EVE Search - New Dev Blog: My rifter is equipped with the following rigs...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: My rifter is equipped with the following rigs...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Princess Misha Caldari	Posted - 2009.07.07 00:56:00 - [31] Alchemy + reverse emgineering + salvage conversion IN low sec or 0.0 plz. Oh and when are we going to see Alchemy 2.0?
Argus Greymoore Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.07.07 03:02:00 - [32] Originally by: Joe Smiles I vote no on salvage conversion... why? A wreck from a tech 1 ship should have a chance to drop an intact piece of salvage -Period. Just because a ship is tech 2 doesnt mean it "blows up" differently. Seriously, better ships better chances of finding intact salvage... but it should not be impossible to find intact salvage on any wreck. I am for sized rigs... always found the one size fits all rig kinda odd. This. While adding the ability to combine broken salvage into its T2 variant would be nice, it seems to me Joe's suggestion makes much more sense. Simply give any player ship that's destroyed and salvaged a chance for T2 salvage to drop. A much lower chance for T1 ships, sure, but if balanced correctly, it would seem to bypass the need to add a whole lot more code and trouble to do something that can be acomplished much more easily.
Yaay The Players Club	Posted - 2009.07.07 03:42:00 - [33] I could get long winded here about every reason this patch is bad or I could just point you to this post. I would love to hear a dev comment on the issues brought up and I truely hope people get what is bad about this patch. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1114247 DD changes Docking PVP games
Tau Cabalander Caldari	Posted - 2009.07.07 03:46:00 - [34] I'm concerned that the Crane blockade runner may be made useless if not allowed to fit large (current sized) rigs. They are essential for this ship to fit a MWD, as well as remain competitive in cargohold size with other racial blockade runners. [Crane, Basic] Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Cap Recharger II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Ancillary Current Router I Cargohold Optimization I
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.07.07 04:03:00 - [35] Quote: This is something that can be a pain for many of you. There are ways around it such as using courier missions if the ship is small enough with a freighter or an Orca's ship maintenance bay for smaller ships. We will be looking into numerous ways to help alleviate the issue of transporting rigged ships. This isn't needed. You can already transport rigged ships with carriers and with orcas. I cannot understand why CCP thinks this is needed... Making it too easy to move fit/rigged ships around makes the universe even smaller, and reduces the strategic benefits of small ships which already only barely make up for their direct combat disadvantage. I don't get CCP's mindset here. Easier is not necessarily better. Can CCP clarify WHY this is actually needed? Explain how this change will help gameplay?
Nose Snot	Posted - 2009.07.07 04:11:00 - [36] More bps!!!... why not keep the bps we have and let people choose if they want to build 1 large, 2 medium or 3 small rigs? My thoughts.
Caldreis Caldari White Star II Ethereal Advancement Coalition	Posted - 2009.07.07 04:43:00 - [37] Originally by: Kahega Amielden This isn't needed. You can already transport rigged ships with carriers and with orcas. I cannot understand why CCP thinks this is needed... Making it too easy to move fit/rigged ships around makes the universe even smaller, and reduces the strategic benefits of small ships which already only barely make up for their direct combat disadvantage. I don't get CCP's mindset here. Easier is not necessarily better. Can CCP clarify WHY this is actually needed? Explain how this change will help gameplay? Did you even read my post? Originally by: Caldreis One of the fewest reasons I haven't fully trained battleship hull only cruiser and smaller hulls is that I love to collect and have one of each etc., which would make it painful to haul so many battleships to just move. I also don't like to be tied down to one place at all. Even having two or three sets of battleships wouldn't appeal to me as a solution. Now that said while true both orca/carrier can fill the role for ferry ships but I am talking about rigged battleships, which can't ever be ferried in highsec other than actually piloting it. Do you really want carrier to be allowed in highsec? Won't anyone think of the noobs?!
Sturmwolke Genyosha Legion	Posted - 2009.07.07 04:56:00 - [38] Edited by: Sturmwolke on 07/07/2009 04:58:52 Nice initial pricing ratio, but is adding more similar BPO the better solution? There are currently 77 rigs BPO in game. The proposed rig multiscaling will bring it to a total 77 x 3 = 231 BPO !! Pricing really isn't an issue since they're cheap, but handling all 231 BPOs just for rigs is almost ludicrous. I'd suggest coding the current rigs BPO so that you will have tabs for Small/Medium and Large. Saves you the trouble later when you decide to multiscale something else.
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2009.07.07 05:14:00 - [39] Originally by: Tau Cabalander I'm concerned that the Crane blockade runner may be made useless if not allowed to fit large (current sized) rigs. They are essential for this ship to fit a MWD, as well as remain competitive in cargohold size with other racial blockade runners. [Crane, Basic] Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Cap Recharger II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Ancillary Current Router I Cargohold Optimization I Since you'll be able to fid Medium rigs that have the same stats as large rigs, but cost less, why would you want to be able to fit large rigs???
Salpad Caldari Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.07.07 05:40:00 - [40] Originally by: Gripen Salvage conversion is fail. One more step to "do everything in empire" and nerf 0.0 or pvp profits. Maybe it would be better to give as inbuild low effectivness salvager as pvp ships simply can't fit standard one and often have to destroy tech 2 wrecks so they won't be salvaged by the enemy. I think you misunderstood that part of the dev blog. The purpose isn't to let industrialists convert one type of salvage into one other type, like it can be done with moon materials via "alchemy", but rather to convert the category of salvage items named as "broken" into the equivalent non-broken types. -- Salpad

Tau Cabalander Caldari	Posted - 2009.07.07 05:45:00 - [41] Originally by: Letrange Since you'll be able to fid Medium rigs that have the same stats as large rigs, but cost less, why would you want to be able to fit large rigs??? Perhaps I misunderstand. I thought small and medium rigs would be lesser versions of the current ones (large), for example: large = 15%, medium = 10%, small = 5%.
Salpad Caldari Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.07.07 05:48:00 - [42] Originally by: Gnulpie 1) To fit small rigs should cost only few calibration points. To fit medium rigs should cost more calibration points and to fit large rigs should cost most points. 2) Small ships should have few calibration points (just enough that they can fit 3 small rigs). Medium ships should have more calibration points and large ships should hsve most calibration points. 3) If you fit a small rig to a small ship, you get 100% rig efficienty. If you fit a small rig to a medium ship you get 66% efficiency of the rig, if you fit a small rig to a large ship you get 30% rig efficency. If you fit a medium rig to a small ship or a large rig to a medium ship you should get a rig efficiency boost of 30%. Long ago, like probably in early 2008, I suggested the opposite in Features & Ideas: Large-scale rigs would be as now, and battleships would have the same amounts of calibration points as now. Medium-scale rigs would cost more calibration points, and require fewer materials to make (so as to make them cheaper on the market), and cruisers and battlecruisers would have more calibration points. Small-scale rigs would cost even more calibration points, and require even fewer materials to make, and frigates and destroyers would have many more calibration points. Contra-intuitive, yes, but it would actually get the job done, in that depending on how calibration point cost scaling is done, it would either become very stupid to fit a too-small rig onto one's ship, or else become completely impossible. -- Salpad
Salpad Caldari Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.07.07 05:58:00 - [43] Originally by: Tau Cabalander Perhaps I misunderstand. I thought small and medium rigs would be lesser versions of the current ones (large), for example: large = 15%, medium = 10%, small = 5%. Yes, you did misunderstand. Large rigs are for battleships. Medium rigs are for cruisers and battlecruiers. Small rigs are for frigates and destroyers. It is currently possible to fit rigs onto any size ship (except perhaps capitals - I don't know about those), but rigs are priced, due to the materials required to make them, such that it only makes sense to invest in them for one's battleships (and in some cases battlecruisers, e.g. Drake pilots with passive shield tanking rigs). It would be ridiculously expensive to fit rigs to a cruiser, destroyer or frigate, and many of us have been complaining about this for a long time, asking CCP to please introduce cheaper rigs that can only be fitted to smaller ships. -- Salpad
Notorious Fuzz	Posted - 2009.07.07 06:34:00 - [44] Originally by: Salpad Originally by: Tau Cabalander Perhaps I misunderstand. I thought small and medium rigs would be lesser versions of the current ones (large), for example: large = 15%, medium = 10%, small = 5%. Yes, you did misunderstand. Large rigs are for battleships. Medium rigs are for cruisers and battlecruiers. Small rigs are for frigates and destroyers. It is currently possible to fit rigs onto any size ship (except perhaps capitals - I don't know about those), but rigs are priced, due to the materials required to make them, such that it only makes sense to invest in them for one's battleships (and in some cases battlecruisers, e.g. Drake pilots with passive shield tanking rigs). It would be ridiculously expensive to fit rigs to a cruiser, destroyer or frigate, and many of us have been complaining about this for a long time, asking CCP to please introduce cheaper rigs that can only be fitted to smaller ships. To further that, percentage bonuses are already scaled properly. Smaller rigs shouldnt (and wont) have a lesser bonus.
Fi Vantage Minmatar Kha'rific-Mintor Outriders.	Posted - 2009.07.07 07:02:00 - [45] But the thing is, we are now limited to fitting T2 rigs if we wanted awesomeness, as opposed to having the opportunity to fit large rigs as well. I would rather that it were done like afterburners / armour plates / shield extenders, where it's possible to fit a larger size but inadvisable because of cost / fittings / ineffectiveness.
Mioelnir Minmatar Meltd0wn	Posted - 2009.07.07 07:38:00 - [46] Originally by: Fi Vantage But the thing is, we are now limited to fitting T2 rigs if we wanted awesomeness, as opposed to having the opportunity to fit large rigs as well. I would rather that it were done like afterburners / armour plates / shield extenders, where it's possible to fit a larger size but inadvisable because of cost / fittings / ineffectiveness. What the bloody hell are you talking about? Why are we "now" limited? It's not like we had different sizes of rigs until now. And a large trimark has the same benefit as a medium trimark, which is awesome. If it were similar to 800mm/1600mm plates or MSE/LSE relations, all it would mean is that the amount of competitive ships would be decreased even further, because you would not only have to squeeze oversized modules but also oversized rigs onto your ride. CCP is just paying respect to the fact that to convert less ship (Abaddon vs Rifter), you need less materials. It therefor should, and will be, cheaper. Now, blog feedback: 1. Awesome. 2. Awesome. Maybe a good time to resurrect the idea of pirate faction rigs (same benefit for less calibration). 1run BPCs via LP store. 3. Horrible. Do not do that. Winning a fight and holding the field is nowadays a lot more about the t2 salvage than about 300k isk t2 modules. If you really need to push t2 rig prices down (which I do not agree with), increase the drop rates. Also, do not forget Sentient Rogue Drones. Since they do not have a faction module lineup, they got huge t2 salvage drops. You therefor indirectly propose the highsec manufacturing of Commander-NPC faction loot. That said, a POS reactor is a horrible way to do it, because reactors need to run 24/7 to be anywhere near some resemblance of efficiency. Just like with Invention, you would introduce yet another mechanic that only reliably works if you flood the market regardless of actual demand. 4. Solutions have been floating around the forums for a long time. Introduce a tech 1 tier 2 or 3 freighter, with no regular cargo bay, not jump capable, and around 2m m3 of ship maintenance bay (4x biggest BS). Lock that bay in space (no scooping, fitting etc). 5. I'd postpone that one to at least 6 months after the introduction of the multi-size rigs. There are a lot of rigs, for example polycarbs or cargohold optimizers, that are used mainly for small/medium sized ships. Material demand should therefor drop as "large" production comes to a stop and I don't see a five-fold usage increase to balance this out. Current droprates could therefor be sufficient.
Fi Vantage Minmatar Kha'rific-Mintor Outriders.	Posted - 2009.07.07 08:09:00 - [47] Originally by: Mioelnir And a large trimark has the same benefit as a medium trimark, which is awesome. If it were similar to 800mm/1600mm plates or MSE/LSE relations, all it would mean is that the amount of competitive ships would be decreased even further, because you would not only have to squeeze oversized modules but also oversized rigs onto your ride. Retracting my statement because of good counterarguement.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.07 08:49:00 - [48] Originally by: Treelox Quote: 3. Salvage Conversion Salvage conversion is something we have wanted to look at for a while. This is the ability to effectively fix broken salvage so it can be used to manufacture Tech II rigs. The most likely way this will be done is a through a reactor which will convert a quantity of broken salvage to fixed salvage in reactors which can be placed at high sec starbases. I'm not sure I'm going to like this change. I would hate to see T2 rigs become so common. I currently feel that T2 rigs are perfectly priced, expensive as hell but not out of reach. I also feel that if CCP is going to do "salvage alchemy" that it shouldnt be done in high sec. Low sec is a waste land for the most part and needs as much incentive as it can get without taking away from the "rewards" of 0.0. While I have some doubt on the concept of salvage conversion (but the required salvage numbers can be high enough to keep the value of T2 salvage), I really fail to see how adding a production chain that will require people to spend 20 minutes every day in low sec to pick up production/drop next batch of salvage for production will help to populate low sec in any way. Making more people pass thorough is different from populating a area. It will help slightly gatecampers at low sec entry points, but encouraging gatecamping is the last thing to do if you want to increase the stable population in low sec. To add to that with wormholes it is easiest to use a POS in a wormhole to produce low volume stuff like T2 salvage than a low sec POS, so limiting salvage conversion to low sec or lower would simply place it to WH space or safe 0.0.
Morel Nova z3r0 Gravity YARRR and CO	Posted - 2009.07.07 09:12:00 - [49] I can see myself flying a lot more t1 cruisers after these changes. more rig slots and t2 ships being ridiculously priced right now. trimark rupture!!! Put in space whales!
Jarne Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations	Posted - 2009.07.07 09:19:00 - [50] Reprocessing one large rigs should yield 5 medium ones. Reprocessing one medium rig should yield 5 small ones. Reprocessing a small rig should yield whatever reprocessing a normal rig nowadays would (divided by 25, of course). - Success=Achievements/Expectations

Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.07.07 09:52:00 - [51] Originally by: Sturmwolke [There are currently 77 rigs BPO in game. The proposed rig multiscaling will bring it to a total 77 x 3 = 231 BPO !! ...I'd suggest coding the current rigs BPO so that you will have tabs for Small/Medium and Large. Saves you the trouble later when you decide to multiscale something else. agreed 101% either that or introduce some possibility to slice rigs down to smaller parts without the need extra bpos. Sturmwolke: you forgot the t2 variants, so 231x2=462 rig prints ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.07.07 10:39:00 - [52] Originally by: D Gelalder Link to discussion in Features and Ideas. Thanks, yes this is the thread where we would like to hear your opinions on the current rig balance in terms of their bonuses, drawbacks and calibration costs. Originally by: Gil Danastre With regards to the cost of rigs upon the multi size rigs implementation, are you taking into account that the supply of salvage will remain generally the same, so therefore the overall cost of rigs may increase since there's more rigs to spend salvage on creating? There will certainly be short term spikes and hoarding in preparation for the new additions as everyone rushes out to throw rigs on their assault frigates and the likes but there is no real material supply shortage that will not be remedied easily by yourselves if the effort is worth it to salvage more wrecks. Originally by: Letrange CCP Chronotis, question: Larges can be used in capital ships? or will there be capital sized rigs? Large rigs can be used in capital ships. We did create capital sized rigs as well but decided to not introduce those yet and concentrate on the addition of small and medium rigs for the 1.5 patch. It is actually something we are open to gathering opinions on as a capital sized rig would be much more expensive than large rigs and rigging your carrier would be much more costly if we did introduce them.

Kerdrak Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.07 10:44:00 - [53] Originally by: Jarne Edited by: Jarne on 07/07/2009 09:27:33 Reprocessing one large rigs should yield 5 medium ones. Reprocessing one medium rig should yield 5 small ones. Reprocessing a small rig should yield whatever reprocessing a normal rig nowadays would (divided by 25, of course). Edit: Forgot, why - to avoid the new ~150 BPOs... This, no more BPOs please. ________________________________________
Uzume Ame	Posted - 2009.07.07 11:13:00 - [54] Chronotis, about transport of rigged ships... I suppose the addition of "authored bays" (or whatever you called them) will open new possibilities about this: specialized freighters, new bay for motherships or whatever. I must agree with the crew saying T2 rigs "alchemy" shouldn't be possible in hisec, make it only possible in lowsec/null.
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2009.07.07 11:24:00 - [55] Originally by: Tau Cabalander Originally by: Letrange Since you'll be able to fid Medium rigs that have the same stats as large rigs, but cost less, why would you want to be able to fit large rigs??? Perhaps I misunderstand. I thought small and medium rigs would be lesser versions of the current ones (large), for example: large = 15%, medium = 10%, small = 5%. The reason you miss-understood is that someone has been pushing hard for this effect by repeating it at all opportunities. If you re-read the dev-blog you will see that it specifically stated the stats would be un-changed.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.07.07 11:49:00 - [56] Originally by: Uzume Ame Chronotis, about transport of rigged ships... I suppose the addition of "authored bays" (or whatever you called them) will open new possibilities about this: specialized freighters, new bay for motherships or whatever. There is a number of possible approaches to this, special bays are one possible solution as long as we do not arrive back at the matryoshka doll scenario with hauling capacity we had issues with in the past. The orca can indeed carry battlecruisers and below. It would not be right for it to be able to carry battleships however chiefly due to the orcas size and current focus. One common idea is to allow freighters to use a special configuration rig which will reduce their cargobay capacity but add a reasonable ship maintenance bay which is big enough for battleships and have some checks to ensure the ship is empty before allowing a configuration change. This kind of approach is something we have thought about and will explore further in the future.

Grez Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.07.07 12:07:00 - [57] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Blah! Get rid of 'packaged' size, and just have a universal size. I fail to understand how a Megathron 'packaged' is smaller than an 'unpackaged' one. Reduce the size, and viola, problem solved. --- Grez: I shot the sheriff Kalazar: But I could not lock the Deputy BECAUSE OF FALCON
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Eclats de verre	Posted - 2009.07.07 12:16:00 - [58] Sized rigs is an epic win! No more t2 frigate rigging frustration... They will be cost effective. For the broken -> intact material conversion, limiting it to lowsec is the right thing to do, just make it work into one of the usual reactors and it will be fine. No need for another one with other restrictions that will be a headache. I also like the reprocess large rigs to smaller ones idea. -- Fanfest memories : I looked in your eyes And I found the galaxy Now I'm stuck in eve.
Nidhiesk	Posted - 2009.07.07 12:38:00 - [59] 1. Multi-Sized Rigs : please, no more bpo ffs. Theres already too much on the market. You know what would be nice. 1 blueprint for a rig and when you manufacture it, theres a selection box that you have to choose between small, medium, large or x-large. so when you click on ok after your done it tells you what you need. Hell you could do that type of things to all bpo like the ammo for example. Also, I get the feeling with this change that I could use small rigs on BS...less cheaper and Ill be able to fit...why use a large one ? seems like theres some info missing about the restriction part here. 2. Rig balancing: True, the drawback is not enough just dont exagerate. Also, mining rigs could be a good thing but there seems to be missing some other rigs like increase cpu ???? 3. salvage conversion : could be a good idea but since people dont like it because it will be available in high sec, how about making it less effective in high sec. That way low sec/zero salvage conversion could become more effective Just like a "bonus". Also, except for starbases, isn't there something we can do about this except to use this in a starbase or something. I was thinking of an item that anyone could uses instead of "activating" it in a starbase instead. That way anyone could use it either in low, high or zero since its independant. 4.Transport of Rigged Ships: this might be stupid but just keep it simple, if you repackage the ship, ask if the person wants to recover the rigs... or better yet, when you repackage it, keep the rigs...simple as that. it would be less pain that way and very simple...for us (not the coders I think lol) 5.Salvage Drop Rates : "Some time will be spent looking at this to ensure drop rates are suitable for the future."...no , do it at the same time of this change..if not the prices will have almost no effect. and yes increase some drop rates cause its ridiculus. By the time I got over 1k of rigged circuit thingy I only have 50-100 console ward..its ridiculus. but in anycase, I want that t2 rig on my raven or my other ships hihi Demands: my opinion on this about the current situation is this: some salvage components right now are cheap because its useless to fit a rig on something small like a cruiser so no demand, low prices... simple concept. well its not cost effective. the rule here with most people is "dont fit a rig if the cost is higher or equal to a ship". take that into account and the demand is not large..so prices are low cause demand is building up. With the upcoming changes I feel like there will be more rigs available on market and since its going to be cheaper (I hope) that means the demand will increase. This should increase the prices since more units will be sold. but im no expert here and in the end, I think the rigs prices will increase. uhh, just for info here so everyone knows since im no expert I can say this from experience when looking at Eve, if the demand increase and its keeping steady or even increase, then the prices should increase only for the fact that if you know if its selling like hot bread. Look at the torpedo for example, no demand after the missile nerf and the prices dropped like a fly.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War	Posted - 2009.07.07 13:10:00 - [60] CCP Chronotis, I beg my pardon for rising the same question again, but that's just cause I really want to get an answer Will you consider removing existing rigs to the ships cargoholds? This will be a fair solution for those of us, who already have some expensive rigs mounted onto 'undersized' ships. They weren't undersized the moment we rigged'em, that's the entire point. No one was aware of the upcoming rig rebalance. Can we at least get an option to relocate some really expensive tech2 ones? Via petitioning it or something. Why would I want to have 400 mil in rigs into my hac now when anyone can get the same effect for merely 80 mil?! I'm not alone who thinks this will be a proper way to implement the new rig mechanics, which is generally a good thing. See here. I don't think this will hurt anyone else. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.