EVE Search - [Proposal] Make damage controls passive modules

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Make damage controls passive modules

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Miyamoto Isoruku Caldari The Phoenix Enclave	Posted - 2010.03.05 08:54:00 - [31] Originally by: Pellura Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Dav Varan AFK hull tank travel fits FTW jk Not supported for this reason. This To be fair this was something I hadn't thought of, but let's consider how much it would actually increase EHP of your average hauler: probably on the order of 1500 EHP, which would come at the expense of cargo capacity. TBH I don't think this seriously weakens the suicide gank mechanic.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.05 11:08:00 - [32] support
Brian Khan StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.05 11:09:00 - [33]
Vlad Wormwing StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.05 11:09:00 - [34]
Tehnomaag StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.05 11:10:00 - [35]
Fistme	Posted - 2010.03.05 15:55:00 - [36] Originally by: Red Raider Originally by: Venkul Mul So apparently the use of energy to use the damage control is only a legacy thing, something left over from old problems. Note that the DC is in a category of its own as it is not stacking nerfed and stack with other modules but don't stack with other DC. It's stacking nerfs are applied to it's resistance bonus's when I use it so I am not sure what you are talking about there. Though you may be right that it's already in a catagory of it's own since when it isn't on it doesn't seem to get any bonus from the compensation skills. Still stupidly small but saves one click here and there so why not. Oh My God.... You sit here and argue however you have 100% NO IDEA WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. DCs are not stacking nerfed with anything... Pull up EFT or mess around with the fitting manager in the game... Also using arguments that making it passive would cause extra server load is one of the dumbest standpoints I have seen this year... Do you know how the code works? Nope. Do you know that items can't be sepperated from the effect of skills? Nope... So STFU and stop talking out your ass like you have some knowledge about how the game works when you are clearly making it all up just to support your trolly argumentative banter... Now, for my opinion... No, DC does not need to be passive... It's already the most powerful low slot tanking item in game, why do we need to make it even more powerful??!?
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.03.05 16:33:00 - [37] Originally by: Fistme Originally by: Red Raider Originally by: Venkul Mul So apparently the use of energy to use the damage control is only a legacy thing, something left over from old problems. Note that the DC is in a category of its own as it is not stacking nerfed and stack with other modules but don't stack with other DC. It's stacking nerfs are applied to it's resistance bonus's when I use it so I am not sure what you are talking about there. Though you may be right that it's already in a catagory of it's own since when it isn't on it doesn't seem to get any bonus from the compensation skills. Still stupidly small but saves one click here and there so why not. Oh My God.... You sit here and argue however you have 100% NO IDEA WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. DCs are not stacking nerfed with anything... Pull up EFT or mess around with the fitting manager in the game... Also using arguments that making it passive would cause extra server load is one of the dumbest standpoints I have seen this year... Do you know how the code works? Nope. Do you know that items can't be sepperated from the effect of skills? Nope... So STFU and stop talking out your ass like you have some knowledge about how the game works when you are clearly making it all up just to support your trolly argumentative banter... Now, for my opinion... No, DC does not need to be passive... It's already the most powerful low slot tanking item in game, why do we need to make it even more powerful??!? Do you behave like this in real life because maybe you should keep reading this before flipping out. All of my points were absolutely valid points UNTIL it was determined that A) it is seperated from the skills already so any extra load it causes already exists and B)the stacking nerf does indeed impact it's shield and armor resistances just not it's hull resists since there are no hull resistance modules. IE if you have 20% resist and add in a hardener to get it to 50% and add in a DCU you only get 5% more which would be about right with the current mechanic of an 87% reduction in effectiveness for the hardening bonus of the DCU on top of the standard reduction. It's a debate moron try to keep up. In a debate I can be pursueded however most people don't think of such basic things when they shout there idea's to the EVE community such as opportunity cost and load so I point those out regularly. If you don't like it then don't visit the assembly.
Maxsim Goratiev Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.05 16:41:00 - [38] Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 05/03/2010 16:43:47 Quote: Now, for my opinion... No, DC does not need to be passive... It's already the most powerful low slot tanking item in game, why do we need to make it even more powerful??!? Although de-uro Dc is an active module, De-facto, it is a passive module as it has no capacitor consumption. Even if you are neuting a frigate with a battleship, you will not shut-down the damage control, it consumes 1/30 Gj/s which is literally nothing. That means every time it it being activating there is an unnecessary request to the server, as it does not serve a practical purpose. No, i do not want it to be passive because of AFK'ers, we are not fighting afk=ers by making uncomfortable UI. Red Raider- please, you are trolling so hard it hurts. Quote: he is still complaining? He is not complaining, he points out how obviously stupid your argument is. I really hope that you are trolling. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes.StevieSG
Fistme	Posted - 2010.03.05 18:56:00 - [39] Originally by: Red Raider Do you behave like this in real life because maybe you should keep reading this before flipping out. All of my points were absolutely valid points UNTIL it was determined that A) it is seperated from the skills already so any extra load it causes already exists and B)the stacking nerf does indeed impact it's shield and armor resistances just not it's hull resists since there are no hull resistance modules. IE if you have 20% resist and add in a hardener to get it to 50% and add in a DCU you only get 5% more which would be about right with the current mechanic of an 87% reduction in effectiveness for the hardening bonus of the DCU on top of the standard reduction. It's a debate moron try to keep up. In a debate I can be pursueded however most people don't think of such basic things when they shout there idea's to the EVE community such as opportunity cost and load so I point those out regularly. If you don't like it then don't visit the assembly. I only behave like this in RL to people who are so ignorant about their own "interpritation" of facts that they think they are right when they are 100% incorrect. DCs DO NOT HAVE ANY STACKING PENALTY WHAT SO EVER. You sit here and type about how Assembly hall is about debates when this simple FACT is not up for debate because it is a FACT!. The debate is "Do you think DCs should be passive modules", and I have already stated my rather simplistic point of view, No. The Debate is not about if DC has a stacking penalty because it does not. The % of resistance added by the DC is based on the meta lvl of the DC and has no other modifier! Try it out, put on 2 hardeners, then put a dcuII on after. If my Resistance on Thermal is 61.8% (2x EANMII) and I put on a DCUII it increases my thermal to 67.6. that is a 15% increase, the amount of increase to Thermal if the DCUII was NOT effected by a diminishing return... Stop trolling already... You're not good at it. 0/10
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.03.05 20:59:00 - [40] Originally by: Fistme Originally by: Red Raider Do you behave like this in real life because maybe you should keep reading this before flipping out. All of my points were absolutely valid points UNTIL it was determined that A) it is seperated from the skills already so any extra load it causes already exists and B)the stacking nerf does indeed impact it's shield and armor resistances just not it's hull resists since there are no hull resistance modules. IE if you have 20% resist and add in a hardener to get it to 50% and add in a DCU you only get 5% more which would be about right with the current mechanic of an 87% reduction in effectiveness for the hardening bonus of the DCU on top of the standard reduction. It's a debate moron try to keep up. In a debate I can be pursueded however most people don't think of such basic things when they shout there idea's to the EVE community such as opportunity cost and load so I point those out regularly. If you don't like it then don't visit the assembly. I only behave like this in RL to people who are so ignorant about their own "interpritation" of facts that they think they are right when they are 100% incorrect. DCs DO NOT HAVE ANY STACKING PENALTY WHAT SO EVER. You sit here and type about how Assembly hall is about debates when this simple FACT is not up for debate because it is a FACT!. The debate is "Do you think DCs should be passive modules", and I have already stated my rather simplistic point of view, No. The Debate is not about if DC has a stacking penalty because it does not. The % of resistance added by the DC is based on the meta lvl of the DC and has no other modifier! Try it out, put on 2 hardeners, then put a dcuII on after. If my Resistance on Thermal is 61.8% (2x EANMII) and I put on a DCUII it increases my thermal to 67.6. that is a 15% increase, the amount of increase to Thermal if the DCUII was NOT effected by a diminishing return... Stop trolling already... You're not good at it. 0/10 Even if you are right it's irrelevant and you very well may be right but I honestly don't care. Also if you are saying that 5.8 is a 15% increase then you need to rework your math but that's not a central issue here. If you pay attention I am not the one who started the resistance argument that was the OP stating that passive resists are not affected by the compensation skills and I corrected him. Then he went off on a tangent just like you are on. Funny how that works are we alt posting now? My point in being against it as a passive module has already been resolved and thus I supported the OP. In the end it doesn't matter because the AFK hauler hitch will probably kill it anyways though I honestly don't understand why you wouldn't just equip a web/jammer to resolve that problem. But oh well, keep railing against me for debating a topic. It won't make me stop.
Tagami Wasp Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.05 21:12:00 - [41] Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 05/03/2010 19:25:15 Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 05/03/2010 16:43:47 Quote: Now, for my opinion... No, DC does not need to be passive... It's already the most powerful low slot tanking item in game, why do we need to make it even more powerful??!? Although de-uro Dc is an active module, De-facto, it is a passive module as it has no capacitor consumption. Even if you are neuting a frigate with a battleship, you will not shut-down the damage control, it consumes 1/30 Gj/s which is literally nothing. That means every time it it being activating there is an unnecessary request to the server, as it does not serve a practical purpose. No, i do not want it to be passive because of AFK'ers, we are not fighting afk=ers by making uncomfortable UI. QFT ------------ +15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG
Marked Ugler	Posted - 2010.03.05 23:02:00 - [42] Edited by: Marked Ugler on 05/03/2010 23:02:47 Quote: Also if you are saying that 5.8 is a 15% increase then you need to rework your math but that's not a central issue here. Get out. Not only are you an idiot or a troll, you also are incapable of basic math. let's make Dc's passive, current situation is pointless.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2010.03.06 05:56:00 - [43] Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Dav Varan AFK hull tank travel fits FTW jk Not supported for this reason. word.
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.03.06 07:15:00 - [44] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Dav Varan AFK hull tank travel fits FTW jk Not supported for this reason. word. Because haulers are so hard to gank atm, right? The extra 1.5k ehp will totally imbalance the game?
Miyamoto Isoruku Caldari The Phoenix Enclave	Posted - 2010.03.06 12:41:00 - [45] OK math time. An ubertanked badger II (4x MSE II, Mag Scattering Amp II, Heat Dissipation Amplifier II) has 14.1k EHP with max skills, three cargo expander IIs, and no DC. With DC II instead of one of those cargo expanders, you get 17.4k EHP. For an Itty V, the difference is between 12.7k and 15.8k EHP. But, given that people who AFK-haul valuable items are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, I have serious doubts as to how many would fit their haulers competently. And of course fitting with reinforced bulkheads increases tank potential considerably--we're talking 25k EHP with a dual structure/shield tank on the Itty with the DC adding a full 9k EHP, but besides meaning you don't have cargo expanders, those four reinforced bulkhead IIs will slow you down by more than a third, making AFK autopilot times considerably longer. Anyway, if people are worried about the AFK tanking, one alternative would be to keep the DC as an active mod, but have its cycle time be 24 hours. That way, you still have to activate it while jumping into a system, but it should mean that there is only that one server call per activation, which is a whole lot less frequently than once every thirty seconds (unless I'm totally misunderstanding how the server works, which is entirely possible).
el Sabor	Posted - 2010.03.06 15:44:00 - [46] Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Even if you are neuting a frigate with a battleship, you will not shut-down the damage control, it consumes 1/30 Gj/s which is literally nothing. 1/30 Gj's is not literally nothing! It's practically nothing. Sorry, pet hate of mine :p I have had my damage control deactivated repeatedly by a curse in a fight a gate camp a while back. Had to keep flicking it back on. Think they must have been running a small neut on it. I'm 50/50 on this so not supporting.
Fistme	Posted - 2010.03.06 18:07:00 - [47] Originally by: Red Raider Also if you are saying that 5.8 is a 15% increase then you need to rework your math but that's not a central issue here. If you pay attention I am not the one who started the resistance argument that was the OP stating that passive resists are not affected by the compensation skills and I corrected him. Then he went off on a tangent just like you are on. Funny how that works are we alt posting now? Dude... You Fail... 5.8% is 15% of the difference between 100%(max resistance) and the 61.8%(Current Resistance)... The 15% is applied to the gap between 100 and 61.8 or 38.2. Rework you're math and you will find that 5.8% is the resistance increase of a 15% DCU. As for me being an alt of the Op... Really man? are you really going to continue this pointless drivel?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.06 20:36:00 - [48] Originally by: Red Raider Do you behave like this in real life because maybe you should keep reading this before flipping out. All of my points were absolutely valid points UNTIL it was determined that A) it is seperated from the skills already so any extra load it causes already exists and B)the stacking nerf does indeed impact it's shield and armor resistances just not it's hull resists since there are no hull resistance modules. IE if you have 20% resist and add in a hardener to get it to 50% and add in a DCU you only get 5% more which would be about right with the current mechanic of an 87% reduction in effectiveness for the hardening bonus of the DCU on top of the standard reduction. It's a debate moron try to keep up. In a debate I can be pursueded however most people don't think of such basic things when they shout there idea's to the EVE community such as opportunity cost and load so I point those out regularly. If you don't like it then don't visit the assembly. The problem is that you confuse stacking nerfed with diminishing returns. What you are speaking of are diminishing returns, i.e. the resistance bonus is applied to the difference between 100% and the current resists. So the 10% resist of the DC in your example is applied to the 50% of the resist not already covered by the module you applied first. 10%50%=5% (BTW 10%87%=8.7%) The stacking nerf is a modifier to all of a module modifiers if at least one of is modifier is stacked with another module affecting the same characteristic. If you have 4 modules affecting your shield EM resistance, the first work at 100% efficiency, the second at 87%, the third at 57% and the fourth at 28% (when activating them they are considered in decrescent strength order, so the strongest give 100% benefit, the second strongest 87% and so on). For resists module both the stack nerf and the diminishing return modifiers are in effect, with the exception of the DC that is affected only by the diminishing returns.
Wyke Mossari Staner Industries	Posted - 2010.03.07 11:30:00 - [49] Seems like a genuinely good idea, lets see what the Dev feedback to CSM is before we speculating. Supported for the purposes of getting feedback.
Dariah Stardweller Gallente Gung-Ho	Posted - 2010.03.07 11:45:00 - [50] Originally by: Red Raider Not supported. If it was a passive module it's resistances would be increased by the shield/armor hardening skills. And we have a winner. This is EXACTLY why CCP hasn't made it a passive unit.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2010.03.07 12:17:00 - [51] Originally by: Dariah Stardweller Originally by: Red Raider Not supported. If it was a passive module it's resistances would be increased by the shield/armor hardening skills. And we have a winner. This is EXACTLY why CCP hasn't made it a passive unit. Nope. There is a really old thread that CCP said why it has to be (or had to be when they put it in or whatever) an active module. Can't find the original thread though.
Kayllyn Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.09 03:09:00 - [52] F the haters, I want fewer tedious clicks.
Saju Somtaaw Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing DRACONIAN COVENANT	Posted - 2010.03.09 04:31:00 - [53] Yes please, save load on the server too :) ---- --- ---
chatgris Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.09 05:43:00 - [54] Originally by: Kayllyn F the haters, I want fewer tedious clicks. I was initially going to not support this, but read this. FEWER TEDIOUS CLICKS!
Denuo Secus	Posted - 2010.03.09 06:01:00 - [55] Supported. And change the icon while you're at it. Old suitcase is old and not internet-spaceship-like - Save the missiles from the glowing blob :S R ----------> * A --------> * V --------> * E -------> * N ---------> *

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.