Considering I never made that claim I have no idea why you are going on about this.
All I said was that Command Boosts show that CCP can restrict without doing weird workarounds, and those restrictions (or lack of restrictions) can be different for different types of ships. So the code base already exists for them to limit Boosters on FAX but not other ships.
Yeah, you claimed they were limited per ship, which is what is actually wrong.
Command boosters are limited to groups, not to ships.
Yeah but doing so would be bad. What could be doable, is to reduce the effect of cap boosters on fax, and create a new group of boosters that are not reduced but limited to 1 of the same type group per ship.
But then it becomes a lot of fiddling with numbers and â â â â , just to make the game more complex.
Why?
Why is it bad for FAX to be limited to only 1 Cap Booster?
Because thatâs exactly what CCP is planning to do, and youâve been blathering on about rubbish, and inventing things other people have said to argue against them.
BECAUSE YOU CAN T DO IT WITHOUT MAKING A LOT OF COMPLEX CHANGES
All the other ships can fit their class of cap boosters ; only cap cap booster would be limited to dreads, titans, carriers, supers ?
Thatâs just an arbitrary exception that makes no sense.
As other people said (while answering to me actually), the correct way to do that would be to make a mix of fitting modifications, traits modifications, and cap RR modifications , NOT to completely â â â â over all the game mechanism.
1 Like
Except they can.
Ignore your weird theory of how stuff works or doesnât behind the scenes.
Lets just run with the assumption that if CCP say âWe can restrict FAX to 1 cap boosterâ that they can do it technically.
Why is this bad?
I just answered this exact question previously.
Except they literally canât. Thatâs why they did not do what they expected to do.
Lets pretend that your answer was really unclear and rambling, and sounded like it focused on the technical coding aspects of the update and not the player side issues.
Except they did.
What is on Sisi is the first iteration of the update, where all caps were going to be restricted. They havenât updated Sisi with all the changes in this thread. Just because this thread came out before the update rolled to Sisi doesnât mean anything. Sisi still needs QC checks done on it, and to be made into a proper build, so stuff coming out on Sisi was decided on weeks ago and coded a while back.
But, as above, lets pretend that they do what they have said, and only restrict FAX to 1 cap booster.
No. I answered this exact question previously.
Now since you are not able to understand the answer, you have nothing to add to the discussion besides your stupidity.
No they did not.
No. Because as they wrote, this literally canât be done.
If you donât understand that they wrote exactly this, you are a complete idiot who canât accept what is literally written.
1 Like
Citation needed from a CCP source.
Or not. ATM the engine does not support to limit to one type/group on a specific ship, they need to rewrite this.
So no, itâs just not possible. So yes it needs a lot of complex works, and so a lot of bug potential.
so literally
I mean, here you are just showing your ignorance.
Ah yes, because you work at CCP and clearly know what is possible and what isnât.
not to mention you are busy contradicting yourself from above where you were trying to lay into me earlier about âspecific shipâ. SoâŚ
Yeah, Iâll just leave you to have fun in your little corner of âI know more than CCP doesâ and not addressing any of the actual points, enjoy!
P.S.
Quoting yourself is not a valid source.
And yet you are so full of â â â â you pretend itâs possible without a proof.
PS : quoting myself is a valid source of what I wrote, and that again your complete stupidity made you misunderstand.
BS.
You were the one claiming things that are false, I corrected you. You made false statement.
I do a fair bit of mining, and this matches my understanding well.
tl;dr If I want to get my heartrate going, I donât go mining.
Even with full Orca support, I still prefer to mine in a Procurer/Skiff, and accept the slightly lower ISK/hr for the vastly improved survivability. Sure, Iâll need to pay more now for that survivability (Iâll probably upgrade the invulns to Pith C-Types or maybe Gistum B-Types). Yes, in safe (low profitability) areas I can mine in a Covetor/Hulk with Orca (dual orca better) support - but then Iâm jetcanning just as quick as I can at that point, and itâs WAY more stressful than using a Procurer/Skiff.
Frankly, mining is a low risk/low reward activity (some would say medium/medium, it can be if you get it right I suppose, but most donât) - but thatâs exactly why I donât want to do it in a Covetor/Hulk - the risk increases dramatically for a FA increase to reward. If I want a heart-attack every time something lands on grid, thereâs much more profitable activities - thatâs the very nature of mining.
2 Likes
Careful. At the EHP/isk dropable ratio you would have, those invulns on that ship increase your target profile.
1 Like
Because when you jump you land at 25% cap
With a cap and three heavy injectors it takes three full cycles to get back to jump cap (with navy 3200) with a single cap injector you donât have the headspace to run your reppers for more than a couple cycles before you cap out.
You can NOT cap chain triaged FAXs
You can ONLY inject.
This means that active tanked FAXs are a thing of the past and buffer tanked FAXs become a space ornament under the slightest cap pressure.
1 Like
Ok, so FAX have a hard time jumping into a fight.
Now explain why this is a bad thing restricting hot drop oclock to ships relying on local tank and having them come in at a disadvantage.
The active tanking issue, that may be a slightly bigger question, and probably needs some proper comparison with other ship classes on how hard it is to active tank FAX vs anything else.
Iâm not able to work up some sample numbers tonight so Iâd be interested to see what numbers you have on bare hull + rep for FAX compared to say, Battleships.
[quote=âNevyn_Auscent, post:468, topic:231061â]
Ok, so FAX have a hard time jumping into a fight.
Now explain why this is a bad thing restricting hot drop oclock to ships relying on local tank and having them come in at a disadvantage. [/quote]
Because this FURTHER tilts the advantage to the defender, if I can fight on my undock, I am significantly less vulnerable
[quote=âNevyn_Auscent, post:468, topic:231061â]
The active tanking issue, that may be a slightly bigger question, and probably needs some proper comparison with other ship classes on how hard it is to active tank FAX vs anything else. [/quote]
Comparison is easy, to any other logistics class in the game, there is no, there is no cap cap chain, there is no cross rep, there is nothing you are an island to yourself, and oh by the way, the Ninazu and Lif are effectively deleted
See that is the thing, that was already the only time you used BSs, under FAX reps, they just donât survive otherwise.
But again, no cap, no reps.
Get it? got it? Good.
1 Like
So⌠Not going to give any actual numbers to prove that FAX are actually worse off than other ship classes when it comes to active tanking?
You donât get it, caps START at 25% capacitor after jump, how many times do I have to repeat myself.
There is no comparison to subs, they donât have the same mechanics, bridging doesnât eat 75% of your capacitor.
1 Like