|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
94
   |
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:
- We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
- The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).
WHEN YOU MAKE CHANGES LIKE THIS, ANNOUNCE THEM. This is far too important to be a stealth nerf. Also, this change sucks. This basically makes the shield compensation skills even less worthwhile. Maybe remove the passive effects from the invulns, but leave it on the specific hardeners? Or just reduce the passive resist boost amount? It's a useful, albeit uncommonly used trait to have on the hardeners that adds a bit of flavor based on your compensation skills. I honestly see no reason why you'd change it.
CCP actually tell it's players what they're planning.... What madness do you speak of!?... LOL
On a serious note I'm sure it would have been included in patch notes.
This has helped me decide if I was going to spend 30 days taking the passive shield skills to 5. It was always a good safety net if active hardeners failed you would have at lest some resists. Now that it just effects passive hardeners it's not worth it for me.
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Maybe we need a shield version of an EANM?
Now it's "Oh crap I'm capped out my shields are going down"....After the change it's going to be "Oh crap I'm capped out... aaahh I'm in a pod". Without any resists once you get neuted shields are done. I have a feeling after this change neuts will be very common in PVP. I'm soo glad I can armor tank !
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 14:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change, and that I felt "the case for the prosecution" was strong enough that extended discussion wouldn't serve much purpose. If I'm totally honest, I'll also admit that I'd forgotten this was going to SiSi this week, as I've had other projects on my mind 
Wow they didn't think a change that would make most shield tanked ships significantly more vulnerable to cap warfare " was that big a change"... Ummm really?... LOL
Most armor tanked PVP ships use EANM's so this will not affect them.
Most shield tanked PVP ships use active hardeners so this will affect them. Before someone says oh there's passive shield hardeners there is no omni damage hardeners and it is not practical to fit multiple hardeners while still fitting a prop mod and tackle.
I understand CCP may want to make neuts more effective but making all shield tanked ships significantly more vulnerable to cap warfare isn't the answer. I'm not even saying active hardeners need a passive resist but if you're going to make only shield tanked ships vulnerable to this is just making armor OP. I don't fly cap ships so I can't comment about them but if this goes live you won't see me in a shield Drake or Hurricane.
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 21:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Solaris Ecladia wrote:Hey, I just wanted to drop by and personally shake the hand of CCP greyscale for once again proving that the motto at CCP has been and always will be: If it aint broke, fix it until it is. And thanks so much for trying to sneak this major fitting and skill change in. That means alot to us players that you respect us enough to tell us about big changes like this in advance. And even moreso that you would like our feedback before going ahead with it.
Thanks CCP, you rock.
I couldn't have said it better. Thanks CCP!
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 18:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bloody Wench wrote:Adding my voice to the change it back chorus.
I have 3 characters with shield resist comps to 5 especially for the Invul while neuted crap.
Change it back.
When you alter how a skill interacts I believe it's customary to refund those skill points. Change it back or refund those points.
32-33 days training per character is no fuckin joke Greyscale.
The change is bad for newer pilots that are shield tankers since the removal of passive resists combined with recent armor tank buffs makes shield look much less appealing. I can do both so it's only slightly annoying to me.
I would like to see CCP refund SP for skills that no longer have the same purpose when they were trained but good luck with that. How do you think Iteron Mark V pilots are going to feel when the skill goes from a month to 30 minutes.... No lube used by CCP on that one!
|
|
|
| |
|