Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1258
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 06:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
I feel somewhat iconoclastic today, so I'll just slaughter this holy cow.
Remove the shield and armour resistance bonus from Damage Controls but make it a passive module. It's the only module with such a wide spread bonus around and ridiculously imbalanced. Just the fact that it is mandatory for almost any PvP fit proves this point.
Shields and armour have their own array of resistance mods and the damage control intrudes on there. Keeping it passive and restricting it to Hull resists will make it more balanced and it will still massively increase EHPs, especially on ships that rely on their Hull HPs to tank.
Really, I am quite sure CCP never tried to nerf the Damage Control, because they are terrified of the outcry it would produce. Mining Overhaul Nothing changed since 2008. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2184
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 07:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Huh... it's been awhile since someone bought this up here.
I'm on the fence. Will post more after sleep cycle has ended and sobriety has kicked in. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2496
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 07:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Oh yeah, and propulsion mods too, every ship fits one and they give INSANE speed boosts.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1258
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 07:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Roime wrote:Oh yeah, and propulsion mods too, every ship fits one and they give INSANE speed boosts.
If you want to compare a propulsion mod with the damage control, you'd have it cost little to no cap, improve agility and increase warp speed on top of a massive speed increase. Mining Overhaul Nothing changed since 2008. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2496
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 07:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Is your argument really that DCU II is too powerful?
Breaks the game, huh
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Omega Industries
297
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 09:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I feel somewhat iconoclastic today, so I'll just slaughter this holy cow.
So you posted purely because you want to lambast something, not because you actually believe it needs changing? Seems to be what you're saying.
Abrazzar wrote:Remove the shield and armour resistance bonus from Damage Controls but make it a passive module. It's the only module with such a wide spread bonus around and ridiculously imbalanced. Just the fact that it is mandatory for almost any PvP fit proves this point.
That's just not true. I've seen a lot fo pvp fits which win fights without one. In fact, most pvp fleet fits I've seen don't have one except on battleships.
Abrazzar wrote:Shields and armour have their own array of resistance mods and the damage control intrudes on there. Keeping it passive and restricting it to Hull resists will make it more balanced and it will still massively increase EHPs, especially on ships that rely on their Hull HPs to tank.
People like throwing around that buzzword at the moment. Balanced. How would that make it balanced? What makes it unbalanced at the moment? It can be fit to any ship by any pilot who has the skills. How is that unbalanced? Also, how does it "intrude" on other tank modules? You can chose to use it or not. There is no intruding there.
Abrazzar wrote:Really, I am quite sure CCP never tried to nerf the Damage Control, because they are terrified of the outcry it would produce.
I would posit the reason CCP hasn't nerfed Damage Control is because it is currently "balanced" and therefore not in need of being nerfed.
|
Dosan Yvormes
Vocare Ad Regnum
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 09:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Abrazzar wrote:I feel somewhat iconoclastic today, so I'll just slaughter this holy cow. So you posted purely because you want to lambast something, not because you actually believe it needs changing? Seems to be what you're saying. Abrazzar wrote:Remove the shield and armour resistance bonus from Damage Controls but make it a passive module. It's the only module with such a wide spread bonus around and ridiculously imbalanced. Just the fact that it is mandatory for almost any PvP fit proves this point. That's just not true. I've seen a lot fo pvp fits which win fights without one. In fact, most pvp fleet fits I've seen don't have one except on battleships. Abrazzar wrote:Shields and armour have their own array of resistance mods and the damage control intrudes on there. Keeping it passive and restricting it to Hull resists will make it more balanced and it will still massively increase EHPs, especially on ships that rely on their Hull HPs to tank. People like throwing around that buzzword at the moment. Balanced. How would that make it balanced? What makes it unbalanced at the moment? It can be fit to any ship by any pilot who has the skills. How is that unbalanced? Also, how does it "intrude" on other tank modules? You can chose to use it or not. There is no intruding there. Abrazzar wrote:Really, I am quite sure CCP never tried to nerf the Damage Control, because they are terrified of the outcry it would produce. I would posit the reason CCP hasn't nerfed Damage Control is because it is currently "balanced" and therefore not in need of being nerfed.
I totally agree with you. The DCU II is one of the most versitile modules in the game, yes, however I think you will find a lot of shield tanking ships not fitting one unless they are in small gangs and are in desperate need for the resists and to use the least amount of cap as possible.
If you change the DCU to a pure 'hull tanking' module, which is what I think you are trying to say, you will make the DCU almost completely mute! I think this post was a bit of a 'howdy dowdy' post. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
112
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I feel somewhat iconoclastic today, so I'll just slaughter this holy cow.
Remove the shield and armour resistance bonus from Damage Controls but make it a passive module. It's the only module with such a wide spread bonus around and ridiculously imbalanced. Just the fact that it is mandatory for almost any PvP fit proves this point.
Shields and armour have their own array of resistance mods and the damage control intrudes on there. Keeping it passive and restricting it to Hull resists will make it more balanced and it will still massively increase EHPs, especially on ships that rely on their Hull HPs to tank.
Really, I am quite sure CCP never tried to nerf the Damage Control, because they are terrified of the outcry it would produce.
There is no balance issue when ALL ships can fit it and helps all ships in the game. its simply a module that if you are goign to really tank you fit it. Its simple effective and very well designed module. Removing the armor adn shield resists woudl make it USELESS and no one would use it. HORRIBLE idea from someone that does not grasp PVP balance of roles. Please stay away from the POST button for at leas 12 months. |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
948
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:31:00 -
[9] - Quote
Even after made hull only, it gives enough extra buffer to be easily worth fitting in pvp. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard Authority
110
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
I started to fit new ships without DCU II because most ehp comes from structure. I-¦d rather put in another pure-armor-resist-mod without stacking penalty (like: instead of 2 eanms II and dcu II it-¦s 2 eanms II and the reactive thingie).
Correct me if i-¦m wrong. For Hire Psychotic Monk for CSM |
|
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Omega Industries
297
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 11:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Even after made hull only, it gives enough extra buffer to be easily worth fitting in pvp.
Really? Are you sure? I'm not an armour tanker but I'd say that a specific armour tanking mod would be better if you're armour tanking and a dps mod would be better if you're shield tanking. Depends on other fit though I expect but I've never seen any hull mods on any decent pvp fits.
|
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
61
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 12:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
DCU is fine as it is. No changes needed. You can fit one and prosper.. or don't fit one and suffer. The choice is purely yours!! |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
426
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 12:28:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:There is no balance issue when ALL ships can fit it and helps all ships in the game. Let's undo nano nerf. ALL ships could fit it and it could help every ship in the game. Having equally good choices instead of "the way to go" ones is overrated.
That said, smaller hulls generally don't benefit from DCU to the point of not having a choice but fit it I'd say. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Omega Industries
297
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 13:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Let's undo nano nerf The nano nerf wasn't anything like the OP's proposal. You're moving the goalposts in your analogy to fit your argument.
Barrogh Habalu wrote: That said, smaller hulls generally don't benefit from DCU to the point of not having a choice but fit it I'd say.
Not sure whether you're saying that DCU is pointless on small hulls or that they're so necessary the player has no choice but to fit them.
For what it's worth, I only fit DCU to about half of pvp frigates. Depends entirely on frigate and purpose.
Don't get me wrong, DCUs are good but they're not the iWin button that the OP and you seems to think they are. They're simply not overpowered as they are. If you fit one you don't necessarily win and if you don't fit one you don't necessarily lose.
With old nano fitted ships it was either an iWin or iGotOutOfThere button. You simply couldn't lose your ship to anyone else who didn't fit nano unless you were an idiot. That's completely different to DCUs.
Vote Corebloodbrothers for CSM! |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
235
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 13:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
Its only a matter of time before it gets its resist bonuses halved just incase of "power creep" even tho its been fine for years. |
Ix Method
Porphyrean Genetic Enterprises
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 13:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Even after made hull only, it gives enough extra buffer to be easily worth fitting in pvp. This. Is this a stealth I just wanna afk stuff around thread?
Not that that's a bad thing as such, just fail to see why else making it passive has been wedged in there? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7433
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 13:57:00 -
[17] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:make it a passive module
Nope. mine quotes from my posts at your peril, badposters TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1079
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I feel somewhat iconoclastic today, so I'll just slaughter this holy cow.
Remove the shield and armour resistance bonus from Damage Controls but make it a passive module. It's the only module with such a wide spread bonus around and ridiculously imbalanced. Just the fact that it is mandatory for almost any PvP fit proves this point.
Shields and armour have their own array of resistance mods and the damage control intrudes on there. Keeping it passive and restricting it to Hull resists will make it more balanced and it will still massively increase EHPs, especially on ships that rely on their Hull HPs to tank.
Really, I am quite sure CCP never tried to nerf the Damage Control, because they are terrified of the outcry it would produce.
But making it a passive module is a huge buff to supers, and a nerf to neuts. Why would you do that? |
Elvis Preslie
NRDS Securities Apocalypse Now.
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:54:00 -
[19] - Quote
Yes, lets just nerf everything we don't use and get beat by, in an effort to "cry" as poeple call it.
The damage control is there for a reason and just because it gives bonuses doesnt mean everyone uses it; most people that do medium ships go for PURE speed and shield OR armor tank, using that slot usually used for DC as another energized adaptive. The damage control IS balanced because it gives only HALF the bonuses as if you used a passive module of the same slot. Everything is all fine here;
you could make it though where it requires more skills; thats much much more logic than nerfing it. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY
394
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:25:00 -
[20] - Quote
How often you see someone willing the hull-tanking!?
The DCU role is gives EHP apart from the Tank. It gives shield resistance, Armor Resistance and Hull Resistance in a way that ensures that you get one extra breath after your tank fail and before your ship gets destroyed. It alone don't give shield tank or armor tank in a meaningful way, it just gives a small bonus to ensure that the tank will not be compromissed.
Putting a DCU or any other hull tanking modules is assuming that you will eventually fight to a point that your tank will fail, but you just need to last as long as possible. If you wan't survive you fit a real tank module.
On big fleet fights they don't care IF you are going to lose your ship, they care about the fleet. so if your tank fail, it is good that you take a couple more shots before you explode, so the other ships don't take them... (It also gives Logi the chance of rescuing you...)
If you are not losing your ship, go for a single tank. You don't see Incursion Ships with DCU, because they don't plan to lose ships...
And as Shield tanks, when they fail they got the DCU bonus in the armor and in the hull, whille the Armor Tank gets this bonus only in the Hull, the Armor resistance bonus have reason to be larger then the armor then in the shield.
So I must say that it is one of the most well balanced modules in EVE. It have a good role, is fine the way it is, so no change is needed. Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |