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) |
Pleasure Bound
Futanari on Safari
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 01:08:00 -
[121] - Quote
The way I read this change is similar to the change done to the Corporate Hangar on the Orca:
"We've broken something and we don't understand the code. So we'll come up with an excuse/explanation/story because it is 5pm and it is the time to go home". |
Cindy Marco
Expanse Security
107
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 07:26:00 -
[122] - Quote
Pleasure Bound wrote:The way I read this change is similar to the change done to the Corporate Hangar on the Orca:
"We've broken something and we don't understand the code. So we'll come up with an excuse/explanation/story because it is 5pm and it is the time to go home".
Well you have to look at it from the other side. They only had 2 options :
1) They could find the real problem with the code
2) They could make 3 skills mostly useless, 1 skill kinda useless (I actually do fit a Kinetic SRA rarely, its a Minny thang) and kinda screw shield users because now they have NO resists when neuted while the armor guy still has his EANMs.
And oh, btw, no reimbursement for your skills that now useless for most players. I don't even need the SP anymore, but I bet there are newer guys that trained those skills to 5 and wish they had them back. That is like a month of wasted training.
At least it was only an insignificant change however. I shudder at the thought of what a major change would be!
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Unclaimed.
181
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 07:51:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Zhilia Mann wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: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). Well, thanks for revisiting it. I have to grudgingly respect that CCP holds its ground; god knows that if players got everything they wanted then this wouldn't be a game I'd like to play. However, I'm still concerned about two things, and they're related. The first is that I don't understand the logic behind this change, and judging from this thread no one else does either. What exactly is your thinking and how does it override the points brought up here? The second thing remains the lack of transparency around the change. This really was going to stealth its way in. The fact that you planned to note it in the patch notes does nothing to mitigate the fact that we didn't know further ahead of time. Sharing your logic would be helpful on this front as well; sharing it proactively would have been vastly preferable. But we are where we are now and you can still help by actually illuminating how you're thinking about the problem. For the why, see my first post in this thread for the short version :) Essentially we came to the conclusion that 1) in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules, and 2) in this specific case we strongly dislike the implementation and the presentation thereof. If this is unclear, please ask more questions, just don't expect the general thrust to change significantly! The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change, and that I felt "the case for the prosecution" was strong enough that extended discussion wouldn't serve much purpose. If I'm totally honest, I'll also admit that I'd forgotten this was going to SiSi this week, as I've had other projects on my mind
Thank you for explaining further.
Players do not use EANMs because they like being cap-resistant; they use EANMs because they have no other choice. Players will choose active hardeners over passive hardeners every time, even with this nerf, because of the higher resistances and opportunity to overheat. There is no tradeoff between active and passive hardeners, and never will be, unless passive hardeners receive a major boost or active hardeners are further nerfed. The only time players willingly fit passive hardeners over active hardeners, is for high-lag situations or when they expect to be neuted dry.
This is a major boost to cap warfare, and a major nerf to tanking in general, and to shield-tanked ships in particular.
That being said, we're still going to see shield fleets, and this is hardly the end of the world. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
511
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 08:23:00 -
[124] - Quote
Alice Katsuko wrote:
Players do not use EANMs because they like being cap-resistant; they use EANMs because they have no other choice. Players will choose active hardeners over passive hardeners every time, even with this nerf, because of the higher resistances and opportunity to overheat. There is no tradeoff between active and passive hardeners, and never will be, unless passive hardeners receive a major boost or active hardeners are further nerfed. The only time players willingly fit passive hardeners over active hardeners, is for high-lag situations or when they expect to be neuted dry.
Good job on completely contradicting yourself in one breath. |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Unclaimed.
181
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 08:49:00 -
[125] - Quote
There's no contradiction. Imagine someone offers you a choice between a shiny new computer, and a DOS-box from 1991. Sure, you'd get better stability from DOS, but it's not much of an advantage compared to all the things you'd be missing out on.
The same goes for passive versus active hardeners. Active hardeners provide substantially higher resistances while active, and can be overheated for additional resistance bonus. Passive hardeners provide lower resistances, and cannot be overheated. The only time passive hardeners are superior to active hardeners, is when a ship is capped out and cannot get cap from remote or local sources. So the only time a player will willingly fit passive hardeners, is when he expects to be neuted out. For obvious reasons, players usually do not fit their ships specifically to survive being capped out, if the cost is being exploded due to lower resists.
(Similarly, most players do not fit ECCM against the chance of being jammed, sensor boosters against the chance of being dampened, or tracking computers against the chance of being tracking disrupted. Because just as it makes more sense to omni-tank, it also makes more sense to omni-fit a ship for general combat rather than proof it against one of many eventualities and leave holes for all other possibilities.)
All that the proposed change does, is make active hardeners less useful under cap pressure, since now instead of providing a crappy bonus, they'll provide no bonus at all. This is a big nerf to active hardeners, especially shield hardeners, but it doesn't change a player's calculus about whether to fit passive or active hardeners. It's a big nerf because in the event a ship with active hardeners is capped out, it will now get no benefit at all, rather than some benefit, as now. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
102
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 09:39:00 -
[126] - Quote
Alice Katsuko wrote:Players do not use EANMs because they like being cap-resistant; they use EANMs because they have no other choice. Players will choose active hardeners over passive hardeners every time, even with this nerf, because of the higher resistances and opportunity to overheat. Well if an Armor Invuln Field existed, then yes players probably would choose that over EANMs. But it doesn't exist... So not really sure why you are basing an argument around this imaginary module.
All we have is the active Armor Hardeners that cover one specific resistance. They are used far less often than EANMs and will now become even less attractive then they were before. CCP will realize this a few years down the line, and the EANM/Hardener cycle will repeat itself yet again. Joy. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
229
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 11:18:00 -
[127] - Quote
Come on ! We are talking about something affecting only completely neuted ships ! Besides an armor ship cannot even fire its guns in this case, a completely neuted ship is often screwed anyway, and the cases where the passive resist would have saved you is so rare you'd better play lottery games to fund a new ship.
If you want neutralizer resistant fit, there's a module called shield resistance amplifier and ancillary shield booster. And yes, there is no adaptive one for shield, exactly like there is no adaptive hardener for armor nor there is capless ancillary armor reper.
But I guess the whines come from cap pilots, and I don't think capital survivability is a critical thing to save.
As for resistance amplifier vs hardener, I think the first one will now have a reason to exist. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
525
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 11:38:00 -
[128] - Quote
Cindy Marco wrote:And oh, btw, no reimbursement for your skills that now useless for most players. I don't even need the SP anymore, but I bet there are newer guys that trained those skills to 5 and wish they had them back. That is like a month of wasted training.
When will you guys understand those passive resist skills are not a waste of time?
Up until now you didn't had to think about your fittings, was invulns and shield extenders everywhere. Now you have to think about your fittings and get the best out of those passive resist modules.
Armor might have EANP's but they clearly lack oversized reppers and no cap cost ASB/guns, it's a trade off you guys are not used to while being mainly armor trained I've always had to and used. I also use most often my armor tank ships with shield tanking so please go ahead and keep telling shield tanking is bad and in need of more buffs.
I'm ok for you guys to get some sort of shield EANP but I definitively want the equivalent of shield Invuln. Is this fair enough for you?
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
152
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 11:57:00 -
[129] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:When will you guys understand those passive resist skills are not a waste of time?
I have a dedicated, specialised caldari cap ship character. Could you explain how I haven't wasted my time training these skills on that account?
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
229
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 12:16:00 -
[130] - Quote
feihcsiM wrote:I have a dedicated, specialised caldari cap ship character. Could you explain how I haven't wasted my time training these skills on that account?
Shield Resistance Amplifiers
Don't worry, someone should tell you when to fit them.
BTW, I thought cap ship could refit in space ; did that changed ? Because if not, you can just fit resist amplifier when neutralizers are coming. |
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
198
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 12:44:00 -
[131] - Quote
WTH is with the "armor have no capless guns"
Have the ENTIRE minmatar ship line turned to shields when I wasn't looking?
Even with this change, PvP pilots wont magically fit the passives - there is no space. They've just been made (even) weaker vs cap warfare.
I think the most troubling thing is there is no obvious imbalance brought be these, nor one be addressed by the change. I mean...has anyone ever seen a thread about this skill/offline mods being overpowered? |
Nash MacAllister
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
41
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 13:22:00 -
[132] - Quote
I am just amused by all the posts that have "Well nobody ever fits.... blah blah blah" in them. Lol. These changes do effect people, particularly in some of the more purpose-built ships. And there are certainly environments where neuting is pretty damn common, so again, these changes do have a real effect. I know fighting in a wh, I expect to see neuts being used. The question of whether to go active or passive is simply a question of how many neuts I think will be hitting me in particular. Lol. While I agree that people should have to choose fits based on a tactical standpoint, but I also see this as a senseless nerf that really has no justification. And I would still like to see an across the board passive resist module (or reactive shield hardener for that matter) as another option to give me more choices. I don't see either as being OP given the circumstances. The enemy of my enemy is... -ájust another guy that needs killin' |
Besbin
Anguis Sicarios
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 13:23:00 -
[133] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, I thought cap ship could refit in space ; did that changed ? Because if not, you can just fit resist amplifier when neutralizers are coming.
Yes and no. Two carriers can use fitting services on each other to refit. A solo carrier and dreads cannot. Also a triaged carrier can't until out of triage.
That said, you're making a very very good point. Simply refitting to resist amps when capped out is already far superior to passive resists on active hardeners. With the changes it is only even more so. It does of course present some obstacles, but doing like you suggested, IMO, alleviates the "omgwtfbbq 27% !!!!" problem.
However I still do think that a skill set of 45D worth of training have been halved in practical value and still think something should be done to make this effort worthwhile given the stealthy circumstances of "lazy programmer" mess. But I do agree the problem is smaller than it looked at first (for shield cap pilots of which I'm not one anyway). |
Besbin
Anguis Sicarios
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 13:25:00 -
[134] - Quote
Nash MacAllister wrote:I am just amused by all the posts that have "Well nobody ever fits.... blah blah blah" in them. Lol. These changes do effect people, particularly in some of the more purpose-built ships. And there are certainly environments where neuting is pretty damn common, so again, these changes do have a real effect. I know fighting in a wh, I expect to see neuts being used. The question of whether to go active or passive is simply a question of how many neuts I think will be hitting me in particular. Lol. While I agree that people should have to choose fits based on a tactical standpoint, but I also see this as a senseless nerf that really has no justification. And I would still like to see an across the board passive resist module (or reactive shield hardener for that matter) as another option to give me more choices. I don't see either as being OP given the circumstances.
And, as Malcanis suggested (if I understand him correctly), I would be perfectly fine with the shield omni resist amp to be more fitting intensive and/or less powerful than the EANM. Just having the option would be a game changer. |
Nash MacAllister
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
41
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 13:38:00 -
[135] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, I thought cap ship could refit in space ; did that changed ? Because if not, you can just fit resist amplifier when neutralizers are coming.
No, this is when you fit the Large Capacitor Battery II's. The enemy of my enemy is... -ájust another guy that needs killin' |
Besbin
Anguis Sicarios
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 13:43:00 -
[136] - Quote
Nash MacAllister wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, I thought cap ship could refit in space ; did that changed ? Because if not, you can just fit resist amplifier when neutralizers are coming.
No, this is when you fit the Large Capacitor Battery II's.
Riiiight...like that's not gonna be a drop in the ocean against neut bhaals. Nice thought, works in some cases, doesn't work in this... |
Nash MacAllister
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
41
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 13:51:00 -
[137] - Quote
Besbin wrote:Nash MacAllister wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, I thought cap ship could refit in space ; did that changed ? Because if not, you can just fit resist amplifier when neutralizers are coming.
No, this is when you fit the Large Capacitor Battery II's. Riiiight...like that's not gonna be a drop in the ocean against neut bhaals. Nice thought, works in some cases, doesn't work in this...
Off topic but you may be surprised what that does to a Bhaal even when it is being fed cap by a carrier. Certainly it is situation dependent. Hit me up on Sisi sometime...
Sorry for the digression. The enemy of my enemy is... -ájust another guy that needs killin' |
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
48
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 14:26:00 -
[138] - Quote
How possible is it for someone with a max Scan Res fitted gank ship to lock and alpha an undocking/gate-decloaking ship before he can activate all of his hardeners? |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 15:04:00 -
[139] - Quote
Smartbomb Battleships at gates to burst approaching Blokade Runners anyone? |
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
331
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 15:40:00 -
[140] - Quote
I still remember the days when it was called the "lol drake", and every FC knew that "Primary the Caldari ships" was the right call.
Eventually, After maxing out skills, and losing many ships, Caldari pilots became good at using what they had, and all the Armor tank guys started crying OP!
This change will take the game backwards 5 years. That is not 'developing' it is devolving |
|
iLLeLogicaL
The Red Circle Inc.
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 17:30:00 -
[141] - Quote
After the poses are but a small part of the community I feel you're making a big mistake again CCP. Leave those mods as they are, or at least reimburse the sp we put into those skills.
Way to go, what happend to communication! |
Solaris Ecladia
The Red Circle Inc.
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 17:30:00 -
[142] - Quote
Hey, I just wanted to drop by and personally shake the hand of CCP greyscale for once again proving that the motto at CCP has been and always will be: If it aint broke, fix it until it is. And thanks so much for trying to sneak this major fitting and skill change in. That means alot to us players that you respect us enough to tell us about big changes like this in advance. And even moreso that you would like our feedback before going ahead with it.
Thanks CCP, you rock. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
438
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 18:47:00 -
[143] - Quote
Dultas wrote: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. The compensation skills only affect the base passive stat. If the stat is gone the skill no longer boosts it. it would be nice since now the compensation skill only applies to passive modules, could it be increased a bit?
Some of the faction resist amps with max skills can get close to the same resists without needing to be turned on or use cap. They are useful on tight fits, or in PVP when neuts turn off your hardeners. A large buffer fit with high passive resists, and projectile guns is completely immune to nuets. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
196
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 20:32:00 -
[144] - Quote
ChaseX wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote:Will someone please post a reasonable fit (no officer/deadspace mods, please) that would ever make use of the shield comp skills, if they don't give a bonus to active hardeners?
If a viable one cannot be provided, then one must conclude that CCP will make the shield comp skills worthless. Well I heard of complete passive fitted Drakes tanking level 5 missions to counter the massive neuting. Never did any myself but I think it was done with them, at least before NPCs were switching targets.
passive drake/rattlesnake/ishtar for dealing with neuting lv 5s.
that said I never really had a reason to train the shield comps. at best I'll bother to get them to level 4 just for a slightly neater looking character sheet. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 21:24:00 -
[145] - Quote
Solaris Ecladia wrote:Hey, I just wanted to drop by and personally shake the hand of CCP greyscale for once again proving that the motto at CCP has been and always will be: If it aint broke, fix it until it is. And thanks so much for trying to sneak this major fitting and skill change in. That means alot to us players that you respect us enough to tell us about big changes like this in advance. And even moreso that you would like our feedback before going ahead with it.
Thanks CCP, you rock.
I couldn't have said it better. Thanks CCP!
|
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 23:09:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:For the why, see my first post in this thread for the short version :) Essentially we came to the conclusion that 1) in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules, and 2) in this specific case we strongly dislike the implementation and the presentation thereof. If this is unclear, please ask more questions, just don't expect the general thrust to change significantly! The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change, and that I felt "the case for the prosecution" was strong enough that extended discussion wouldn't serve much purpose. If I'm totally honest, I'll also admit that I'd forgotten this was going to SiSi this week, as I've had other projects on my mind
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. As has been stated here this leaves any shield PVP ship immensely vulnerable to being neuted as compared with armor ships.
With no omni-resists shield module that does not consume cap this change is at best stupid, at worst shows the devs once again does not play their own game.
Those 5 seconds longer you last with a little resist compared to 0 resists can be the difference between surviving and dying - and you just removed that for pretty much ALL shield pvp ships.
The fact that this change was considered "minor" and did not deserve any discussion with the players shows once again total disregard for the player base.
Way to go CCP, giant nerf to all shield PVP. There can't be that many people using shield ships for pvp out there.... right? RIGHT?
Here I was, looking forward to the BC changes in Retribution 1.1. Now I no longer look forward to Feb. 12th,.... |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
964
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 01:16:00 -
[147] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change... I think I'd be unanimously supported - devs should play the game more. CCP Greyscale wrote:in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules I cannot understand what does it mean, and considering your way of making stealthy updates - could you please comment, here in this thread, on the following multi-function modules: *list* Apparently, these are the exceptions.
Luckily I had my shield compensation skills at 3 or 4 at max. These SPs are totally wasted now. 14 |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
88
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 05:41:00 -
[148] - Quote
Zilero wrote:Way to go CCP, giant nerf to all shield PVP. There can't be that many people using shield ships for pvp out there.... right? RIGHT? You may be exaggerating about all ships, but it's definitely a nerf to shield super-capitals. Like if they are so ower-powered now. In a recent battle in Asakai, this Hel is rumored to go down because it couldnt switch on hardeners due to lags. With the new changes, it would have almost insta-popped.
I was trying to make a decision which capital ships I will be training - shield or armor. Now the decision is made. Thank you, CCP Grayscale, you made my life so much easier. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
88
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 05:46:00 -
[149] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
- drone omnilink - tracking & optimal
- autotargeting system - autotarheting itself & +maxtargets
- SeBo (local and remote) - range & scanres
- dampeners - same
- signal amplifier - range & scanres & +maxtargets
- warp scramblers - warp-jam & MWD-jam & MJD-jam & jump-jam
- signal distortion amps - optimal & strength
- cap.batteries - +cap & neut-protection
- power diag. sys - many
- damage control - resists to shield & armor & hull
- damage modifiers - damage & ROF
- track.ench. - optimal & falloff & tracking
- track.comp and links - same
- track.dis - same
Still waiting on comments from CCP. |
Jovat
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 10:55:00 -
[150] - Quote
Perhaps we could make compensation skills affect active hardeners at 2% per level. These are currently terribly situational skills that does little outside pure passive neut resistance. Weakening 8 highly situational rank 2 skills for some minor aesthetic purpose doesn't strike me as great design.
If this change must be hammered through, make compensation skills actually do something for active hardeners. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |