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)
Gil Danastre Amarr The Red Hessians	Posted - 2009.07.14 14:26:00 - [181] Originally by: Jo Shmo Instead of having 3 different sets of blueprints, in total 231 Rig blueprints (77 per size) if no new ones are added, why not just make an option like on invention to build a specific size of rig. For example, when inventing on a hull such as a Merlin, you get the option for the output to be either a Harpy or a Hawk. Why not have your current set of blueprints have an output option, but instead of an output blueprint as the result, it just outputs different sizes of the module. It would have to automatically divide the material cost by 5 for each step down from Large (/5 for Medium, /25 for Small). This would save the headache of having to make sure you have the right size rig BPO/C before manufacturing, and hoping you dont get them mixed up, etc. You could also simply increase the batch size ala ammo if you built a smaller size rig, so doing a run of medium rigs would give you 5 rigs, and small would give you 25(?) That way the material costs on the BP will always be exactly the same, just the amount of rigs you get out changes.
Sigras	Posted - 2009.07.14 15:10:00 - [182] One of the things I've always liked about eve is the variability it gives you; you can feel free to put that 100 MN afterburner on your salvage 'cane if you want it to turn like the titanic, or you can put the 1600 mm plate on the vexor if you only want light guns Why not allow large rigs to be put on a medium sized ship doing twice as much but with double the drawback and using twice the calibration? The same would also be true with small rigs and on a medium ship; it would do half as much but take half the calibration and half the drawback. This would be sweet for ships that cant afford a 10% increase for the grid usage of their guns but can allow a 5% increase. It adds more content, possibilities and diversity to the game with minimal actual work on the part of the devs. another change i would like to see made is to have trimark armor pumps either stack nerf against each other, or only boost base armor HP because the three rigs giving 10,000 armor (with two 1600s on a megathron) is just a bit insane. theres a reason the order of operations goes multiply then add not the other way around. if you would like more details as to why this is insane and unbalanced, just ask . . . i have a spreadsheet for that
Rip Striker	Posted - 2009.07.14 15:48:00 - [183] Originally by: Abrazzar Edited by: Abrazzar on 12/07/2009 11:19:48 Originally by: Rip Striker Why do rigs have penalties? 1. Rigs are non refundable. 2. Rigs give less bonus than regular ship modules. 3. Rigs are more expensive than regular ship modules. My proposal is to remove rig penalties (except when stacking). Point of the rigs is that they are not normal modules. ... bla bla .. Which is exactly what I stated. In my oppinion rigs are already penalized by not giving as good bonus as regular modules, not being refundable, and more expensive that regular modules. The last statement will most likely no longer be valid once small and medium rigs are released. Abrazzar, why do you insist on rigs having penalties in the first place? Hmm, I smell a CCP alt. I suspect that CCP will not remove the penalties from rigs due to same old bullcrap reason like balance. Is it balance that while mounting weapon rigs to aid you in comabt you have to forgo CPU/PG resulting in that you cannot fit the weapons in the first place? Is it balance that while mounting shield resists rigs to aid you in combat you simultaneously become a easier to hit? And the list goes on... Once again, rig penalties are uncalled for. Remove them!
Seishi Maru Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.07.14 22:31:00 - [184] I think there shoudl be penalties. But also rigs shoudl be WAY stronger than modules. They are permanent modification fo the ship. So they should all be BETTER than a module.. like the trimark is when compared to module. That or make them not stack nerfed EVER against modules. OTherwise 90% of them are and will continue to be useless.
Verlokiraptor All Around Research Inc Onslaught.	Posted - 2009.07.15 06:48:00 - [185] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Hiroshima Jita Edited by: Hiroshima Jita on 14/07/2009 10:27:13 That is why, now that the days of the overpowered polycarbon are long gone, I always rig for tank. I'm pretty sure an armor tanker would tell you a simular story. The rook and falcon are exceptions. And some fancy interceptors. For almost everything else the story holds. that is one of the drawbacks of CCP completely removing speed from the game as a setup variation. CCP changed speed modification into soemthign near useless up to a level that its almost removed from game. Now the only way to survive is tank tank and tank... removing game possibilities always result in thing like this... people focusing exclusively on the last remaining useful features and further creatign other problems. I REALLY think the polys should be reverted back to mass adjustment. But only 5% ones. We need VARIATION at this game. While I don't object to the idea, I'd like to mention that a 5% drop in Nighoggur mass would drop it under 1,000,000,000kg and let it through some wormholes into hi-sec, unless mass limits have changed or coding would ignore that reduction. One thing I would like to see is active armor tanking rigs dropping something other than speed. So that slow trimarked mega? It might work okay with an active tank now, given that it will have some speed to it, and then rep fast enough to survive the incoming damage due to tracking when it's in range. Yeah, that last bit is unlikely, but it would be interesting. Active tanks need a pvp buff anyway.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.07.15 15:37:00 - [186] Thanks folks for the specific or general feedback so far. The two main points are relevant bonuses : relevant drawbacks. Essentially, the rigs could use more specific tailoring to a purpose and increased focus ensuring that both the bonus and drawback are relevant in your choices and not as easily negated along with some more emphasis on skill level having an impact. It is very early days in this process (say hello to the drawingboard!) but beyond more simpler changes to current bonus or drawbacks we are throwing ideas around which look at higher level changes such as multiple bonus and multiple drawbacks in a single rig and will explore the more 'exotic' ideas beyond that (special functions).

Vyktor Abyss Gallente The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.15 16:07:00 - [187] Nice one! Great to know the ideas and feedback has been considered, you're considering broader changes and our posts are not just prayers to the Gods! Now get on and do your best, CCP m'laddo!
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.07.15 16:08:00 - [188] Originally by: CCP Chronotis and will explore the more 'exotic' ideas beyond that (special functions). Have you thought of specific bonuses for rig combinations yet? Let's say you put in a resistance rig for two different damage type and gain the option to get an omni resistance bonus if you add unrelated rig x? ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.07.15 16:30:00 - [189] Originally by: Batolemaeus Have you thought of specific bonuses for rig combinations yet? Let's say you put in a resistance rig for two different damage type and gain the option to get an omni resistance bonus if you add unrelated rig x? Rig sets akin to the pirate implant sets are a possibility if we limited ships to only allow one of each rig to be fitted. They are more complex for us to do but certainly on the table as a possibility at this stage, though at such an early point in the process we cannot commit to anything beyond, "we'll look into it!".

Kismo	Posted - 2009.07.16 00:15:00 - [190] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Batolemaeus Have you thought of specific bonuses for rig combinations yet? Let's say you put in a resistance rig for two different damage type and gain the option to get an omni resistance bonus if you add unrelated rig x? Rig sets akin to the pirate implant sets are a possibility if we limited ships to only allow one of each rig to be fitted. They are more complex for us to do but certainly on the table as a possibility at this stage, though at such an early point in the process we cannot commit to anything beyond, "we'll look into it!". This is a good idea, and furthermore it's a good idea to only have one rig of any given type anyway.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar	Posted - 2009.07.16 05:58:00 - [191] Edited by: Yon Krum on 16/07/2009 05:58:17 Originally by: Kismo Originally by: CCP Chronotis Rig sets akin to the pirate implant sets are a possibility if we limited ships to only allow one of each rig to be fitted. They are more complex for us to do but certainly on the table as a possibility at this stage, though at such an early point in the process we cannot commit to anything beyond, "we'll look into it!". This is a good idea, and furthermore it's a good idea to only have one rig of any given type anyway. Seconded. There are quite a few redundent rigs out there, that are ignored because in almost all circumstances you're just better off taking a CCC or Trimark rather than a cap-use-reducing or resist rig (for example). Restricting rigs to one of each could address some of these problems, without nerfing the individual rigs themselves. Of course, they all still need that review for effect:drawback. Thank you for responding to the thread, Chronotis. When you get a chance, please breifly describe for us what your (CCP's) current vision for rigs is, and the role you want them to play. --Krum
Arra Lith HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.16 10:31:00 - [192] Was just thinking - with those rig changes most of current rig bpos will be useless. Maybe it should work like this: - current (large) rigs can be put on any ship (frigates, cruisers, bs, capitals) - medium rigs can be put on frigates and cruisers only - small rigs fit to frigs only Larger rigs cost more and should allow a bit more scalability (should be possible to use on smaller ships too). In future it can be futher balanced that larger rigs burn less calibration (and bigger ships has less calibration points). So it will be possible to use on frigate either: 3x med t2 rig / or with small rigs - only 1x t2 rig and 2x t1 rig (as it is now). That way it is possible to pimp up your ship but it will cost much more.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.16 12:38:00 - [193] Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 16/07/2009 12:38:55 Originally by: Treelox Edited by: Treelox on 06/07/2009 19:29:51 Warp speed rigs dont suck, they are great on the fast warp ceptor for an empire taxi :P A warp acceleration boost rig in ddition to speed would be nice, to actually make any warp distance quicker, not just the long 100 AU hauls that is more or less trivial in PVP ^^. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Ecky X	Posted - 2009.07.16 14:01:00 - [194] How about for weapon rigs, we give a bonus to one stat with a penalty to another? For instance, -25% optimal for +50% falloff would be very attractive for autocannons, and possible artillery too, while -50% falloff for +25% optimal would be very attractive to lasers and railgun users. Perhaps tracking for range as well? A rig that gives an increase to clip size would be nice, with no penalty. Those numbers are obviously just examples, it would have to be balanced.
Kismo	Posted - 2009.07.16 14:58:00 - [195] Originally by: Ecky X How about for weapon rigs, we give a bonus to one stat with a penalty to another? For instance, -25% optimal for +50% falloff would be very attractive for autocannons, and possible artillery too, while -50% falloff for +25% optimal would be very attractive to lasers and railgun users. Perhaps tracking for range as well? A rig that gives an increase to clip size would be nice, with no penalty. Those numbers are obviously just examples, it would have to be balanced. I can haz projectile rig with 300% damage mod, 1/3rd ROF? :) :) :) :)
Ecky X	Posted - 2009.07.16 15:58:00 - [196] It could be -12.5% / + 25%. In this case, it would be no stronger than what a tracking computer can give, while also giving a penalty. Falloff is a very weak mechanic to rely on, since it effects both hit chance and quality, and is longest on what are already the weakest weapons. I also like the idea of a rig that slows rate of fire for increased volley damage.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.07.16 17:30:00 - [197] Originally by: Sidus Isaacs A warp acceleration boost rig in ddition to speed would be nice, to actually make any warp distance quicker, not just the long 100 AU hauls that is more or less trivial in PVP ^^. If you make all warps faster, you end up crossing solar systems in less than 30 seconds. Then you hit the session change timer and have to wait to jump. It's a good idea, but its time hasn't come yet. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.07.16 17:44:00 - [198] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Rig sets akin to the pirate implant sets are a possibility if we limited ships to only allow one of each rig to be fitted. They are more complex for us to do but certainly on the table as a possibility at this stage, though at such an early point in the process we cannot commit to anything beyond, "we'll look into it!". Rune words, anyone? --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.16 18:21:00 - [199] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Originally by: CCP Chronotis Rig sets akin to the pirate implant sets are a possibility if we limited ships to only allow one of each rig to be fitted. They are more complex for us to do but certainly on the table as a possibility at this stage, though at such an early point in the process we cannot commit to anything beyond, "we'll look into it!". Rune words, anyone? EEWW ! I don't like having some select few combinations giving special extra bonuses as those would then basically become mandatory. But. If any 2 and 3 rig combination would give some other kind of additional effect, the whole system would become complex enough to be entertaining and interesting. Though I think he was talking about officer/named rig combinations that you can collect for extra bonuses with a full set like faction implants. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Smyrk	Posted - 2009.07.16 19:04:00 - [200] My main concern with rig balance is related to the "power creep" DigitalCommunist described early in the thread. People do already rig some sub-BS ships today (many battlecruisers that would get "medium" rigs, for example; and even some ships that would get "small" rigs, like assault ships). For those ships, you just took a ship that players had already decided was viable at the current price, and cut the price drastically. That seems to mean it's not balanced properly. I'm reluctant to micromanage with specific suggestions but everyone knows a few glaring examples. As someone said above you can probably do an inventory of popular rigs and find some outliers that are popular even at the current "large" price on medium or even small ships, and use that to determine what needs to be rebalanced -- the price of the (now-smaller) rig, the power of the rig, or the stats of the ship (or perhaps the stats of a related module, such as regenerative plating vs. trimarks). BTW: rigs sets = awesome.
Intangible Mirage	Posted - 2009.07.17 01:56:00 - [201] I think if you have 2 cap control circuits on the same ship you should get an additional bonus to recharge time for having 2 or even 3 like for mission fits.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.07.17 03:11:00 - [202] Originally by: Abrazzar Though I think he was talking about officer/named rig combinations that you can collect for extra bonuses with a full set like faction implants. NO. We have enough ridiculously overpriced faction crap in game. I'd rather see some stuff you can fit and lose on every ship class. Just something simple to encourage fitting different types or rigs. Fitting combinations of rigs that give you bonuses the individual rigs wouldn't..like fitting a Core Defence Operational Soldifier and a Core Defence Capacitor safeguard at the same time giving a cycle time reduction on remote repair modules, or fitting one Auxiliary Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator and Drone Repair Augmentor suddenly boosting hp, repair, speed and cycle time of rr drones. Just something to add even more complexity to rigs without actually adding new rigs. You could effectively add t1-specific rig recipes because t2 only has two rig slots, making specialization of t1 possible. You could do all sorts of fancy things with it. I mean, it's fairly obvious to me that a Warp Core Optimizer, combined with a Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer lowers the speed required to get into warp from 70% to 50%. It all makes sense! ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Fenren Minmatar Bure Astro Photography	Posted - 2009.07.17 10:36:00 - [203] About the drawback on projectile weapons... it isnt really a drawback for autocannons and it is a little too much of a drawback for artys (wich can be a pain to fit as it is) I havent looked at any numbers or so but it might be possible to make it a CPU-penalty instead
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.17 12:40:00 - [204] Originally by: Fenren About the drawback on projectile weapons... it isnt really a drawback for autocannons and it is a little too much of a drawback for artys (wich can be a pain to fit as it is) I havent looked at any numbers or so but it might be possible to make it a CPU-penalty instead Maybe give the Locust rig CPU penalty (adding tracking routines to be more accurate on long distances) and Ambid rigs PG penalty (increased chamber compression mechanics to fire the stuff farther and screw accuracy). -------- Ideas for: Mining
Killiashandra Ree	Posted - 2009.07.17 18:54:00 - [205] Mining drone augmenter rigs: I think these might actually trump LCE rigs as the most useless in game. The whole premise of of mining module restriction is huge CPU use to prevent MLU stacking or fitting 8 lasers to your destroyer. Most typical Barge/Exhumer fits have single digit CPU capacity, in fact most Barge fits require the fitting of a Co-processor to even fit one MLU. Thus having a mining rig that reduces CPU in any way shape or form is ridiculous in the extreme. In fact Id go so far as to say almost all drone boats have CPU issues in the first place, so making the Drone rig penalty CPU based consigned all drone rigs to oblivion before the code was even written.
Xorth Adimus Caldari The Perfect Storm Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.07.17 23:12:00 - [206] I believe allot of the changes put forward above look good especially with regard to changing/ bringing many unused rigs and hence also rig components into use. Rigs should also be more balanced in terms of material costs. I also think that rigs shouldn't get stacking penalties where they already bring their own penalties, or if they are really that overpowered they could be reduced in power and allowed to stack without penalty. More fundimently rigs where originally ment to modify the ship significantly. I believe we now need more of this. I propose that T3 rigs are introduced which can adjust slots slightly or even bonuses on set ships but not in a way that would overpower such ships (+8 slots) or completely change their role. It whould be good if the T3 rigs use underused sleeper salvage and are comparible in price to T1 rigs. -1 high slot +1 medium slot -1 high slot +1 low slot -50m3 cargo bay +50 m3 drone bay -1 High slot +25m3 drone bandwidth (125m3 max) -5% cpu +5% PG +5% cpu -5% PG -1 gun slot +1 missile slot -1 missile slot +1 gun slot slot -10% damage bonus +25% tracking bonus Maelstrom role bonus change -7.5% shield boast bonus +15% shield amount per minmatar battleship level Hyperion role bonus change -7.5% bonus to armor repair amount of armor repair systems +15% armor amount per gallente battleship level Raven Role bonus change -5% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo Velocity +10% explosive velocity per caldari battleship level. I also think T2 rigs are massivly overpriced for what they do and are hence underused, the quantities of T2 components needed to build these rigs are hard to come by and it seems only the crazy afford to fit them.
Commander Evelyne CONCORD Operations	Posted - 2009.07.18 00:15:00 - [207] Edited by: Commander Evelyne on 18/07/2009 00:17:31 Don't let rigs get destroyed when repackaged, let rigs stay on the ship. To solve market problem, remove rigs (right click and destroy) before putting ship on the market or sell ship with rigs via contract only. Flying back and forward is plentyfull without rigged ships allready. This is the main reason i don't rig ships.
EdwardNardella Caldari Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.18 03:34:00 - [208] I have one thing I would like to see; now two identical rigs fitted to the same ship. Or at least heavy stacking penalties for ALL rigs heavy enough that no one would want to do it except in highly specialized setups. People may say "but that breaks X setups" in response that I ask "what did you do before there were rigs" setups will adapt to nerfs as they always have. I think this would lead to a much more interesting ship fitting experience. A triple trimark BS is boring but nothing short of putting in a severe stacking penalty or preventing identical rigs is going to change that. Simply trying to balance the damage mod rigs will not suffice. This would also improve balancing of ships and rigs and make rigging a ship a more complex/rewarding experience. Also not allowing identical rigs would allow people to perhaps put a T1 rig of one type and a T2 rig. Finally for this I must address the issue of how this would affect rigged transports, my answer to not upsetting them is to make one cargohold optimization rig as powerful as three thus not disrupting transport ship capeabilities.
Hun Jakuza 24th Imperial Guard	Posted - 2009.07.18 07:55:00 - [209] Oh no. New rigs on test server. EW Drone rigs : T1 bonus +10km to EW drones range. Lol CCP, what a fck again this terrible unusable rigs ?
Andreya Direct Intent	Posted - 2009.07.18 08:19:00 - [210] Originally by: Treelox Edited by: Treelox on 06/07/2009 19:29:51 Warp speed rigs dont suck, they are great on the fast warp ceptor for an empire taxi :P ---edit had issues with my innner grammer nazzi Problem is, warp speed rigs are sorta misleading. as warp speed rigs do not effect the crazy long acceleration thats the same regardless or being in an inty or a Raven, in systems with short distances this rig is useless. (short is anything smaller than 20AU) .. as the acelleration and deceleration time make up the entire time span of the journey. huge pain in the ass when trying to chase somebody. so imo currently the rig is worthless. no offense intended either, the idea is great, i think there was a miscommunication inbetween the planning and developement cheers _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected])

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.