| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
   |
Posted - 2008.03.14 17:27:00 -
[1]
Pithum-A passive shield hardners were reduced also, looks like it was across the board on these modules, I do not understand this change, or why it wasnt publicised. Passive Armor hardners were not touched, so why the assault on shields? Its not as if these things were outperforming active hardners, unlike the a-type passive armor modules which come in better than T2 actives after compensation skills are applied.
Please explain the rational, or give us an ETA when it will be undone, maybe this is one of the database issues which got missed?
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 10:19:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: CCP Zulupark
This change was made by CCP Nozh. I've linked this thread to him and he should answer shortly.
Thanks Zulu :)
I'm betting along the lines of 'a boost to everyone shooting at someone who fitted a passive shield hardner' or some such
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 10:31:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Alyth
Have the 40% resist passive armour modules been nerfed too?
No, only the passive shield resistance amps faction level and up were downgraded. Passive armor modules are currently unchanged. Go figure.
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 14:23:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Alyth
stuff.
But its not just that module, its all high meta level passive resistances amps, all the way up to Pith A Types, they have reduced the effectiveness of the entire module set, not just corrected 1 module which was out of line.
The reasoning behind it may be absolutely rock solid, what is concerning is it went through under the radar, was not disclosed in the patch notes and seems very contrary to the BOOST patch messaging.
I'm not getting the logic that says the top level (complex A type) passive module should not be equitable with the T2 active alternative, it is for armor tanks, so why just whack at shields? what specific problem was being resovled by this change that warranted the across the board reduction, rather than a specific module correction?
I fly a passive rattlesnake for PVE which uses 2 pithum a-types, my thermal resistance got nudged from 'comfortable' to 'borderline' by this undisclosed change, helping the player base to understand the reasoning behind it would be a positive step, no? Don't get stuck on 1% or 50% worse, nerf is nerf, we want to know why, respectfully.
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 14:54:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Everyone is looking past the CPU usage which was changed also, to the better.
See, making them easier to fit doesn't make up for the fact that you now might need another module which affects resistance to compensate for the downgrade in effectiveness, its not like additional slots are easy to come by (where as fitting challenges are more easily overcome).
Suck it up and move on is the feeling I get. Oh well.
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 11:35:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Malar
I was hoping that when i wake up this morning, the thread will long be gone. Well, its not. I guess someone forgot to ask the mods to close it down.
Why would it be gone? because your persuasive, intelligent musings have convinced everyone who was either negatively impacted by this change, or everyone who considers this to be a negative ill-conceived change, that they are indeed wrong?
Stop trying to 'win' the thread and let people have an adult discussion about the implications of this unannounced change and the questionable thought process behind it. You are welcome to your opinion, be mature enough to let others express theirs.
Next up, lets apply the same change-logic to single resist energized plating and see how much the volume increases then?
|
Hectaire Glade
Forum Jockey
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 14:00:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Willow Whisp
Thanks for looking into it further Nozh.
Please just keep in mind the relationship between the other existing complex and officer items, and how they relate to each other (i.e., how Gist and Pith relate in terms of fitting requirements vs resistance bonus - that is, gist tends to be lower bonus in exchange for way easier fitting, and pith is higher fitting in exchange for significantly increased resistance) - also look at the relationship between low-end officer named, and high-end complex named.
There generally is an existing correlation, for example, Vepa with Pithum, and Tobias with Gistum.
We do really appreciate you looking into the overall faction picture, as long as those relationships are taken into account, to keep it consistent with the rest of the faction tables.
-Willow
^^^^Best post I've seen in days
|
| |
|