open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [PROPOSAL] Should some modules (such as Damage Control) be Passive?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.13 10:19:00 - [1]
 

Marconus Orion, in this post in a recent dev-blog thread, makes an interesting point:

Quote:
Please CCP, make the Damage Control and Drone Control Unit passive already. You can't tell me that players not having to activate one module that is on every ship would not help lag a bit. Not to mention all the players gratitude for the change.


I would like opinions pro/con to such a change, as well as other potential modules that could be made passive (modules with no cap cost, such as Drone Link Augmentor, come to mind).

The obvious con argument is that it makes cap warfare slightly less effective, but given the tiny cost of a DC (1 GJ) vs. a hardener (30 GJ) is it really all that significant?

If there is reasonable consensus on this, I will raise it at an upcoming meeting.

Astroka
Posted - 2010.09.13 10:25:00 - [2]
 

I agree with this change, I see no need for these modules to be active whatsoever. I'll update this post if I think of any other modules that should definitely be made passive.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.13 10:57:00 - [3]
 

In a old thread (2 years or more) in the F&I section of the forum there was a discussion about this.

Apparently the Developers original idea for the Damage Control was a that of a passive module, but there was some problem with the stacking with other modules or somesuch and it was made active.

With Trinity the original problem was resolved so the OP was arguing for making it a passive module.

If I recall exactly there was even a post by a Dev in that thread tentatively agreeing that it would not be a bad change but in the end nothing was done.

So supported, unless someone can prove that it will really have a significant impact on PvP.

Bhattran
Posted - 2010.09.13 11:51:00 - [4]
 

Supported.

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:09:00 - [5]
 

Disagree. Neuted damage control on a supercapital can be very important.

Use an EANM if you want passive resists.

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:14:00 - [6]
 

+1 on the damage control at least(I'm not familiar with DCUs in practice). It never shuts off anyway, since the duration is so long and you always have the one point of cap. It takes a bloody miracle to shut the thing off with neuts even for a second, so I can't see cap warfare being a very good counter argument against implementing the change.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:19:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Marconus Orion on 13/09/2010 12:19:47
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Disagree. Neuted damage control on a supercapital can be very important.

Use an EANM if you want passive resists.


Are you ****ing stupid or something?

The odds that you have a super capital at 0 cap when it cycles is astronomical. I for one will be content on not winning the lottery and deactivating a super capitals damage control for one second before he turns it back on, and having less lag and that annoying button you have to push every time you jump.

****ing idiot...

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:22:00 - [8]
 

Astronomical, but existant.

http://gkkb.dante.se/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26309

She only died because we managed to do it when she was in 75% structure.

Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.

Posted - 2010.09.13 13:04:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Astronomical, but existant.

http://gkkb.dante.se/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26309

She only died because we managed to do it when she was in 75% structure.


So you want more kill mail but more lag as well? Yeah, no thanks.

If it's any help at all in the fight against lag, turn 'em passive.

Noun Verber
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.13 14:26:00 - [10]
 

I think that the downside to this is that as a passive module, you would not be able to overload it.

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2010.09.13 14:35:00 - [11]
 

You can't overload it anyway. And yes, I'm against this too. I remember at least 2 supercap kills that only happened because their DCU got neuted off.

geilesding
Posted - 2010.09.13 15:03:00 - [12]
 

Good idea

Fail Fit
Posted - 2010.09.13 16:03:00 - [13]
 

Epic idea!

Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.09.13 16:40:00 - [14]
 

Sounds like a reasonable change and a good way to avoid too much info being sent through the pipe. These modules either use no cap or marginal amounts.

Supported.

Ophelia Ursus
Posted - 2010.09.13 16:49:00 - [15]
 

.

Zagdul
Gallente
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.09.13 18:05:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Zagdul on 13/09/2010 18:05:24
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Marconus Orion, in this post in a recent dev-blog thread, makes an interesting point:

I'm offended you didn't read my post one above his...
Originally by: Zagdul

Would it be possible to attempt a mass test with the Damage Control as a passive module?

500 people with an active module that does a check for a % of resists seems like it would take up some server resources.

For the people who complain about this being a passive module... it doesn't need to be an active one, don't get into this debate...



Supported... but disgruntled and butthurt.

Very Happy

Vitoc Slave
Posted - 2010.09.13 19:27:00 - [17]
 

Yes

Ridji
Gallente
Legacy State
Posted - 2010.09.13 19:54:00 - [18]
 

Supported

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:05:00 - [19]
 

1 MW every 30 seconds? the likelihood of keeping anyone's cap drained to absolutely 0 at the right time for a DCU to continue running is pretty low.

In the lagfest that is a super cap takedown, it is likely that the module will be stuck on without using any cap anyway. Most smaller ships will be dead inside 30 seconds so even trying to keep their cap at 0 at the right time is just plain silly.

No reason to have this an active module instead of a passive one.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:50:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 13/09/2010 20:50:49
Originally by: Zagdul
I'm offended you didn't read my post one above his...

My apologies, so many posts, so little time.

In light of today's devblog about the recent lag-fix on cycling modules, your comment is particularly prescient.

Originally by: Zagdul
Supported... but disgruntled and butthurt.

I will have fellow CSM Vuk Lau send you some of his famous soothing lube™ to ease your pain. Very Happy

WRT to the posters concerned about the possible missed kills due to DC not being incappable, I would like some more data on how frequently this kind of event really occurs (ie: it makes the kill possible vs. just delaying the inevitable). Also, assuming it is a real factor, what changes to the module attributes might balance the change?

If I do bring this up to CSM, it will definitely include this concern in the cons section.

BlahBlahBlah exwife
Posted - 2010.09.14 00:35:00 - [21]
 

Making the DCU a passive module really benefits two groups of people. 1) People who die because they forget to turn their DCU on and 2) People who like to autopilot through highsec with expensive stuff in their cargo hold.

I know it'd be great for afk hauling in my Orca, with the huge structure on that thing.

Supported? Not sure. It'd make my life easier if it was passive, but I'm not sure being easy is what Eve is all about.

Don't know enough about the drone mods to comment on those one way or the other.

Chuck Skull
b.b.k
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.14 00:42:00 - [22]
 

Sounds good. Less server load, less having to activate mods that behave just like passive ones anyway.

TBH thinking about it, couldn't all hardeners be 'passive'? Instead of making the server deal with thousands of mods cycling(3-4 per ship x the blob), and we all know how little TQ likes things cycling, just give the active hardeners an equivalent passive cap penalty(MWD style). I can't think of a ship I use with active hardeners that don't just get them activated after every session change and left running til the next one. Targeted mods(guns, smarties, reps et al), probes and prop mods are the only thing that really need player interaction IMO. If the only time you interact with something is when the game turns it off, you restart it, it doesn't really add anything to the experience, other than lag.

No actual change in cap use or functionality, therefore balance. Only 2 potential problems I see are overheating, but frankly not having to wait for cycles to end to switch heat on and off, would be welcomed by me and possibly some of the slightly higher cap use mods like Drone Controls which tend to be run in bursts(during combat) in my experience rather than constantly from undocking like hardeners and DC's, but I don't think them having a smaller cap use/penalty than currently would be game breaking, end of the day they're just another damage mod and none of the others use any cap in of themselves.

*Waits for angry post about how this will break some niche ship*, but honestly if it reduces lag I can live with you having to refit. Adapt or die and all that.

Hack Harrison
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.14 02:39:00 - [23]
 

Supported.
Will also make high sec ganking a little more "interesting" Cool

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.09.14 03:45:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
1 MW every 30 seconds? the likelihood of keeping anyone's cap drained to absolutely 0 at the right time for a DCU to continue running is pretty low.

In the lagfest that is a super cap takedown, it is likely that the module will be stuck on without using any cap anyway. Most smaller ships will be dead inside 30 seconds so even trying to keep their cap at 0 at the right time is just plain silly.

No reason to have this an active module instead of a passive one.



It's actually pretty likely if there's a significant number of neuts on you.

-Liang

klyeme
The Mind's Eye
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2010.09.14 03:48:00 - [25]
 

Drone control unit -->Needs to be passive
Damage control Unit -->Could go either way but passive would be nice.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.09.14 04:08:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Mara Rinn on 14/09/2010 04:11:06
If you disagree with DCU being passive because neuting a DCU into quiescence was essential for you getting a supercap kill... perhaps you want to discourage CCP from "fixing" lag since so many nullsec fights depend on lag in order for one side or the other to get a free win? Just because the situation exists in the game and benefits you in some situations doesn't mean it was designed to be that way.

DCU was supposed to be a passive module, the devs couldn't make it passive at the time due to limitations in the game engine. The game engine has changed since then to allow it to be passive but the change was simply never made.

For what it's worth, I think a DCU would work better as a rig with a drawback of 5-10% on PG/CPU/Cap.

(edit: while being excessively verbose I neglected to indicate my support for the idea at the focus of this discussion)

Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.09.14 04:16:00 - [27]
 

supported

Lord Wilding
EdgeGamers
Posted - 2010.09.14 07:22:00 - [28]
 

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement.

One issue that will arise for certain is the bonuses (bonii/whatever) that will occur from passive boosting skills such as armor and shield compensation. You will essentially take an already extremely useful module and make it even that much more powerful. This could get completely out of hand on ships with high resist bonuses/bonii. Now before diminishing returns gets brought up...

Diminishing returns, they will eat DC's alive on purely passive tanked ships. This could make them essentially useless for certain fits on the other hand~

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.14 07:46:00 - [29]
 

It should be pretty trivial to make sure those skills wont affect it.

Chances a DC is deactivated by neuts are very small, and most likely reactivated again immediatly by the pilot.

Lord Wilding
EdgeGamers
Posted - 2010.09.14 07:55:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Lord Wilding on 14/09/2010 07:59:03
Originally by: Furb Killer
It should be pretty trivial to make sure those skills wont affect it.

Without having a direct answer from CCP/CSM about that, it is actually a really bad idea to give a yay agreement towards this issue.

EDIT: I think the idea is noble and is a great start, but the solution put forward is not complete. It really needs to be addressed whether armor and/or shield compensation skills will have any effect on a passive DCU. If they do not, I would be in full support of passive DCU's.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only