| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darktec
Caldari
QUANT Corp.
   |
Posted - 2006.09.25 04:29:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Darktec on 25/09/2006 04:30:56
Edited by: Darktec on 25/09/2006 04:29:36
Linkage
Whats the whole deal with this?
I know this has been talked about before, but is there any word on fixing it? I know the t2 versions of all the other WU's have less cpu req'd why not the BCUs?
|
Deja Thoris
Revelations Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 05:23:00 -
[2]
Asking for a "fix" implies it's broken. It's not. It's different.
 Originally by: Clementina
If you bug report it, you get ignored.
If you post about it on the forums, you get banned.
If you exploit it, you get rich.
|
Philip Sterling
GALAXIAN
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 05:34:00 -
[3]
missile ships generally have a lot more cpu to play with.
|
Darktec
Caldari
QUANT Corp.
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 06:19:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Philip Sterling
missile ships generally have a lot more cpu to play with.
Generally yes, but with the new hawk , fitting is very very tight with t2 standard launchers.
and its not differant, its more cpu than its t1 counterpart, which no other t2 upgrade has.
|
Awox
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 07:10:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Darktec
Originally by: Philip Sterling
missile ships generally have a lot more cpu to play with.
Generally yes, but with the new hawk , fitting is very very tight with t2 standard launchers.
and its not differant, its more cpu than its t1 counterpart, which no other t2 upgrade has.
Different weapon systems mate, so things like these are DIFFERENT. Use t1 named in your mids if you can't fit all t2 lows..
|
Awox
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 07:11:00 -
[6]
Oh, I see what you mean now. Well, CPU requirements are also higher for named Gyrostabilisers than T2. So uhm, maybe it's not different? 
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 09:14:00 -
[7]
It's to make full T2 tank/gank fits on ravens really hard.
|
Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 10:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Darktec
Originally by: Philip Sterling
missile ships generally have a lot more cpu to play with.
Generally yes, but with the new hawk , fitting is very very tight with t2 standard launchers.
and its not differant, its more cpu than its t1 counterpart, which no other t2 upgrade has.
This may be true (haven't checked), however many T2 upgrades, particularly armour-related ones, have higher PG use than the T1 version IIRC
|
Hydrian Alante
The Loot Company
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 10:36:00 -
[9]
Originally by: James Lyrus
It's to make full T2 tank/gank fits on ravens really hard.
Oh and full gank T2 Fittings on a Megathron or a Geddon are easy to fit?
You can go for DG BCS they use far less CPU and selling for 230mill atm.
Another useless Caldari whine...
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 10:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Philip Sterling
missile ships generally have a lot more cpu to play with.
That's like saying it's okay to increase powergrid requirements for laser weapon upgrades because laser ships have a lot moire power to play with.
Missile ships have to fit missile launchers which use more CPU than turrets. CPU is the limiting factor on missile ships rather than power, so things that seem to have an arbitrarly increased CP cause concern.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
|
|
Scordite
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 10:58:00 -
[11]
Mods that increase RoF are better for weapons that don't use cap. Damage mods are straight up damage increase for missiles and projectiles, while it's a tradeoff of cap/sec for more damage on laser and hybrid boats.
I see nothing wrong with paying higher fitting costs for better mods. Maybe projectile damage mods need a look at though.. 
-----------------------------------------------
The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag:
Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead. |
Guurzak
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 12:51:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Darktec
with the new hawk , fitting is very very tight with t2 standard launchers.
If you have a problem with the Hawk specifically, perhaps you should post complaining about the Hawk's inadequate CPU rather than trying to make a systemic change to what is not a systemic problem.
Originally by: Darktec
its not differant, its more cpu than its t1 counterpart, which no other t2 upgrade has.
Read this again. Do you see what you're saying? Do you see how silly you sound? Either it's different, or it's the same. If it's not the same then it's different.
It turns out that your assertion is factually incorrect. T2 shield boosters use more CPU than T1. So do T2 cloaks. So does T2 ECM. So do T2 tracking enhancers. I CBA to look for more examples.
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 13:19:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Guurzak
It turns out that your assertion is factually incorrect. T2 shield boosters use more CPU than T1. So do T2 cloaks. So does T2 ECM. So do T2 tracking enhancers. I CBA to look for more examples.
He quite obviously means "WEAPON" upgrade, given the context of the post, which you are choosing to ignore. No other T2 WEAPON upgrade has an increased CPU demand over it's T1 counterpart except for the Ballistic Control.
And that's why it's imbalanced, and not JUST "different"...if SOME aspect of other weapon upgrades were increased from T1 => T2 (eg powergrid), then you'd be right in saying it's just "different". Since only the Ballistic Control has this added penalty, and the other weapon upgrades have no balancing penalty, it is quite clearly imbalanced.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 13:28:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Guurzak
It turns out that your assertion is factually incorrect. T2 shield boosters use more CPU than T1. So do T2 cloaks. So does T2 ECM. So do T2 tracking enhancers. I CBA to look for more examples.
I see you miss the problem ..
best named uses less fitting than t2, that is true with any shield booster (or usualy any other mod).
however best named BCU uses MORE cpu than t2 ... does that look as ok for you ?
And what Grey Area said is also true. No other weapon upgrade uses more fitting for t2 version (even for projectiles as somebody tried to push a rather crap idea).
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls.... 
|
Tammarr
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 13:34:00 -
[15]
Its perfectly fine.
Start thinking about: No tracking, No distance penalty etc and realize that missiles need some extra cpu to calculate all that or something :P
|
Guurzak
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 14:11:00 -
[16]
You're still wrong: tracking enhancers are a weapon upgrade. I suspect that what you mean is "damage mod", but if that's what you mean then you should say exactly that. When you're trying to make and prove a point, precision of speech is important.
With that said: Any coder knows that cut and paste is your very best friend. It would have been much easier to make the BCU II follow the same patterns as the other T2 damage mods, and if it's different it's probably because there's a very specific reason for going to the extra trouble of making it different.
Saying that something does not follow the patterns set by other similar somethings does not, in and of itself, prove that there is a problem. If you want to convince the devs to make a change, you need to point out the real imbalance issues that are created by this feature, show that changing the feature is the best way to solve those problem, and demonstrate how your proposed change does solve those problems and does not create new ones. What actual gameplay problems does the BCU II CPU requirement cause other than "the new Hawk is hard to fit"?
|
Guurzak
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 14:19:00 -
[17]
It's worth noting that according to the market, BCS II's are much, much more useful than any other T2 damage mod. From Eve-Central.com's market browser:
gyrostab II: 1,716,931
magnetic stab II: 2,202,285
heat sink II: 880,569
BCS II: 8,596,606
Obviously, the higher CPU requirement has done nothing to diminish the demand for the item. If it was truly that awful, people wouldn't be willing to pay so much for it.
|
Sorja
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 14:51:00 -
[18]
40tf for a BCU II is indeed ridiculous.
It's not like TII launchers don't have outrageous CPU/PG requirements on the Raven already.
There are more ships than the raven that use BCUs and fitting them on a frig is simply a pain.
No CPU problems on the Harpy though, mag stabs II are nice.
____________________
Darko1107 > does anything in ascn space have tech II fittings?
Quillan Rage > Iron ships |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 16:04:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Sorja
40tf for a BCU II is indeed ridiculous.
It's not like TII launchers don't have outrageous CPU/PG requirements on the Raven already.
There are more ships than the raven that use BCUs and fitting them on a frig is simply a pain.
No CPU problems on the Harpy though, mag stabs II are nice.
exactly. I have problems fitting bcus on caracal, while moa packs 3 t2 mag stabs without problems.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.28 16:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Guurzak
You're still wrong: tracking enhancers are a weapon upgrade. I suspect that what you mean is "damage mod", but if that's what you mean then you should say exactly that.
I prefer to assume at least SOME reasoning ability exists in my target audience. It seems in your case I was mistaken, for which I apologise.
Originally by: Guurzak
It's worth noting that according to the market, BCS II's are much, much more useful than any other T2 damage mod. From Eve-Central.com's market browser:
gyrostab II: 1,716,931
magnetic stab II: 2,202,285
heat sink II: 880,569
BCS II: 8,596,606
Obviously, the higher CPU requirement has done nothing to diminish the demand for the item. If it was truly that awful, people wouldn't be willing to pay so much for it.
There's no "obviously" about it. You are deliberately ignoring several factors;
1. The BCS II was released much later than the other three modules...thus there are less BPO's out there for it, meaning a lower supply.
2. Demand. This is higher for the BCS II for two reasons;
a. Mission runners (who pretty much exclusively use Caracals or Ravens, and don't mind using an expensive module to increase DPS.
b. There is no other competing module for the low slots on a msisile ship...turret ships have to decide if they fit tracking subroutines instead to give a better bonus. Missile users have no comparative "choice" for low slots - yes, I know they can use power diags and emergency damage controls - but so can turret ships. It's still true that the BCU is the only option for missile users, so demand is higher.
There's another possiblity too, and that is manufacturing costs for the item...they may be higher than for the other three (can't confirm that, but it shouldn't simply be assumed that they cost the same to make)
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
|
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.28 16:09:00 -
[21]
This problem has been mentioned more times than I care to remember... the Devs don't seem to care. And yes, it is indeed a problem.
However, as with most everything else labeled 'Caldari'... everyone loves to bash it... as it's fashionable at the moment. Most uninformed and unintelligent people who are capable of nodding their heads will simply continue to be fashionable and clueless. The rest of us will live with a CPU heavy BCU II till some Dev cares enough to fix it.
Then maybe they'll address the Nighthawk...
And more heads will nod...
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.28 16:14:00 -
[22]
As an aside, if you check the T1 prices, the same pattern exists;
Gyro Stab I 20,000 ISK
Heat Sink I 30,000 ISK
Mag Stab I 30,000 ISK
Ballistic I 60,000 ISK
Which kind of proves it's totally irrelevant to the CPU useage...the BCS is priced higher simply becaue it's more in demand, due to the factors I listed.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |