Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 20:36:52 -
[1] - Quote
Once upon a time there was no precedent for restricting a player to one mod of a given type fitted to a ship. At this point it might have made sense to say "well, we know how to make it so that you can only activate one of this module at a time." That was a very long time ago. Nowadays, there certainly are precedents for having limits of how many mods of a given type can be fitted to a ship (Scan Acquisition Array, for one).
Why is it that I still have to reactivate my Damage Control module every time I jump through a gate? As far as anyone can tell, they're clearly designed as passive modules that were hacked into an active version for technical reasons. This seems like it would be an easy change given the other modules that have been added which only allow x per ship. |
Ceawlin Cobon-Han
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 20:40:26 -
[2] - Quote
Damage control sounds like something active. It makes sense for the module to be active also. |
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
428
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 20:45:01 -
[3] - Quote
Saidin Thor wrote:Once upon a time there was no precedent for restricting a player to one mod of a given type fitted to a ship. At this point it might have made sense to say "well, we know how to make it so that you can only activate one of this module at a time." That was a very long time ago. Nowadays, there certainly are precedents for having limits of how many mods of a given type can be fitted to a ship (Scan Acquisition Array, for one).
Why is it that I still have to reactivate my Damage Control module every time I jump through a gate? As far as anyone can tell, they're clearly designed as passive modules that were hacked into an active version for technical reasons. This seems like it would be an easy change given the other modules that have been added which only allow x per ship.
It was previously stated that this was because of technical limitations. They wanted to make it a passive module, but couldn't. That's why it has such low power grid consumption. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
879
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 21:34:05 -
[4] - Quote
I rather keep it active with the connected chance of failure and energy neut risk than have it passive with significantly reduced stats. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
346
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 21:53:40 -
[5] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:I rather keep it active with the connected chance of failure and energy neut risk than have it passive with significantly reduced stats.
Because it drops all the time when you don't have 1 GJ every 30 seconds even when you are being neuted...
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
208
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 22:13:44 -
[6] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I rather keep it active with the connected chance of failure and energy neut risk than have it passive with significantly reduced stats. Because it drops all the time when you don't have 1 GJ every 30 seconds even when you are being neuted... Seen it happen though.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3053
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 22:24:08 -
[7] - Quote
Fozzie has commented in the past about wanting to change DCUs to be passive modules, citing how they have such a low activation cost over a long enough cycle that they may as well be made into passive mods. He may yet do so in the module rebalance that's underway. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1073
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 22:37:49 -
[8] - Quote
or just make it so you can set an active module to "autorun" IE turns on by itself after a session change whenever it is off unless you previously turned it off after the last session change. I would find this useful for invul fields or active armor hardeners for example. If the only time you need to perform a meaningful UI interaction for those hardeners would be to turn them off, then I don't see a reason to not be able to automatically have them turn on.
TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
My ship fits
|
Vodiann
Beyond New Frontier
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 22:40:43 -
[9] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I rather keep it active with the connected chance of failure and energy neut risk than have it passive with significantly reduced stats. Because it drops all the time when you don't have 1 GJ every 30 seconds even when you are being neuted...
A cap battery helps a lot and so do cap boosters. Guess what... Ewar hurts you. Get over it. |
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 23:12:15 -
[10] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:Saidin Thor wrote:Once upon a time there was no precedent for restricting a player to one mod of a given type fitted to a ship. At this point it might have made sense to say "well, we know how to make it so that you can only activate one of this module at a time." That was a very long time ago. Nowadays, there certainly are precedents for having limits of how many mods of a given type can be fitted to a ship (Scan Acquisition Array, for one).
Why is it that I still have to reactivate my Damage Control module every time I jump through a gate? As far as anyone can tell, they're clearly designed as passive modules that were hacked into an active version for technical reasons. This seems like it would be an easy change given the other modules that have been added which only allow x per ship. It was previously stated that this was because of technical limitations. They wanted to make it a passive module, but couldn't. That's why it has such low power grid consumption.
If you look back at the original reasons for why it was created as an "active" module (when it's clearly intended to be a passive module), you will note that the technical limitations were regarding the inability to limit damage controls to 1 per ship. At the time, they were able to limit damage controls to one active per ship, so they did that.
As I mention in the OP, there have since been a number of modules that have limits on how many can be fitted to a ship. Given these other modules, the technical limitation clearly no longer exists. This leads me to my question: why are damage controls still active modules? |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1975
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 02:20:59 -
[11] - Quote
Vodiann wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I rather keep it active with the connected chance of failure and energy neut risk than have it passive with significantly reduced stats. Because it drops all the time when you don't have 1 GJ every 30 seconds even when you are being neuted... A cap battery helps a lot and so do cap boosters. Guess what... Ewar hurts you. Get over it.
i think you missed the sarcasm...
maybe this will be addressed in the mod re balance. lets hope.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 05:56:49 -
[12] - Quote
Damage control module is very powerful. The requirement of keeping it active is necessary to balance auto piloting.
Quote:[Impel, Autopilot]
6x Reinforced Bulkheads II Damage Control II
2x Medium Transverse Bulkhead II
53,000 EHP without Damage Control active - 107,000 EHP with Damage Control active
Quote:[Nereus, EHP Autopilot]
2x Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Amplifier II Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II Kinetic Deflection Amplifier II
Damage Control II 4x Reinforced Bulkheads II
3x Medium Transverse Bulkhead I
33,000 without - 56,500 with |
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 14:02:40 -
[13] - Quote
A couple people have brought up deactivating a damage control with neuts. While it's technically possible for this to happen, you can pretty much always reactivate it within 1 second after you get cap back (unless you have a neut hitting literally every server tick). Unless CCP has changed their viewpoint, deactivating due to neuts was an unlikely side effect of their implementation (which was necessary for technical reasons), NOT a conscious balance choice.
I'll freely admit I don't know how the back-end of EVE actually works. Maybe it's very complicated to switch a damage control from an active to a passive module. If that's the case I'd love for CCP to say that. Barring that statement, however, it doesn't seem like it would be really hard to switch, and the technical limitations no longer exist judging by other modules that limit to a certain number per ship. So why are damage controls still active?
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Damage control module is very powerful. The requirement of keeping it active is necessary to balance auto piloting.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that balancing for pilots that are autopiloting is not a top concern when looking at damage controls on the whole. The ships that would actually be relevant here (freighters) aren't using them anyways. Damage controls aren't going to save most anything that's smaller from a gank in highsec unless people are doing it wrong. |
Tillius Cimber
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 14:07:48 -
[14] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Damage control module is very powerful. The requirement of keeping it active is necessary to balance auto piloting.
I have to agree. Also I would suggest that armor plate and shield extenders also be turned into active modules because they also provide a huge bonus to autopiloters (who need to be nerfed). |
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 14:30:18 -
[15] - Quote
Saidin Thor wrote:A couple people have brought up deactivating a damage control with neuts. While it's technically possible for this to happen, you can pretty much always reactivate it within 1 second after you get cap back (unless you have a neut hitting literally every server tick). Unless CCP has changed their viewpoint, deactivating due to neuts was an unlikely side effect of their implementation (which was necessary for technical reasons), NOT a conscious balance choice. I'll freely admit I don't know how the back-end of EVE actually works. Maybe it's very complicated to switch a damage control from an active to a passive module. If that's the case I'd love for CCP to say that. Barring that statement, however, it doesn't seem like it would be really hard to switch, and the technical limitations no longer exist judging by other modules that limit to a certain number per ship. So why are damage controls still active? McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Damage control module is very powerful. The requirement of keeping it active is necessary to balance auto piloting. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that balancing for pilots that are autopiloting is not a top concern when looking at damage controls on the whole. The ships that would actually be relevant here (freighters) aren't using them anyways. Damage controls aren't going to save most anything that's smaller from a gank in highsec unless people are doing it wrong. Let's use the tanked Badger for example.
[Badger, Autopilot 2]
2x Large Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II EM Ward Amplifier II Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II Kinetic Deflection Amplifier II
4x Power Diagnostic System II
3x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
- 44,000 EHP
[Badger, Passive DCU Autopilot]
2x Large Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II EM Ward Amplifier II Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II Kinetic Deflection Amplifier II
3x Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II
3x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
- 52,000 EHP
18% increase in EHP if DCU goes passive. This is at the lower end of the spectrum too since it's 17,000 shield HP vs 2,500 hull HP. Most ships would not have such a large discrepancy between shield and hull so the DCU would be even more effective.
Hull tanked Nereus can get to 56,000 EHP passively if DCU goes passive... 27% increase in EHP over the passive Badger. |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
705
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 15:55:28 -
[16] - Quote
Damage Control as a passive...makes no sense unless it becomes a regen like shield tank drakes for "controlling damage" . You also got bulk heads that add hit points, which are passives, cause + resist or + hitpoints are basically the same thing at a given level (1000 hp x .25 resist or 1000 hp + 250 hitpoints = 1250 hitpoints regardless) but EVE has that weird stacking ability to add + resist and more hitpoints . Damage controls aside from the resistance bonus that helps cap out you resists to armor/shield....do nothing, but are a staple PVP mode for buffer for that last layer in the hull. If anything, it needs a massive nerf in the hitpoint bonus to hull so ships go boom faster |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 17:20:05 -
[17] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I rather keep it active with the connected chance of failure and energy neut risk than have it passive with significantly reduced stats. Because it drops all the time when you don't have 1 GJ every 30 seconds even when you are being neuted...
No it doesn't, but if the neut lands at the right moment, which it's done to me several times.....
Yeah structure without a DC goes away very, very quickly. I ended up winning the most recent fight because i turned it back on after a flight of hobgoblin II's volleyed me for like 600 damage....i survived with 14 structure hitpoints. |
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 18:05:23 -
[18] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Saidin Thor wrote:McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Damage control module is very powerful. The requirement of keeping it active is necessary to balance auto piloting. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that balancing for pilots that are autopiloting is not a top concern when looking at damage controls on the whole. The ships that would actually be relevant here (freighters) aren't using them anyways. Damage controls aren't going to save most anything that's smaller from a gank in highsec unless people are doing it wrong. Let's use the tanked Badger for example, the bane of the gate ganker. ...
You have 9 mods (and 3 rigs) that are all "passive" on your gimmick passive tank fit you've posted. As the other person that quoted you glibly pointed out, these are all contributing to the EHP of your fit. In fact, both of your MSE IIs individually contribute significantly more than the Damage Control II does. By the logic you're currently using, the only consistent thing to do would be to make all of those mods active.
Furthermore, my point was that "ganking AFK ships" isn't even relevant to the question. CCP originally said the only reason it ISN'T a passive module is because they COULDN'T make it a passive module. It's not a giant leap to assume that, if it does BECOME possible in the future, the best course of action would be to change it. You're defending the status quo with made up reasons when it wasn't ever really intended to be this way in the first place.
Aqriue wrote:Damage Control as a passive...makes no sense unless it becomes a regen like shield tank drakes for "controlling damage" . You also got bulk heads that add hit points, which are passives, cause + resist or + hitpoints are basically the same thing at a given level (1000 hp x .25 resist or 1000 hp + 250 hitpoints = 1250 hitpoints regardless) but EVE has that weird stacking ability to add + resist and more hitpoints . Damage controls aside from the resistance bonus that helps cap out you resists to armor/shield....do nothing, but are a staple PVP mode for buffer for that last layer in the hull. If anything, it needs a massive nerf in the hitpoint bonus to hull so ships go boom faster
There are already passive hardeners for both armor and shield. All they do is increase resistances. Suggesting that shield rechargers are the only type of "passive" tank mod is not reflective of the options available in the game.
In addition, I think you're limiting the usage of damage controls well beyond their actual scope. One of the ways people use damage controls is to cap out their EHP by squeezing a little more out of their hull hit points, sure. Another very valid and very common use is to use the increased resistances to increase the effective tank on your ship (whether it's a local rep or remote reps). IE, repairing 100 shield/second because twice as good if you go from 0% -> 50% resists. Damage Controls add another non-stacking-penalized layer of resistances, as you mentioned. I would argue that, in fact, this use case is even MORE common than the use case you have put forward.
For solo PvP, you're probably right that the EHP bonus is all that really becomes relevant.
In small gang warfare, both EHP and increased resistances are going to be relevant at different times. Many types of small gangs have local or remote reps, or are planning on warping off when targeted, etc. Trying to "outlast" someone with your extra hull EHP would be the exception in this case, not the rule. Nevertheless, let's call small gang a wash in terms of which is more relevant.
For large groups, you're always relying on either superior tank or some other way of controlling the engagement (dictating range and assuming you'll take minimal damage during fights, for instance). In these situations, the EHP from hull is nearly completely irrelevant. The increased resistances, however, are vitally important in being able to tank all the more incoming damage without breaking your logistics.
On a per capita basis, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to say that more pilots are involved in large fights than are involved in solo fights. There are plenty more solo fights, but each big fight involves dozens to hundreds of players.
Regardless, the question of whether Damage Controls need a "nerf" to the hull resistances they add is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the question of whether it should be changed to a passive module instead of the pretend-passive-but-really-active-because-we-couldn't-make-it-actually-passive module it is right now.
|
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling
472
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 18:12:12 -
[19] - Quote
+1
I have yet to hear a good argument for why a DC shouldn't be passive.
The closest one to any substantive value is that neuts can shut them off, but that's a terrible argument considering all you need to do is spam the button for the next server tick when you get the 1 GJ of cap back from the server. It's retardedly bad micro mechanics.
Schrodinger's Hot Dropper
The Fate of Forum Alts
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |