduced as much by taking off the DC II, but you will lose the shield and armor bonus to those resists entirely. Now you keep insisting that EHP is not everything, and you are correct, but the question is what will a player put in that now empty slot? A damage module? Okay, fine...but the boost the damage modules is in the neighborhood of 10% and 10.5%. Further, if you have one already fit you'll get stacking penalties. So, if the removal of the DC reduces you EHP by more than 10.5% (and usually it does) then it is probably not going to be a good idea. While you will be doing 4-10% more damage you'll also be considerably easier to kill.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#899 - 2016-03-02 21:39:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
No Lucas, that is a straw man you have made up. Everyone is pointing out that the EHP gains from this module outstrips the benefits of other modules, be it other tanking modules or say modules to improve damage output.
No, it's really not. Every single time you guys have made an argument, it's been about how much the defense will drop. Defense isn't; all that matters v0v. YOU say it outstrips what other modules can do, but YOU are placing value on the properties of a ship. Other people place different amounts of value on different stats. What you refuse to accept is that people have different preferences to you, which is ridiculous.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Now it is true that the hull EHP will not be reduced as much by taking off the DC II
Yup, and thus the removal of it will make less of an impact, therefore more people will be more likely to opt not to use it, do you not agree? All I'm saying is that the number of people choosing not to use it after the patch that did before is greater than zero.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Now you keep insisting that EHP is not everything, and you are correct, but the question is what will a player put in that now empty slot? A damage module? Okay, fine...but the boost the damage modules is in the neighborhood of 10% and 10.5%. Further, if you have one already fit you'll get stacking penalties. So, if the removal of the DC reduces you EHP by more than 10.5% (and usually it does) then it is probably not going to be a good idea. While you will be doing 4-10% more damage you'll also be considerably easier to kill.
A whole range of modules. I don't value EHP the same as other stats on all my ships. Yield on a mining barge for example I generally value much more than EHP since EHP can be made up for with evasion, as long as my base defense and agility are at a reasonable level. Damage on a mission blitzer is generally favourable, though I need to know that if I run into trouble I won't be vapourised.

Could the DCU be reduced more, sure, but they have to be pretty careful they don't cripple the ships that would have used it before relative that those that wouldn't.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#900 - 2016-03-02 23:08:22 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
No Lucas, that is a straw man you have made up. Everyone is pointing out that the EHP gains from this module outstrips the benefits of other modules, be it other tanking modules or say modules to improve damage output.
No, it's really not. Every single time you guys have made an argument, it's been about how much the defense will drop. Defense isn't; all that matters v0v. YOU say it outstrips what other modules can do, but YOU are placing value on the properties of a ship. Other people place different amounts of value on different stats. What you refuse to accept is that people have different preferences to you, which is ridiculous.


Nobody has said defense is all that matters. Nobody. That is something you are ascribing to everyone who disagrees with you.


And in an objective sense the gains to defense from the DC are larger than the gains from other modules. A 15% boost to overall EHP is pretty large. Most other modules will not provide a benefit that large in percentage terms.

Now, maybe I care much, much more about speed so I give it a heavier weight so that a 6% boost to speed is seen as more desirable than the benefits of EHP. I would argue however that given the pre-post effects of a DC you would not have been fitting one in the first place.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online