EVE Search - The Damage Control needs to be passive, now more than ever.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Damage Control needs to be passive, now more than ever.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 166	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:25:00 - [1] - Quote I know this module was supposed to be passive from the beginning, and now with the safe logoff it really needs to happen. If you have the DC active, you basically have a 30-60 sec logoff because it has such a long cycle time.
Rordan D'Kherr Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 234	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:30:00 - [2] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: I know this module was supposed to be passive from the beginning, and now with the safe logoff it really needs to happen. If you have the DC active, you basically have a 30-60 sec logoff because it has such a long cycle time. Consequences vOv _______________________________________ Don't be scared, because being afk is not a crime.
Arrs Grazznic Poena Executive Solutions 92	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:30:00 - [3] - Quote And the problem is?
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 166	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:39:00 - [4] - Quote Rordan D'Kherr wrote: Hannott Thanos wrote: I know this module was supposed to be passive from the beginning, and now with the safe logoff it really needs to happen. If you have the DC active, you basically have a 30-60 sec logoff because it has such a long cycle time. Consequences vOv Yeah, one that should not have been there to begin with.
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 402	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:42:00 - [5] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: Rordan D'Kherr wrote: Hannott Thanos wrote: I know this module was supposed to be passive from the beginning, and now with the safe logoff it really needs to happen. If you have the DC active, you basically have a 30-60 sec logoff because it has such a long cycle time. Consequences vOv Yeah, one that should not have been there to begin with. What exactly is the problem
Eli Green The Arrow Project 91	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:46:00 - [6] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: I know this module was supposed to be passive from the beginning, and now with the safe logoff it really needs to happen. If you have the DC active, you basically have a 30-60 sec logoff because it has such a long cycle time. log off the normal way? wumbo
Jake Warbird Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1818	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:50:00 - [7] - Quote Rordan D'Kherr wrote: Hannott Thanos wrote: I know this module was supposed to be passive from the beginning, and now with the safe logoff it really needs to happen. If you have the DC active, you basically have a 30-60 sec logoff because it has such a long cycle time. Consequences vOv This. Apparently this is a key word in the scheme of things. Crazy, right?
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 166	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:51:00 - [8] - Quote People don't see the problem with DC being an active module? Really?
Aziesta Sathainn Braithrean Cartel Apocalypse Now. 185	Posted - 2012.12.06 14:56:00 - [9] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: People don't see the problem with DC being an active module? Really? Turn off the DC when you disengage, bounce between 2 safe-spots if necessary while waiting for it to finish. I see no problem.
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 402	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:01:00 - [10] - Quote Having active modules makes no difference to log off timer whatsoever ...... They only issues damage control being active has is a) you might forget to turn it on and b) it can get neuted off (very rare thanks to long cycle/tiny cap use). So basically its fine.

TheBlueMonkey Don't Be a Menace That Red Alliance 211	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:03:00 - [11] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: People don't see the problem with DC being an active module? Really? I don't see a problem
iskflakes Magnets Inc. 123	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:05:00 - [12] - Quote This seems like a good suggestion to me. Track your wealth with EVEStats - https://ohheck.co.uk/EVEStats/home.php
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 166	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:08:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Tuxford wrote: Back in the day before I became a programmer with cynical outlook on live I used to be game designer and was actually involved when we changed the functionality of damage controls. This was back in the day when TomB and Hammerhead were mostly doing the balancing and I was their intern math *****. Now we decided that we'd want the damage control to be a really powerful defensive module but we didn't want people to just fill up their lows with it making all other defensive mods obsolete so we also decided that you could only fit one at a time. At that point we didn't really have the luxury of programming time and we did not have any tools to create a module where only one could be fitted. We did however have a functionality where we could only activate x module at a time so we decided that the damage control would have to be activated but have really low cap need. So there you have it, the reason dc's use cap in an overly long story
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 402	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:12:00 - [14] - Quote Yeah but the dc being active adds only good things to the game.
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 166	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:14:00 - [15] - Quote Doddy wrote: Yeah but the dc being active adds only good things to the game. How so?
Silk daShocka Greasy Hair Club 170	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:21:00 - [16] - Quote If you can't wait 30-60 seconds to logoff, you are logging off for the wrong reasons imo.
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 402	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:22:00 - [17] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: Doddy wrote: Yeah but the dc being active adds only good things to the game. How so? Iidots can forget to switch it on = comedy It can get neuted off = more combat variation (a very rare occurence to be fair).
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1847	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:25:00 - [18] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: CCP Tuxford wrote: Back in the day before I became a programmer with cynical outlook on live I used to be game designer and was actually involved when we changed the functionality of damage controls. This was back in the day when TomB and Hammerhead were mostly doing the balancing and I was their intern math *****. Now we decided that we'd want the damage control to be a really powerful defensive module but we didn't want people to just fill up their lows with it making all other defensive mods obsolete so we also decided that you could only fit one at a time. At that point we didn't really have the luxury of programming time and we did not have any tools to create a module where only one could be fitted. We did however have a functionality where we could only activate x module at a time so we decided that the damage control would have to be activated but have really low cap need. So there you have it, the reason dc's use cap in an overly long story The ability to use more than one damage control would make hull tanking a serious reality. Also, ancillary hull repairers, of course. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5723	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:32:00 - [19] - Quote If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not. ~a proud belligerent undesirable~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. An idea for improving corp management
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 166	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:37:00 - [20] - Quote Andski wrote: If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not. It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time.

Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 403	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:45:00 - [21] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: Andski wrote: If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not. It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time. So? You have not given any valid reason why should change other than tuxford first envisioned it that way.
Remiel Pollard Devlin Security Devlin Alliance 261	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:45:00 - [22] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: Andski wrote: If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not. It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time. And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc 69	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:52:00 - [23] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Hannott Thanos wrote: Andski wrote: If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not. It was supposed to, but was made active because of **** code and lack of time. And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons. I would be curious to know these good reasons. DC should be passive IMO. Yelling "Manticooore !" on teamspeak**
Dersen Lowery Laurentson INC StructureDamage 186	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:52:00 - [24] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Hannott Thanos wrote: Andski wrote: If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not. It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time. And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons. TBH, they've probably left it that way because changing it to fit the original design has an unattractive effort/reward ratio relative to, say, fixing the parts of the game that are seriously in need of repair. That's a good enough argument for leaving it as is, at least until more pressing concerns are addressed.
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 403	Posted - 2012.12.06 15:56:00 - [25] - Quote Altrue wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Hannott Thanos wrote: Andski wrote: If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not. It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time. And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons. I would be curious to know these good reasons. DC should be passive IMO. Why? Passive DC makes literally no sense.
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 169	Posted - 2012.12.06 16:45:00 - [26] - Quote Doddy wrote: Altrue wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Hannott Thanos wrote: Andski wrote: If the module was meant to be passive, it'd be passive. But it's not. It was supposed to, but was made active because of ****** code and lack of time. And they've obviously left it that way for good reasons. I would be curious to know these good reasons. DC should be passive IMO. Why? Passive DC makes literally no sense. Except that it's a module you literally never want to turn off, you have to turn it on every damn time you jump, it's more or less impossible to shut if off with neuts because of 1 cap use and like I quoted, it was supposed to be passive to begin with. Oh and it makes it possible to see EHP in station
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3900	Posted - 2012.12.06 16:47:00 - [27] - Quote it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3900	Posted - 2012.12.06 16:48:00 - [28] - Quote everyone wanting it passive is an empire afker, basically
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 169	Posted - 2012.12.06 16:53:00 - [29] - Quote Weaselior wrote: it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay Vast numbers he says. List them, he does not.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 2808	Posted - 2012.12.06 16:55:00 - [30] - Quote Hannott Thanos wrote: Weaselior wrote: it is far better that the DC is active rather than passive for a vast number of reasons, its an immensely powerful defensive module and being required to actually turn it on is a tiny price to pay Vast numbers he says. List them, he does not. And yet your sole reason for making them passive is because you either can't remember or are too lazy to turn it off (along with any other modules you may be running) before you log off. Really?!? To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: 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.