| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I.
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
33
   |
Posted - 2013.02.12 16:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
I always presumed the passive bonus provided by the Shield Compensation skills was to make up for the lack of a passive omni-shield resistance module like passive armor tankersGÇÖ numerous Adaptive Nano Plating options.
CCP GÇô if itGÇÖs your desire to completely eliminate passive omni-shield resistance hardening at least state that that is in fact your intention. Obfuscating the actual result of a supposedly minor change in GÇ£we donGÇÖt like multi-function modulesGÇ¥ language irritates to all involved.
CCP GÇô now aware of a major reason why people trained the Shield Compensation skills, you have several options:
1) Make no changes noting there was reasonable purpose behind peoples training queues
2) Declare there will be no passive omni-shield hardening options and make the change
3) Make the change and introduce a shield tankerGÇÖs version of the Adaptive Nano Plating options
Whatever you kids at CCP declare the new situation to be, IGÇÖll adapt (I always do). I only request that you a) *genuinely* think it through and b) show *some* willingness to consider input from loyal customers whose subscriptions pay your wages. (YouGÇÖre not obligated to accept any particular customerGÇÖs input but tGÇÖwould be great if your loyal customers felt like you paid attention to them.)
|
DireNecessity
The M.P.I.
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
33
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 20:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Solaris Ecladia wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:CMD Ishikawa wrote:CCP Guys already said those changes are coming ...  How about we focus on the passive modules, some people have stated that we could use a passive mod like the EANM and I think there is a good idea around there, passive shield buffering is almost useless right now. Yes I could use of an armor invuln hardener too, this would actually be a huge improvement for active tanking. Didnt you just get the reactive thingy?
Indeed the Armor Tankers did. Seems the Armor Tankers get both active and passive omni-hardening.
Meanwhile, Shield Tankers are having their passive omni-hardening options removed leaving only active omni-hardening available.
CCP - I presume it's your desire to give armor tankers more options than shield tankers. If I may be so bold . . . why? |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I.
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
33
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 21:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:To the people asking for an EANM or even just a ANP analogue for shields, want to discuss when you'd want to be using these instead of an Invuln on a day-to-day basis in pvp? It sounds like a stretch to me.
And no, it isn't as simple as "when I'm being neuted of course!"
Also, to the guy above, no one actually likes the reactive armor thingy. This might change if a T2 version was ever implemented but that would also come with T2 ASB which would be a whole new can of worms. The T1 ASB has the balance you want already, if anything rename the T1 ASB to T2 and implement a weaker version as T1 ASB.
Perhaps you are correct. To complain that CCP is taking away passive shield omni-hardening options may well be pointless since the active option is always better. Still, the passive back-up was a nice benefit many players found worthwhile training towards.
Your argument that active Invulns will be better than any EANM analogue appears to me to be a claim that even after the no passive bonus nerf, Invulns remain overpowered since no one would ever choose the EANM analogue. If I may ask, what about Invulns is overpowered in your future seeing eyes? |
| |
|