| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mochica
   |
Posted - 2005.04.30 19:34:00 -
[1]
the skill info reads "Skill required for weapon upgrade modules that affect turrets. Special: Reduces the CPU need of turrets,launchers and smartbombs by 5% per level of skill."
take note that it simply says turrets, i take this to mean anything that takes a turret slot on a ship. why then does it not affect mining lasers an item which uses alot of cpu, does take a turret slot, and is even found under the turrets section in market.
perhaps this has been covered before but i've not seen any info related to it and really i see no reason for the skill not to aply here.
have the designers given a reason for it not to work? if so what is it? if not perhaps this is something we could suggest implementing.
|
CptEagle
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 20:13:00 -
[2]
Its called Weapon Upgrades, not Mining Upgrades. 
|
ManOfHonor
|
Posted - 2005.05.01 03:50:00 -
[3]
mining laser isnt a turret even tho it uses a turret hardpoint
now quit whining an go******a roid somewhere
_____________________________
Honor Glory And Strength!
Honor Above Self
Glory For Self
Strength Of Self
(\_/)
(^.^)
(> <) |
Mochica
|
Posted - 2005.05.02 12:58:00 -
[4]
i'm sorry to see all i've gotten are knee jerk reactions...
look at other weapon skills like Controlled Bursts that in their description specify that the effects are for Weapon turrets only. the effect of Weapon Upgrades says simply turrests, launchers, and smartbombs.
for the cpu bonus of the weapons upgrade skill to not aply to mining lasers the text of the skill should be rewritten to weapon turrets. or they could actually make mining lasers a non-turret item, in which case i want to fit 8 on my mega.
|
Emno
|
Posted - 2005.05.02 13:08:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Mochica
i'm sorry to see all i've gotten are knee jerk reactions...
look at other weapon skills like Controlled Bursts that in their description specify that the effects are for Weapon turrets only. the effect of Weapon Upgrades says simply turrests, launchers, and smartbombs.
for the cpu bonus of the weapons upgrade skill to not aply to mining lasers the text of the skill should be rewritten to weapon turrets. or they could actually make mining lasers a non-turret item, in which case i want to fit 8 on my mega.
maybe if they bring out mining missiles and mining smartbombs people might get confused but as it is...
|
Aureus
|
Posted - 2005.05.02 14:25:00 -
[6]
Woah, lots of miner hatin' goin on in here...
|
Weston McArthur
|
Posted - 2005.05.02 17:19:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Mochica
have the designers given a reason for it not to work? if so what is it? if not perhaps this is something we could suggest implementing.
No, no, and no. A mining laser is an industrial implement, and is jerry rigged to use a turret slot. Evidence of this comes with strip miners, which do not require a turret hardpoints at all, and likewise that mining barges don't *have* any turret points. It's merely a means to allow for unified and standardized construction. Turret hardpoints are a common fitting. Had that not been the goal (to conform with standardized designs and pre-existing ships), then they would have required an alternate method, like strip miners/mining barges.
|
Mochica
|
Posted - 2005.05.02 17:53:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Weston McArthur
Originally by: Mochica
have the designers given a reason for it not to work? if so what is it? if not perhaps this is something we could suggest implementing.
No, no, and no. A mining laser is an industrial implement, and is jerry rigged to use a turret slot. Evidence of this comes with strip miners, which do not require a turret hardpoints at all, and likewise that mining barges don't *have* any turret points. It's merely a means to allow for unified and standardized construction. Turret hardpoints are a common fitting. Had that not been the goal (to conform with standardized designs and pre-existing ships), then they would have required an alternate method, like strip miners/mining barges.
good point now refer to my second post where i recoment a potential resolution for this. that mining lasers become a highslot dependant item rather than a turret slot dependant item, that would resolve my issue nicely without really causing an imbalance.
|
Weston McArthur
|
Posted - 2005.05.02 21:22:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Mochica
good point now refer to my second post where i recoment a potential resolution for this. that mining lasers become a highslot dependant item rather than a turret slot dependant item, that would resolve my issue nicely without really causing an imbalance.
It would actually. The only ship I need to cite is the Scythe. With this proposed "change", it could mine with the equivalent of TEN mining lasers (five highs, 2x yeild with cruiser 5) at the cost of ship, 5 miner II's, and your choice of 2x faction cpu's and 1 cpu II. This type of yield has been reserved to battleships and barges. And even if you didn't want to get so spendy, it could still mine as much as an apoc (four lasers, doubled by skill to eight).
|
Mochica
|
Posted - 2005.05.02 23:19:00 -
[10]
i had forgotten about the cruisers all 2 of them that have a bonus to yeild. however my issue is with the lack of the application of the cpu bonus, slot dependancy was an idea that crossed my mind and for any of these speculative fixes to be implemnted issues like that would have to be resolved first.
i would much rather see them apply the cpu bonus or reword the skill as every other skill that applys to turrets specifys weapon turrets. as mining lasers are now whether or not you consider them a turret they do take a turret slot and therefore are turrets. i'm talking about a bonus that does not specify weapon turrets but does not apply to a turret... left as is it is a game bug and should be fixed.
what is the worst that could happen if they did get a cpu bonus a miner might be able to fit an extra low slot or 2 with something other than a coprocessor?
|
|
|
Weston McArthur
|
Posted - 2005.05.03 03:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mochica
i'm talking about a bonus that does not specify weapon turrets but does not apply to a turret... left as is it is a game bug and should be fixed.
You being anal rententive does not a bug make. And you are now contradicting yourself, or just plain trying to be blindly arguementative. What skill are we talking about? Weapons Upgrades? Oh right... what does that apply to? Weapons? Gee, not descriptive enough for us I guess.
And the worst possible that could happen? I dunno, maybe that you can fit two miner 2's on your velator? Get electronics 5, a large barge, and stop whining about it.
|
Grimwalius d'Antan
|
Posted - 2005.05.03 05:37:00 -
[12]
This thread is hilarious. Next up: Lets whine at the municipal office and force them to change all "stop" signs into "halt" signs so that some very few people won't misunderstand the meaning of them.
|
Mochica
|
Posted - 2005.05.04 10:44:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Weston McArthur
Originally by: Mochica
i'm talking about a bonus that does not specify weapon turrets but does not apply to a turret... left as is it is a game bug and should be fixed.
You being anal rententive does not a bug make. And you are now contradicting yourself, or just plain trying to be blindly arguementative. What skill are we talking about? Weapons Upgrades? Oh right... what does that apply to? Weapons? Gee, not descriptive enough for us I guess.
And the worst possible that could happen? I dunno, maybe that you can fit two miner 2's on your velator? Get electronics 5, a large barge, and stop whining about it.
there was no contradiction, you pointed out a flaw in one of 3 potential resolutions and i reminded you that that one potential resolution was not the point.
and yes we are talking about weapon upgrades which if you will reference the skill description in game or in my first post has a "special" atribute piggybacked onto it which does not specify weapon turrets as every other skill clearly meant for weapons does.
as for me being anal retentive that may well be but please can we restrain ourselves from personal attacks/name calling, i've tryed to point out a flaw in my reading and understanding of the terms. you are not required to read this post or comment on it, if you wish to post would you please keep it constructive.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |