These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ballistic Control System: CPU Cost
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1 - 2013-12-15 01:27:54 UTC
Does anyone know why it is that T2 Ballistic Control Systems use 40 tf CPU whereas T2 Gyrostabilizers, Heat Sinks, and Magnetic Field Stabilizers only use 30 tf? Should it be this way? It makes fitting damage mods on small ships very difficult.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Dato Koppla
Spaghetti Militia
#2 - 2013-12-15 01:54:54 UTC
Missile ships also generally have the most CPU I think, but yeah, this is definitely an issue on frigate sized hulls especially things like the Hawk which use active tank + missiles which are 2 of the most CPU hungry setups in the game.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#3 - 2013-12-15 04:31:37 UTC
Shields, missiles, and for some reason drones are primarily CPU limited. Guns and armor are primarily grid limited. Frigate missile ships are indeed tight on CPU but they're still loose enough that choosing to fit extensive EWAR over damage is an option if you give up tank or damage. It seems fairly balanced as a whole right now.
Matic Antoni
Bad Company.
#4 - 2013-12-15 04:31:50 UTC
Missiles don't have 2 or 3 modules that affect them. Turrets have tracking enhancers (15) CPU and tracking computers (35 CPU). You can fit target painters in the mids for missiles, and rigs for range, explosion radius and explosion velocity. Guns have tracking, optimal, falloff and a host of other variables that are involved.
Korvus Falek
Depraved Corruption
Lux Inter Astra
#5 - 2013-12-15 04:59:42 UTC
Matic Antoni wrote:
Missiles don't have 2 or 3 modules that affect them. Turrets have tracking enhancers (15) CPU and tracking computers (35 CPU). You can fit target painters in the mids for missiles, and rigs for range, explosion radius and explosion velocity. Guns have tracking, optimal, falloff and a host of other variables that are involved.


Missiles have just as much variables as turrets. As you mentioned, range, explosion radius and explosion velocity, but also flight speed, fuel tanks (flight time), and time to max speed (not long enough for most people to notice). Also more, but Im forgetting them atm.

So yeah....Missiles are just as complex as turrets =)
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#6 - 2013-12-15 05:51:31 UTC
Faction mods allow you to save CPU for tighter fittings. Also, I'd highly recommend using CA-1 and CA-2 for any player who doesn't already use an implant set. They cost about 25m each and give you an extra +3% CPU along with some cap and PG. Add a cheap Gypsy EE hardwire, and you can easily get +5% CPU for around 50m in total, which helps immensely with fitting.

Oh god.
Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2013-12-15 12:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Odithia
Dato Koppla wrote:
Missile ships also generally have the most CPU I think, but yeah, this is definitely an issue on frigate sized hulls especially things like the Hawk which use active tank + missiles which are 2 of the most CPU hungry setups in the game.

Are you tanking about the ship that can fit 2 MEDIUM tanking modules, a MWD and a full rack of weapons ?
No wonder it's CPU limited.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#8 - 2013-12-15 17:19:29 UTC
Odithia wrote:
Dato Koppla wrote:
Missile ships also generally have the most CPU I think, but yeah, this is definitely an issue on frigate sized hulls especially things like the Hawk which use active tank + missiles which are 2 of the most CPU hungry setups in the game.

Are you tanking about the ship that can fit 2 MEDIUM tanking modules, a MWD and a full rack of weapons ?
No wonder it's CPU limited.


This is another absurdity - a good argument could be made for increasing the fitting requirements on Medium and X-L tanking modules. I just think it's interesting how the developers make life harder for themselves by not making the fitting a bit more consistent.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#9 - 2013-12-15 17:35:01 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
I just think it's interesting how the developers make life harder for themselves by not making the fitting a bit more consistent.


Its harder for the players to learn, but I doubt its much of an issue for the developers. I also think these kinds of variations, such as fittings required across meta levels, or differences in cpu cost between different weapon systems or ewar-types is important for various reasons e.g. balance, depth.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#10 - 2013-12-15 23:01:52 UTC
Batelle wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
I just think it's interesting how the developers make life harder for themselves by not making the fitting a bit more consistent.


Its harder for the players to learn, but I doubt its much of an issue for the developers. I also think these kinds of variations, such as fittings required across meta levels, or differences in cpu cost between different weapon systems or ewar-types is important for various reasons e.g. balance, depth.


I agree with your second sentence, but the developers are clearly lost in the sauce.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.