EVE Search - [Odyssey 1.1] Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang bonuses

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey 1.1] Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang bonuses

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 29 post(s)
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.15 17:21:00 - [1] - Quote Fozie, given the changes, would you considering dropping the CPU requirement of link mods down to 30 - 32 CPU from their current 55? or add them to the electronics skill group somehow that lessens the cpu these things take? (30-32 CPU need is comparable to a gun and given that'd you need command processors to fit 6 on a CS to get full benefits from that navy implant it makes since that you'd lower the CPU requirement so that you have at least SOME tank considering CPU mods are going to gimp an armor tank and command processors are going to gimp the shield tank)
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.16 14:56:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: We considered playing with the CPU cost, but I think 55/110 creates a pretty good set of decisions for people fitting command ships. As for the 6 link CS, we aren't really interested in making those fits easier right now. If you are still around and willing to respond I have one more question. A lot of people in the 1.1 threads have been complaining about fit points on some of these ships (nighthawk and ishtar, etc and yes some of it has been addressed). I think a lot of players are confused on exactly just how you guys intend us to use the ships (in terms of what is fit on them) and to that end I've seen several requests for you guys to post some fits for us. I haven't seen that happen ever really and I'm curious why this is? I think it would go a long way into bridging the apparent communication gap that is evident between the players and devs on the true intended reasoning behind some of these changes. Personally speaking I wish you guys would so a couple fits for each of the ships you balance so that at the bare minimum the players can understand what you are advocating, and maybe perhaps point out holes with hard data? It would be far better than the theory crafting/guessing that is going on now.
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.16 15:00:00 - [3] - Quote Balthazar Lestrane wrote: I can't remember if I brought this up before, but why are mining links being excluded from the no-pos sitting? Why are miners allowed to mitigate risk but not pvpers? I would like to see this change but more than that I would like an explanation as to why there is a distinction. Links are links and risk mitigation is prevalent when boosting from a POS regardless of the links fitted. No risk = no reward, right? Some consistency would be nice but apparently not obvious to all. It was mentioned that CCP doesn't feel the risk factor is balanced for the roq and orca yet. Those two ships are very slow and in the roq's case also completely immobile while in industrial mode. Combat boosting also has lots of different options from t1 ships all the way up to t3 which gives players a lot of versatility which can not be said about mining boosts.
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.16 17:33:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: So I'd like to address a bit of the premise of your question. We try to avoid declaring how we "intend" people to use ships. We of course want to ensure that every ship has interesting and effective uses, but in a sandbox like EVE we know that whatever we have in mind will be surpassed by the ingenuity of our players very quickly. First off, thanks for answering another question, and second for posting fits! But another followup if I may? The goal of balancing things "is the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers"? This would mean that balance takes into account things like the intended use of things given to players. For example, Carrier's used to be able to be "medium" haulers because you could put unpacked indy's in them with their holds full of items. CCP thought this was an undesirable side affect of their intended uses and took that away even though "Eve is a sandbox". (Yes I was personally peeved about it considering jf's were introduced that essentially did the same job but much better and carriers never got their hauling ability back even though freighters can now scoop from space... but I digress) Therefore it would seem that when balancing ships, it would be pretty important to declare how you intend them to be used, because without that declaration balancing would seem rather difficult (ie how do you balance something when you don't have an intended use for it?). I guess my point is that I don't understand your stance on not liking to declare how you intend people to use ships when that is how you balance them. It just seems rather counter intuitive.
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.16 18:07:00 - [5] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Answering every question that comes up would be a full time job on top of the rest of our work. Haha, true enough (I'm a Sys Admin by trade, so I know what you mean). One can dream though. How awesome would it be to have a full time dev just to answer player questions... :)
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.16 18:31:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting Personally I think this has more to do with module balance than ship balance... You can fit dual XLASB on the vulture, but you can't fit two links on the astarte with an armor tank?!
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.16 19:02:00 - [7] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting Personally I think this has more to do with module balance than ship balance... You can fit dual XLASB on the vulture, but you can't fit two links on the astarte with an armor tank?! You were saying? Ok now I'm done posting fits for realzies, no more baiting me out. Apologies, I honestly was not trying to bait you. I misspoke, I didn't realize the vulture with dual xlasb didn't have any links on it. Personally I still think these ships are being shoe horned into things given that you always link the less cpu intensive heavy electrons and neutrons instead of the t2 250 rails. I personally always fit rails because I like damage projection instead of close range.
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.21 18:13:00 - [8] - Quote Alduin666 Shikkoken wrote: I'm not going to spend 1.4 bil to get a 25% increase to my boosting.[/b] [/i] Angry 0.0 industrialist rant over, carry on reading the rest of the thread now. Don't worry, CCP have changed how you get mindlinks so the price will be much cheaper than 1.4bil (likely not over 200mil).

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.