Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Silc'n
Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 22:26:00 -
[1]
Instead of necroing back last month's thread*, I'm making a new one.
When are you CCP guys going to make Damage Control a module that doesn't require from the player to click on it to activate it?
1)Remove cap activation cost for Damage Control 2)Make it truly passive 3)Make it apply its attributes without having to undock and clicking on it
CCP Tuxford admitted the mechanics are outdated, fix this now, it's a reasonable request that will benefit everyone.
*old thread ~> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1047866 -------------------------------- Goons in Blackbirds are awesome. |
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 22:31:00 -
[2]
They would have to change other skills and mechanics just to appeal to the people who can't learn how to activate a defense module.
It's 1 frickin module...and it's fine the way it is.
|
cok cola
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 22:33:00 -
[3]
tbh it makes sense, esp in lag situations where you might not get to activate it as soon as youd like ------------------------------------------
|
Silc'n
Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 22:36:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Silc''n on 21/05/2009 22:36:13 Do you click on your EANMs to activate them? Do you click on your resistance amplifiers to activate them? Do you click on your Tracking Enhancers/DMG mods to activate them?
The "it's 1 frickin module" argument is stale, seriously. Either sign the request or get out. -------------------------------- Goons in Blackbirds are awesome. |
Mikael Mechka
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 22:36:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Quesa They would have to change other skills and mechanics just to appeal to the people who can't learn how to activate a defense module.
It's 1 frickin module...and it's fine the way it is.
This was my reaction at first as well. Though in high lag areas with long module activation times it might help reduce server load- every little bit helps as they say. -------------------------------------------------
Originally by: Lana Torrin
I just reported you for being informative in a troll thread. Please leave.
|
Ausser
Cybertech Industrials Agency
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 23:52:00 -
[6]
This 1 cap every 30 seconds can be tricky - and cause a lot of fun.
Most time you'll have that 1 cap ready. But there are situations where this is not the case - and there the **** hits the fan and the thrill/fun starts.
Fortunately, they will not change it, right because of this 1-cap-fun.
If laag during jump in is your issue, why dont you ask to make the dc be active during/after the jump if it was active before? That would find much more support than to nerf it into a passive module. But on the other hand - it would cause lots of 'waaah i want my invul stay active after jump too' whining. But who cares? Epic whining is an integral part of eve.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 04:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Silc'n Edited by: Silc''n on 21/05/2009 22:48:54 Edited by: Silc''n on 21/05/2009 22:36:13 Do you click on your EANMs to activate them? Do you click on your resistance amplifiers to activate them? Do you click on your Tracking Enhancers/DMG mods to activate them?
The answer is no. You see, the Damage Control is one of those modules you're not supposed to click & activate. The reason it works this way now is because during its inception, the dev team couldn't introduce a module of this type without making it active and cost cap. To make it "look" passive though, they gave it a minimal cap cost (1 energy every 30 seconds). But of course you'd know that if you had read the previous thread.
The "it's 1 frickin module" argument is stale, seriously.
Either sign the request or get out.
Do your EANM's increase your hull, armor and shield resists? Do your shield amps increase your hull, armor and shield resists?
I thought not.
Besides, if it was passive it would interact with all the compensation skills.
It's 1 frickin mod.
The "it's 1 frickin module" argument is stale, seriously. This isn't the place for your "see my point of view or gtfo because i'm always right and anyone who doesn't think like me is obviously wrong." Who would have thought that this is the level of maturity you have.
|
Mr Krosis
The humble Crew
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:29:00 -
[8]
Wow, there's been a whole lot of time and thought towards a change which as far as I can tell will have no actual impact on the game.
I don't have any reasons against the suggested change, but I'd just rather CCP spend their time on actual issues, and not just random pointless stuff.
Really you should probably just submit it as a bug report, hope to get someone to file it as a defect, and wait for it to make it to a patch in their next round of 'fixing a bunch of stuff with special fitting constraints' (just missed it, they fixed a bunch of those things last patch like capital mods that required 10,000 CPU).
-- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge. |
Grez
Minmatar Core Contingency Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 06:35:00 -
[9]
It was only put there originally because it was easier to restrict to to one activated per ship than one fitted per ship.
Now that it's just as easy to make the change, do it properly. --- Grez: I shot the sheriff Kalazar: But I could not lock the Deputy BECAUSE OF FALCON |
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 07:29:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Quesa Besides, if it was passive it would interact with all the compensation skills.
IIRC that was half the reason it was made active in the first place - but it has been stated that the attribute modification need not lead to that now. The intent behind the 1 cap/30 seconds was to make it a passive module without having to rewrite half the game code to void the problem. But that's no longer an issue and the only barrier to making the Damage control modules passive now is time. --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
|
Sleepkevert
Amarr Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 07:40:00 -
[11]
I'd rather have them fix the current issues then spend their time re-writing a lot of code to remove the activation on damage controls...
Yes, the mechanics are outdated, but that doesn't mean they are broken or replaced in a few minutes.
Fix first, new stuff / improvements later. _
Add your own line! |
kano donn
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 14:52:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mr Krosis Wow, there's been a whole lot of time and thought towards a change which as far as I can tell will have no actual impact on the game.
I don't have any reasons against the suggested change, but I'd just rather CCP spend their time on actual issues, and not just random pointless stuff.
Really you should probably just submit it as a bug report, hope to get someone to file it as a defect, and wait for it to make it to a patch in their next round of 'fixing a bunch of stuff with special fitting constraints' (just missed it, they fixed a bunch of those things last patch like capital mods that required 10,000 CPU).
this
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 17:31:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Sleepkevert I'd rather have them fix the current issues then spend their time re-writing a lot of code to remove the activation on damage controls...
Yes, the mechanics are outdated, but that doesn't mean they are broken or replaced in a few minutes.
Fix first, new stuff / improvements later.
yes changing 1 value in module definition is definitly 1 year project.
60D GTC - shattared link |
Sleepkevert
Amarr Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 17:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl
Originally by: Sleepkevert I'd rather have them fix the current issues then spend their time re-writing a lot of code to remove the activation on damage controls...
Yes, the mechanics are outdated, but that doesn't mean they are broken or replaced in a few minutes.
Fix first, new stuff / improvements later.
yes changing 1 value in module definition is definitly 1 year project.
No, but coding the game mechanic to accomodate that value is. As it stands there is no code here to either include resistance boosts while excluding the comprensation skills, and no code as well to be able to check if you may only fit one module of that.
The game mechanic may be outdated, but I can't think of any other module that requires or has already implemented either of these two things. And even if it was as simple as changing just one value. Running that trugh Q&A and checking for potential exploits, takes up far more time then they currently should be spending on it. Rather have them fix stuff.
I never said it would be a year project, but definately a week or two worth of worktime (if not more) to implement, test, retest, bugfix and then deploy. Time currently better spent on bugfixing the current bugs rather then introduce new-ones.
Oh and, pressing the module after you decloak is hardly a neusance, you have to think about your armor hardners / reps anyway. so I doubt this will end up high on the piority list. _
Add your own line! |
Denuo Secus
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 17:57:00 -
[15]
I support OPs point. A real passive module would make more sense here. I also want to add something: please change the Damage Control icon!
I know I know - it's a first aid kit :P But tbh it's not used like "first aid". And that old suitcase really doesn't fit into space ships imho. I'd like any shiny-sophisticated-technical as icon rather. Just my opinion...
|
|
CCP Tuxford
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 22:36:00 -
[16]
I did not say the mechanic is outdated. I merely listed the reason for why some decisions where taken at the time. Currently I know of no plans to change this. Personally I don't think it's necessary, but those decisions are not up to me anymore. _______________ |
|
Robdon
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 22:50:00 -
[17]
I would have thought this would be a great idea to reduce some transactions and lag.
Currently in systems with 100s of chars in, every ship is sending a DC command every 30 seconds, and as battles start I'm sure it must compensate for some of the lag.
Might not be that much, but lots of 'littles' can make a difference.
Rob.
|
Spindeln
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 22:59:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Silc'n Instead of necroing back last month's thread*, I'm making a new one.
When are you CCP guys going to make Damage Control a module that doesn't require from the player to click on it to activate it?
1)Remove cap activation cost for Damage Control 2)Make it truly passive 3)Make it apply its attributes without having to undock and clicking on it
CCP Tuxford admitted the mechanics are outdated, fix this now, it's a reasonable request that will benefit everyone.
*old thread ~> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1047866
For you dear sir, I recommend this indeed very thrilling game: www.progressquest.com
Among a long list of features, you will find that it requires no interaction from the player whatsoever. Now kindly leave that fine damage control alone, it never hurt anyone.
|
el Sabor
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 02:02:00 -
[19]
This really didn't need a second thread, the old one got buried for a reason.
I for one like turning my damage control on. It's like mobilising the crew to patch up your ship while you fight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_control
|
K1RTH G3RS3N
Haunted House BROTHERS GRIM.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 05:20:00 -
[20]
make damage control cycle time shorter, cost more cap..... and overloadable
|
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 09:58:00 -
[21]
Damage Control needs to be active.
Why?
Because it means that you are not getting a "free" 60% bonus to your hull resistances. It means that you DO get a non-stacking penalized bonus array of both armor and shields. It means that you have to CLICK IT ONE TIME when you undock and then not worry about it ever ever again, unless you miraculously wind up with 0 cap on it's next cycle.
It gives you so much, yet it asks so little. Leave it be the way that it is. If it required no capacitor it would basically be like saying "let's just remove one slot from most ships that always use the damage control anyway and adjust its attributes to match."
It's an active module. Deal with it.
PS: Tuxford please don't leave the EVE project ok :( I miss all the old developers who actually lived for the game. :(
|
Colonel T
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 10:13:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Colonel T on 23/05/2009 10:13:29 Please don't implement a needless addition/modification when Eve is in this unpredictable state. At this time of posting, what should be mainly focused on is ironing out all the bugs. Enough new content, well at least for a good while. Seems every month now it's a patch to fix a patch and those patches seem to have new content, that will probably need patching due to bugging out something else in context. A game of this magnitude should not be this unstable period.
Damage Control? Eve needs it.
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 16:19:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Terra Mikael on 23/05/2009 16:21:33
Originally by: Quesa They would have to change other skills and mechanics just to appeal to the people who can't learn how to activate a defense module.
It's 1 frickin module...and it's fine the way it is.
let us overheat it like every other active tank module.
edit: ****ty grammar ________________________________
Originally by: Lone Gunman Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would |
Fumen
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 17:27:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Fumen on 23/05/2009 17:28:26 For those that are pointing out that the DC will be effected by shield and armor compensation skills if it's made passive, I have one question: Is it effected by them now? Given the description in both sets of skills, an active module still receives a small boost when not turned on. The answer is, of course, no, the DC is not effected by these skills now, so why would it be if they changed it to passive? The DC is a special case 'Damage control' mod that has special rules and conditions, not an armor resist or shield resist mod.
Should it be changed to passive? No. Why? It provides the same resist increase to hull that armor hardeners and shield hardeners provide to their respective systems. The bonus of increasing resists all around without stacking penalties makes this module even more of a candidate to stay active.
Possible compromise: introduce a passive version of the DC that only provides a fraction of the resists to the hull, armor, and shield than given by the current DC.
Edit: Added a bit more information to clarify my point.
|
eliminator2
Gallente Annihilate. Shock Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 19:07:00 -
[25]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford I did not say the mechanic is outdated. I merely listed the reason for why some decisions where taken at the time. Currently I know of no plans to change this. Personally I don't think it's necessary, but those decisions are not up to me anymore.
couldnt agree more i like having a little briefcase on my mods but if it goes ful passive i wont see it :(
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar Star's Dust Industrie
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 08:08:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Silc'n 2)Make it truly passive
I like it active. If you forget to activate it, it's your problem. Just don't forget. Eve is not doing automaticly things for you, and it's fine. Fetchez la vache ! moar(tm) < soon(tm) :(
|
Jade TX
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 09:54:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Silc'n Instead of necroing back last month's thread*, I'm making a new one.
When are you CCP guys going to make Damage Control a module that doesn't require from the player to click on it to activate it?
1)Remove cap activation cost for Damage Control 2)Make it truly passive 3)Make it apply its attributes without having to undock and clicking on it
CCP Tuxford admitted the mechanics are outdated, fix this now, it's a reasonable request that will benefit everyone.
*old thread ~> http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1047866
This is all in favor of all passive caldari drakes for example and everything else must be active, armor can have no advantages what so ever over a shield tank so your forced to train for CCP's flagship race if you want the best tank in the game.
This is why armor tanks are so behind shields because armor tanking is not part of the flagship race. There can be no regeneration or 1000DPS super tanks that are totally immune to neuting on armor tanks that's just not part of the intended races to have, they must only be overpowered for the flagship race in the game. No we can't have super armor tanks that are neut proof too. That would just be overpowered, only caldari can have the overpowered tanks cus they are the flagship race of eve. :l
|
Tekki Sandan
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 11:57:00 -
[28]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford I did not say the mechanic is outdated. I merely listed the reason for why some decisions where taken at the time. Currently I know of no plans to change this. Personally I don't think it's necessary, but those decisions are not up to me anymore.
I agree, and when making your post, if your going to use the dev's as part of your arguement atleast get your facts right. Its not ment to be a passive module. Shield amps increase shield resistances, EANM's increase armor resistances. What even makes you think that a damage control should work like this? I mean is it that hard to press a button? |
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 12:05:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Blane Xero on 25/05/2009 12:06:41 Whoooopsiee |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |