| 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) |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
   |
Posted - 2009.07.07 14:52:00 -
[61]
almost forgot the packaged rigged ships part:
make transport contracts for rigged ships decrease their volume to a point where they can reasonably be transported. (being able to contract rigged ships is ofc necessary)
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Nuts Nougat
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 15:21:00 -
[62]
I suggest making rigs not stack with their module counterparts. Then if some rigs are too powerful (i.e. pre-stack-nerf locus) nerf it a bit.
---
|
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:08:00 -
[63]
How about skill boosting rigs? Have rigs that provide a +1 skill boost to certain fitting skills. They would make equipping T2 equipment easier for newbies. The rigs would need to be relatively cheap, since they would be useless once you trained up to level 5 (or whatever is necessary to fit the item.)
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:00:00 -
[64]
I believe the largest problem/concern I see is adding any step that requires a reactor. Now I realize this is probably to make the t2 rigs more common in theory, but you have to factor in the added cost.
Without knowing time involved etc hard to figure out that. However I doubt they come down as much as you hope they will because of this step.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal |
Gordon Red
SteelVipers
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:09:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Gordon Red on 07/07/2009 17:16:23
 Originally by: Robot Robot
Offensive Computation Upgrade I reduces by 15% the CPU need of all turrets and missile bays
Already exists... 
for example: "Algid Energy Administrations Unit I"
CPU Need Bonus -10 %
But what I never understood, why there is a "Ancillary Current Router I" +10% PG, with NO drawbacks and there are only rigs for turrets that increase CPU (with a PG benality).
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
Kethry Avenger
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:10:00 -
[66]
1. Multi-Sized Rigs
Good idea. I like the idea of having an option what size to build better than adding a crap ton of new bps.
2. Rig Balancing
Good. Nerfing Bad. Get rid of useless rigs, take a long look at penalties, and don't nerf anything, if there is an inequality between two rigs boost the weaker one instead.
3. Salvage Conversion
Give my alt something else to do with my Highsec POS.
4. Transport of Rigged Ships
The ability for a ship to transport 2 or more rigged Battleships including T2 versions in highsec would be a very welcome addition.
5. Salvage Drop Rates
Changing drop rates, and changing salvage types for specific rigs to even out the market a bit would be good.
|
Gordon Red
SteelVipers
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:16:00 -
[67]
A rigs to reduce the "Signature Radius" of the ship would be interesting. (-10% wouldn't be enough)
Also a rig that reduce the "Signature Resolution" of the fitted weapons.
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:22:00 -
[68]
I suppose it's less important now that falcons are a bit nerfed, but I always thought there should be a rig to make your ship more resistant to jams.
I never could figure out why jammers were allowed to affect jam strength via ship bonus, modules, and rigs, but you could only resist via modules.
|
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:24:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Gordon Red
A rigs to reduce the "Signature Radius" of the ship would be interesting. (-10% wouldn't be enough)
Also a rig that reduce the "Signature Resolution" of the fitted weapons.
signed for the sig radius one.
|
Robot Robot
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:31:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Gordon Red
Edited by: Gordon Red on 07/07/2009 17:16:23
Originally by: Robot Robot
Offensive Computation Upgrade I reduces by 15% the CPU need of all turrets and missile bays
Already exists...
for example: "Algid Energy Administrations Unit I"
CPU Need Bonus -10 %
But what I never understood, why there is a "Ancillary Current Router I" +10% PG, with NO drawbacks and there are only rigs for turrets that increase CPU (with a PG benality).
well colour me... something.
I fly minmatar and no such rig exists for projectile weapons. I wonder why... no really, I wonder.
I do like the idea of there actually being DIFFERENT rigs for different weapon types, but it would be nice if there was some corresponding rig that projectiles got and the others didn't...
like maybe one that gives a bonus to clip size so that we could load a few more rounds into our artillery?
that would be fantastic
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:31:00 -
[71]
Shield / Armor resist rigs.
Please remove stacking from these items.
Rigs are supposed to be permanant changes to the ship stats they are not modules.
If for example I fit a 30% EM rig to a T1 ship that ship should then have the following base shild resists 30/20/40/50
Increase there calibration to 200 for T2 and 150 for T1 similar to ccc's
|
Mura Hime
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:34:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Kantrel
There are many things that need attention in this area, from the drawbacks of each rig group (or lack thereof) to the bonuses being rather weak where a 10% bonus does not really scale well at all between each effect and the presence of a whole bunch of rather useless rigs to the introduction of new rigs like mining rigs.
Did I read that right?
Industrial rigs?
Hmmmmm....
Here's a couple of suggestions:
Industrial Rigs
==================
ORE Laser Intensifier I/II
5%/10% Range boost at the cost of CPU
Calibration Cost 100/150
ORE Laser Modulator I/II
5%/10% increase yield at the cost of CPU
Calibration Cost 100/150
ORE/Industrial Field Capacitor I/II
Use less capacitor for mining eq
Calibration Cost 100/150
ORE cpu enhancement I/II
Reduce cycle time by 3%/7% at the expense of powergrid
Calibration Cost 100/150
ORE Command Subroutines I/II
increase command links by 7%/14%
Calibration Cost 100/150
=======================================
Maybe some Ice specific ones?
oh! please... have you look carefuly at what remain in a hulk with 3x mod strip miner + 2x mining upg t¦ small shield boost t¦ and roid scaner.... 1 unit of cpu left
if you want to have a cpu drawback at least give a cpu increase first or change the draw back to speed or armor, radius, shield... anything but cpu
|
Anita Wildstorm
Amarr
Les Mineurs Galactiques
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:37:00 -
[73]
what happend to the already rig fited to a ship ?? since all present rig will be large one ... hi have a few ship t¦ frig with rig in them will they stay large one?
|
Sen Quenten
Gallente Mining and Manufacturing Inc
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:47:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Treelox
Edited by: Treelox on 06/07/2009 19:29:51
I dont think that any sort of Salvage reactor should be allowed in high sec, it should be a low sec and below sort of POS mod. High Sec already has a bunch of relatively risk free ways to make isk, give a bone to the waste land that is low sec and put this activity there.
this. For all the same reasons that normal reactors aren't in highsec. Put them in highsec and everyone and their mother's uncle will have one or twelve and T2 salvage will be, for all intents and purposes, worthless. Requiring it in lowsec brings some risk and barrier to entry to the process with is a Good Thing(tm).
|
To mare
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 18:18:00 -
[75]
1st
make polycarbon reduce mass again there is no reason to use them on any good setup, the only reason trit bar are sold is to make cargo rigs + some small number of aux thruster and low friction crap.
make them -10% mass they will be less powerful than the old poly in nanoage but the could have a reason to be crafted.
2nd
i dont get why offensive rigs stack while defensive rigs dont, make trimark, extender rigs, etc stacking penalized or remove the stacking penality of offensive rigs with weapon upgrades.
3rd
trimark + shield extender rig are the standard rig to be used on most pvp BS (some fit shield res because they are cheap but thats all) give us a reason to fit something else.
4rd
i would like to see
|
To mare
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 18:19:00 -
[76]
Edited by: To mare on 07/07/2009 18:19:44
stupid forum double post
|
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 19:26:00 -
[77]
Ok lets see you want to make rigs more viable by making smaller rigs
some of this change will be offset by the fact that some people already put what are currently large rigs into medium/small ships
However you really donÆt plan to increase the drop rates.
so the only way to increase supply is by increasing the number of ships we destroy
but the reality is your brining in new mechanisms (t3 ships, when can we expect the small and large versions of those?) for players to make ISK at besides rig based salvaging.
That and the reality is that people going after Rig salvage will also generate more ISK from bounties and Non rig salvaging of dropped modules. . . So more ISK going into the game + more Salvaged based minerals going into the game.
boy you guys love setting explosive charges of random type and size in random locations then setting them off at random dontcha?
Its also called <<ARROW>> over your players just to see what will happen, but then IÆm going to be honest and admit that probably why we play the game!
****************
By the way. . . .
ENOUGH ALREADY JUST FIX THE BLOODY FORUM A
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
Stop freaking worrying about why things the developerd did 5 years and more ago no longer make sence. |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 19:42:00 -
[78]
The only thing that i always thinking about is that Resistance Bonus of both Armor Resistance and Shield Resistance Rigs is way too low... So that is my opinion...
-------------------------------------------------
I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 20:06:00 -
[79]
Originally by: MotherMoon
... CCC's are broken, they should have a drawback, like 25% more heat build up when overheating maybe?
I think a heat penalty is a fantastic idea for the Energy Grid rig "problem".
I agree with everyone in saying that the Liquid Cooled Electronics rig is a failure.
Add a combat drone damage rig (for non-Sentry drones) and a drone bay expansion rig.
And while this problem is rooted in various aspects of the current game design, some attention could be paid to the passive tank rigs (Trimark, CDFP, etc). EVE is becoming buffer-tanks Online ...
|
Infinion
Caldari
Endless Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 20:06:00 -
[80]
in regards to the salvaging, hacking, and analyzing rigs how about changing them completely from a difficulty bonus to a timer that guarantees that you'll be able to access the can or wreck once the timer reaches 0. For identical rigs on the same ship it could reduce the timers countdown time. The times would be in relation to the access difficulty of the target whether its a frigate or a t2 cruiser
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 20:39:00 -
[81]
I suppose I could probably comment on most of the rigs, but it'd be a better use of my 4000 characters to just talk about the more interesting fixes to subpar rigs that I'd like to see.
Salvage Tackle is fine, but should be under Electronics.
Dynamic Fuel Valve and Engine Thermal Shielding need to be split up. Make one save capacitor(and a lot more than at present), make the other a different bonus - say, MWD sig.
Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizers suck. They need a massive bonus - likely +100% speed and -50% warp accel/decel times. Alternately, instead of that last bit, you have them lower the percentage speed needed to align for warp(if that's balanced, it may not be).
Warp Core Optimizer will only be usable if it gives -100% cap use, and the T2 variant also has zero penalties. Cap use for warping is not a big enough deal that eliminating it will hurt anything, but this way somebody, somewhere might use it.
Drone rigs look like they could be good, but they just aren't. I think the biggest culprit here is the penalty - change it to, say, agility? Noticeable, not used elsewhere, but not crippling to your fit. Also, move some of the stats up, and make Stasis apply to all EW drones.
Liquid Cooled Electronics might possibly be usable if it applied to every single Electronics skill, but my preferred solution is to repurpose it entirely into a Thermodynamics rig, to better fit the name.
Signal Disruption Amplifiers suck - there is no conceivable circumstance where they're better than a CCC/SMC. About the only thing I can think of for it to do is -CPU for all EWar modules. It'll need a name change, but I doubt anyone will notice.
Signal Focusing Kit should apply to all scanning - salvagers, codebreakers, probe launchers, the works.
Egress Port Maximizer is just worse than CCC/SMC. Up the bonus to -25%, or leave it as-is and also have it give +15% transfer amount. I think I prefer the latter, because it also affects nossing.
Powergrid Subroutine Maximizer pretty much has to apply to every non-shield skill in Engineering to matter, similar to LCE. Failing that, have it give a bonus to something like cap booster amount or the effectiveness of engineering modules(CPRs, PDUs, RCUs, etc).
Turret Discharge Elutriation need a different bonus. Even the Abaddon doesn't use all that much of its cap for guns, really. You can't make it -100%, and nothing short of that really measures up, especially for hybrids. I saw a suggestion for T2 penalty reduction, but that's only really a fix until something sane is done with T2 ammo. I'd suggest making them jack of all trades rigs, probably - instead of 15% to one stat, give them 5% to all stats.
Core Defense Charge Economizer needs a far better bonus - right now, it is strictly worse than an ACR three times over(less bonus, narrower bonus, having a penalty). I'd suggest also having it apply to shield boosters, and having it be a bonus on the order of -25%.
There's a whole pile of rigs that simply need bigger bonuses, of course - targeting range, tracking speed, all of those. But those changes are easy . It's the above ones, where simple numbers probably aren't the best solution, that I expect to be the harder ones to solve. I don't claim everything above is balanced, but I think they'd all be improvements over he status quo.
|
Tadesae
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 21:00:00 -
[82]
Originally by: murder one
Major rig issues-
Offensive vs. Defensive rigs- tanking rigs are so much better than damage rigs that damage rigs are rarely used. How to fix this: *completely remove* all stacking penalties from weapon rigs. If a player wants to make a DPS oriented fit instead of maximum tank, they should have that choice. As it is now, it's almost always Trimarks or Extender rigs etc.
This is the single biggest problem with rigs now. Fix this and rigs are immediately much better. As somone who spends a lot of time putting these things together it seems stupid that I make the same few tank rigs every day. If you think about it for a moment it seems obvious that rigging a ship for dps should be close to as effective as rigging for tank.
Originally by: murder one
Drone rigs- most of them really suck, and the bonuses on most simply aren't good enough to justify their use over something else (tanking rigs). There need to be damage rigs for normal drones. I'd even settle for damage rigs for particular drone damage types (EM, Therm) if a general damage rig is too powerful.
This goes to the offensive vs. defensive argument above. Somebody was so terrified about overpowering damage rigs when these came out that they didnt even make damage rigs for drones. As if the stacking penalties wouldn't have been enough to make them useless anyway.
Originally by: murder one
Other rigs-
I'd really like to see an ECCM rig, and a scan resolution rig that is just as effective as adding one or two T2 sensor boosters to a ship. Rigs Other Than Tanking (ROTTs) need to have bonuses that are SO good that they can't be ignored and would be powerful/interesting enough that a player would want to choose them over the same boring (but most efficient/effective) tank rig setups.
Those sound like good ideas too. Definately don't nerf the tank just make some other rigs a little more desireable.
Originally by: murder one
Why not remove all stacking penalties from all rigs and re-balance them accordingly? Allow players to make hyper-specialized ships if they like. More power to them if they want to adopt a particular play style or tactic. Just modify the rig bonuses to take into account the lack of stacking penalties. Particularly speed rigs.
I'm probably in favor of removing all penalties on the rigs. Removing them from damage rigs is a no brainer since damage output is the inverse of damage tanking. They just need to be comparable to the effectiveness of an armor or shield rigged ship.
|
William Hamilton
Caldari
Endless Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 21:17:00 -
[83]
Drawbacks should realy be decided per rig instead of per rig group. Thre should be some focus on making rigs specilization items, giving them a drawback that is definitley notable, but not evident if you are using the advantage of the rig to full effect.
ex: optimal range rigs with a small pentalty to tracking. Balanced so that you will track just as good, or better (with the rig skill trained) than before if you are keeping the gun in your new optimal, but having a big drawback if ships manage to get close in. Vice-versa for a tracking rig. Maybe weapon damage rigs that increase alpha damage at the cost of DPS, rigs that boost sensor range at the cost of scan res, etc...
As is the gun PG penalty is totaly contrary to the point of the rigs, forcing you to downsize your guns and negating any damage or range bonus
These will not all eb necisairly easy to design for, a rig that boosted scan res at the cost of decreased lock range would be not terribly useful, considering the tacklers that would want this tend to have smallish lock ranges to begin with, reducing these further would be asinine. So it might take a bit of doing...
Also, make rigs on a seperate stacking than modules.
|
RedSplat
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 21:26:00 -
[84]
My opinion is tha CCP shleve all these dinky little easily resolved projects and deal with rather more serious issues that effect core gameplay.
You started this thread
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1051722&page=33
Stop treatng it like a Jonah
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
it does get progressively longer.
|
Nataly Logoffsky
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 23:05:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Jo Shmo
Drone Rigs:
Drawback on all is -10% CPU.
Drone Computer I | 100 Calibration
Increases bandwidth by 5mb/s
Increases drone capacity by 10m^3
Drone Computer II | 150 Calibration
Increases Drone bandwidth by 10mb/s
Increases drone capacity by 20m^3
Small/Medium/Large are all the same, gaining a maximum of 25mb/s bandwidth and 50m^3 space for any ship with 3 rig slots and 400 Calibration. Would allow some ships a new form of damage, and would give ships that already have drone bays a bigger bay and more bandwidth to work with.
^^ this is good.
and... i really dont like the rig size idea.
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 23:49:00 -
[86]
I'm going to repeat it again along with others here: Remove Rigs from Module Stacking. So long as rigs stack with their base modules, 90% of them will forever be useless. The few rigs that are in ubiquitous use today are those that have no stacking penalties. Once rigs only stack against themselves, ships can actually specialize (locus sniper, full gank, massive alpha-strike, nano, etc etc) and use rigs as their originally intended - a way to increase ship specialization at the player's discretion.
Furthermore, not only do rig penalties need a strict review, but they need to be variable in penalty. There is no reason for a weak resist rig to have the same 10% penalty as the very strong trimark rig. Weak rigs should have less severe penalties. An armor resist rig with 5% base penalty would have 0% penalty at level 5 armor rigging, which would be vastly superior to 3x 5% (or higher if rig penalties go past 10% base on strong rigs) penalties. This is one badly needed method to balance strong rig effects vs. weak ones.
|
Kismo
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 00:59:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Cone Filler
i must agree with you on the active tank part it needs a huge buff but passive? ... no way dude
Passive (buffer) tanking is preferable in virtually all situations.
Quote:
how would you propose to tank capitals in an active tanked bs? or even a nerfed passive tank?
I would propose you keep moving, stay close, and remote repair.
Quote:
I can already give you the answer not at all so before you go yelling "NERF PASSIVE TANK" CCP need to ban super caps and triage in lowsec and possibly the caps themselfes, but what would you know about that?
Banning super caps in lowsec, ok. Banning caps in lowsec makes for very dull and boring lowsec POS takedowns and *REALLY* ****ty alliance logistics. But what would you know about that?
Quote:
CCC rigs themselfes on bs sized is not overpowered one heavy neut on a ccc rigged raven and its dead
CCC rigs don't have a draw back. There's no reason you'd ever not fit them excepting cost or a better rig (trimarks, for example).
Quote:
Before you go making any more "guesses" try and undock and use them and you will see what im talking about
"lol undock scrub lol lol i know what im talking about and if u disagree u need to undock lol lol lol". Can we grow up?
Quote:
Could you "Market evaluation" be based on the amount of rigs also destroyed? cause you know in order to buy new you need to loose them aswell  and since ships with theese rigs get destroyed quite often i dont see them being overpowered .... the only thing it does is give a false sence of security. what im talking about here is the "I can tank this in my trimarked navy mega .... erm no i cant ... welp lol" moments
Actually, you could be buying a new ship for any number of reasons (lost your old one, moved regions and can't/won't transport your old one, wanted to try something new, whatever). Of course, you would scoff at any empirical measurement shy of "I have examined every fit ever and how many kills it received vs how many it got" - which is not likely information that anyone (even CCP) has.
However, considering that I know how to play the game, know how to fit my ships, know what/why I would buy a particular rig, and know roughly how popular the rigs are... I'd say my "guess" won't be too far from the mark.
Can you please take a course in "thinking things through to their logical end before posting on the internets" course?
|
Killnekov
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 01:47:00 -
[88]
IMO if CCP are going to be taking these new steps towards new rig sizes,they should also take the time to look at ship class calibration costs as well.
For real A Frigate Class Ship shouldnt have the same calibration cost as a Battleship. and the Capitals, Super Caps and Titans shouldnt have any restrictions to which rigs get put on them at all.
|
Dr Lov3
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 01:59:00 -
[89]
What about extra large rigs, for the capitals, it would reflect the weapon size and make sense, also you guys(ccp) could finally let us use rigs that boost armor repair amount bonus on our dreads. would be cool
|
Gil Danastre
Amarr
The Red Hessians
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 02:00:00 -
[90]
Another step you could take as well would be to give people a reason to train the rig skills beyond if they're wanting to use tech 2 rigs of a certain type.
Like say give the Jury Rigging skill reduce calibration needed or increase a ships calibration based on a percentage that makes sense. This would also depend on if you're rebalancing rigs overall calibration cost.
You could also give it an additional reduction in rig drawback, or give a small rig effectiveness increase. The specialization skills themselves could also give an effectiveness boost, or reduce their specific rig types calibration costs.
|
| |
|
| 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 |