So i have just been on sis and noticed that active hardeners no longer have the passive resist element to them, Is this a good or bad thing? personaly i think it is a bad idea. What i want to know is why after all these years of being ok ccp feel the need to change so many things.

...Wasn't the passive bonus on these hardeners on the order of 1%? I'm not seeing this mattering. Ever.

It is 15% at max skills. So a invuln when not on gives 15% to each. That is half effect with no cap. Far from usless imo.

Not a huge fan of this.

* Proper skills + 2x Adaptive Invulns at least gave a little bit of a resistance buffer when neuted out, somewhere on par with the lowest resistances on armour tanked ships. Vs armour which are almost always passive and have greater EHP to boot.

* It does make the Shield Compensation skills pretty much useless outside a small handful of roles.

* There is no shield equivalent to the EANM. Even if there was, at a lower resistance %, they would likely still fail pretty bad EHP wise compared to the armour fits.

This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking.
I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this...

If only you had some insanely OP shield boosting module that didn't run on cap. Hmmm

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).

This is a huge buff to energy neutralizing and a huge nerf to active shield tanking.
I hope lots of thoughts have been put into this...

Doesn't count for much when you end up with a 0% resistance hole.

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).

I have a good idea, we'll swap. You get passive only omni for shield and armor gets an active omni instead. Yes? No?

If your answer is no then your whole post is silly nonsense, what you're whining about is having your cake and eat it. Same goes for the above poster.

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).

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).

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.

Without that benefit I'm sure many people wouldn't have made that choice.

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).

Very true, reminds me of the 'links not effecting remote rep mods' they sneaked in, while this is not as massive a change as that its still a pretty big and skill intensive change to not mention it at all.

So active shield hardeners will revert to the way they used to work?

Even though the game has obviously changed since then, I don't see how this can be considered to be a major problem.

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.

I - and I don't think anyone else - have too much of a problem with the change as such except for the fact that people only trained the skills for the specific benefit that was just removed.

So my training time investment has been devalued on two characters whilst I'm still stuck with the SP which in turn now unnecessarily bloat my clone costs.

But yeah - CCP have done worse things to their customers, so I won't hold my breath on an SP refund or at least the option to delete the skills.

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.

somehow i get the feeling ccp is changing so many fundamental things at all that they should give all players a totall reset of the skillpoints and let the users decide where to redistribute them :-)

Not to jack the thread but what do you mean by this? Are you saying siege and armor ganglinks do NOT affect remote shield boosters and remote armor reppers? When did this happen? I can find anything in the forums that indicate this?

Am I seriously looking at a bunch of people crying for an SP refund and shield-EANMs over this?

Seriously? A skill was nerfed. It happens.

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:

So what your saying is:
You couldn't correct a problem you caused yourselves,
So you decided to screw over 50% of you cash paying customer base.

And you figured if you told the customer base they were stupid,
That would make it sound official?

well, ill tell you what. make ur reisistive skills effect rigs then.

since thats passive too, to your ship. & start adding invul/adaptive rigs

Not a huge fan of this.

* Proper skills + 2x Adaptive Invulns at least gave a little bit of a resistance buffer when neuted out, somewhere on par with the lowest resistances on armour tanked ships. Vs armour which are almost always passive and have greater EHP to boot.

* It does make the Shield Compensation skills pretty much useless outside a small handful of roles.

* There is no shield equivalent to the EANM. Even if there was, at a lower resistance %, they would likely still fail pretty bad EHP wise compared to the armour fits.

There is no armor Equivalent to AIFs

And its going to be another 2 years according to CCP's schedule of major rebalance changes.... leaving newer players to just wander aimlessly through skill trees, not knowing if the skill will even be useable.

Poorly done CCP

Yeah, the poor noobs, training and training, never realizing that the passive hardener augmentation skills are in fact not affecting the active hardeners. This must be restored! Think of the children who have all been slaving away, training support skills to maximize their use of inactive invulns at the expense of being able to fit T2 guns!

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).

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).

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.

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 only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline....

Wow, that'd sure be awesome.

It uses cap.

If only there was a module....lets call it Ancillary Armor Repairer in the pipeline....

Wow, that'd sure be awesome.

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.

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.

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.

Ive checked my alli fittings and none of them had any passive shield resist modules none.You can check killboards with same result.

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).

Armor reppers can be capped out, ABSs not. Invulns can be capped out, EANMs not. What's the problem?

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).

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).

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)

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.

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 thing 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.

I was about to train EM ad TH to lvl 5, and bring kin and Exp to lvl 4

I now see this would be useless if CCP goes through with the planned changes


I'd vote against this, and I'm holding off training those unless CCP makes it clear this is not going through.

Essentially we came to the conclusion that, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules

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.

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

Was that the CSM's reaction when you told them about it?

If this is the official line that ccp does not like multi function modules then when can we expect the removal of scrams turning off MWD's? They already fill the role of stopping people warping that have stabs. So following this president you are setting then I look forward to the removal of scrams effecting mwd's.

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.

If this is the official line that ccp does not like multi function modules then when can we expect the removal of scrams turning off MWD's? They already fill the role of stopping people warping that have stabs. So following this president you are setting then I look forward to the removal of scrams effecting mwd's.



Seriously? You didnt think this much of a change, and in no need of discussion? With this change you are pretty much resigning shield ships that brawn to the trash heap. Why would you ever brawl in a shield ship now when armor ships have eanms and tackle? If they get neuted out they still have a chance, brawling shield ships pretty much do not. Following this change you will pretty much only see shield on nano from now on imo.

lolol your tears are funny. Maybe your shield ships--I dunno--don't use their cap for their weapons (and hell, not even for their tank with ASB). You're just crying out to be completely cap independent. How unreasonable is that?

To CCP-- +1 on this change!

The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change...

in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules

lolol your tears are funny. Maybe your shield ships--I dunno--don't use their cap for their weapons (and hell, not even for their tank with ASB). You're just crying out to be completely cap independent. How unreasonable is that?

To CCP-- +1 on this change!

I think I'd be unanimously supported - devs should play the game more.


I cannot understand what does it mean, and considering your way of making stealthy updates - could you please comment, here in this thread, on the following multi-function modules:

• drone omnilink - tracking & optimal
• autotargeting system - autotarheting itself & +maxtargets
• SeBo (local and remote) - range & scanres
• dampeners - same
• signal amplifier - range & scanres & +maxtargets
• warp scramblers - warp-jam & MWD-jam & MJD-jam & jump-jam
• signal distortion amps - optimal & strength
• cap.batteries - +cap & neut-protection
• power diag. sys - many
• damage control - resists to shield & armor & hull
• damage modifiers - damage & ROF
• track.ench. - optimal & falloff & tracking
• track.comp and links - same
• track.dis - same

I don't really have a problem with this change, but I'd like to see the now even more useless shield compensation skills given a reason to exist. Some kind of a passive multi resist module does seem like an obvious candidate to give them that boost. I'd like to see it limited to 1 per ship though. This is something you've done with multiple armor tanking modules, that mimic similar shield modules, so it seems like an approriate limitation for a shield module mimicing an armor module.

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

...

• 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.

...

Shield tankers tears ! Awesome ! And for a so insignificant change !

Shield tankers tears ! Awesome ! And for a so insignificant change !

The way I read this change is similar to the change done to the Corporate Hangar on the Orca:

"We've broken something and we don't understand the code. So we'll come up with an excuse/explanation/story because it is 5pm and it is the time to go home".

For the why, see my first post in this thread for the short version :) Essentially we came to the conclusion that 1) in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules, and 2) in this specific case we strongly dislike the implementation and the presentation thereof. If this is unclear, please ask more questions, just don't expect the general thrust to change significantly!

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

Players do not use EANMs because they like being cap-resistant; they use EANMs because they have no other choice. Players will choose active hardeners over passive hardeners every time, even with this nerf, because of the higher resistances and opportunity to overheat. There is no tradeoff between active and passive hardeners, and never will be, unless passive hardeners receive a major boost or active hardeners are further nerfed. The only time players willingly fit passive hardeners over active hardeners, is for high-lag situations or when they expect to be neuted dry.

Players do not use EANMs because they like being cap-resistant; they use EANMs because they have no other choice. Players will choose active hardeners over passive hardeners every time, even with this nerf, because of the higher resistances and opportunity to overheat.

And oh, btw, no reimbursement for your skills that now useless for most players. I don't even need the SP anymore, but I bet there are newer guys that trained those skills to 5 and wish they had them back. That is like a month of wasted training.

When will you guys understand those passive resist skills are not a waste of time?

I have a dedicated, specialised caldari cap ship character. Could you explain how I haven't wasted my time training these skills on that account?

BTW, I thought cap ship could refit in space ; did that changed ? Because if not, you can just fit resist amplifier when neutralizers are coming.

I am just amused by all the posts that have "Well nobody ever fits.... blah blah blah" in them. Lol. These changes do effect people, particularly in some of the more purpose-built ships. And there are certainly environments where neuting is pretty damn common, so again, these changes do have a real effect. I know fighting in a wh, I expect to see neuts being used. The question of whether to go active or passive is simply a question of how many neuts I think will be hitting me in particular. Lol. While I agree that people should have to choose fits based on a tactical standpoint, but I also see this as a senseless nerf that really has no justification. And I would still like to see an across the board passive resist module (or reactive shield hardener for that matter) as another option to give me more choices. I don't see either as being OP given the circumstances.

BTW, I thought cap ship could refit in space ; did that changed ? Because if not, you can just fit resist amplifier when neutralizers are coming.

No, this is when you fit the Large Capacitor Battery II's.

Riiiight...like that's not gonna be a drop in the ocean against neut bhaals. Nice thought, works in some cases, doesn't work in this...

My sisi isn't up to date so I can confirm this but I would think the compensation skill would effect it with or without the base 1% so you would still get the 15% from the compensations skills.

Well I heard of complete passive fitted Drakes tanking level 5 missions to counter the massive neuting. Never did any myself but I think it was done with them, at least before NPCs were switching targets.

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.

For the why, see my first post in this thread for the short version :) Essentially we came to the conclusion that 1) in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules, and 2) in this specific case we strongly dislike the implementation and the presentation thereof. If this is unclear, please ask more questions, just don't expect the general thrust to change significantly!

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

I think I'd be unanimously supported - devs should play the game more.


I cannot understand what does it mean, and considering your way of making stealthy updates - could you please comment, here in this thread, on the following multi-function modules:
*list*

Way to go CCP, giant nerf to all shield PVP. There can't be that many people using shield ships for pvp out there.... right? RIGHT?

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).

Still waiting on comments from CCP.

I have a good idea, we'll swap. You get passive only omni for shield and armor gets an active omni instead. Yes? No?

If your answer is no then your whole post is silly nonsense, what you're whining about is having your cake and eat it. Same goes for the above poster.

Well if an Armor Invuln Field existed, then yes players probably would choose that over EANMs. But it doesn't exist... So not really sure why you are basing an argument around this imaginary module.

All we have is the active Armor Hardeners that cover one specific resistance. They are used far less often than EANMs and will now become even less attractive then they were before. CCP will realize this a few years down the line, and the EANM/Hardener cycle will repeat itself yet again. Joy.

There were tradeoffs to putting an active hardener on a ship before. In fact it was pretty rare that they were used in pvp.

Active resistance modules will still be better in almost all situations, and players will still overwhelmingly prefer them to passive resistance modules.

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 have no idea how you came to that conclusion. As has been stated here this leaves any shield PVP ship immensely vulnerable to being neuted as compared with armor ships.

With no omni-resists shield module that does not consume cap this change is at best stupid, at worst shows the devs once again do not play their own game.

Those 5 seconds longer you last with a little resist compared to 0 resists can be the difference between surviving and dying - and you just removed that for pretty much ALL shield pvp ships.

The fact that this change was considered "minor" and did not deserve any discussion with the players shows once again total disregard for the player base.

Way to go CCP, giant nerf to all shield PVP. There can't be that many people using shield ships for pvp out there.... right? RIGHT?

Here I was, looking forward to the BC changes in Retribution 1.1. Now I no longer look forward to Feb. 12th,....

How does this leave a shield ship more immensely vulnerable than an armour ship ? ( btw people stating something doesn't automatically make it a fact. )

I honestly am at a loss to see how you think a shield ship is at a disadvantage to an armour one.

Taking supercap's out of the argument, this really is a very very minor change which will hardly effect anything, I can't ever remember a time I was neuted out in a shield tanker so totally my Invul wouldn't cycle yet often in a armour tank i been neuted dry that I can't activate anything.

Also " giant nerf to all shield PVP " lol really ? you really believe we won't be seeing sheild pvp after this massive nerf, nothing much will change, we won't be seeing a massive upturn in Curse fleet doctrines to counter the shield fleets.

This is only effecting active mods when they aren't active, shield has strengths which not do revolve around having an Invul turned off to be effective , living for 5 more seconds in a small gang senario may make you feel better but its the getting neuted which makes you dead, not the lower resists the the inactive invul gives.

Panic less shield dudes, this is not a big change, or much or a change at all, you will still be able to kite about shooting at stuff which is slower than you and if a nasty Curse shows up just pull range and shoot them from farther away ! :P

This change will make it easier to kill supers. Therefore, I support the change!

so will there be any passive omni shield resis mods being introduced?

Said the guy who flies armor ships or speed tank ships.

about the same time as a active invuln for armour is introduced.

armour has passive.
shields have active.

a passive shield invuln at around 20% for all resis.
and a active enam giving 30%

I wold be happy as larry if ccp did that

Why should armor get an active as good as an invuln when shield doesn't get a passive as good as an EANM?

TL;DR people read the bold paragraph.

CCP I honestly think you should discuss this change further, at more 'morning meetings' (when clearly everybody is at their mental peak for the day...). The most important posts I see here are the ones from people simply asking 'why?' when clearly the vast majority of EVE players, who you work for, by the way, are concerned and questioning this unnecessary change.

You need to do some fast and thorough damage control to explain this action. 'Sorry' and 'I forgot' are unacceptable excuses in the business world, and your player base is possibly the sharpest and most creative of all MMOs who expect the best product for the time and effort they invest in the universe you've created. If this is part of some kind of larger plan (for example, 'making every module single effect only', heaven forbid), you need to at least make us aware of that plan, for perspective, to restore the confidence of the player base. You've provided your investors with a disincentive; 'to make things simpler' and 'because we don't like it' are exactly the wrong things to say to an EVE player. They lack justification, and I'm going to slot them right up there with 'Sorry' and 'I forgot' in terms of sounding convincing. If you're doing the right thing, you don't have to apologise.

So if you are making this change with no visibility of a greater plan that you can justify is consistent and designed to go in a particular direction, what are you doing? Changes for the sake of changes? That's called wastage.

When you go to your next morning meeting, find your Balance Team quality control guy, or whoever is at the end of the production line, and tattoo 'Transparency' to his forehead. Every single change needs to be documented and made known to the customer, through patch notes, when it hits Tranquility. Every. Single. One. Even Blizzard Entertainment is capable of doing that, and thinking you can make a change to the product you provide your customer without telling them will fill your customer base with the same warm fuzzy feeling they get when they discover a secret bank fee on their savings account, guaranteed.

This post has been brewing ever since I noticed the increasing number of times a CCP employee has said 'sorry' in the forums. If you 'care more' and 'work harder' to 'establish and nurture a trust relationship with customers', you need to go back to your teams, and implement a consistent reporting procedure that ensures no-one has the right to omit information because they don't consider it important. Communication is key in business, and we need to know everything that affects what we've invested in your company.

I know these words are hard, but I gripe because I care. Behaviour like this was a fundamental cause of the Jita riots, and I don't want to see them repeated.

You ****** up. Now fix it.

As for the changes themselves, if there's no larger plan at work here, don't fix them; they aren't broken. Listen to your investors, and justify your decisions.

The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.

The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.

The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ.

There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now."

Well that certainly does gloss over 9 pages of most people requesting you to somehow justify this move, albeit in the most minimalistic and, I daresay, passively flippant way possible. You have a lot of people asking you 'why are you doing this?' and the answer I'm basically seeing here is: 'cuz.'

He already presented the justification. One of the reasons being "I didnt know it was important" - which I can understand, also dont appreciate. But other reason was "multi-purpose modules must die". That is something I've never heard before, but the details on this matter were not revealed.
Shall we see damage control to loose it's shield and armor bonuses? Will there be a split of tracking enhancers into two or more modules? What is the fate of capacitor batteries? Get ready for surprises, folks.

Do you perhaps also write appalling poetry too?

Do not mistake multi-purpose and generic.

i quit and and im taking my 3 accounts too so long ccp hope you can learn from your mistakes

i quit and and im taking my 3 accounts too so long ccp hope you can learn from your mistakes

Greyscale has the subtlety of a pregnant spermwhale. I give up...

...in an all together passive (pun intended) non-quity way.

Yes, "u can haz ma stuffz" :-p

I don't think anyone but CCP is ever going to understand why this is being changed. No one was complaining about it. It has been this way for YEARS. Unless CCP has some new modules in the works this is going to be another huge downside to active shield tanking.
.

Greyscale has the subtlety of a pregnant spermwhale. I give up...

...in an all together passive (pun intended) non-quity way.

Yes, "u can haz ma stuffz" :-p

For the why, see my first post in this thread for the short version :) Essentially we came to the conclusion that 1) in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules, and 2) in this specific case we strongly dislike the implementation and the presentation thereof. If this is unclear, please ask more questions, just don't expect the general thrust to change significantly!

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

**** u ccp roll it back along with the interdictor changes now or im unsubbing i haved enoughf of your bullshit stealth nerfs not be ing put in patch notes to say "sorry" is the shittest nsult u can say to us **** YOU CCP

**** u ccp roll it back along with the interdictor changes now or im unsubbing i haved enoughf of your bullshit stealth nerfs not be ing put in patch notes to say "sorry" is the shittest nsult u can say to us **** YOU CCP

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 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).

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 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).

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).

I was thinking about the Invuln field mod...

Almost every shield tank ship in EVE fits it. It would be the PRIMARY mod on those ships. Might be the most widely used mod in all of EVE.

How can any developer change that mod, and act like it has little or no effect on the players? How can they post in the forums (like it was a Jita scam?) and try and sell that crap?

I was thinking about the Invuln field mod...

Almost every shield tank ship in EVE fits it. It would be the PRIMARY mod on those ships. Might be the most widely used mod in all of EVE.

How can any developer change that mod, and act like it has little or no effect on the players? How can they post in the forums (like it was a Jita scam?) and try and sell that crap?

Yeah, that's still nagging at me. We haven't even gotten a "well, ok, so it wasn't a minor change, and we should have mentioned it sooner, but it's still going in". A simple admission that this was handled very poorly might at least generate a bit of good will.

I still don't think the logic has been explained at all though. "We decided over coffee that we don't like mods that do two things as a post hoc exercise for justifying some changes we were making anyway" really does seem to sum it up.

Annoying. Still annoying.