These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

What if command processors disappeared...

Author
Nnezu
Artificial Memories
#1 - 2012-10-07 18:42:10 UTC
... would a limit of 1 (concerning subcaps) for start cruisers, bcs, and 3 for only the command ships affect the off-grid boosting philosophy?
kerradeph
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-10-07 20:39:02 UTC
yes, because it would mean that T3s couldn't be used as readily for boosting. something they could do along these lines would be to make it so that comman procs couldn't be installed on T3s.
Nnezu
Artificial Memories
#3 - 2012-10-08 05:27:38 UTC
I think as far as Loki boosts and tengu boosts are concerned, at least a gang would only be receiving ONE instead of 5 links, thus tuning down the right now enormous advatage you archieve by fielding a T3 ogb.
Rose Roses
#4 - 2012-10-17 11:17:38 UTC
That would mean strategic cruisers boosting like they were thought to :P
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#5 - 2012-10-17 14:24:38 UTC
It is certainly an option to reduce their impact. I could support it though I don't think it's the best solution to the situation (I don't view it as a problem). Honestly though, the real solution is to make fleet CS's better for their intended role and the boosting T3's better at on grid boosting. The damnation is fine, but the others could use some work. The claymore for instance needs to be much faster, possibly with a MWD bonus instead of a shield booster bonus to fit the skirmish role better.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#6 - 2012-10-17 19:57:10 UTC

I think limiting or removing Command Processors would go a long way to limiting offgrid boosters.... CS's are much harder to keep safe than t3's, and this would be a good start until CCP fixed the whole fleet booster system...

Note: I would still allow CP's on CS's....