Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.

Tao, you seem to want to engage with me on this, in terms of Axe's comment, my backing of his comment was in regards to which ships it had the biggest impact on, though I do still think the Talos is viable, his comments aimed at your style of play or your comments on this thread have no interest for me whatsoever. Your own comments have done the talking for you, I don't need to add anything to them, rather like when I let off steam on this in terms of the signature radius penalty on shields, perhaps shields will get some skill along the lines of armour honeycombing, or perhaps not which is the point I was trying to make. No matter what your comments are, the fact is that without a passive module covering all resists for shields, the neuting of shield ships is going to be a lot more effective. That CCP decided to do this knowing full well that the passive bonus was originally added to nerf neuting shows that they are likely to want this to stop people using shields on armour ships and use the new armour modules. The knock on effects of this are profound in some areas, while a Chimera is not really a very effective PvP carrier, it can be fitted for PvP for when you get caught, however the fit now has to be based on passive modules and nerf's its tank by around 8% on the best fit I could come out with, however its acceptable. Like always I will sort out my new tactics around the current situation, however I am sad to not be able to use a couple of ships in their full glory now that this is being applied tomorrow. Have fun...

Is that solo pve? Anyway, it looks like you will have to contemplate resistance resist rig + amp(s) usage in conjuntion with one invuln, as opposed to extender rig + specific hardener(s) plus invuln, or multiple invulns, if you want to close/reduce a resist hole. What you may lose with overall resist profile you may gain back partially with some added cap stability. Old fitting paradigms are going to have to change.

This change does not necessarilly mean shield resist skills will be lost training, One will have to refit with resist amps to take advantage. It does make eanms look better in comparison to specific hardeners for armor. But then often that was already the case. It also makes resist rigs for both tanking types look more attractive as opposed to simply fitting CDFE or trimark rigs.

Regardless this is about the only recent nerf to the existing advantages of shield tanking over armor tanking in pvp. Even this combined with the minor buffs being given to plated (because the new armor reppers and active armor bonuses will still suck) armor tanking, through the honeycombing skill and plate mass reduction on 800 and 200 versions, will probably not be enough to shift the imbalance much. I predict many ships with more lows than medium slots will continue to use nano'd shield tanks over armor tanks.

Eh. This is annoying. Yes, I understand that fitting tradeoffs can and should exist. But so should training tradeoffs, and you've just changed that calculus significantly. That's 16 ranks of skills that no longer offer a benefit that lots of us valued. Eight of those ranks were extraordinarily niche to start with, but we chose to train them anyway -- largely because we'd still get some benefit from inactive invulns. Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.

But now you've pushed it through. That's the second point for annoyance. In general, CCP is doing much better communicating with its player constituents about changes. Where exactly was the notice on this though? No discussion, no questions, nothing in CSM minutes even. It just pops up on SiSi one day as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Well, it's not. It's actually a significant change.

Anyhow. I've seen enough of these things to know that the odds of reverting this change now that it's hit SiSi are slim to none. I'd still like to see it, but I won't pretend I'll ragequit over it. Wrong direction though, folks. Poorly played.

Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.

Some of my wormhole PVE requires the 12% passive bonus to the inactive invul field. Without a module to do this I can kiss that activity good bye now.

Tengu with sub +10% shield per level

1 Pithum B-Type Em (cheapo for wh guys)
1 T2 Explo Amplifier
1 DCU II
1 T2 EM rig
2 T2 LSE

No invuln fitted, resist profitle = 72.7 - 82.5 - 73.8 - 76.8

Add 1 T2 invuln and you get = 77.4 - 88.3 - 81.6 - 82.8 -change that T2 invuln and other mods for a dead space/faction ones and you get the lowest resist at 80%, add OGB and it becomes insane even with invuln off line.

Not trying to prove anything else than the simple fact you had a base 15% passive effect gone that wouldn't even provide those 15% once offline because stack penalty.

With HAMs you get a nice 750DPS without much pimp for 40km range (CNSHAM], add implants and a bit of pimp and it's about 850 without overheat for a cruiser with over 50K EHP and 680m/s with cheapo C-Type afterburner.

No big deal

So.. to offset this nerf, just fly around faction fit loot pinatas, no big deal?

Because farming Tengus are known to be T1 fitted?
Wh dudes crying about isk? -WTF???

If you're in some WH (like OP) and can't afford to put 1 or 2 B in your farming ship, change to a better WH corp/alliance.

Especially pilots who try and shield fit their Armor ships.

well CPP is killing the game , they f_u_c_k_e_d up the battlecruiser class , the drake got its hp reduce and lost a missile launcher slot as well , and the now the damm resistant modules they are ******* with too , thats is it for me , im quiting , new players dont have fair chance in this game , Drake was a very good lvl 3 mission runner ship for new commers but after CPP desided to nerf this ship , i see no reason for me and my alt account to stay in the game any more . thanks alot for ruining the game for me and others that dont have 7 billion skill points to counter the stupid changes you made in retribution 1.1

instead of messsing with the game like this mabee you should try and focusing on make new stuff.

well CPP is killing the game , they ****** up the battlecruiser class , the drake got its hp reduce and lost a missile launcher slot as well , and the now the damm resistant modules they are ******* with too , thats is it for me , im quiting , new players dont have fair chance in this game , Drake was a very good lvl 3 mission runner ship for new commers but after CPP desided to nerf this ship , i see no reason for me and my alt account to stay in the game any more . thanks alot for ruining the game for me and others that dont have 7 billion skill points to counter the stupid changes you made in retribution 1.1

instead of messsing with the game like this mabee you should try and focusing on make new stuff.

*Do not bypass the profanity filter* - CCP Eterne

well CPP is killing the game , they ****** up the battlecruiser class , the drake got its hp reduce and lost a missile launcher slot as well , and the now the damm resistant modules they are ******* with too , thats is it for me , im quiting , new players dont have fair chance in this game , Drake was a very good lvl 3 mission runner ship for new commers but after CPP desided to nerf this ship , i see no reason for me and my alt account to stay in the game any more . thanks alot for ruining the game for me and others that dont have 7 billion skill points to counter the stupid changes you made in retribution 1.1

instead of messsing with the game like this mabee you should try and focusing on make new stuff.

*Do not bypass the profanity filter* - CCP Eterne

This might be entirely intentional and I'm not even sure it's such a bad thing.

A frightening number of people apparently don't understand how active hardeners worked pre-patch.

*snip*

So the passive bonus was largely irrelevant, and players know how to fit for the rare situations where active hardeners may be a liability.

Not sure why so many people have a hard time understanding how the passive resists work on an active hardener , I've played the game for years and always had this understanding and have trained my characters according to the benefits of active hardeners having a passive resist when not activated . This change makes the shield and armor compensation skills significantly less valuable, can I have my SP's back to re-allocate them please.