Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7429
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:05:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).
Agreed that this doesn't merit a skill reimbursement.
What it does merit is a shield version of Adaptive Nano Plating (NOT EANMs, as the armour tankers should retain the edge in passive omni resists) so that there's some viable use for shield comp skills that isn't a ridiculously marginal edge case.
"Shield ANPs" would still be significantly less powerful than EANMs, and provide a valuable low-CPU fitting but skill-intensive option that shield tanking completely lacks.
Whilst symmetry would also seem to call for a low-powered active armour omni hardener, the principle of making it less good than the shield active omni (ie: the T2 version would be 25% resists) would basically make it no better than the EANM, so it would be pretty pointless. I guess it might be good for people who haven't yet trained the armour comp skills. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:06:00 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).
The first thing is hard, but ok it is possible to live with it... But the fact that armour and shield compensation won-¦t give any bonus to active moduls is to hard. What would be if they give a 1 % bonus to active hardeners instead. So an Invulnerability Field I would give with EM shield compensation on two and the other three shield compansations on one 27 % EM resistance and 26 % resistance to the other three elements. The same for the other hardeners.
In every other case the shield tankers really need a passive modul like what EANM is for armour.
Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut |
ChaseX
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:48:00 -
[63] - Quote
Fergus Runkle wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
Will these skills still apply to the energised armour platings? if so when do the shield tankers get their active but not really active hardeners?
The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
196
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:08:00 -
[64] - Quote
ChaseX wrote:The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap.
If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline....
Wow, that'd sure be awesome. |
Nemo deBlanc
Phoibe Enterprises Project Wildfire
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:08:00 -
[65] - Quote
Am I missing something, or does this not make the already garbage shield caps even worse? And why is CCP looking to buff neuts, which are already arguably some of the strongest mods in the game? |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:20:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).
Compare and contrast the Nyx and the Hel in their standard fittings.
The weakest supercap tank will have no tank once neuted.
I believe with these changes you' ve made ccp Fozzie very happy by making sure that jumping a Hel into a fight is certain suicide - a high probability obviously wasn't good enough for you. I think more corps will be celebrating, as Ccp Fozzie mentioned in another thread that his corp did, the absence of Hels. |
Kasutra
Tailor Company Hashashin Cartel
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:20:00 -
[67] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:ChaseX wrote:The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap. If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline.... Wow, that'd sure be awesome. It uses cap. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
196
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:35:00 -
[68] - Quote
It might as well not for the massive boost it gives. |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
746
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:35:00 -
[69] - Quote
Kasutra wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:ChaseX wrote:The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap. If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline.... Wow, that'd sure be awesome. It uses cap.
Being armour tanked it also has a bunch of mid slots free for cap injectors etc. |
ChaseX
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:39:00 -
[70] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:ChaseX wrote:The same day armor tankers get x-large reppers that don't use any cap. If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline.... Wow, that'd sure be awesome.
Yeah, beside the module works completely different from ASBs and is not x-large. |
|
Darth Felin
Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:41:00 -
[71] - Quote
It is very bad communication from CCP, I trained shield comp skills only to gert some resists while neuted so it is a waste for me now. I doubt that anything will be changed even through imho should compensate those SP for BOTH armor and shield and than anyone who need them in new situation can apply them back. |
ChaseX
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:47:00 -
[72] - Quote
Darth Felin wrote:It is very bad communication from CCP, I trained shield comp skills only to gert some resists while neuted so it is a waste for me now. I doubt that anything will be changed even through imho should compensate those SP for BOTH armor and shield and than anyone who need them in new situation can apply them back.
How about, no? |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:54:00 -
[73] - Quote
Will someone please post a reasonable fit (no officer/deadspace mods, please) that would ever make use of the shield comp skills, if they don't give a bonus to active hardeners?
If a viable one cannot be provided, then one must conclude that CCP will make the shield comp skills worthless. |
Besbin
Anguis Sicarios
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:55:00 -
[74] - Quote
"Lucky" me. I already decided to only take shield comp skills to 4/4/4/3 (3 in expl) since I see absolutely no use in the passive shield mods available now, so I only trained them for the passive resists on active hardeners. I do agree the wording in the description is bad (the word "passive" just has too many connotations in regards to tanking), but that is obviously an easy thing to fix by, duh, changing the wording.
This reeks of "lazy programmer".
That said, I do believe Eve mechanics is better off without this niche effect...PROVIDED passive shield mods (shield resistance amplifier (also: have Punkturis look at the naming conventions here plz)) are made into a viable mechanic. Namely by introducing a passive omni resist mod.
For the later, I think Malcanis' suggestion sounds very viable:
Malcanis wrote: What it does merit is a shield version of Adaptive Nano Plating (NOT EANMs, as the armour tankers should retain the edge in passive omni resists) so that there's some viable use for shield comp skills that isn't a ridiculously marginal edge case.
"Shield ANPs" would still be significantly less powerful than EANMs, and provide a valuable low-CPU fitting but skill-intensive option that shield tanking completely lacks.
Whilst symmetry would also seem to call for a low-powered active armour omni hardener, the principle of making it less good than the shield active omni (ie: the T2 version would be 25% resists) would basically make it no better than the EANM, so it would be pretty pointless. I guess it might be good for people who haven't yet trained the armour comp skills.
|
Besbin
Anguis Sicarios
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:56:00 -
[75] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:Will someone please post a reasonable fit (no officer/deadspace mods, please) that would ever make use of the shield comp skills, if they don't give a bonus to active hardeners?
If a viable one cannot be provided, then one must conclude that CCP will make the shield comp skills worthless.
It's not impossible. A pve passive shield lvl 5 mish ratting tengu for instance (lvl 5s are often stuffed with big ass neuting towers). For PVE they make mucho sense. For PVP, not even the slightest bit. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
220
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:58:00 -
[76] - Quote
At least lower the cap need for active shield resist mods. 3.2 cap/sec is huge it is more than what large guns need.
Armor tank has better base resists than r shield, and the 5% moreesist doesnt justify the huge cap need and neut countered invu field. Also damage controlls favour armor resists. The only advantage the invu has it that you can overheat it . But at battleship and larger you can easily fit 3+ active armor resist mods to compensate eamn stacking, and they need much less cap too than shield mods :I
Oh and the shield compensation skills should be removed and just increase the base resist on passive shield resist modules. I think most of use learned those skills only to have a small resist even when our shield tanked ship got neuted, now that its gone the skills should gone too. At least i cant see a reason why would anyone learn them for some modules hardly ever used.
Ive checked my alli fittings and none of them had any passive shield resist modules none.You can check killboards with same result. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1896
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 13:13:00 -
[77] - Quote
Armor reppers can be capped out, ABSs not. Invulns can be capped out, EANMs not. What's the problem?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 13:21:00 -
[78] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote: Ive checked my alli fittings and none of them had any passive shield resist modules none.You can check killboards with same result.
QFT |
Eternal Error
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 13:39:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't). 1. Why did you announce this intended change sooner?
2. WHY do you feel that this is the correct change?
3. Why do you feel that the shield compensation skills should be so utterly worthless? |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:00:00 -
[80] - Quote
Roime wrote:Armor reppers can be capped out, ABSs not. Invulns can be capped out, EANMs not. What's the problem?
In 0.0 fleet and cap fights the ASB is not a factor - active shield and armor hardeners and EANM plus a damage control is fundamentally what most tanks are built upon. Shield resistance for pvp is therefore exclusively active in nature, and therefore this change places a greater disadvantage upon shield based tanks where their cap is compromised or delayed in activation, for instance when jumping into a system. |
|
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:29:00 -
[81] - Quote
I have no real direct issue with the fact the passive boosts are being removed, although it is a design decision that I believe will make shield cap ships lag even further behind their slave-buffed armour tanked cousins. I'm resigned now that for cap ships warfare I'm going to be forced to cross-train to be effective even though I really wanted to keep specialized racial characters.
What I DO have an issue with is that you are essentially telling me that the subscription money that I have paid for to train my compensation skills to V on my specialized cap ship characters (Caldari & Minmatar) was completely wasted and I may as well have just left the skill queue inactive for weeks?
Thanks CCP. It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
Fearghaz Tiwas
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Pandorum Invictus
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:34:00 -
[82] - Quote
I'm not one prone to nerd rage, in fact this is the first time I've posted on here to moan, but this is BS. As others have said, including the post above, aside from the fact that shield tanking itself is affected, it has effectively made this skill useless. It could now easily be consigned to the bin along with learning skills and nobody would miss it one bit. Short of removing the skill, or just not making the change in the first place, the only decent suggestion I've seen is to make it apply to rigs.
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:56:00 -
[83] - 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 !
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
326
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:05:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).
If you do this (which I actually think is well argumented if you would include stuff like RR and dominance of passive armor omnitanks and invuln only shield tanks) you will really have to adress the velocity drawbacks on the remaining armor rigs. At least until you get time to give all rigs a properly rebalancing? Some of those groups just doesn't make sense...
Pinky |
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
330
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:21:00 -
[85] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).
OK, well, the 2 huge and blatent effects I see are:
This should effectivly affect slot usage of all shield tank ships. Where you could have a small amount of EM resist before, now you almost certainly have to fit an EM specific module. You lose a slot in essence if you shield tank.
Armor tank ships. They all have a base resist in every catagory. Amarr ships have the lowest hole at 20% resist. Minmatar and Gallente have the lowest resist at 10%. Some Minnie ships shield tank...but its not like those ships/fits are known for uber tank.
You use the terms 'rebalancing' and 'development'. I don't see how this change fits into the description that either of those terms would imply. Unless you give all ships a base 10% shield resist, or just leave the mod alone... |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:23:00 -
[86] - Quote
IIshira wrote: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 !
pfaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahaha hahahaha hahah haha No.
Extra cap warfare vulnerability has always been one of the downsides to shields (at least before the ASB was a thing). If shields need an EANM, then armor needs an invuln, and a SBA, and an XLAR etc etc etc. Then we give shields a XLSE, less cap-hungry reps and so and and so fourth until everything is "balanced".
As it stands this really isn't as much of an issue as you seem to think it is. If you have 2 people shooting each other, one armor and one shield, and they each cap each other out, guess who wins? (hint: it's the one that can still shoot without cap, not the one that still has resists with no cap) |
Zanmaru
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:15:00 -
[87] - Quote
So basically our Armor Compensation skills only apply to Energized Adaptive Nano Membranes. Because, lets face it, no one uses any of the other passive hardeners (some fits resort to standard ANMs, but that's about it). Not a fan of this. How about consolidating the 4 armor and shield comp. skills into 1 each? |
Flardowell
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:21:00 -
[88] - Quote
Looking at it from a capital and supercapital perspective:
We already know how vulnerable shields are to both neuting, overheating faster, and having a few other issues compared to armor (not having slave sets). There is no real point to passive shield tanking a super with the new a-type invulns out. While capped out, the passive bonuses allowed a slim of a chance for shield ships to survive, but it was still a chance.
Taking that away, and its almost a guaranteed kill if someone is able to neut you out, which shield ships are MUCH more vulnerable too anyway.
If you're going to make this change with passive mods, at least give something that compensates that loss. Whether it be a longer cycle-time on shield hardeners (like armor) or something equivalent which will keep shield ships on par with the bajillion types of armor bs thats going on right now.
Or at LEAST give us something that you're looking at shields vs armor, and will put them closer to on-par.
Armor now have a aux booster, good rig changes, slave set etc. Shields got a-type invulns, aux booster, and...yea
Help the few shield tankers in the game out before everything goes armor. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
127
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:31:00 -
[89] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:IIshira wrote: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 !
pfaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahaha hahahaha hahah haha No. Extra cap warfare vulnerability has always been one of the downsides to shields (at least before the ASB was a thing). If shields need an EANM, then armor needs an invuln, and a SBA, and an XLAR etc etc etc. Then we give shields a XLSE, less cap-hungry reps and so and and so fourth until everything is "balanced". As it stands this really isn't as much of an issue as you seem to think it is. If you have 2 people shooting each other, one armor and one shield, and they each cap each other out, guess who wins? (hint: it's the one that can still shoot without cap, not the one that still has resists with no cap) Just... just wondering.... do you really want an XLAR? I mean REALLY want it? Because by following the fitting requirements as they are now, you're looking at using like 5000-10000 PG and ~80-90 CPU for a single XLAR. You *can* put that on a ship, but that's about all you could put on a BS, at least as far as useful mods go. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
975
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 20:29:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We discussed this again at our morning design meeting today, and we're still of the opinion that this is the correct change to make in this case. Obviously we're keeping an eye on this thread to make sure there isn't something we've missed, but as of today we're still comfortable with the consequences here.
To those asking about patch notes, here's the draft versions from a few weeks ago:
- Active armor hardeners and shield hardeners no longer give a passive resistance bonus when not active - Armor and shield compensation skills no longer give any bonus to active armor or shield hardeners
To those asking about reimbursement etc: we make balance changes on a fairly regular basis, and we're not generally in the habit of reimbursing skill points except in exceptional circumstances (which this isn't).
Well, thanks for revisiting it. I have to grudgingly respect that CCP holds its ground; god knows that if players got everything they wanted then this wouldn't be a game I'd like to play.
However, I'm still concerned about two things, and they're related. The first is that I don't understand the logic behind this change, and judging from this thread no one else does either. What exactly is your thinking and how does it override the points brought up here?
The second things remains the lack of transparency around the change. This really was going to stealth its way in. The fact that you planned to note it in the patch notes does nothing to mitigate the fact that we didn't know further ahead of time. Sharing your logic would be helpful on this front as well; sharing it proactively would have been vastly preferable. But we are where we are now and you can still help by actually illuminating how you're thinking about the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |