Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
PokinoCupra
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 10:05:00 -
[1]
How about to add some ability to modificate all modules?
lets say that some AB adds +130% to speed at cost of 60 cap per cycle. you will be able to rise that to 150% but also cap cost will increase.
shiled booster adds you 100HP per cycle at cost of XY cap. you will modify this to 115HP but it will drains more cap, or PG or your sig radius will increase...
Launchers.....you will be able to modify RoF at cost of CPU, or it will have some chance to fail of launching missile.
Or even modify missile engine speed at cost of chance of missile engine failure.
and so on....
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr GK inc. Panda Team
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 10:14:00 -
[2]
I believe both overheating and faction/deadspace/officer modules will be your cup of tea. ___
|
PokinoCupra
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 13:36:00 -
[3]
but i mean permanent modifications, not just overload for some time. also you will be able to modify and overload but when you overload modified module you will take much more heat....
|
Smurc
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 15:19:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Smurc on 20/05/2010 15:21:36 So...kinda like rigs, but for modules?
Too much granularity/micromanagement, both on the part of the players and also the devs. We're at the point now where some modules are overpowered, some are useless. How would introducing MORE configurations alleviate that problem? Not only do the rules for modifications for tons of modules have to be made and balanced, but now you have to store them in Eve's database. Instead of a flat item id, you have to track modifications made.
edit: lolmodificate
|
Gavjack Bunk
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 15:49:00 -
[5]
Scripts improved somethings and worsened others, I see no valid counter arguments for not extending that system to include more modules and a differing variety of effects.
I think some people would pay billions for an officer ECM that has scripts to change it's jammer type, and why shouldn't they?
But then again we're a bit short of ship malus as seen on destroyers only too. So I guess CCP must know why not. |
PokinoCupra
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 16:20:00 -
[6]
or changing lets say ammo capacity of launcher / turret and as opposite effect will be less hull HP of that module. i think this things could add more complexity to eve.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 18:00:00 -
[7]
Originally by: PokinoCupra or changing lets say ammo capacity of launcher / turret and as opposite effect will be less hull HP of that module. i think this things could add more complexity to eve.
well ... all the module types are stored in a database ... how many permutations you want to store?
unless you really make it like rigs/subsystems for modules, it would get a royal nightmare.
and with rigs/subsystems ... fittings get yet another layer. so i might end up with subsystems and rigs for my ship and rigs/subsystems for my modules ... I know quite a few people who wouldnt want to go through all the possible combinations to see which works best. :)
your idea sounds a bit like T3 modules ... but I usability wise i am not convinced yet.
|
hotty72
|
Posted - 2010.05.22 10:50:00 -
[8]
When you want to increase the boost amount while balancing that with cap use, you upgrade to a larger version of the module.
|
Simeon Tor
|
Posted - 2010.05.22 12:32:00 -
[9]
I think I read somewhere that this was planned at one point, though it never made it in for some reason. Maybe it would be too much extra work for server or something.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |