These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T3 Warfare Processing Subsystem Inconsistency?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Onamata Poeia
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-05-26 15:54:10 UTC
Why is it that the legion and proteus warfare subs provide bonus to the same type of links, where the tengu and loki do not?

Legion

Proteus

Tengu

Loki

One would have thought that to have either the legion or the proteus pushing bonuses to armour/shield/information would have been the logical progression across the four hulls, no?
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#2 - 2014-05-26 16:39:15 UTC
They are actually chosen to complement the racial characteristics of the fleets they are supposed to boost.

Logical progression across the four hulls would be to remove the warfare subs and be done with the faggotry of OGB.
Onamata Poeia
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-05-26 19:02:50 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
They are actually chosen to complement the racial characteristics of the fleets they are supposed to boost.


So what, gallente ships can't be shield tanked?
How exactly does the traits of small signatures and extended tackle ranges meld with an amarr hull/fleet?


Caldari ships are shield almost exclusively. So tengu boosting shield and not armour makes sense.
Amarr ships are almost exclusively armour tanked. So legion boosting armour and not shield makes sense.
This is logical.
Minmatar and Gallente ships can be either armour OR shield tanked, so their T3's should be pushing bonuses to both, and either skirmish or information (minmatar and gallente respectively), for a balanced spread across all four races.
This would be logical.
Instead we have one boosting armour/info/skirmish and one boosting armour/shield/skirmish.
This is illogical.



Quote:
Logical progression across the four hulls would be to remove the warfare subs and be done with the faggotry of OGB.

Can you show us on the doll where the bad booster touched you?

This is not a discussion about whether links are good or bad, so please take your offtopic 'faggotry' elsewhere.
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#4 - 2014-05-26 21:38:29 UTC
Only some gallente ships are viable shield fit in a fleet context, and gallente links were changed from only info to armor & skirmish, info remaining as third option on the Proteus.

Yes, small sig, better speed and longer tackle benefit slow Amarr armor tankers, just as well as they benefit Gallente. Your suggestion would make Proteus just more undesirable as a booster, and only to cater to your OCD.

This character is a perfect OGB and command ship alt, so your weary old meme went to waste. Links are a lame and uninspiring game mechanic as they are, and OGB is especially bad as it's a non-interactive fleet role only promoting muiboxed alt gameplay. I'm happy to have that discussion here or anywhere, if you don't like it, feel free to take your terrible thread to your private blog from this discussion forum.
Onamata Poeia
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-05-27 12:11:38 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Only some gallente ships are viable shield fit in a fleet context, and gallente links were changed from only info to armor & skirmish, info remaining as third option on the Proteus.

Point taken.
I agree that in many cases it's difficult to come up with a third racially suitable bonus. (Nothing to suggest that caldari traits suit skirmish links, particularly for example.)

Quote:
Yes, small sig, better speed and longer tackle benefit slow Amarr armor tankers, just as well as they benefit Gallente.

What I meant is that it doesn't synergise particularly obviously with any racial 'perks'. That is to say, skirmish links synergise well with the long range webs of a loki or a rapier for example.

Quote:
Your suggestion would make Proteus just more undesirable as a booster, and only to cater to your OCD.

Any more or less undesirable than the loki is currently?

This is the crux of my issue right here.
Tengu: Desirable as a booster
Legion: Desirable as a booster
Proteus: Desirable as a booster
Loki: Not as desirable as a booster

Quote:
This character is a perfect OGB and command ship alt, so your weary old meme went to waste. Links are a lame and uninspiring game mechanic as they are, and OGB is especially bad as it's a non-interactive fleet role only promoting muiboxed alt gameplay. I'm happy to have that discussion here or anywhere, if you don't like it, feel free to take your terrible thread to your private blog from this discussion forum

Again, please feel free to make another thread if you want to have this discussion.
It's not a question of whether I like it or not. Posting repeatedly off topic threads in an effort to derail/detract from the discussion is against forum rules.
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#6 - 2014-05-27 13:38:35 UTC
Onamata Poeia wrote:

What I meant is that it doesn't synergise particularly obviously with any racial 'perks'. That is to say, skirmish links synergise well with the long range webs of a loki or a rapier for example.


But then again signature radius reduction synergises better with armor tanks than shield tanks, if you wish to see the synergy only as buffing an already strong aspect. However usefulness of bonuses comes from both reducing drawbacks and improving strengths.

Quote:

Any more or less undesirable than the loki is currently?

This is the crux of my issue right here.
Tengu: Desirable as a booster
Legion: Desirable as a booster
Proteus: Desirable as a booster
Loki: Not as desirable as a booster


Guess the issue here is Loki then, and not Proteus as in your OP? Yes, providing bonuses simultaneously to armor and shield is hardly sensible, but you also need to consider the actual ships- none of the T3s can use 9 links simultaneously. 6 is the absolute maximum, and that's already an unpractical (useless) fit, most use 5 or even just 4 links (covops+probing fits). Considering that tank links are always used as a trio, and you'll most likely want the Interdiction Maneuvers and Rapid Deployment, the Loki fills it role as the Minmatar T3 booster perfectly imho- having the option to boost either shield or armor to complement the versatility of their ships.

...and this is just inside this theoretical racial context, in practice the Loki is a rather highly usable booster as it can easily adapt to either armor or shield fleets. Unlike the other three, which are all locked into one tank type.

So why not change Proteus to shields? By the same logic, it would improve the Proteus. However, Gallente recons benefit greatly from the twoEWAR links as damping is range-based, and sensor strength is tailor-made against their natural enemies.

Quote:
Again, please feel free to make another thread if you want to have this discussion.
It's not a question of whether I like it or not. Posting repeatedly off topic threads in an effort to derail/detract from the discussion is against forum rules.


Discussing OGB in an OGB thread is hardly off-topic nor an attempt to derail. It's a real issue in the current game, and according to CCP, fixing that issue is not a question of if, but "as soon as they solve the technical issues preventing the fix".

Nobody knows which happens first, T3 rebalancing or OGB fix, but I'd recommend focusing on CS training now since either one will mean the end of multi-link T3 boosters, obsoleting your "crux". (T3s are very likely to lose their rig slots, rendering 5-link fits impossible without going full tard with officer mods)