Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 16:44:00 -
[1]
a simple enough proposal to add CPU rigs into the game as a counterpart to the currant powergrid rigs.
although there are of course missile fitting rigs that decrease the CPU amount required for launchers, it is still of course one type of module where as the grid rigs assist the fitting of all types of modules the require grid to fit.
T1 +10% CPU amount
T2 +15% CPU amount
so what do folks think?
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 01:10:00 -
[2]
no opinions about this at all, not even a little troll????
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
Corina's Bodyguard
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 01:11:00 -
[3]
I'e never needed that much CPU. Then again, I tend to run very PG hungry setups, so I shouldn't speak much.
|
KlintortheDestroyer
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 02:19:00 -
[4]
Edited by: KlintortheDestroyer on 02/05/2011 02:20:03 i like it but people will be able to fit alot more weapons now :) edit: there were several times where i needed a few more cpu to get the fit i wanted
|
Caldari 5
Amarr The Element Syndicate Blazing Angels Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 08:54:00 -
[5]
I like the idea, if you are going to have just Powergrid rigs, I don't see any reason not to have just CPU rigs.
Not sure on the percentage increases or though.
If the Ancillary Current Router Rigs are equivalent to Reactor Control Unit LowSlot Modules and the new CPU Rigs are equivalent to the Co-Processor LowSlot Modules, Then the CPU rigs should be 7% and 10%, not your suggested 10% and 15%.
|
Eidric
Tears of Terra SOLAR WING
|
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:42:00 -
[6]
there is a difference between powergrid and CPU - powergrid scales more with ship size, while CPU is less scalable and as such CPU increases would make far greater impact.
Besides CPU it designed in a way to be a limiting factor (some ships have slots for electronic warfare - some are designed for tanking - CPU sometimes tells us that)
such rigs will make CPU negligent for larger boats.
|
Caldari 5
Amarr The Element Syndicate Blazing Angels Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.03 04:53:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Eidric there is a difference between powergrid and CPU - powergrid scales more with ship size, while CPU is less scalable and as such CPU increases would make far greater impact.
Besides CPU it designed in a way to be a limiting factor (some ships have slots for electronic warfare - some are designed for tanking - CPU sometimes tells us that)
such rigs will make CPU negligent for larger boats.
At the moment if you have a fitting issue, if its PowerGrid you have the options of ACR, RCU or PDS, if you have a CPU fitting issue you have the option of a Co-Pro that's it. Eve is in need of a rig for CPU.
|
Sieges
|
Posted - 2011.05.03 05:10:00 -
[8]
I would like to see some CPU rigs!
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.05.03 06:30:00 -
[9]
Shield transfers are CPU intensive.
The Osprey has 275 Tf, the Basilisk has 510 Tf, the Dominix has 600Tf. Allowing an Osprey to add 50% more CPU isn't going to render the Basilisk or Dominix obsolete as far as logistics boats go.
On the other hand, the Caracal has 350 Tf, the Cerberus has 440Tf, the Drake has 525 Tf. Thus to prevent the Caracal being as CPU-rich as its T2 equivalent, you'd want to limit CPU expansion to 30%. With 3 rigs, each rig could give 10% extra CPU and not be "overpowered". So take 10% as the T2 rig bonus, and something like 7% as the T1 rig bonus.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
|
Posted - 2011.05.05 13:03:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Mara Rinn Shield transfers are CPU intensive.
The Osprey has 275 Tf, the Basilisk has 510 Tf, the Dominix has 600Tf. Allowing an Osprey to add 50% more CPU isn't going to render the Basilisk or Dominix obsolete as far as logistics boats go.
On the other hand, the Caracal has 350 Tf, the Cerberus has 440Tf, the Drake has 525 Tf. Thus to prevent the Caracal being as CPU-rich as its T2 equivalent, you'd want to limit CPU expansion to 30%. With 3 rigs, each rig could give 10% extra CPU and not be "overpowered". So take 10% as the T2 rig bonus, and something like 7% as the T1 rig bonus.
sounds good, i like it. ^_^
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
|
shadowace00007
Amarr Beyond The Gates
|
Posted - 2011.05.05 18:50:00 -
[11]
the only reason I do not like this is simply because shield tanking ship are really the only ships that need extra CPU rigs you can make the already insane active tanking shield ships stronger without the loss of damage from the lows. you could easily fit 2 shield boosters on a ship and get tanks that are currently only possible with faction ships.
Put simply if they give the CPU boost then they need to give armor ways to boost the rep amount without using rigs. or shields will be too strong. ----------- Born Amarr, Raised Minmatar.
|
Marchocias
Snatch Victory
|
Posted - 2011.05.05 19:33:00 -
[12]
I think the following would be more appropriate:
T1: 3% T2: 5%
Possibly it ought to have a drawback to heat-disipation / heat-damage (well, you are overclocking your ship!) ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.05.06 10:42:00 -
[13]
We have a PG one in game I agree a CPU one is needed.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |