These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Command Processor
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Luscius Uta
#1 - 2015-09-10 09:38:06 UTC
I think that this module is bad by design and should be removed from the game (especially if off-grid boosting gets nerfed or removed one day). Naturally, this also means that Warfare Link Specialist skill should be changed. In addition to its current bonus to link efficiency, I suggest allowing you to fit one additional warfare link per level (might also remove the "Can fit 3 warfare links" role bonus on Command Ships to compensate for that).

Thoughts?

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2015-09-10 09:44:14 UTC
You don't really explain why you think it is bad. That's kind of important for anyone to weigh your fix.

The problem I have with them is there is no low slot equivalent, which is annoying for the shield command ships.
Luscius Uta
#3 - 2015-09-10 09:55:49 UTC
afkalt wrote:
You don't really explain why you think it is bad. That's kind of important for anyone to weigh your fix.

The problem I have with them is there is no low slot equivalent, which is annoying for the shield command ships.


They use way too much CPU, forcing you to fill your lows with Co-Processors and leaving little to no room for tank modules. This discourages any form of on-grid boosting. Even if they could be placed in a low slot, you would have enough CPU to put maybe one of them....well maybe two, but then again you would have not enough CPU left to fill your mids with tank modules.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Anthar Thebess
#4 - 2015-09-10 10:19:45 UTC
The problem with links can be solved by removing skill fleet command and wing command, and increasing squad size to 20ppl , without increasing maximum size of the fleet.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2015-09-10 10:56:21 UTC
Working as intended.

You can fit 3 links on a commandship and max out the tank without any problem.
Any more would be a balancing problem, so you have to make a decision more boost or more more tank.

So if you see a problem please explain it in more detail.
Luscius Uta
#6 - 2015-09-10 11:22:46 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Working as intended.

You can fit 3 links on a commandship and max out the tank without any problem.
Any more would be a balancing problem, so you have to make a decision more boost or more more tank.

So if you see a problem please explain it in more detail.



But why would you max out the tank, if your ship is standing in a safespot or on the edge of POS shields?
Putting 6 links on an OGB seems like a no-brainer to me.
Of course, if your Command Ship needs to be on grid it would be indeed useful if it had as much tank as possible, but don't they generally tend to be off-grid unless there's no such option?

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2015-09-10 12:12:00 UTC
1. Off grid boosting will be removed.
2. if I do not need to fit a tank because I am standing at a POS then I have no problem to fit 7warfare links using cpu rigs ,cpu upgrades and command processsors.
3 You would not use a commandship as an off grid booster moving with the fleet. A t3 which is fitted for low signature and high sensor strength is used because it is very harded to be probed and killed.

Command processors are working as intended you have to giveup dps and tank to achieve more boost.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2015-09-10 12:28:11 UTC
His point is their existence (well, fitting sacrifices) is counter intuitive to desired gameplay - that they sacrifice SO much that there is no realistic way to use them unless you are off grid.

I've not tried enough permutations to agree or contest the point, I suspect a single processor would be manageable. I do, however, see what he is driving at.

The module currently drives undesirable behaviour (OGB) because the compromises it demands offer no other meaningful choice.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2015-09-10 12:47:30 UTC
They are balanced that is why it looks like there is no desireable configuration.
A commandship is capable of using 4 links with some sacrifice of its tank and with 4 it already hits the critical amount.

From the view of a fleet boosting commandship it only needs 4 ganglinks.
The defense type link (armor or shield) , the speed link , the signature link and sensor strenght link.
The boost for repair and ewar and tackling range can be doen by the wingboosters.

So the commandship is with 3 links already in a position where it is only 1 link from the perfect boosting ship.

The players are not supoosed to be able to fit more than one command prozessors without a huge drawback because otherwise any ship could be used as a boostership
Luscius Uta
#10 - 2015-09-10 12:49:29 UTC
afkalt wrote:
His point is their existence (well, fitting sacrifices) is counter intuitive to desired gameplay - that they sacrifice SO much that there is no realistic way to use them unless you are off grid.

I've not tried enough permutations to agree or contest the point, I suspect a single processor would be manageable. I do, however, see what he is driving at.

The module currently drives undesirable behaviour (OGB) because the compromises it demands offer no other meaningful choice.


^^ This

Also, I wasn't aware that CCP plans to remove off-grid boosting, do they have an ETA for that? If not...they had plenty of ideas that got abandoned eventually.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2015-09-10 12:52:41 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
They are balanced that is why it looks like there is no desireable configuration.
A commandship is capable of using 4 links with some sacrifice of its tank and with 4 it already hits the critical amount.

From the view of a fleet boosting commandship it only needs 4 ganglinks.
The defense type link (armor or shield) , the speed link , the signature link and sensor strenght link.
The boost for repair and ewar and tackling range can be doen by the wingboosters.

So the commandship is with 3 links already in a position where it is only 1 link from the perfect boosting ship.

The players are not supoosed to be able to fit more than one command prozessors without a huge drawback because otherwise any ship could be used as a boostership


But MUH SOLO PVP!!!!!!!111!!

LolLolLol
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2015-09-10 12:57:46 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
They are balanced that is why it looks like there is no desireable configuration.
A commandship is capable of using 4 links with some sacrifice of its tank and with 4 it already hits the critical amount.

From the view of a fleet boosting commandship it only needs 4 ganglinks.
The defense type link (armor or shield) , the speed link , the signature link and sensor strenght link.
The boost for repair and ewar and tackling range can be doen by the wingboosters.

So the commandship is with 3 links already in a position where it is only 1 link from the perfect boosting ship.

The players are not supoosed to be able to fit more than one command prozessors without a huge drawback because otherwise any ship could be used as a boostership



What happens is the larger groups will have enough pilots to plug the holes and the smaller groups do not. FC>WC>SC is enough to give a perfect set of tank, sensor and skirmish without a single command proc.

Regardless of whether they are balanced or not, their current state of affairs is directly against putting those ships on grid, hence OPs suggestion of disposing of the mod.

It doesn't create a meaningful choice and even when links are on grid only it still will not for the reasons outlined in my first line of this post.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#13 - 2015-09-10 13:33:51 UTC
This idea has been proposed and debated many times. That does not mean it is not a good idea. Supported.

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

Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2015-09-10 13:40:45 UTC
The only reason I see to remove commandprozessors is to end offgrid boosting.
T3 would not be able to fit ganglinks and commandships can not be fitted against probing.
Thron Legacy
White Zulu
Scorpion Federation
#15 - 2015-09-10 14:42:21 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
The only reason I see to remove commandprozessors is to end offgrid boosting.
T3 would not be able to fit ganglinks and commandships can not be fitted against probing.


this is why i fully support that idea (except for the skill bonus)
Luscius Uta
#16 - 2015-09-10 14:59:39 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
The only reason I see to remove commandprozessors is to end offgrid boosting.
T3 would not be able to fit ganglinks and commandships can not be fitted against probing.


With my proposed changes to Warfare Link Specialist skill, Strategic Cruisers could fit 6 links with skill at level 5, and Command ships could do high DPS and use only their utility slots for links (which should be perfect role for squad commanders).

Also an end to offgrid boosting should go along with this change, since you'll be able to tank-fit your CS and still run up to 6 links. Giving the change I proposed to the Warfare Link Specialist skill to Defensive Subsystem instead sounds fine too, since link bonuses on T3 are lower than those on Command ships and you'll be able to choose if you want 3 strong links or 6 weak links.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.