Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ceaon
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 00:40:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Akita T
.....
yes for the XL rigs
|
Grukar
Amarr Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Emergence.
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 05:20:00 -
[32]
I'd love to see 1000MN AB/MWDs... especially combined with a Ram option. Would need to be a deliberate option, though. Right click > Approach Ram Orbit> etc
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 09:02:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Irongut There are already more expensive rigs for capitals, they're called T2 rigs.
They're not expensive enough for what they give.
Uh, yes they are. How many old/large ones have you fitted, and on what ships?
Quote:
Quote: No one would put XL T2 rigs on a carrier or dread if they cost 5x the price of L ones now because they'd cost more than the ship.
T2 rigs already cost more than the ship on MOST ships (with the exception of a select few T2 ships, mostly battleship class, and T3 ships), what's wrong with a T2 XL rig costing as much as a whole dread ?
The ships that receive old/large T2 rigs usually (not always) go on those "select few" ships where a rig costs 15-30% of the ship. There might be the odd Abaddon with T2 rigs docked somewhere in the Eve universe, but they're pretty rare.
Quote: So what if only supercaps would receive T2 rigs on a more or less regular basis, what's wrong with T1 rigs that they are "so beneath" a carrier/dread pilot ? Huh ?
How many supercaps to one cap? You want to deny T2 rigs to 99.99% (number figurative, though it might just be literal too) of cap pilots, that's what the problem is. Currently cap pilots (not supercaps) have a choice whether to spend more on rigs, your suggestion effectively removes that choice. And don't anyone try to claim it's still there, that's just silly talk.
|
Alice Teal
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 12:22:00 -
[34]
Sounds like someone had long term investments in salvage...
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 12:26:00 -
[35]
How wouldnt it be a huge increase in overall costs of rigs (unless they lower build cost of other rigs)? You compare this to introducing small/med rigs, but that doesnt make any sense. This just forces people to use 5 times more materials on rigs for caps, which means rig prices will rise alot. Introducing small and med rigs decreased the build cost of their rigs (although it increased the demand, but adding XL rigs will not decrease demand for capital rigs).
I dont see any problem balance wise with rigs on caps, so i dont see why they would need to be 'fixed'.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 12:48:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Akita T on 19/09/2009 12:52:27
Originally by: Alice Teal Sounds like someone had long term investments in salvage...
Nope, right now I only deal in T2 components and reactions/moonmins.
Originally by: Qui Shon How many supercaps to one cap? You want to deny T2 rigs to 99.99% (number figurative, though it might just be literal too) of cap pilots, that's what the problem is.
Last time I read any numbers, there were somewhere around 250 titans in service, and at least as many motherships, maybe much more. So let's call that 500 supercaps at a minimum, probably closer to 700. Regular caps... I really don't know, but the entire 0.0 EVE population is about 40k pilots tops, and I seriously doubt you have a "one capital per 0.0 pilot". Let's be EXTREMELY generous and call that 10k capitals because it's also pretty damn nice and round.
That would be anywhere between 5% and 7% supercaps out of the total capital fleet. That's nowhere near your "figurative" number. And it's a SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH number to make T2 XL rigs at x5 the current T2 large rig price something worth using in spite of that price.
Quote: Currently cap pilots (not supercaps) have a choice whether to spend more on rigs, your suggestion effectively removes that choice. And don't anyone try to claim it's still there, that's just silly talk.
And now the choice will be to spend more on even HAVING rigs in the first place at all or not, more precisely what rigs. T2 resists rigs would still be borderline affordable, but then again the only things you would consider on caps would be trimarks, extenders and CCCs, right ? And EVERY LAST CAPSHIP has at least T1 rigs on, and not just any rigs because it would be stupid to use any other than those mentioned. Well boo-hoo, what if even the choice to USE any of those rigs would ACTUALLY be a choice worth considering ? What if trimark/extender vs CCC wasn't the ONLY choice you had to make ? What if T2 rigs would actually hurt like hell to use ?
Besides, they promised some kind of "alchemy for rig parts" (mash T1 salvage into a highsec reactor, get out T2 salvage), so T2 rigs might soon become much more affordable overall.
_
Info about our corp | Beginer's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 23:47:00 -
[37]
the reason why they went with small and medium rigs was to take some of the rigs that were going to "medium" hulls and spread them out so that the same number of parts used to build 1 large could make more than 1 medium or small
adding in a jumbo size rig that takes 5X the parts would have pulled a big ass pile of parts away from the medium and small producers unless they went back and uped the drop rate on rig parts so that adding in the jumbo rigs would have had no impact on the overall production of small and medium ships
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense. |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Biotronics Inc. Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 02:13:00 -
[38]
Originally by: BiggestT Hell No,
carriers are expensive enough as is
whats that? 1b is not much isk these days?
Hows about HELL YES 1b is alot of isk, for the casual player who rats every now and then when he has to and prefers doing things non-pve-is-eye-tearing-out related, even 100mill is heaps.
I myself have never owned more than 470mill isk.
Troll away.
Capital ships? Casual player? Does not compute.
If you can afford a capital ship, you should be able to afford the xl rigs. Also there's the option not to rig it.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 04:26:00 -
[39]
The reason for no capital sized rigs. For example...
The reason this isnt in the game is because it would give capital ships better survivability. Which is exactly the opposite of what we all want.
Would be interesting to see if ccp would put out capital sized anti-capital stuff. That would be very cool. The bigger issue is potential issue of use against subcaps.
Take drone damage mods or fighter speed bonuses or drone tracking stuff. Put that on my carrier. I get my 10 fighters on your megathron. It's going to melt your face.
The same for Capital Neuts or Capital ewar/disruptors or capital smartbombs. The use against subcaps would be so devastating that they would be ****d on site.
Medium neut - 12km 12 seconds 180cap or 12km 24 seconds 360cap heavy neut - 25km 24 seconds 600 cap
medium armor rrep - 6km 4.5s 192rep large armor rrep - 8.4km 4.5s 384rep cap armor rrep - 15km 5s 1500rep
So if heavy neuts went the same rate.
You might see the capital neut around 45km 30seconds and 3,000cap I fit 2 of those. I'm smoking 3000 cap. That pretty much leaves you as a battleship. Completely and utterly dry after just 1 cycle. Infact 1 cycle will almost certainly dry most bs out.
That's just insane. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Xavier Linx
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 08:37:00 -
[40]
Interesting discussion. I agree that there should be XL rigs at the balanced price. Actually Akita convinced me:
Originally by: Akita T It's not a "balance" issue, it's a COST issue.
This is very sensible because as she states next:
Originally by: Akita T There's virtually next to no significant difference between losing a rigged or an unrigged capship ...
COST = BALANCE '=' is commutative meaning: BALANCE = COST
This holds true since if something is cheaper it is also more viable to use, (cost is a limiting factor). Past history have showed that CCP does this on regular basis, i.e. not following through on balancing issues (especially in terms of cost), seemingly with no good reason. As stated in this thread: the introduction of XL rigs would balance cost and thus rigs and caps. For some reason CCP does not want caps to be balanced.
Since the relative cost of flying a cap have been reduced you will see a steep increase of their use, especially in fleet battles and PvP, but also in low-sec missions.
As a side note: Due to the decreased material cost BS' have also been affected by this, it will be interesting to see the overall effects on the market in high sec.
Of course it could all be a mistake by CCP, but considering the immense experience of the balancing team I doubt it. You'll probably never see XL rigs, since that would make cap ships expensive again.
|
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 08:50:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 20/09/2009 08:50:42
I am wondering if perhaps ccp intend to change the "XL ships" later on, and are making it easy for themselves by not creating a perhaps short lived market of XL rigs. So that removing rigs from capitals is easier than removing the rigs and also the new XL rigs.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 08:50:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Xavier Linx [...]probably never see XL rigs, since that would make cap ships expensive again.
And why would that be a problem ?
_
Info about our corp | Beginer's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 12:07:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Qui Shon on 20/09/2009 12:07:31
Originally by: Akita T
Quote: Currently cap pilots (not supercaps) have a choice whether to spend more on rigs, your suggestion effectively removes that choice. And don't anyone try to claim it's still there, that's just silly talk.
And now the choice will be to spend more on even HAVING rigs in the first place at all or not, more precisely what rigs.
They just went in the completely opposite direction for subcaps with the latest change. Used to be not everyone rigged their small, vulnerable cheap ships, but that's a thing of the past now. Why should normal caps be penalized by giving them worse rigging options then your average T1 BC has?
Quote: Besides, they promised some kind of "alchemy for rig parts" (mash T1 salvage into a highsec reactor, get out T2 salvage), so T2 rigs might soon become much more affordable overall.
Heh, coming from a quite vocal critic of current Alchemy (unless you've reviewed your position), that's pretty funny. Sure, I hope T2 rigs will come down in price, but I'm not holding my breath.
If the aim is to increase the cost of caps, insurance is what needs to be changed. Not this roundabout method.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 23:49:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Qui Shon Heh, coming from a quite vocal critic of current Alchemy (unless you've reviewed your position), that's pretty funny. Sure, I hope T2 rigs will come down in price, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm a vocal critic of the current alchemy ratios. I'm quite happy with the framework/system itself, but dissapointed in the choice of materials and the amounts needed.
Quote: They just went in the completely opposite direction for subcaps with the latest change.[...]If the aim is to increase the cost of caps, insurance is what needs to be changed. Not this roundabout method.
Rigs should be a certain percentage of the ship base price. The small/medium rig introduction managed to bring those percentages much closer together across ship classes - compared to what used to be, that is... capship rigs always were and still are a ridiculously tiny percentage of total cost compared to any other "well insureable" ship type/class/size. Even a x5 material need won't bring the percentage above that of just about any other "well insureable" ship class/size, with the possible exception of battlecruisers (they'd be about on par with them).
_
Info about our corp | Beginer's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Orb Lati
Minmatar ANZAC ALLIANCE Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 00:54:00 -
[45]
I personally don't see the huge fuss about L rigs on Capitals and wont until i see that same principle applied to all the other modules (i.e. Invul fields, sensor boosters cargo expander s,m,l,XL versions.)
The only reason we have the s,m,l rigs now was so they could be utilized on more hulls.
"We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
Cire XIII
Caldari Ever Flow Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 01:15:00 -
[46]
I was also shocked that CCP did not add XL rigs. It does not make sense, and should be fixed. /agree .
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 02:14:00 -
[47]
the cheaper rigs were probably a move to uphold the official statement of there not being inflation happening in eve. my personal scimitar world has become quite ridiculous with them hitting 105mil in jita although that can't possibly be sustained with that profit margin. but one way or the other, the hike has eaten up all savings i made on rigs - long ago.
anyways, imho, introducing something that'll make our daily life more expensive is not in CCP's interest at this point, expecially not with upcoming wtfpwn ships; high-sec missions in rattlesnakes e.a. will raise influx from that huge department.
so, as much as it may make sense, i doubt it'll stand a chance with our coding overloards being more interested in marketing than balance - putting the gist back into logistics |
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 08:46:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Arec Bardwin XL Trimarks would be around 100m XL CCC would be around 50m
Looks fine to me.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |