Or you got sudden swap in high end pve where you just end up without cap no shield resist and deep in armor,
If you didn’t notice on time or logi were slacking or simply bad net on your side hel even cluster disconnect on CCP side…
Damage control become difference between wreck or petition for refund that you need to wait if CCP screwed it up…happens.
Damage control is tank module happens to be only one shield fits can use in low slots and while nerfed hard from active module it was before and being fitted on EVERYTHING to passive one still have use.
There is an enormous difference between having a brick fit that logi ships are covering and the usual solo PvE fits where you should know what damage types you are against and be fit accordingly.
The original argument going on is because a certain somebody is claiming that DCU is BiS for 99% of fits when that definitely isn’t the case. For self-sufficient solo gameplay that DCU is mostly an anchor dragging fits down because there are more efficient options for armor. And passive shield tanks will leave/return upon hitting that magic number around 20% shields when the tank starts failing.
The only shield tank for solo PvE that has any interest in a DCU is active fit where you are actually repping instead of relying upon passive regen. This is the PvE section of the forums, if you are in hull you seriously screwed up somewhere already.
The chance that the DC actually allows rep to catch is very slim.
Also it means that in a normal case your ship will anyhow take more damage from the rats - so you will actually have LESS time to react and you may go on the hull while a correct fit would have prevented you from it.
Anyhow incursions are out of the scope. You don’t get to choose between DC or not, you use the fit you are told to use.
Also I wrote specifically that DC is good for active shield fits.
Obviously you can’t post a link to an official statement to prove otherwise. I posted info direct from Uniwiki which is endorsed by CCP and accepted by a majority of the playerbase as the go-to site for Eve info. CCP officially endorsed Uniwiki as a resource for Eve related info when they issued the Dev Blog about shutting down Evelopedia. Look it up.
As for fitting the Damage Control module, a hell of a lot more players in this thread say it’s a good module to fit compared to you and your alts saying it’s not. The rest of your reply is hostile ranting.
You have not a single argument.
Uniwiki make mistakes too.
And so do you.
you gave ZERO argument. Just repeat that you are right.
But you are wrong. Just because you are not able to provide a single logical argument.
You have nothing useful to bring in the discussion. Your opinion is not based on any intellectual effort to actually find out what is good or not, but instead on “I thought that before so this must still be right”.
So I’m supposedly somebody else’s alt. Funny thing is that isn’t the case. If you are resorting to that sort of attack you literally have nothing to stand upon for your own argument. Also repeatedly calling for “official” statements when you yourself are pointing towards an non-official source that is sporadically updated by players is the epitome of a cop-out. They endorsed the site because it was the most complete (not necessarily correct) compilation of information at the time. You ever taken a look at the patch when certain recommended fits were added? They are years old and in some cases are impossible to fit because of changes in slot layouts or ship base CPU or power grid.
You don’t have an argument so you are literally repeating things ad-infinitum with fingers jammed into your ears. Abusing the flagging system also doesn’t help your case. It doesn’t change anyone’s opinion and wastes moderator time if you repeatedly flag contrary opinions.
Nothing slim about it you get 60% resist on about 10k of hull points less so in armor less so in shield when ■■■■ hits the fan id rather have that than cap dry shield fit with default shield resist profile and lukewarm armor and 0% hull.
This is highly situational
Vanguard fleet upgrading want to add more tank so from single invul you go to invul+dcu why dropping tracking comp when tracking enhancer can be swapped for dcu,point isn’t to tank it more than needed.
So what will you choose removing 20 tracking comps or 20 tracking enhancers.
keep in mind your fleet just got less effective(range and application + damage debufs from incursion effects>) influence is high neut battleships WILL get in range and your shield tank WILL completely fail…Damage control sounds good to me.
For me it isn’t just incursions new triglavs battleship and battlecruiser spawns are the same it is fun to fit a cap battery on a cruiser and go yolo…until its not.
As I wrote already, DC is good for active shield fit. so to me the only discussion is whenever it’s useful in armor fit. And in armor fits the DC gives less armor resists than an EANM, so it’s worse.
For an armor tank fit, the answer is generally no, as a dedicated armor tank mod in a low slot will typically do better than a DC as all the benefit of the armor mod is concentrated in armor while the DC benefit is spread through armor, shield, and hull.
For shield it’s a very complicated question with no clear answer, since your shield tank slots will be mids. A quick and dirty response is, can you spare a low slot without losing too much DPS? If so, a DC is a good addition.
There are some “hull tank” fits where a DC is pretty much mandatory, like for certain Gallente ships and ORE ships, but you won’t be using a passive hull tank in missions.
There is a reason you may want to fit a DC I haven’t seen mentioned here, and it’s to increase the EHP in order to make it a little more difficult/unlikely to be suicide ganked.
Even in cases where another mod might be better for the type of tank you’re using, if the DC already makes the tank good enough and it significantly increases the overall EHP compared to the alternatives, you may want to fit a DC for that (not PvE related) reason.
Actually, that’s how it’s documented to work, but not how it works in practice. The in game fitting window seems to show some average EHP across all damage types, rather than the EHP for the lowest resistance path.
This can be easily checked by adding a hardener for any damage type and seeing how that causes the EHP shown by the fitting window to increase in all cases, which shouldn’t happen if it showed the EHP for the lowest resistance path only.
the fitting window ingame uses homogeneous damage type (omni damage). That is, you get shot by someone who uses 2 missiles of each type, out of 8 launchers.
If you have logi support, then no Dcu, otherwise fit one. On other speed tanking fits maybe no need Dcu. And it’s best to always pay your permits - it’s a sort of insurance you invest in.
Yes, but you don’t have to take my word for it. As I said, it’s easy to check.
Simulate a new empty fit, note the EHP, and then see how the EHP increases if you fit a hardener for any damage type, which clearly indicates all damage types are taken into consideration when computing the EHP, not just the one with lowest resist.
What I don’t know is whether it has always worked the way it does now, or it worked as you said (and is documented) at first, and then it was changed at some point. I haven’t found any mention of such a change in patch notes.
I’ll simply tell you its been doing the average EHP thing for years at this point. Because it certainly was working that way when alpha clones were introduced, which dates things a bit if it worked otherwise at some other point in time.
