Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shadow Lord77
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:24:00 -
[1]
1. The folly of Rig sizes. After the rig split came large, medium, and small rig sizes and with that change came 166 more rig blueprints. Rigs became a standard for frigates and up and a burden for the rest of the pilots. The proper EVE market principle would have been to keep it simple. Allow a large rig to fit more than one frigate, more than one battle cruiser, and one battleship or carrier. Allowing 'manufacturers' to make rigs in this manner would be less of a burden and more of a pleasure.
2. ISK fountains from sleepers. Bounties on NPC ships do more than well enough to provide ISK for the market. Further 'bounties' are found in the way of selling sleeper drone drops to NPCS! The proper EVE market principle would have been to restrict wormhole space to be a manufacturing area, and not another ISK faucet.
3. Mineral income from missions. It is quite high and this competes with miners. The proper EVE principle is to remove the no-name moduled drops, (and possibly ammunition!), severely decrease the named module drop rate, and increase the skill requirements of all Tech II items to be level 5, (especially in armor modules!)
4. The game gives new players too much stuff. Half my fun in beginning EVE was in leveling up my ship, getting new skills, or amassing a million ISK. This point depends on where you look at it. But I would like the same experience for beginning players
Overall the proper EVE market principle would be to position minerals to be as profitable.
Thanks for reading. Please rip me apart.
|
Shadow Lord77
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:30:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Shadow Lord77 on 02/08/2011 19:32:22 Another solution for rig sizes would be to have some fundamental rig size, and allow 1 to fit a slot in a frigate, another in a destroyer, 2 in a cruiser, 3 in battlecruiser, 6 in a battleship, and higher for carriers and Tech II and III items.
|
tikktokk tokkzikk
STORM Squad
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:38:00 -
[3]
I like the current way rigs work.
but your second post sounds interesting but how will penalties work?
IE: Small Auxiliary Thrusters I:
This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's max velocity at the expense of armor amount.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized.
if battleships have to fit 3 small rigs to get one large they would not get the full effect. My solution to micro-transactions/noble exchange and CCPs money problem! |
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:42:00 -
[4]
1. Huh? Rigs being viable fits for smaller ships than battleships allows for a greater variety in workable fits. This is a good thing. On your additional point I can't tell if you're asking for rigs to not destruct upon removal (this would be bad, additional destruction above and beyond host ship destruction is a boon to manufacturers and the economy), large rigs to fit smaller vessels (they could do that before) or manufacturers to have one set of blueprints and choose at manufacture time whether to make small/medium/large size (would be nice, but meh, no biggy, prints are cheap and quick to research).
2. Dr whatever his name is has mentioned he's a bit concerned about isk fountains so expect to see these reduced (or more sinks introduced) in future. Whether that should be from wormhole space or not is another matter. Why should wormhole space be a manufacturing area? Can't PvE with a side order of PvP players enjoy wormholes too?
3. Mineral income has already been severly decreased from missions.
4. I put this down to the rose-tinted cataracts of the old and bitter, coupled with arrogance of "it was so much harder in my day". Eve needs new players, it can't survive on bitter vets alone, it either gets new players or it dies. The new player experience is *vastly* improved on what it used to be. Only part of that improvement comes in the form of extra "stuff" - and the extra they get is hardly huge. They now come out of tutorials with enough cash and experience to perhaps badly fit out a cheap battlecruiser which they'll lose on their first tough L3 when they realise Drakes shouldn't be active armour AND shield tanked. In the grand scheme of things I can't begrudge newbies a cheap ass battlecruiser. I wouldn't want new players to Eve to have to go through the frankly horrific new player experience I did.
|
Shadow Lord77
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:51:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Shadow Lord77 on 02/08/2011 19:56:47 What I mean by my second post tikktokk is that one rig would fit a single 'slot' in a frigate and provide the same bonus. Two rigs would be needed to fill a slot in a cruiser. Six fill one battleship slot. And yes, I meant for the rig to be destroyed if you removed it and for all the mechanics to stay the same.
Each separate rig would be obviously cheaper to produce than what it currently is. It's more simple and more considerate for manufacturers.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 08:23:00 -
[6]
1) Makes rigs more affordable and more widely used. Making different sizes versus your example of multiple rigs as per post five is less code - why write more code when existing code can be used? Either make more rig BPOs, or more code that needs to be tested.
2) It adds granularity to the question of equitable split amongst a group of cooperating players. Waiting the days/weeks for T3 production to construct/sell adds overhead to corporation management.
3) All mineral sources should be removed from missions IMO.
Sandbox Protection League
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |