Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Tolkenmoon
Vulkan Innovations Hegemonous Pandorum
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 17:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
So i have just been on sis and noticed that active hardeners no longer have the passive resist element to them, Is this a good or bad thing? personaly i think it is a bad idea. What i want to know is why after all these years of being ok ccp feel the need to change so many things. |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
617
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 19:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tolkenmoon wrote:So i have just been on sis and noticed that active hardeners no longer have the passive resist element to them, Is this a good or bad thing? personaly i think it is a bad idea. What i want to know is why after all these years of being ok ccp feel the need to change so many things.
...Wasn't the passive bonus on these hardeners on the order of 1%? I'm not seeing this mattering. Ever. |
Illest Insurrectionist
The Scope Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 19:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kahega Amielden wrote:Tolkenmoon wrote:So i have just been on sis and noticed that active hardeners no longer have the passive resist element to them, Is this a good or bad thing? personaly i think it is a bad idea. What i want to know is why after all these years of being ok ccp feel the need to change so many things. ...Wasn't the passive bonus on these hardeners on the order of 1%? I'm not seeing this mattering. Ever.
It is 15% at max skills. So a invuln when not on gives 15% to each. That is half effect with no cap. Far from usless imo. |
Dultas
Angels Of Death EVE Black Thorne Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 20:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
My sisi isn't up to date so I can confirm this but I would think the compensation skill would effect it with or without the base 1% so you would still get the 15% from the compensations skills. |
Illest Insurrectionist
The Scope Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 20:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm on sisi right now and the bonus when off is definitely gone. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
2849
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
That was actually one of the cool effects that nobody knew about. Shame.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Illest Insurrectionist
The Scope Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
It would be interesting to know if this makes the cap warfare folks even less likely to use shield fleet or what not. |
Freyya
Omni Galactic Resource Excavation Inc. Tri-Star Galactic Industries
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
Well whooptiedoo, just a small bonus using active hards is missing. WHO wouldve guessed. Capped out on your active tank? Dont count on that small but helpfull passive bonus to make you last just that little bit longer.... |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
617
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 00:55:00 -
[9] - Quote
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:Kahega Amielden wrote:Tolkenmoon wrote:So i have just been on sis and noticed that active hardeners no longer have the passive resist element to them, Is this a good or bad thing? personaly i think it is a bad idea. What i want to know is why after all these years of being ok ccp feel the need to change so many things. ...Wasn't the passive bonus on these hardeners on the order of 1%? I'm not seeing this mattering. Ever. It is 15% at max skills. So a invuln when not on gives 15% to each. That is half effect with no cap. Far from usless imo.
Wasn't aware of that.
Then yeah, this should probably be put back. |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
188
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 10:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
passive bonus has been there for a good few years, no changes nessesary i belive. |
|
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
684
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 11:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
If the reasoning is "armor doesn't have active omni so why is shaving having a passive one?" I can understand it. Invul field is VERY good and one of the reasons why shield is more used than armor. So if their logic is "you wanted an active omni? sure but you'll lose its passive bonus" then yeah, makes sense.
But per usual it's probably just a sisi bug. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1758
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 13:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners
This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:
- We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
- The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).
|
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 13:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
so will there be any passive omni shield resis mods being introduced? |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
740
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:06:00 -
[14] - Quote
Not a huge fan of this.
* Proper skills + 2x Adaptive Invulns at least gave a little bit of a resistance buffer when neuted out, somewhere on par with the lowest resistances on armour tanked ships. Vs armour which are almost always passive and have greater EHP to boot.
* It does make the Shield Compensation skills pretty much useless outside a small handful of roles.
* There is no shield equivalent to the EANM. Even if there was, at a lower resistance %, they would likely still fail pretty bad EHP wise compared to the armour fits. |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:40:00 -
[15] - Quote
[Type] Shield Compensation
To active shield hardeners: 3% bonus per skill level to Shield [Type] resistance when the modules are not active To passive shield hardeners: 5% bonus per skill level to Shield [Type] resistance
Contrary to Liang's statement, I thought it was an obvious trait of active hardeners. The reason I thought that is because I can (and do) read.
I assume the first half of this skill will be removed. The first half of the skill is the entire reason I trained it. Removing the inactive resistances of active hardeners removes the entire reason I trained the skills. Therefore, will there be a full SP reimbursement? If players still want to use these skills for the passive bonus, they can put the reimbursed SP right back into the modified skills.
Also, this skill will now give less of a bonus than it had previously. Will this skill set's training time multiplier be reduced? Failing a full SP reimbursement, will there be a partial SP reimbursement if the training time multiplier is reduced?
I understand that CCP generally doesn't reimburse SP when making changes like this. I'm also aware that as a newer player, my character skills will never catch up to those of veterans because of the skill training system. To compete, I have to specialize. To specialize, I have to control where my SP goes. At the time, this was a useful skill to train. When the change takes place it will not be useful, and how ever much time spent specializing my skill set will be wasted. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
684
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Not a huge fan of this.
* Proper skills + 2x Adaptive Invulns at least gave a little bit of a resistance buffer when neuted out, somewhere on par with the lowest resistances on armour tanked ships. Vs armour which are almost always passive and have greater EHP to boot.
* It does make the Shield Compensation skills pretty much useless outside a small handful of roles.
* There is no shield equivalent to the EANM. Even if there was, at a lower resistance %, they would likely still fail pretty bad EHP wise compared to the armour fits.
I have a good idea, we'll swap. You get passive only omni for shield and armor gets an active omni instead. Yes? No?
If your answer is no then your whole post is silly nonsense, what you're whining about is having your cake and eat it. Same goes for the above poster. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
318
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking. I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this... |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
308
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:09:00 -
[18] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking. I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this... If only you had some insanely OP shield boosting module that didn't run on cap. Hmmm |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
740
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking. I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this... If only you had some insanely OP shield boosting module that didn't run on cap. Hmmm
Doesn't count for much when you end up with a 0% resistance hole. |
Eternal Error
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
336
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:
- We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
- The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).
WHEN YOU MAKE CHANGES LIKE THIS, ANNOUNCE THEM. This is WAY to big to be a stealth nerf.
Also, this change sucks. If you want to lessen the passive resist amount of active hardeners, fine, but this basically makes the shield compensation skills even less worthwhile. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
516
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking. I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this...
It's not a nerf, it's a hidden buff to passive mods.
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
308
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking. I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this... If only you had some insanely OP shield boosting module that didn't run on cap. Hmmm Doesn't count for much when you end up with a 0% resistance hole. Plug it with a passive mod or rig? Oh wait, that's making decisions, and we cant have that now can we? |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
189
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:
- We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
- The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).
dam, this sucks, do we get a little extra bonus to the active resits bonus from the compensation skills we have trained? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7422
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:35:00 -
[24] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:Not a huge fan of this.
* Proper skills + 2x Adaptive Invulns at least gave a little bit of a resistance buffer when neuted out, somewhere on par with the lowest resistances on armour tanked ships. Vs armour which are almost always passive and have greater EHP to boot.
* It does make the Shield Compensation skills pretty much useless outside a small handful of roles.
* There is no shield equivalent to the EANM. Even if there was, at a lower resistance %, they would likely still fail pretty bad EHP wise compared to the armour fits. I have a good idea, we'll swap. You get passive only omni for shield and armor gets an active omni instead. Yes? No? If your answer is no then your whole post is silly nonsense, what you're whining about is having your cake and eat it. Same goes for the above poster.
If we're swapping fitting costs as well, then I'd make that trade. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
590
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:
- We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
- The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).
So basically you pushed through a buff that caused people to train up a bunch of skills, then not long after you pull the buff and instead make those skills have zero effect?
Ladies and gentlemen - CCP Greyscale. |
Ong
Born-2-Kill 0utNumbered
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 16:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
Oh good really glad I just finished training all the shield comps to 5 after putting it off for 5 years, just for those 'incase of getting neuted out' moments
If your going to make this happen you really are going to have to introduce a passive shield mod similar to the EANM, no one uses the passive shield mods unless their trying for some permarun pve fit.
Why your changing it is beyond me though, I have literally never heard anyone ever complain about the mechanic in 6 years of playing this game, seems like a classic example of bored people being locked in a room looking for issues where non lie. |
Nash MacAllister
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 16:53:00 -
[27] - Quote
I concur that if this change is coming to TQ, which certainly sounds to be true, then shield guys need a shield EANM. GIve me a passive module with across the board resistance buffs. I have no issue making choices, but right now there isn't one. The enemy of my enemy is... -ájust another guy that needs killin' |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
964
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 16:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:
- We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
- The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).
Eh. This is annoying. Yes, I understand that fitting tradeoffs can and should exist. But so should training tradeoffs, and you've just changed that calculus significantly. That's 16 ranks of skills that no longer offer a benefit that lots of us valued. Eight of those ranks were extraordinarily niche to start with, but we chose to train them anyway -- largely because we'd still get some benefit from inactive invulns. Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.
But now you've pushed it through. That's the second point for annoyance. In general, CCP is doing much better communicating with its player constituents about changes. Where exactly was the notice on this though? No discussion, no questions, nothing in CSM minutes even. It just pops up on SiSi one day as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Well, it's not. It's actually a significant change.
Anyhow. I've seen enough of these things to know that the odds of reverting this change now that it's hit SiSi are slim to none. I'd still like to see it, but I won't pretend I'll ragequit over it. Wrong direction though, folks. Poorly played. |
Ong
Born-2-Kill 0utNumbered
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 17:03:00 -
[29] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote: Eh. This is annoying. Yes, I understand that fitting tradeoffs can and should exist. But so should training tradeoffs, and you've just changed that calculus significantly. That's 16 ranks of skills that no longer offer a benefit that lots of us valued. Eight of those ranks were extraordinarily niche to start with, but we chose to train them anyway -- largely because we'd still get some benefit from inactive invulns. Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.
But now you've pushed it through. That's the second point for annoyance. In general, CCP is doing much better communicating with its player constituents about changes. Where exactly was the notice on this though? No discussion, no questions, nothing in CSM minutes even. It just pops up on SiSi one day as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Well, it's not. It's actually a significant change.
Anyhow. I've seen enough of these things to know that the odds of reverting this change now that it's hit SiSi are slim to none. I'd still like to see it, but I won't pretend I'll ragequit over it. Wrong direction though, folks. Poorly played.
Very true, reminds me of the 'links not effecting remote rep mods' they sneaked in, while this is not as massive a change as that its still a pretty big and skill intensive change to not mention it at all.
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Unclaimed.
173
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 17:14:00 -
[30] - Quote
(1) Unless you're completely illiterate, there is nothing confusing about the phrasing of the bonuses. The module provides a small resist bonus when inactive, and a big bonus when active; the skill boosts passive mods, and active mods while they're inactive. And if you do feel that the wording is bad, then change the wording. Your logic makes as much sense as burning a book because you don't understand all the words.
(2) The passive resist bonus is not a primary effect. No-one fits active hardeners because of the passive bonus. The passive bonus makes the module useful under neut pressure and under high-lag conditions (hint: look at that big supercap battle last night, and see how many ships couldn't get their hardeners to turn on due to lag).
In all, your reasoning makes no sense. Then again, I remember you saying that nerfing individual pilot income would lead to more fights, so maybe that's not unexpected. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |