These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang bonuses

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#701 - 2013-08-13 14:30:12 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Cearain wrote:


I like the way you say htfu because I am not interested in dragging a link alt around with me on roams. That is the sort of pathetic behaviour ccp is rewarding by this mechanic.


That's not pay to win, that is you lazy.



Another person who thinks spending more time doing tedious tasks (like dragging a multiboxed link alt around to safespots) in a computer game means you are not lazy.

This is the playerbase ccp is attracting to the game with making these ogbs = god mode, so no one should be surprised.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Harper Ei
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#702 - 2013-08-13 16:20:26 UTC
Fozzie,

you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.

You forgot!

As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.

Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.

Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.

/H
Sigras
Conglomo
#703 - 2013-08-13 17:55:04 UTC
mighty1 wrote:
Are you smoking crack fossie.....I find this a joke to nerf boosts as I spent a year on a boosting toon for you to change it so if this does go ahead i'l be finding a new game to play and I prolly won't be alone. Instead of trying to ruin every aspect off EVE why don't you ask what we want as we are the players and paying customers.

Setting aside the ridiculous assumption that most of us agree with you (which if this thread is anything to go by we dont), you're making an even more ridiculous assumption that what the players want is best for the game
Mr Doctor
Star Nation
Goonswarm Federation
#704 - 2013-08-13 18:15:12 UTC
Harper Ei wrote:
Fozzie,

you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.

You forgot!

As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.

Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.

Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.

/H

Except they will because T3s give less of a bonus but give nigh on uncatchable bonus which is why they are less good at it. Balance. Its utterly stupid to have T3s better than CS.... its stupid to have them even the same as CS.
coolzero
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#705 - 2013-08-13 23:00:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mingja wrote:
Any changes for the rorqual yet?

Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb?


It can be used inside a pos field.



so does them mean also like with some of us on the rorqual have

Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II

on our rorqual so we boost the mining ships a bit with tanking the rats

does that mean we can boost mining but not anymore the extra boost for shield?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#706 - 2013-08-13 23:05:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
FOZZIE

you need to reduce the CPU of warfare links ... ships struggle to fit them there is no need for it to be topping out at 55CPU no other utility high requires that much CPU you will end up with ships unable to fit them. or very gimped if they do.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#707 - 2013-08-14 13:12:19 UTC
Harper Ei wrote:
Fozzie,

you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.

You forgot!

As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.

Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.

Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.

/H


Good. Then they'll buff T3 instead of the rumored nerf.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#708 - 2013-08-14 14:04:25 UTC
coolzero wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mingja wrote:
Any changes for the rorqual yet?

Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb?


It can be used inside a pos field.



so does them mean also like with some of us on the rorqual have

Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II

on our rorqual so we boost the mining ships a bit with tanking the rats

does that mean we can boost mining but not anymore the extra boost for shield?


Yes, to activate the Siege links you would need to leave the shield.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Totured Veracity
Galaxy in danger proj.
#709 - 2013-08-14 14:57:41 UTC
Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#710 - 2013-08-14 15:00:08 UTC
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.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#711 - 2013-08-14 15:04:02 UTC
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?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Mara Maken
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#712 - 2013-08-14 15:06:01 UTC
Can someone please show the math to get to to the 25.9% armor/siege boost? Sorry but I'm having trouble doing the maths with the stacking percentages.

Also, the navy mindlinks, what are the pairings? Will there be skirm/siege, armor/siege, etc.?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#713 - 2013-08-14 15:06:11 UTC
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.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#714 - 2013-08-14 15:08:45 UTC
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?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#715 - 2013-08-14 15:11:15 UTC
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.

I like this option too, it allows t1 and (potentially) t3 ships to fit 4 links while leaving command ships with the greater 5 links.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#716 - 2013-08-14 15:12:03 UTC
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

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#717 - 2013-08-14 15:14:04 UTC
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.....

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#718 - 2013-08-14 15:15:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
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.....

not at all

with the exception of weapons, lots of navy gear is better than t2

and not all t2 implants have a t1 version

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#719 - 2013-08-14 15:22:50 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
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.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#720 - 2013-08-14 15:32:41 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Cearain wrote:
The point is you can get the link alt without ever interacting with the eve economy. Just pay real money to ccp and you get your alt.

By purchasing the link alt's ship, you are interacting with the eve economy.

Also, paying real money for plex also forces you to interact with the real eve economy whenever you convert the plex to isk (supply/demand determines the plex-isk exchange rate).

Finally, there is still the fact that there is no difference between a link alt and any other commodity in Eve such as a Titan alt, a Titan, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge S. These all can also be purchased in the same way a link alt can.

Summary: This portion of your argument is Red Herring.