Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:36:00 -
[721] - Quote
Fozzie:
Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:39:00 -
[722] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:Fozzie:
Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged? Your math is fudged; All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
T2 6 * 1.5 (Warfare Link Specialist) * 1.25 (mindlink) * 1.15 (Command ship) * 2 (Warfare Specialist Skill) = 25.9 Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:48:00 -
[723] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Mara Maken wrote:Fozzie:
Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged? Your math is fudged; All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35% T2 6 * 1.5 (Warfare Link Specialist) * 1.25 (mindlink) * 1.15 (Command ship) * 2 (Warfare Specialist Skill) = 25.9
Thanks, completely missed the warfare link skill :( |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:57:00 -
[724] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them? Ideas for Drone Improvement |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 16:10:00 -
[725] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them?
We have no current plans to give CONCORD LP for anything else. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Crazy On You
Professional Dockers
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 16:19:00 -
[726] - Quote
You could split command proc into two modules. One that allows you to fit one extra armor/information link that goes in a mid slot, and one that allows you to fit one extra siege/skirmish in a low slot. Seems the easiest solution to me. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2114
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 17:33:00 -
[727] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them?
You are not stuck running Incursions for them.
You GET to run Incursions for them. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1141
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:23:00 -
[728] - Quote
If my math is right, the Navy mindlinks are going to cost in the range of 500 M, at the very least. You burn 100M, 100K LP, plus 2 regular mindlinks.
Is there some mechanism being introduced to make the traditional mindlinks available more readily? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
282
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:05:00 -
[729] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's? There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig.
How about getting rid of command processors and not introducing rigs? The fitting trade-off for tank or dps should be dictated through having to use more PG and CPU to fit these. Requiring additional slots to fit these is only going to make them more fragile when they are pushed on grid (expect the Damnation).
How about adding new high slot warfare modules instead? These are already balanced by PG/CPU. The progression to fit six modules currently is:
# - PG CPU 1 - 210 55 2 - 420 110 3 - 630 165 4 - 890 270 5 - 1350 375 6 - 1710 480
Trying to fit that 4th and 5th module takes a ton of fitting resources. My suggestion is to mimic this without crippling either the tank or DPS of the ship and not both.
Big Scriptable Warfare module. For each of the module types add a new module that can be scripted. The PG would be somewhere in the range of 420 and the cpu 110. Three scripts would be created to provide a combination of the three bonuses (i.e. Script A: Bonus 1 and Bonus 2, Script B: Bonus 1 and Bonus 3, Script C: Bonus 2 and Bonus 3).
A Mega Warfare module would be added for each type. This would provide all three bonuses. The PG would be >630 and the CPU >165.
These would modules would still count as a single warfare module and go against the limit per ship. Command processors should be removed so that only Command Ships can fit three.
This feels a lot more flexible and gives the right tradeoffs between fitting links and choosing either tank or DPS. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
282
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:44:00 -
[730] - Quote
I just realized why I don't like the rig approach. There are no small or large rig ships that can fit warfare links. You will have only medium and capital rigs for these. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 20:11:00 -
[731] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:I just realized why I don't like the rig approach. There are no small or large rig ships that can fit warfare links. You will have only medium and capital rigs for these. There are only medium mining rigs, it would be along the same lines. Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1350
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 20:14:00 -
[732] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense..... We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out. And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive.
Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?
I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =< BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Lynx Sawpaw
Explorer Corps Disavowed.
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:40:00 -
[733] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig.
Cool idea. Hope you include some t2 version of the rigs as well if you do this. Maybe if the t2 rigs have less calibration cost than the t1 rigs, thus letting you weigh the options of cost effectiveness vs being able to fit more boosts. |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:52:00 -
[734] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense..... Oh yeah sure; that makes more sense; just like how the domination webifiers are not strictly better than the T2 or how the caldari navy shield boosters are not strictly better than the T2, or how the Federation Navy magstabs are not strictly better than the T2,
yeah sure that makes much more sense . . . |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:54:00 -
[735] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense..... We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out. And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea? I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =< I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . . |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1351
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:58:00 -
[736] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:
again how does this make sense?
T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
Surely this makes more sense.....
We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out. And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea? I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =< I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . .
Then he can add them once links come on grid
I don't like "Well this will be fixed at an undefined time in the future" as an excuse to horribly breaking the game until then.
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 01:46:00 -
[737] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Sigras wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:
again how does this make sense?
T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
Surely this makes more sense.....
We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out. And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea? I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =< I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . . Then he can add them once links come on grid I don't like "Well this will be fixed at an undefined time in the future" as an excuse to horribly breaking the game until then.
That's what I don't understand.
Are these supposed to be the bonuses when ships are on grid? Or is this what they consider balanced while they are off grid? If this is balanced even though they can sit in a safespot off grid, then I would think they will need to increase the bonus to offset them being forced on grid. Again *if* they truly think this is balanced.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:33:00 -
[738] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7386
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:00:00 -
[739] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen
Not at this time. They will get bonuses to three types of links but will require command processors to activate more than one link at once. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:07:00 -
[740] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:..Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?.. They can't afford to. By changing Faction War into Farm War they have over-saturated the LP market and need to add increasingly expensive consumable/destructible items in an effort to try to stem the tide .. because if the treated the disease (FW mechanics) instead of the symptoms they'd stand to lose more subscriptions than nano, ECM, link changes combined
Speaking of FW: Add a frigate command platform, plexing demands it (pre-emptively before on-grid change if possible so people can learn to kill them beforehand).
|
|
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:13:00 -
[741] - Quote
Quote:T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
So my Rorqual with 3 Mining, one Shield Link, Industry-Core online cannot enable the Shield-Link insied the FF anymore.
Doing its job outside the FF is no option: Orcas deliver the Ore and the Rorqual puts the compressed ore into the hangar array. So I have no option to cloak, no option to move ore jump (industry core on!), an nothing to put in my compressed minerals.
Using a Navy mindlink instead of the T2 mindlinks for Mining and Siege would also be an bad option (just getting 20% instead of 25%)... if at all Navy mindlinks for mining are available, give shield and armor and can be activated inside the FF.
... I also have no option to use another ship as booster than a rorqual to get the same boost.
So this is just another not well reasoned miner nerf !
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
336
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:19:00 -
[742] - Quote
Robert71 wrote:Quote:T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
So my Rorqual with 3 Mining, one Shield Link, Industry-Core online cannot enable the Shield-Link insied the FF anymore. Doing its job outside the FF is no option: Orcas deliver the Ore and the Rorqual puts the compressed ore into the hangar array. So I have no option to cloak, no option to move ore jump (industry core on!), an nothing to put in my compressed minerals. Using a Navy mindlink instead of the T2 mindlinks for Mining and Siege would also be an bad option (just getting 20% instead of 25%)... if at all Navy mindlinks for mining are available, give shield and armor and can be activated inside the FF. ... I also have no option to use another ship as booster than a rorqual to get the same boost. So this is just another not well reasoned miner nerf ! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426157#post3426157 Try reading that, the post you are quoting is not a CCP Dev post. |
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:26:00 -
[743] - Quote
You are right... but even the dev post says nothing about the ability to use the ore links inside the ff too ... and is marked 'may add an Ore link at some point...'
It would be really nice to not forget industry player with this patch |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
666
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:29:00 -
[744] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen Not at this time. They will get bonuses to three types of links but will require command processors to activate more than one link at once.
adding command processer options as rigs and as low slot mod's is a good idea.
making command processers only in rig form is a bad idea and reduces options in the sand box.
imo cs's and boosting t3's should get 2 base links plus 1 link per lvl of command ships/ defence sub system skill. make boosting not gimp your ship fittings and boosters will migrate to being on grid.
yes I say this as someone who runs 7 link command ships, with a max skilled pilot who has boosted before and after t3's. OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:29:00 -
[745] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen Not at this time. They will get bonuses to three types of links but will require command processors to activate more than one link at once.
i'm guessing when you do the T3 re-balance they will ... any time frame on the T3 re-balance? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Murashu
Air Initiative Mercenaries
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:02:00 -
[746] - Quote
Robert71 wrote:So this is just another not well reasoned miner nerf !
Your mining links will still function inside the POS shields. The only change here is you can no longer act as a combat booster while remaining invulnerable to combat. |
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:56:00 -
[747] - Quote
Murashu wrote:Robert71 wrote:So this is just another not well reasoned miner nerf !
Your mining links will still function inside the POS shields. The only change here is you can no longer act as a combat booster while remaining invulnerable to combat.
I know, and that's not the problem. But having some shield boost too for the exhumers and for the hauler (orca's or industrials) is an important thing to tank the rats. this ha absolutely nothing to do with pvp - but after the nerf I cannot give Mining-Boost as long as the shield boost by my Rorqual.
So it would really be an important thing to give a solution for this problem.... and wherever applicable together with this patch an not eventually.
|
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 17:21:00 -
[748] - 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) |
Liam Inkuras
Justified Chaos
390
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 18:48:00 -
[749] - Quote
Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone |
jackaloped
Fwaction Warfare Corporwation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:09:00 -
[750] - Quote
Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer?
That might defeat the purpose.
But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down?
I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |