EVE Search - Rig Balancing - Your Opinions and Suggestions!

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Rig Balancing - Your Opinions and Suggestions!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Sky Lunartakker FSK23	Posted - 2009.07.31 18:11:00 - [271] Well, I miss: - Mining Rigs - Rigs for better overheating - Rigs for ship-maint.-bay - Better Drone Rigs - Rigs for smuggling^^ may if their come some skills about that - Hull Repair Rigs
EdwardNardella Caldari Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.31 21:51:00 - [272] Originally by: Sky Lunartakker Well, I miss: - Mining Rigs - Rigs for better overheating - Rigs for ship-maint.-bay - Better Drone Rigs - Rigs for smuggling^^ may if their come some skills about that - Hull Repair Rigs -Gas Cloud Harvesting Rigs.
Windryder New Fnord Industries	Posted - 2009.08.01 08:59:00 - [273] Originally by: EdwardNardella Originally by: Sky Lunartakker Well, I miss: - Mining Rigs - Rigs for better overheating - Rigs for ship-maint.-bay - Better Drone Rigs - Rigs for smuggling^^ may if their come some skills about that - Hull Repair Rigs -Gas Cloud Harvesting Rigs. - Hull Resistance Rigs
Chris Fierce Caldari NoD Imperium	Posted - 2009.08.01 13:07:00 - [274] Originally by: Windryder One suggestion sent to me was to allow the manufacturing interface to allow you to choose if your BPO was making a S, M or L rig. This makes perfect sense to me. --------------------------- I gashmoygadied her gaflavity with my googus and won a Hookbill.
Theqwert125 Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.08.02 05:51:00 - [275] Personally, I would like to see all rigs have meaningful drawbacks, and yet not have drawbacks that prevent the rigs from functioning. The drawbacks should force specialization; for example, locking range rigs should reduce scan resolution, and fitting a scan res and locking range rig should not give a worthwhile benefit. An example of a bad drawback is the current fitting drawbacks on weapon rigs, because they force the use of lower tier guns or fitting mods, both of which can nerf damage or range, making the rigs pointless. Secondly, large rigs should cost from 5 to 12 M isk, with 5M isk rigs being the less directly useful bonuses (like shield booster powergrid use) and 12M for the directly useful bonuses ( like shield boost amount). With these two changes rigs should allow actual specialization without being prohibitively expensive. The primary reason for not rigging should NOT be cost, but the loss of flexibility. Some more possibe rigs/drawbacks: Kinetic missile damage boost/EM-Therm-Exp damage nerf Drone damage rigs/Turret-Launcher nerf
Tarron Sarek Gallente Biotronics Inc. Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.08.03 13:29:00 - [276] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 03/08/2009 13:32:07 Originally by: Theqwert125 Personally, I would like to see all rigs have meaningful drawbacks, and yet not have drawbacks that prevent the rigs from functioning. The drawbacks should force specialization; for example, locking range rigs should reduce scan resolution, and fitting a scan res and locking range rig should not give a worthwhile benefit. An example of a bad drawback is the current fitting drawbacks on weapon rigs, because they force the use of lower tier guns or fitting mods, both of which can nerf damage or range, making the rigs pointless. This sounds like a concept that makes sense. Actually, it should've been like this right from the start. - Tanking rigs could reduce damage, probably through the reduction of powergrid and CPU. Armor rigs: PG and a bit CPU Shield rigs: CPU and a bit PG - Weapon rigs could reduce tank, probably by reducing speed, cap recharge or signature. - Speed rigs should be defined as either 'offensive' or 'defensive', and their drawback should hamper the respective opposite. However, armor seems like a bad drawback. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well "Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam"
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.08.04 12:24:00 - [277] from what i gather when looking at rigs is; they're supposed to be half-a-T2-module (?). ofc quite a few modules don't have a counterpart in any other slot - such as the warp speed rig. sometimes their respective counterparts don't work in the same way - see shield extenders or cap batteries. however, it's safe to say that CCC rigs with their 20% cap recharge can hardly be justified. but i'm sure the ravens will go medieval on me now... my view on some rigs: armor rigs: although im sure these will enjoy a drop in price due to ishtars e.a. requiring a lot less salvage to end up with the same bonuses, plz consider reviewing a few of the ingredient compositions; mostly armor plates obviously - how about shifting at least the resistance rigs more towards those nanite compound thingies...? astro-rigs: i do use dynamic fuel valves - i already have 3 nanos on the scimi. engine thermal shieldings are weaker in effect and lost all practicality when warp scramblers turned off your mwd instantaneously. hyperspatial velocity rigs could technically be used on scimitars aswell in order to not slow your t2 cruiser gang down when warping those 100+ AU across venal - logistics are the only t2 cruiser with 3AU/s -.- but in the end the effect is close to naught due to spending more than half of your warp travel time acc~ and decelerating. besides, warp isn't much of a factor, which also screws with the warp core optimzer assuming the 1:5:25 scale of rig ingredients atm, i'm certain that trit bars will drop considerably though - with iterons being able to fit medium cargohold optimizations. the ~~horadric cube~~ reactor idea for conversion will bring us the 41847.8m¦ iteron V and possibly the 100951.3m¦ orca though ^^ - not sure how far this can counter the rapid fall of trit bars though. drone rigs: don't give in to the guys asking for more damage across the board, plz. drones are quite powerful as it is, ships like ishtar, curse, domi etc are feared and in some cases overpowered. my only beef with drone rigs is the drawback: "all" cpu of a ship. i'd rather have had speed as a drawback on this one but since that's already reserved, how about a 5..10% to mass...? apart from that, i'd like to see a simple boost to the drone speed rig and a massive one to both maintenance bot rig and web drone rig. the former because logistics show us how even a +100% isnt attractive and the latter due to stacking penalty on webs. electronic rigs: the gravi rig is popular for obvious reasons. someone already mentioned the joy of fitting T2 ones. since probe strength has become less important (contrary to popular perception, but i'll gladly explain to anyone interested) so could the required calibration be reduced. with most people thinking of cov ops frigs and thus of small rigs, T2 will be a bigger issue. with jam ships usually equipped with a bonus to jammer cap, i dont see much use for that rig, nor can i come up with a scenario that would require the weird liquid cooled electronics this group doesnt have a drawback yet - i suggest it messes up your targeting abilities, lock range and/or scan resolution shrug elec sup rigs: i could live with dampener rigs adding 10%. with tracking disruptors (or their counters) requiring a review, i'll leave that for now but painting just got more popular and could very well do with a rig that reduced shields ^^ has anyone used the cloak-delay-helper yet? not sure if there's any cure at all for this one... even a -50% doesn't sound omgwtfbbqpwned energy grid rigs: as mentioned before; nerf ccc rigs. unless you're running on cap boosters or got a cap chain going among guardians/basilisks, this one improves your ship better than any cap saving rig which only supports a module or two - without any drawback atm. down to at least -15%. feel free to keep the (way) more expensive cap amount rig as it is. - putting the gist back into logistics
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.08.04 14:17:00 - [278] weapon rigs: humm actually i think they're ok the way they're now. however, i'm not too familiar with missile rigs. maybe a bomb rig would please the crowd...? +AoE mayhap... oh and could projectile get one for power grid reduction like lasers and hybrids get their algid thingies? i know i know it's kinda recursive but this could relieve the victims of the artillery disaster a bit. but then again..... i suppose the pg rig would still be more useful. shield rigs: not too familiar with those either; i prefer not to ruin the scimitars signature ^^ although the drawback is relative contrary to extenders. i'm sure the biggers ships enjoy these more - especially those recent occurances of extended amarr T2 cruisers, outsourcing the (lack of) med slots to rigs. but yeah, like trimarks, extenders have become kinda mandatory. only a doomsday nerf would probably take care of this asymmetry ( ... plz...?) but then again... it's also mandatory for the usual blobbing in all celestial directions of eve. yes, resistance rigs of both families cannot compete with their buffer brethren or rep enhancers. the only one i personally consider is the EM armor rig on minnie BS in combination with active hardeners. - putting the gist back into logistics
Letifer Deus Bannable Offense. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.08.06 01:25:00 - [279] damage rigs either need to become separate from the stacking nerf or calibration cost needs to be severely reduced. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
aruchra	Posted - 2009.08.06 05:59:00 - [280] Sorry just join the party, make 3 size rig for each class of ship ?? you will make more useless items into game, example gravity capacitor upgrade this rig ppl use only in covert ops size or cruiser size ship to do scanning, they will not use in BS, so u create new rig and the old rig what u gonna do about it. Low Friction nozzle joints, this ussually rig into transport ship what the point you make 3 size of this rig who gonna use it ?? you create more items but dont u think u make more waste item, Cargohold Optimization, who going to put this rig into combat ship ?? are you going to make frigate size hauler ?? Please dont everytime introduce new things u make other thing become junks. There is already too many junk rigs inside eve. Stasis drone augmentor, Drone durability enhancer. You change the mechanic of probe, now probe market is death with their bpo and bpc, and try to look at gravity rig market volume. Polycarbon who use it now ?? Some change is good but some is real bad. sorry about poor english, no offense just my idea.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.08.06 10:37:00 - [281] Unfitted rigs can be reprocessed into salvage, with little to zero loss. All unfitted rigs will become large rigs post-patch. Ergo, if you have unfitted rigs that are not going to be of a useful size post patch, reprocess them now and sell the components. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule
aruchra	Posted - 2009.08.06 12:43:00 - [282] yes true, thanks for the suggestion. but my point is why always make a useless item into eve ?? or make a use item become useless ??
Sky Lunartakker FSK23	Posted - 2009.08.09 00:31:00 - [283] What about XXL Rigs for Cap-Ships!?
Booken Blue Ixion Defence Systems	Posted - 2009.08.10 10:27:00 - [284] I believe that small/mediums rigs should have the same bonus as larges, use less salvage, but use MORE calibration. Smaller ships would have more calibration points. Larger ships less point.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2009.08.11 10:13:00 - [285] In my opinion rigs are modifications to the ships and should therefore come with a penalty. However as opposed to how it is now I suggest the penalty depending on where in the ship the rig is installed as this feels more logical. So, what about having the drawbacks locked to the rig slots themselves? Say in one ship you have 3 rig slots, one located in the hull, one in the armor and one in the shield (technically in the hull next to the shield emitter I guess). By putting rigs into these slots you at the same time apply the drawback of the rig slot as you impede on the normal operation of the ship by cramming in a lot of new stuff where there really is not place to do so. This means that the more rigs you put in the more specialized and gimped your ship will be. In my example ship above for example the first rig would probably go into the hull slot as the drawback there means less cargo or a weaker structure, something most warships can live with. This ship might be armor tanked so the next rig can probably safely go into the shield rig slot. The last rig however will severely affect the performance of the ship and you will have to think twice before using that last slot. All ships don't have to have those three rig slot positions, and T2 ships even only have two. If you're in a drone ship maybe one rig slot will reduce your drone bay or bandwidth. If you're in a missile ship maybe one rig slot will reduce the flight time of missiles. I don't know, be creative
Mr PoutyFace	Posted - 2009.08.12 03:32:00 - [286] Thumbs up for rebalancing the salvage. I'd also change the polycarbs to something other than alloyed trit bars, as they are being kept artificially high due to the cargo expander rigs. Anyways, I was playing around on the test server and was pondering the implementation of multiple class sizes of rigs. Instead of splitting into 3 sizes, I'd suggest making just one more class of rigs, "civilian" or something, that are 1/3 as effective as T1, take 1/4 the calibration, and cost 1/4 (or even 1/5) the materials to make. This would solve the being-feasible-to-fig-rigs-to-T1-frigates problem, and not mess up the rig balance. Here are the negatives I see with the planned implementation of 3 difference sizes (outside of just making things more complex): -does not make sense with the rest of the game: % modifiers are generally size-independant modules, and off the top of my head, all the rigs are % modifiers -does not make sense in the context of the original purpose of rigs: rigs were supposed to be something optional, a considerable investment. It's not feasible to fit a rig on a T1 Frigate? Neither is putting a officer mod on it... -introduces more balance issues and creates useless rigs: What would be the point of a small cargo expander rig, or a small sentry damage rig? And why should a Trimark be cheaper for a 220mil Absolution than a 60mil Dominix?
VC General	Posted - 2009.08.12 06:08:00 - [287] I think CCP has just realized the unavoidable truth, that if you give players an option to do something, most of them will use it unless you make it ridiculously difficult, like officer mods. Most people already fly their ships in specialized roles, so the rigs don't really help define that. Rigs are pretty much just considered as extra custom slots now, so long as the expense of a ship is in line with the rigs desired. If they were more expensive, no one would use them save those who use things like officer mods, i.e. like T2 rigs. By not changing the rigging system, all you really do is exclude rigs from nearly every frigate and T1 cruiser, and even some BC and BS.
Sky Lunartakker FSK23	Posted - 2009.08.12 21:33:00 - [288] I can find some Frig, which i would fit cargo rigs. It¦s great and it makes more variety for fitting your very own speciallized ship. The more complexity, the more definition of EVE it is to the place it all-time liked to be - a great opposite to mainstream-thumb kiddy-games ;) A game for Nerds, and with good quality!
5pinDizzy Amarr Caldari State 1st Protectorate	Posted - 2009.08.13 16:17:00 - [289] Originally by: Windryder Originally by: EdwardNardella Originally by: Sky Lunartakker Well, I miss: - Mining Rigs - Rigs for better overheating - Rigs for ship-maint.-bay - Better Drone Rigs - Rigs for smuggling^^ may if their come some skills about that - Hull Repair Rigs -Gas Cloud Harvesting Rigs. - Hull Resistance Rigs Sensor Strength Rigs.
Glarion Garnier The Scope	Posted - 2009.08.14 06:32:00 - [290] New rigs that could be introduced: -hull resistance rig 7-15% to all hull resistances -hull integrity maximizer 10-20% hull hp -smartbomb accelerator rig - penalty in the form of more cap use - Even tho I bet these are reserved for tech 3 rigs. They would be fun additions. -cargobay to drone bay conversion rig -hull to cargo bay conversion rig converts 50% hull to more cargo bay - _________________________________ -be vary of the men behind the curtain-
Sue Malorie Caldari Dai Dai Hai	Posted - 2009.08.19 04:21:00 - [291] Edited by: Sue Malorie on 19/08/2009 04:21:53 Most of the rigs are cheap, that is because they do not make any large changes and not so popular to use. Some rigs are still kinda expensive, like CCC and Polycarbone. Do NOT nerfe any rigs, but rather add some more dmg points to missile / gunnery rigs. More % resist to shield rigs as well. Cheers, SM
CPL Madison	Posted - 2009.08.19 11:41:00 - [292] two words FACTION RIGS give us faction RIGS! yes that means caldari navy capacitor control circuits and more!!!!
Tiger's Spirit	Posted - 2009.08.19 12:57:00 - [293] CCP wrote : "we would like to harvest your grey matter and get your opinions on rigs which you think are uber like a capacitor control circuit rig or rigs which suck like the warp speed rig and what you think would help make them useful or more balanced." 1.5 patch coming but nothing changed, nobody paid attention to ideas. I saw just one new unusable drone rig (EW drone range bulls*t) No rig balancing, no new changes.
Cedims	Posted - 2009.08.20 00:12:00 - [294] I actually kind of like the idea (already mentioned in previous posts) of players NOT being able to fit multiple of the same rig, since they really aren't "modules", but alterations to the ship. I also like permanence to the fitted rigs. These ideas were mentioned in a couple of early posts by Digital Communist (or something like that). :) Sound ideas, IMO!
Pooter Sezno	Posted - 2009.08.20 15:57:00 - [295] Edited by: Pooter Sezno on 20/08/2009 16:17:28 I'd like to see the salvage being reprocessed into perfect parts for T2 rig manufacture. After all that's what you do with salvage, try to make a perfect item from some broken ones. Make it possible in a deployable facility on all POS. With a success chance multiplier bonuses for low sec or 0.0. Or a material requirement, like electronic parts or mechanical parts needed also to make finished item. Poots
Solid Prefekt Haven Front	Posted - 2009.08.20 16:33:00 - [296] * I do not like the limiting so you can one fit one of a particular type of rig. You already have stacking penalty that takes care of this well. * I do not like a permanent rig. If you want to get rid of it then you are already losing the isk. Having rig is also already limiting as you can't repackage * I do agree with the point that Polys are artificially high because of the Cargo Expander rigs. With speed nerfed so badly, it would be nice to have Polys cost a little less. Lowering the T2 rigs would be a good idea to get more people to use them (beyond carebears) which would be another isk sink.
Kalia Masaer Rosa Castellum	Posted - 2009.08.20 17:27:00 - [297] An Idea for balancing rigs is possibly to make the bonuses more uniformly inline with their standard modual counter parts. Right now a CCC I is exactly the same bonus as a Cap Recharger I. Meanwhile a Projectile Burst Aerator I only gives a 10% bonus to damaged and has a 10% penalty to PG requirements its most similar mod the Gyrostabilizer I grants a a 7% bonus to damage but also a 7.5% bonus to ROF with no penalty. Then consider the Core Defense Field Purger I, it grants a -20% bonus to shield recharge though you suffer a -10% penalty to sig radius. It's closest T1 counterpart the shield recharger I grants only a -10% bonus to shield recharge. In fact it even out performs the Shield recharger II that only grants a -15% bonus. Clearly the effects of these rigs are not balanced in their effectiveness when compared to their T1 standard modual counterparts. CDFP I outperforms even its T2 equivelant and suffers a penalty, CCC I performs identically to its T1 equivelant. PGA I doesnt' perform as well as its equivelant T1 Mod and on top of that gets a penalty. The balance is clearly off, there will have to be some degree of similarity in the effectiveness of rigs if the desire is to have them all viable.
StabHore	Posted - 2009.08.20 18:26:00 - [298] Originally by: CPL Madison two words FACTION RIGS give us faction RIGS! yes that means caldari navy capacitor control circuits and more!!!! No, and it would be an Amarr Navy CCC. Get your factions right before asking for stupid things.
Poena Loveless Minmatar Dawn of a new Empire	Posted - 2009.08.20 18:44:00 - [299] Ew Drone Optimal range rig? Who thinks of this crap, seriously? I'd prefer having less rigs available then having something like the rig that helps you scan for veldspar .3 seconds faster taking up a slot on "ccp's idea of a fine selection". IMO, only about 25% of the current rigs are useful, maybe an additional 15% are niche useful-- rest are crap. I'm not one of those players that is asking for overpower(ing) rigs like drone damage/ship main array expander or something, just try to think through new rig ideas before implementing them. The fact that the Signal Focusing Kit rig even exists only leads me to believe this hasn't happened in the past.
Ore Farmer	Posted - 2009.08.20 20:18:00 - [300] This idea has probly already been touched on, but I couldnt stay reading through 10 pages of posts to make sure. Mining rigs... I know drone mining augmentors are available, but what about actual mining bonus rigs for our ships? Cycle time reduction, harvest amount, cpu reduction / powergrid reduction of lasers? Another idea as a group oriented rig for mining ops. Say fitted to an orca, to boost overal yield of anyone fleeted? There are plently of rigs for weapons, shields, armor...but I think the mining industry has been forgotten in this department.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: 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.