Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
173
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 09:06:10 -
[1] - Quote
I propose that Command Processor be limited to allow only 1 to be fitted to a ship. Simple change to re-balance boosting, without directly nerfing Command Ships or T3's. |
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
173
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 09:07:47 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved. |
Nyalnara
AdAstra. Beach Club
125
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 09:26:02 -
[3] - Quote
"Then, Tengu got from 4 links to 2, all other T3 from 3 to 2..."
How is that NOT NERF?
In case of ponies, keep calm and start running.
French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
846
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 11:28:37 -
[4] - Quote
No, **** you, I dont want to train a 5th account for full links.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
11353
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 11:32:45 -
[5] - Quote
its not the amount of links that people whine about, its their nature.
brain in a box is (slowly) coming, be patient.
=]|[=
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3045
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 11:36:07 -
[6] - Quote
A long Tim ago it was suggested they turn into rigs, there was much support for this.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 11:52:24 -
[7] - Quote
The biggest problem with Command Processor is that its a mid slot module, meaning shield CS are stuck with 3 links while armor can use 6 without sacrificing tank.
Change to rig would still allow 6 links for CS or 4 on T3, but will make it possible to do so with Shield tank! |
Ben Ishikela
51
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 13:50:24 -
[8] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote: Change to rig would still allow 6 links for CS or 4 on T3, but will make it possible to do so with Shield tank!
possible signature penalty incoming?
Add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to shake any op meta or use totaly different gameplay yourself to make it happen! yay :)
....und Local braucht ganz dringend ein Update!
|
Nyalnara
AdAstra. Beach Club
126
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 14:11:10 -
[9] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote: Change to rig would still allow 6 links for CS or 4 on T3, but will make it possible to do so with Shield tank!
possible signature penalty incoming?
I'd rather not. Would make "unprobable" fits impossible (or at least way harder). I'd rather put an agility, or mass drawback.
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Change to rig would still allow 6 links for CS or 4 on T3, but will make it possible to do so with Shield tank!
5 for CS. Role bonus is 3, add to that 2 rigs slots because T2. Would allow for more links on a basic BC, because T1 layout, but with less effectiveness. Sounds good to me.
In case of ponies, keep calm and start running.
French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
173
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 17:48:53 -
[10] - Quote
Thanks for the comments, I figured this would hit a nerve with some people.
I still haven't heard a valid argument against this, except "but my links..."
The idea is to restore the Command Ships to their rightful place as the best fleet booster ships for maximum effect. Additional benefit is to give pilots more incentive to use on-grid boosters with an active pilot, instead of alt-pilot/semi-afk boosting off-grid.
Still waiting for the best arguments... |
|
Nyalnara
AdAstra. Beach Club
128
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 17:56:51 -
[11] - Quote
Well, we're still waiting for you to say why it would be better than current system.
No argument? no change.
In case of ponies, keep calm and start running.
French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3743
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 18:00:11 -
[12] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: The idea is to restore the Command Ships to their rightful place as the best fleet booster ships for maximum effect. Additional benefit is to give pilots more incentive to use on-grid boosters with an active pilot, instead of alt-pilot/semi-afk boosting off-grid.
Still waiting for the best arguments...
But you still wouldn't be able to on grid boost with a shield command ship anything like as well as you can with a much tankier armour one, so...
And you're gutting the maximum effect, so you should -probably- not claim to be wanting to encourage it. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2584
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 18:28:34 -
[13] - Quote
The only change that needs to happen to command processors is they need to work with Warfare Link Specialist 1 instead of 5. It's absurd that a tech 1 module requires 1.8 million skillpoints--mostly in a skill that isn't a prerequisite for anything else--just to use it.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
173
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 19:41:51 -
[14] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: The idea is to restore the Command Ships to their rightful place as the best fleet booster ships for maximum effect. Additional benefit is to give pilots more incentive to use on-grid boosters with an active pilot, instead of alt-pilot/semi-afk boosting off-grid.
Still waiting for the best arguments...
But you still wouldn't be able to on grid boost with a shield command ship anything like as well as you can with a much tankier armour one, so... And you're gutting the maximum effect, so you should -probably- not claim to be wanting to encourage it.
First point is a strawman, because the tank difference is baked into the ship layouts. This change actually benefits the shield ships considerably more than the armor ones and helps (somewhat) to level the tank difference. The command processors take up mid-slots that would be HP/resists for the shield ships.
Second point is valid, but as Einstein said "Relativity". Limiting T3s to 2 links vs/ 4 links for a command ship is a marked improvement in relative boosting strength (compared to 5 vs 6/7 as it is now).
CCP tried to reduce the "slippery-pete" somewhat by increasing sig-radius of the boosting Tengu, but it stills falls short. Why should training an alt and leaving it afk achieve the maximum boosting effect for a fleet/squad? The mechanics should favor active involvement, or at least allow the option for active play while achieving the same boosting abilities, imho. |
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
173
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 20:05:24 -
[15] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:A long Tim ago it was suggested they turn into rigs, there was much support for this.
This would actually be contrary to what I am proposing. It would benefit T3s and penalize the Command Ships, due to the number of rig slots available. At least propose something that affects both equally. |
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
173
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 20:07:08 -
[16] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The only change that needs to happen to command processors is they need to work with Warfare Link Specialist 1 instead of 5. It's absurd that a tech 1 module requires 1.8 million skillpoints--mostly in a skill that isn't a prerequisite for anything else--just to use it.
Ok. But let's add a stacking penalty...
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3046
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 20:29:05 -
[17] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:A long Tim ago it was suggested they turn into rigs, there was much support for this. This would actually be contrary to what I am proposing. It would benefit T3s and penalize the Command Ships, due to the number of rig slots available. At least propose something that affects both equally. What? T3S can only use 1 link at a time, command ships can use 3 at a time. Command ships get 3% per level to there links, T3s only get 2% per level.
In the end command ships would get 5 links total and T3 would get 4.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid's Legion Irregulars Khanid's Legion
524
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 20:30:41 -
[18] - Quote
Nyalnara wrote:Ben Ishikela wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote: Change to rig would still allow 6 links for CS or 4 on T3, but will make it possible to do so with Shield tank!
possible signature penalty incoming? I'd rather not. Would make "unprobable" fits impossible (or at least way harder). I'd rather put an agility, or mass drawback.
That would be the point.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
175
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 20:45:16 -
[19] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:A long Tim ago it was suggested they turn into rigs, there was much support for this. This would actually be contrary to what I am proposing. It would benefit T3s and penalize the Command Ships, due to the number of rig slots available. At least propose something that affects both equally. What? T3S can only use 1 link at a time, command ships can use 3 at a time. Command ships get 3% per level to there links, T3s only get 2% per level. In the end command ships would get 5 links total and T3 would get 4.
Exactly. CS lose 2 links, T3 lose 1 link. Not what I'm proposing. |
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 22:20:15 -
[20] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:A long Tim ago it was suggested they turn into rigs, there was much support for this. This would actually be contrary to what I am proposing. It would benefit T3s and penalize the Command Ships, due to the number of rig slots available. At least propose something that affects both equally. What? T3S can only use 1 link at a time, command ships can use 3 at a time. Command ships get 3% per level to there links, T3s only get 2% per level. In the end command ships would get 5 links total and T3 would get 4. Exactly. CS lose 2 links, T3 lose 1 link. Not what I'm proposing.
On the positive side, shield ships gain 3-4 mid slots (6-7 links total now) and armor loose either 3-4 links or the armor rigs that screw the EHP benefit they already have over shield |
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
175
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 00:39:38 -
[21] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote: On the positive side, shield ships gain 3-4 mid slots (6-7 links total now) and armor loose either 3-4 links or the armor rigs that screw the EHP benefit they already have over shield
Except that losing the buffer rigs will cost the shield ships about 30k EHP and the armor ships about 40k EHP. Not exactly what I would promote on-grid boosting with. |
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 13:36:10 -
[22] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote: On the positive side, shield ships gain 3-4 mid slots (6-7 links total now) and armor loose either 3-4 links or the armor rigs that screw the EHP benefit they already have over shield
Except that losing the buffer rigs will cost the shield ships about 30k EHP and the armor ships about 40k EHP. Not exactly what I would promote on-grid boosting with.
Are you 100% sure loosing 2 rigs and gaining 3-4mid slots = loosing 30k EHP for shields? Armor will loose some EHP sure, but they still have all their low slots for tank just as shield will have mid slots for tank. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
421
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 14:31:15 -
[23] - Quote
Nyalnara wrote:Ben Ishikela wrote:possible signature penalty incoming? I'd rather not. Would make "unprobable" fits impossible (or at least way harder). I'd rather put an agility, or mass drawback. Kind of the point...? I've proposed sensor strength instead in the past - because you don't need a lock to boost so ECM will reduce your on-grid effectiveness but not the role for which you're fitting the module in the first place - meanwhile because "unprobable" becomes virtually impossible it starts to make fitting choices important: Do you fit max links, watch that ship to make sure it isn't probed down and killed (depriving your fleet of links while you warp)? Do you fit max links on an alt you abandon as soon as you hit system and get the links turned on and simply hope it isn't probed down and killed? Do you fit slightly fewer links to avoid as much of the sensor strength penalty as possible, perhaps dedicate yet more slots to becoming "unprobable" and therefore becoming incredibly vulnerable if probing does happen? Do you decide that as you're going to have to be at the keyboard because probing is too likely you might as well bring the high resist command ship onto grid so that at least you can benefit from logi and perhaps even shoot some folk while you're at it?
Sig radius is a much more difficult penalty to sell as it applies to tracking and missile damage too - It would encourage off-grid boosting simply because running your links would make you more blap-able... |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
495
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 18:55:28 -
[24] - Quote
So a few things here
First to the OP...no, this would only mean that people would have to train up more boosters to get the boost they would want, thereby increasing the barrier of entry, which would make even more people complain. Plus this doesn't make a whole lot of sense here since CCP recently combined the command ships so they can each boost 2 different things, and they introduced the faction mindlinks so that people could have the corresponding max level boosts.
To the give the processors drawbacks: They already have drawbacks, have you seen what it takes to fit them? They have a steep fitting cost and fitting anything on top of a 6 link, or even a link fit is rather difficult.
To the nerf the unprobable fit: Train up your probing skills and you will be able to probe it down. Work for the juicy 6 link kills, I mean they are 6 link fit which means they are pretty squishy.
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The only change that needs to happen to command processors is they need to work with Warfare Link Specialist 1 instead of 5. It's absurd that a tech 1 module requires 1.8 million skillpoints--mostly in a skill that isn't a prerequisite for anything else--just to use it.
This is the closest thing that has merit in this thread. Could possibly introduce a T2 version that allows you to online several links instead of just one (At the cost of the appropriate amount of fitting)
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
175
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 20:37:52 -
[25] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:So a few things here First to the OP...no, this would only mean that people would have to train up more boosters to get the boost they would want, thereby increasing the barrier of entry, which would make even more people complain. Plus this doesn't make a whole lot of sense here since CCP recently combined the command ships so they can each boost 2 different things, and they introduced the faction mindlinks so that people could have the corresponding max level boosts. To the give the processors drawbacks: They already have drawbacks, have you seen what it takes to fit them? They have a steep fitting cost and fitting anything on top of a 6 link, or even a link fit is rather difficult. To the nerf the unprobable fit: Train up your probing skills and you will be able to probe it down. Work for the juicy 6 link kills, I mean they are 6 link fit which means they are pretty squishy. Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The only change that needs to happen to command processors is they need to work with Warfare Link Specialist 1 instead of 5. It's absurd that a tech 1 module requires 1.8 million skillpoints--mostly in a skill that isn't a prerequisite for anything else--just to use it. This is the closest thing that has merit in this thread. Could possibly introduce a T2 version that allows you to online several links instead of just one (At the cost of the appropriate amount of fitting)
Good points. But...
My proposal still offers parity between on-grid and off-grid boosting ability. You did not address my 2nd post argument.
Fitting drawbacks for Command Processor are limited. I can still fit a 6-T2link Drake. How about that stacking penalty...?
Your "perfect skills" prober is going to need a full Virtue set to scan down a slippery-5-link Tengu (with an equally slippery ECCM-projecting interceptor, and Talon implants). I'd bet a Plex on that, too.
Again, your argument is "but my links"... |
Xackattack Avianson
You are a Pirate
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 00:59:50 -
[26] - Quote
Limit command processors? No thanks!
-1 |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
496
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 01:30:41 -
[27] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Good points. But... My proposal still offers parity between on-grid and off-grid boosting ability. You did not address my 2nd post argument.Fitting drawbacks for Command Processor are limited. I can still fit a 6-T2link Drake. How about that stacking penalty...? Your "perfect skills" prober is going to need a full Virtue set to scan down a slippery-5-link Tengu (with an equally slippery ECCM-projecting interceptor, and Talon implants). I'd bet a Plex on that, too. Again, your argument is "but my links"...
Ok, yes, you caught me, I have a boosting alt (Shocker I know). But I'm trying to figure these things out that you have said over a few posts in this thread...
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:The fundamental issue:
Why should an AFK off-grid booster have a significant bonus over an ACTIVE on-grid booster?
On-grid boosting has more incentive due to the increase in free mid slots on the ships.
You can still off-grid boost, and the free mid slots will allow you benefit to being probed by fitting ECCMs.
What's to stop people from fitting 4 link command ships that are tankier or easier to make them difficult to probe down right now? All you are doing is trying to limit what people can currently do in their command ships. I do alot of EFT warrioring, and I know the difference between 3-6 link fits on command ships, but the thing is, even if you forced people to only be able to use 4 links, that still won't change the fact that you won't see them on grid. Why should I put one of my assets in greater risk when I can keep them in a deep safe and still do the same job?
Then again, if I take over 6 months to train a boosting alt, the least you could do is to take 2-3 months and train up a scanning alt of your own to be able to scan mine down. Besides, if you do scan down a 6 link command ship, that thing has sacrificed pretty much all of it's fitting to be able to run 6 links and be difficult to probe down at the same time, which means that it will die from you sneezing in it's general direction.
All your suggestion does is make me want to create a 2nd boosting character, so that in another year, you can complain about me having 2, 4 links command ships that are difficult to probe down, and scream for more nerfs (Assuming they havn't off grid boosters on grid yet). This creates a higher barrier of entry for proper boosts, which is a bad move.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
175
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 04:15:58 -
[28] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Why should an AFK off-grid booster have a significant bonus over an ACTIVE on-grid booster?
You still didn't answer the question.
I understand what it means, and what the results will be. But the fundamental flaw is still against good game design. And yes, 2>1. Numerical superiority is always valid. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
498
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 05:04:50 -
[29] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Why should an AFK off-grid booster have a significant bonus over an ACTIVE on-grid booster?
You still didn't answer the question. I understand what it means, and what the results will be. But the fundamental flaw is still against good game design. And yes, 2>1. Numerical superiority is always valid.
I didn't answer it because it's not relevant to your suggestion because this does nothing to bring off grid boosters, on grid. All it does is take away potential fitting options for command ships. My proof of this is because we currently do not see 4 link boosters on grid as it is. So if I can continue to park my booster off grid, why should I bother bringing it on grid if I don't have to?
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1857
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 06:12:40 -
[30] - Quote
The only change I want to see is a low slot mod equivalent as an option. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |