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) |
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
121
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 17:32:00 -
[31] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.
Wholeheartedly agree.
I would never have trained these skills without that functionality. However that also shows another flaw: Passive shield mods are obvoulsy too weak - they're just not worth a slot - maybe on an AFK Trit-Hauling Badger or something - IDK - never ever even considered using one, but I still wouldn't consider now.
Now adding an EANM like module just for shields would take away too much flavour from armor and shield tanking respectively, but a group of modules nobody ever uses certainly needs to be looked at.
Well - sucks to be us I guess - more SP ballast on my character, but it could be worse - I could be a Supercarrier pilot with millions of wasted drone skills... |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 19:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
The only time I have consistently used shield resistance amplifiers has been when ratting Blood Raiders, due to their use of neuts and EM/Therm damage, which shields other than Minmatar T2/T3 have a weakness against.
The place this will really have an impact (as previously stated) is for shield capitals. There the resists provided are substantial, given the amount of shield you are talking about. |
Illest Insurrectionist
The Scope Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 19:32:00 -
[33] - 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 you were hoping not to get caught then claim it always worked that way as usual? |
Funky Koval
Bad Artists
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 21:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
Yeah I have to chip in here too. It looks like a knee-jerk change that was not properly thought through.
Did you (CCP guys) even run a query to check how many people have shield compensation trained and will possibly be affected by this?
Or do you intend to give a SP refund, like someone asked?
Also, the application of the skill to active hardeners is not obscure at all, apart from skill description itself you can actually see the passive bonuses when mousing over an active hardener installed on your ship.
|
Scorpyn
The Providers Rebel Alliance of New Eden
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 21:23:00 -
[35] - Quote
So active shield hardeners will revert to the way they used to work?
Even though the game has obviously changed since then, I don't see how this can be considered to be a major problem. |
Lynkon Lawg
Second Six Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 21:53:00 -
[36] - Quote
Ong wrote: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.
Not to jack the thread but what do you mean by this? Are you saying siege and armor ganglinks do NOT affect remote shield boosters and remote armor reppers? When did this happen? I can find anything in the forums that indicate this?
To get back on track, I am completely against the removal of the passive boost of active shield mods. I also trained the compensation skills for this reason. |
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
121
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Scorpyn wrote:So active shield hardeners will revert to the way they used to work?
Even though the game has obviously changed since then, I don't see how this can be considered to be a major problem.
I - and I don't think anyone else - have too much of a problem with the change as such except for the fact that people only trained the skills for the specific benefit that was just removed.
So my training time investment has been devalued on two characters whilst I'm still stuck with the SP which in turn now unnecessarily bloat my clone costs.
But yeah - CCP have done worse things to their customers, so I won't hold my breath on an SP refund or at least the option to delete the skills. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:20:00 -
[38] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote: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 far too important to be a stealth nerf. Also, this change sucks. This basically makes the shield compensation skills even less worthwhile. Maybe remove the passive effects from the invulns, but leave it on the specific hardeners? Or just reduce the passive resist boost amount? It's a useful, albeit uncommonly used trait to have on the hardeners that adds a bit of flavor based on your compensation skills. I honestly see no reason why you'd change it.
CCP actually tell it's players what they're planning.... What madness do you speak of!?... LOL
On a serious note I'm sure it would have been included in patch notes.
This has helped me decide if I was going to spend 30 days taking the passive shield skills to 5. It was always a good safety net if active hardeners failed you would have at lest some resists. Now that it just effects passive hardeners it's not worth it for me.
|
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
366
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
I was about to train EM ad TH to lvl 5, and bring kin and Exp to lvl 4
I now see this would be useless if CCP goes through with the planned changes
I'd vote against this, and I'm holding off training those unless CCP makes it clear this is not going through. |
Scorpyn
The Providers Rebel Alliance of New Eden
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:37:00 -
[40] - Quote
Name Family Name wrote:Scorpyn wrote:So active shield hardeners will revert to the way they used to work?
Even though the game has obviously changed since then, I don't see how this can be considered to be a major problem. I - and I don't think anyone else - have too much of a problem with the change as such except for the fact that people only trained the skills for the specific benefit that was just removed. So my training time investment has been devalued on two characters whilst I'm still stuck with the SP which in turn now unnecessarily bloat my clone costs. But yeah - CCP have done worse things to their customers, so I won't hold my breath on an SP refund or at least the option to delete the skills. I can agree with that, it was the major (but not only) reason for me to train those skills as I rarely use a purely passive tank.
If given the option I'd probably not move the sp to other skills though. |
|
Maggeridon Thoraz
Reconfiguration Nation Transmission Lost
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:44:00 -
[41] - Quote
somehow i get the feeling ccp is changing so many fundamental things at all that they should give all players a totall reset of the skillpoints and let the users decide where to redistribute them :-) |
Kasutra
Tailor Company Hashashin Cartel
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:57:00 -
[42] - Quote
Am I seriously looking at a bunch of people crying for an SP refund and shield-EANMs over this?
Seriously? A skill was nerfed. It happens. |
Leetha Layne
63
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 23:07:00 -
[43] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote: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.
QFT |
Leetha Layne
63
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 23:07:00 -
[44] - Quote
Maggeridon Thoraz wrote:somehow i get the feeling ccp is changing so many fundamental things at all that they should give all players a totall reset of the skillpoints and let the users decide where to redistribute them :-)
Nice try..
|
Ong
Born-2-Kill 0utNumbered
48
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 23:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
Lynkon Lawg wrote:Ong wrote: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.
Not to jack the thread but what do you mean by this? Are you saying siege and armor ganglinks do NOT affect remote shield boosters and remote armor reppers? When did this happen? I can find anything in the forums that indicate this? With retribution 1.0 they removed links effecting capital armour remote and local rep with not a word in the patch notes, it was following some bad figures and they rolled it back when realised they ****** up, Still they introduced a massive change with zero patch noted or community communication.
|
Maggeridon Thoraz
Reconfiguration Nation Transmission Lost
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 00:02:00 -
[46] - Quote
Kasutra wrote:Am I seriously looking at a bunch of people crying for an SP refund and shield-EANMs over this?
Seriously? A skill was nerfed. It happens.
yes i mean it serouis. ccp is touching atm so many different mechanics and changing them imho fundamently that i am asking myself if i shoudl skill toward something or not. t2 ships are atm not really worth fling , the t1 are allmost good as the t2. boosting will be changed. so skilling it or not , and so on... |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 00:03:00 -
[47] - Quote
The biggest effect this will have, will be on ganking people in highsec that forget to turn their mods on when jumping/undocking; and and that's not an insignificant change. |
Funky Koval
Bad Artists
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 01:28:00 -
[48] - Quote
scratch that ;) |
Certo Morte
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 01:35:00 -
[49] - Quote
Wow, nice. Now for all of us flying shield ships that are already vulnerable to neuting, you made it even worse off than before.
I want my comp skills refunded for shields |
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
328
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 01:51:00 -
[50] - 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:
So what your saying is: You couldn't correct a problem you caused yourselves, So you decided to screw over 50% of you cash paying customer base.
And you figured if you told the customer base they were stupid, That would make it sound official? |
|
Adeena Torcfist
UBER1337
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 05:50:00 -
[51] - Quote
well, ill tell you what. make ur reisistive skills effect rigs then.
since thats passive too, to your ship. & start adding invul/adaptive rigs |
Bane Nucleus
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
336
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 05:50:00 -
[52] - Quote
RavenPaine wrote:
So what your saying is: You couldn't correct a problem you caused yourselves, So you decided to screw over 50% of you cash paying customer base.
And you figured if you told the customer base they were stupid, That would make it sound official?
Glad to see someone is taking this super serious....Relax man lol Alliance CEO, Diplomat, Recruiter |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
366
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 07:33:00 -
[53] - Quote
Adeena Torcfist wrote:well, ill tell you what. make ur reisistive skills effect rigs then. since thats passive too, to your ship. & start adding invul/adaptive rigs
If they made the comp skills affect rigs, then I'd think its a fiar tradeoff to remove passive boosts on hardeners....
but right now... its just a stealth nerf with no justification, other than "we're lazy, and don't like it" If its bad for gameplay, you'd think some armor guy would have been complaining about it... or even some shield guy would have been complaining about it..... you know, like the poorly conceived ASBs. But they double down on that and are adding AARs, and then doubling down on the bad active rep bonuses by lowering the incursus repping bonus to 7.5% - so that it is plainly inferior to a resist bonus
And its going to be another 2 years according to CCP's schedule of major rebalance changes.... leaving newer players to just wander aimlessly through skill trees, not knowing if the skill will even be useable.
Poorly done CCP |
culo duro
Federal Enslavement
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 09:18:00 -
[54] - 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.
There is no armor Equivalent to AIFs |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7429
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 09:26:00 -
[55] - Quote
culo duro 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. There is no armor Equivalent to AIFs
But there are active armor hardeners, and they're superior to shield hardeners as well (less fitting, longer cycle time)
The point being that the armor comp skills are far more useful than the shield comp skills now, and after this change, that gap will increase even further. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Kasutra
Tailor Company Hashashin Cartel
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 09:32:00 -
[56] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:And its going to be another 2 years according to CCP's schedule of major rebalance changes.... leaving newer players to just wander aimlessly through skill trees, not knowing if the skill will even be useable.
Poorly done CCP Yeah, the poor noobs, training and training, never realizing that the passive hardener augmentation skills are in fact not affecting the active hardeners. This must be restored! Think of the children who have all been slaving away, training support skills to maximize their use of inactive invulns at the expense of being able to fit T2 guns! |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1762
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 10:20:00 -
[57] - Quote
We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't). |
|
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 10:30:00 -
[58] - Quote
[quote=CCP Greyscale]
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
quote]
Will these skills still apply to the energised armour platings?
if so when do the shield tankers get their active but not really active hardeners? |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
746
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 10:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
Well, unless a new passive invulnerability field is added the shield compensation skills will become all but useless in 99% of circumstances.
The reasons:
* Very new players who passive tank their new ships due to poor cap skills etc will get a greater benefit from training shield ops / management than they ever would from spending a week or more training shield compensation skills.
* Most people only trained the skill in the first place to give a little bit of a resistance when completly neuted.
If this is the case I don't see the point in having 4 racial shield skills. You might as well just add a single higher-multiplier skill that effects everything, and the same for armour to be fair to them. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
367
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:04:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kasutra wrote:Yeah, the poor noobs, training and training, never realizing that the passive hardener augmentation skills are in fact not affecting the active hardeners. This must be restored! Think of the children who have all been slaving away, training support skills to maximize their use of inactive invulns at the expense of being able to fit T2 guns!
If the poor noobs can't read, then there is no helping them...
The description wasn't that bad... in fact it was the bonus to passive resist mods that was poorly worded. If I have a passive resistance plating giving 37.5% resists, and I train a skill to get a 5% bonus, is it now 42.5% (ie 37.5+5) or 39.4 (ie 37.5*1.05). That was where the ambiguity was... the bonus to active hardeners was clear.
As to there being no armor IFs... the EANMII, when at lvl 5 skills, is as good as a T1 IF - so its pretty close, and base armor resists are higher anyway. Nobody has complained that they can't get enough EHP with armor... They complain about things like ASBs...
T2 EANM vs T2 IF -> 25% vs 30% resists... not a major difference, the difference really becomes apparent when one looks at deadspace invuln fields... So buff those...
And while you're at it, you can buff the layering membranes so they give a greater % EHP boost than EANMs, at the expense of not boosting rep effectiveness.
But nerfing shield comp skills, which nobody has complained about, is dumb. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |