These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mara Maken
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#721 - 2013-08-14 15:36:22 UTC
Fozzie:

Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#722 - 2013-08-14 15:39:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Mara Maken wrote:
Fozzie:

Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged?

Your math is fudged;
All defensive (Siege and Armored) links:
T1: 4.8%
T2: 6%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9%
Former max bonus: 35%

T2 6 * 1.5 (Warfare Link Specialist) * 1.25 (mindlink) * 1.15 (Command ship) * 2 (Warfare Specialist Skill) = 25.9

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Mara Maken
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#723 - 2013-08-14 15:48:41 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Mara Maken wrote:
Fozzie:

Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged?

Your math is fudged;
All defensive (Siege and Armored) links:
T1: 4.8%
T2: 6%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9%
Former max bonus: 35%

T2 6 * 1.5 (Warfare Link Specialist) * 1.25 (mindlink) * 1.15 (Command ship) * 2 (Warfare Specialist Skill) = 25.9



Thanks, completely missed the warfare link skill :(
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#724 - 2013-08-14 15:57:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie,
I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#725 - 2013-08-14 16:10:51 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Fozzie,
I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them?


We have no current plans to give CONCORD LP for anything else.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Crazy On You
Professional Dockers
#726 - 2013-08-14 16:19:11 UTC
You could split command proc into two modules. One that allows you to fit one extra armor/information link that goes in a mid slot, and one that allows you to fit one extra siege/skirmish in a low slot. Seems the easiest solution to me.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#727 - 2013-08-14 17:33:21 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Fozzie,
I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them?


You are not stuck running Incursions for them.

You GET to run Incursions for them.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#728 - 2013-08-14 18:23:34 UTC
If my math is right, the Navy mindlinks are going to cost in the range of 500 M, at the very least.
You burn 100M, 100K LP, plus 2 regular mindlinks.

Is there some mechanism being introduced to make the traditional mindlinks available more readily?
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#729 - 2013-08-14 19:05:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Devereux
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.


How about getting rid of command processors and not introducing rigs? The fitting trade-off for tank or dps should be dictated through having to use more PG and CPU to fit these. Requiring additional slots to fit these is only going to make them more fragile when they are pushed on grid (expect the Damnation).

How about adding new high slot warfare modules instead? These are already balanced by PG/CPU. The progression to fit six modules currently is:

# - PG CPU
1 - 210 55
2 - 420 110
3 - 630 165
4 - 890 270
5 - 1350 375
6 - 1710 480

Trying to fit that 4th and 5th module takes a ton of fitting resources. My suggestion is to mimic this without crippling either the tank or DPS of the ship and not both.

Big Scriptable Warfare module. For each of the module types add a new module that can be scripted. The PG would be somewhere in the range of 420 and the cpu 110. Three scripts would be created to provide a combination of the three bonuses (i.e. Script A: Bonus 1 and Bonus 2, Script B: Bonus 1 and Bonus 3, Script C: Bonus 2 and Bonus 3).

A Mega Warfare module would be added for each type. This would provide all three bonuses. The PG would be >630 and the CPU >165.

These would modules would still count as a single warfare module and go against the limit per ship. Command processors should be removed so that only Command Ships can fit three.

This feels a lot more flexible and gives the right tradeoffs between fitting links and choosing either tank or DPS.
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#730 - 2013-08-14 19:44:31 UTC
I just realized why I don't like the rig approach. There are no small or large rig ships that can fit warfare links. You will have only medium and capital rigs for these.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#731 - 2013-08-14 20:11:46 UTC
Marcel Devereux wrote:
I just realized why I don't like the rig approach. There are no small or large rig ships that can fit warfare links. You will have only medium and capital rigs for these.

There are only medium mining rigs, it would be along the same lines.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#732 - 2013-08-14 20:14:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?

I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =<



Edit: And changing command procs to rigs is a good idea, do that.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Lynx Sawpaw
Hole Divers
Wardec Mechanics
#733 - 2013-08-14 23:40:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig.


Cool idea. Hope you include some t2 version of the rigs as well if you do this. Maybe if the t2 rigs have less calibration cost than the t1 rigs, thus letting you weigh the options of cost effectiveness vs being able to fit more boosts.
Sigras
Conglomo
#734 - 2013-08-14 23:52:40 UTC
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.....

Oh yeah sure; that makes more sense;
just like how the domination webifiers are not strictly better than the T2
or how the caldari navy shield boosters are not strictly better than the T2,
or how the Federation Navy magstabs are not strictly better than the T2,

yeah sure that makes much more sense . . .
Sigras
Conglomo
#735 - 2013-08-14 23:54:11 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?

I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =<

I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . .
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#736 - 2013-08-14 23:58:00 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:


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.


Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?

I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =<

I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . .


Then he can add them once links come on grid

I don't like "Well this will be fixed at an undefined time in the future" as an excuse to horribly breaking the game until then.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#737 - 2013-08-15 01:46:19 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:


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.


Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?

I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =<

I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . .


Then he can add them once links come on grid

I don't like "Well this will be fixed at an undefined time in the future" as an excuse to horribly breaking the game until then.



That's what I don't understand.

Are these supposed to be the bonuses when ships are on grid? Or is this what they consider balanced while they are off grid? If this is balanced even though they can sit in a safespot off grid, then I would think they will need to increase the bonus to offset them being forced on grid. Again *if* they truly think this is balanced.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#738 - 2013-08-15 08:33:53 UTC
@ CCP Fozzie

With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?

Thanks vulfen
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#739 - 2013-08-15 09:00:44 UTC
Vulfen wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie

With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?

Thanks vulfen


Not at this time. They will get bonuses to three types of links but will require command processors to activate more than one link at once.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#740 - 2013-08-15 09:07:39 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
..Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?..

They can't afford to. By changing Faction War into Farm War they have over-saturated the LP market and need to add increasingly expensive consumable/destructible items in an effort to try to stem the tide .. because if the treated the disease (FW mechanics) instead of the symptoms they'd stand to lose more subscriptions than nano, ECM, link changes combined Big smile

Speaking of FW: Add a frigate command platform, plexing demands it (pre-emptively before on-grid change if possible so people can learn to kill them beforehand).