| 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) |
Sigras
   |
Posted - 2009.07.18 11:07:00 -
[211]
 Originally by: Andreya
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
it isnt a static time to "maximum warp velocity"?
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 12:20:00 -
[212]
Edited by: Ariane VoxDei on 18/07/2009 12:21:59
Edited by: Ariane VoxDei on 18/07/2009 12:21:36
Originally by: Sigras
it isnt a static time to "maximum warp velocity"?
Something like that.
Anyway, what we really want to see in a warp rig is something that cuts the a accel time by 3s and the decel time by 3s.
Not the 0m/s to warp-begin time, just the time from warp-start to maxwarp and from maxwarp to warp-exit.
Maybe 2s for the T1, 3s for the T2. Even if it means that there has to be rules preventing you from fitting more than one of those per ship.
Edit: yes by that i mean a total of 4s time cut for the T1 and a total of 6s timecut for the T2. Reedit, damn spelling.
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 12:32:00 -
[213]
btw on the general drawbacks issue:
ALL drawbacks that make fitting harder, no matter how, by cutting ship CPU or Grid, or by increasing fitting costs for anything, has to go.
If you have to be such a crybaby millimetre-equality socialist that you need to tax (slap a drawback) on something as soon as it gives a income (bonus) then do it on something other that those.
More than bad enough that you need maxed fitting skills and AWU5 to run a full all-T2 fit on a lot of ships (and even then sometimes need fitting mods).
|
g0ggalor
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 21:57:00 -
[214]
I'd simply like to see rigged ships transportable.
Whether this means allowing an unpackaged ship inside a cargo bay, or a special container that holds packaged ships. Either way, I like having mobility, and having to move rigged ships one at a time when I could throw them all in my Charon and make one trip is a pain.
|
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 11:46:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
btw on the general drawbacks issue:
ALL drawbacks that make fitting harder, no matter how, by cutting ship CPU or Grid, or by increasing fitting costs for anything, has to go.
If you have to be such a crybaby millimetre-equality socialist that you need to tax (slap a drawback) on something as soon as it gives a income (bonus) then do it on something other that those.
More than bad enough that you need maxed fitting skills and AWU5 to run a full all-T2 fit on a lot of ships (and even then sometimes need fitting mods).
I like your thinking!
Personally, i'd like to see all rig drawbacks removed. The rigs are already expensive, non refundable and give for the most part (much) lower bonus compared to equivalent modules.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 13:32:00 -
[216]
its my understanding, as rigs require jury rigging, that a rig was more of a non standard modification, something like,
"dont worry, she'll hold together . . . c'mon baby hold together"
i kinda like the idea they have here, i just wish rigs were more synergistic to make ships more specialized . . . it would be interesting to have some rigs give ships different bonuses; albeit really expensive rigs and difficult to fit, but i think it would be really cool
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 12:41:00 -
[217]
It will be interesting to see the material needs for T2 medium and small rigs since it isn't that many units of each salvage needed in the first place that you even can divide by 5, let alone 25.
I would still prefer to only be able to build/invent large rigs and then use a reactor or reverse engineering process to cut them down to smaller units.
|
Intangible Mirage
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 17:42:00 -
[218]
I would like to see multiples of the same rig reinforce each other and grant a bonus, not a stack penalty.
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 17:46:00 -
[219]
I just saw the capital rigs put on Sisi, and the prices attached to them.
Thanks CCP, screwing capital pilots again. As if we needed to spend more money on these ships, now you're looking at 300+M in rigs on many dreads (like the Revelation).
Seriously, I like the idea of small/medium rigs, but the idea of cap rigs is really stupid, and needs to be dropped. We already pay enough to fly these ships, which are on the order of 5x to 10x the cost of a battleship.
You guys need to work on making capitals CHEAPER, so there is more capital combat, not more expensive so that people will play ***** foot with capital fleets even more than they do now. Way to be completely out of touch with what a segment of your player base has been asking for.
|
Fridge Chesthair
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 19:17:00 -
[220]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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.
Please.
I'm thinking along these lines:
Turret Optimization rigs
Reduce weapon powergrid requirements but increase the powergrid for all low slot modules.
Speedloader Assist Rig
Reduce missile launcher reload time but also reduce armor.
Oversized Drone Bay Rig
Increase the capacity of an existing drone bay but reduce cargo space.
Bandolier Rig
Increase ammunition capacity of turrets but increase reload time.
Oversized Reactor Rig
Increase powergrid while increasing amount of damage penetrating armor into hull.
Projectile Compensation Rig
Decrease projectile signature radius but increase the CPU for projectile turrets.
Hardened Construction Rig
Increase armor resists but decrease armor repair amount.
Particle Accelerator Rig
Convert a portion of kinetic damage from blasters to EM damage but increase blaster powergrid requirements.
and for lulz
Shoop Da Woop Rig
Increase Beam Laser damage but decrease firing rate.
|
EdwardNardella
Caldari
Capital Construction Research
Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 22:26:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Fridge Chesthair
and for lulz
Shoop Da Woop Rig
Increase Beam Laser damage but decrease firing rate.
I think it should increase RoF but decrease damage! So you get pewpewpew pewpewpew pewpewpew instead of PEW... PEW... PEW...
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 11:22:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Fridge Chesthair
Speedloader Assist Rig
Reduce missile launcher reload time but also reduce armor.
That should reduce shield if anything or we will be back to the current state where the poplular rigs either have no drawbacks or drawbacks for irrelevant attributes.
|
Keitoshi Yamada
Caldari
MJOCO Botanical Entheogenics Division
Mjolnir Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 20:31:00 -
[223]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
re: your move to split rigs..
Although a rig size split is better than what we have now, you are still using the same Frig/Cruiser/BS template in effect since Beta. When people complain that Destroyers aren't really that different from Frigates, or Battlecruisers too similar to Cruisers - this is why. This change offers insight into then developer mindset, and right now its saying you didn't really consider how ship classes are overcrowded and full of overlap. Very well, but we passed the reasonable limits to how many new ships you can pump with each expansion ages ago.
tl;dr - 1. Power creep for the masses, **** yeah! 2. Three sizes of mods in a game with a dozen classes is so 2003.
I have to disagree with this pretty intensely.
Destroyers are /supposed/ to be large frigates. Battlecruisers are /supposed/ to be big cruisers, etc.
There's a reason you have the three sizes of ships, because it assigns more specific roles. Considering every type of ship as it's own class would just be ******ed, hard to balance, and a pain in the ass to create content for. We don't need 12 different missile launchers and 8 more rocket launchers. Having 3-ish of each is how it's supposed to be, is easier to balance, and just works better.
Or maybe I'll go back to my hangar and fit my Ultra-Heavy Missile Launcher II's and fire sub-cruise missiles at your ship :|
|
Patrice Macmahon
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 23:11:00 -
[224]
May i request, rig slots for Frighters and jump frighters, even if its just one or two slots it would allow for some extra survivabilty, faster traversing, larger cargo hull...
Make them require Capital sized rigs.
I also would like to see a Warp Strength enhancement rig (+1 to warp strength at the cost of agility or sig radius)
The Intakis have an obligation to defend the Federation, but not to assult others on its behalf. |
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 03:54:00 -
[225]
I wouldn't mind adding a couple of new rigs...
but I don't know that theres much need to change things. Maybe make the different sized rigs do the same things, but simply take less salvage to manufacture.... thus a small CCC rig would take considerably less minerals than the large on for a BS.
|
AngryMax
Gallente
Maelstrom Crew
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 06:11:00 -
[226]
Restore polycarbs to do something useful again. Please.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 11:32:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Patrice Macmahon
May i request, rig slots for Frighters and jump frighters, even if its just one or two slots it would allow for some extra survivabilty, faster traversing, larger cargo hull...
Make them require Capital sized rigs.
I also would like to see a Warp Strength enhancement rig (+1 to warp strength at the cost of agility or sig radius)
Won't happen as you will be able to move capital ships to highsec if you can fit a cargo rig on a freighter.
|
Sylthi
Minmatar
Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 04:18:00 -
[228]
Please do NOT add drawbacks to the rigs that do not have them; especially the CCCs. Feel free to even get rid of some of the drawbacks that already exist. Enough with the drawbacks already. Why does 90% of the (truly new) stuff you devs come up with now days have to:
A) Cost a fortune and/or has limited access to only one class of players.
B) Have a major suck (as in sucking up your time with major boredom) factor in going to go get it.
or
C) Have so many drawbacks that penalize your ship that it's overall usefulness comes into question.
Now that is all said, feel free to do what you guys have always done in the 6 years I have played; i.e. ignore me and/or do the exact opposite of what I suggest.
*
* |
Sigras
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 08:43:00 -
[229]
perhaps you should add the word balance to your vocabulary
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 09:00:00 -
[230]
Firstly, what I want are cheaper rigs. People stick T2 equipment into any T1 ships, but who sticks a T2 rig into a small T1 ship?
Secondly, make the calibration cost more fun. Allow rigs to be tuned to a player specified calibration cost. The more calibration I invest the better the rig will be and vice versa. Just for once would I not like to use EFT to figure out the optimum configuration but to have some freedom.
--
"Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast." - Ace Rimmer |
Fridge Chesthair
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 04:00:00 -
[231]
Edited by: Fridge Chesthair on 24/07/2009 04:04:06
Edited by: Fridge Chesthair on 24/07/2009 04:03:31
1 - So how is this progressing?? Can anyone comment on how the SiSi implementation works?
2 - Also, what are people's opinions on faction, deadspace, and officer rigs?
I would love to see some more unique items in the game.
//Edit - Beer impairs spelling & spell checking. |
Lutherial
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 13:54:00 -
[232]
imho...
The difference in price between armour and shield resistance bonus rigs is quite big.
core defense capacitor sa***aurd doesn't scale well against CCC rigs.
the bonuses obtainable from "fitting" rigs are normally out of balance against the cost of the rigs.
there are no rigs for remote shield repping.. but in general remote shield repping seem inferior to remote armour.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 14:06:00 -
[233]
Originally by: EdwardNardella
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.
Not true..
Trimarks issue is each new one you fit increase MROE tha HP while the drawback is sack nerfed so hinders less your ship.
MAke drawbacks do not stack nerf make ALL rigs stack nerfed agaisnt RIgs.. BUT NOT AGAINST MODULES.
That would boost Resist rigs, weapons rigs etc.. Thsoe rigs nowadasy are 100% useless because they are much more problematic to buy or fit than a GYro or an EANM while bringign much LESS good effects. THerefore no one fits them sicne thwey will be stack nerfed agaisnt moduels that you are 100% sure will already be on the ship.
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 16:35:00 -
[234]
Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 24/07/2009 16:37:16
Signature signal converter I (Electronic Superiority Rig) :
Modifies original signature of ship. E.g A Vexor pilot wants to rig his ship. A list of cruiser hulls appears. The Pilot chooses "Augoror". Directional scans of his rigged Vexor detect an Augoror.
Penalty: shield HP = -10%
|
Shaddris Drakan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 22:10:00 -
[235]
Electronics rigs: I honestly dont see any advantage to using them over a CCC or ACR to fill a slot.
EWAR rigs: Need balancing, currently I would never use one over SDAs in the lows and CCC rigs. Maybe add in rigs that up ewar strength at the cost of range or give range at the cost of strength for all ewar types. The shield penalty combined with the stacking nerf of ewar rigs currently make them undesireable.
Engineering rigs: Currently, if I need the grid, ACR is the way to go. If I have the calibration/slot, toss in a CCC. CCC is prefered in most all cases over the SCMC.
Weapon Rigs: Most all of them have a pg penalty, and grid is a bit tight, so pass. Missile rigs are considered, because cpu I can spare for the most part, though tank rigs usualy take priority.
Shield rigs: CDFPs are great on a drake, who cares that it has a BS's sig radius, wouldnt put it on any other ship, spending a mid for 2k shield is a better deal. CDFEs dont quite have the boost to be worth the slot and penalty though. Resist rigs are currently a joke, if the bonus were larger or the bonus was for all resists, I would consider it.
For a passive shield tank with either an ewar, hybrid or rail setup, CCCs seem to be the best way to go. Mods which swap weapon bonuses or add hi/mid/low slots at the cost of another slot would probably be welcomed.
|
Zephyr Mallory
Starfire Oasis
Thalion Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 23:04:00 -
[236]
Anything to make CCC rigs *not* the rig of choice for 75% of the ship setups out there that use rigs. (Except nerfing CCC's of course.)
A Shield Transporter Efficiency Rig would be nice..(Remote Rep Augmentor for Shields)
So would a Local Armor Repairer Efficiency Rig. (like CD safeguard for armor)
I'm liking the shift idea. Instead of making a drawback, make a tradeoff.
Like a Turret Rig that significantly increases ROF or Damage per hit, one at the expense of the other. The balance would not really affect DPS if done properly, but would change it to allow you to tweak your ship for prolonged engagements with alot of fast, reliable hits, or potentially massive volley damage.
Salvage Ninjas are Annoying and Lame, but within rights. |
Lumy
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 23:10:00 -
[237]
I hate to say it but I kinda agree with DigitalCommunist here. The rigs in current state are yet another module. Further more the penalties are irrelevant or nonexistent is some cases. E.g. skills for weapon rigging are simply just another fitting skill. Energy grid rigs have no penalty whatsoever. Speed penalty and signature radius are meaningless above battleship size.
I'll be probably reiterating some ideas already mentioned in this thread. This is how I would give rigs more distinctive feel like they are actually structural modification of hull itself, instead just being yet another module.
1. Allow to fit only single rig of certain category (I.e. you cannot fit Trimark and Anti-explosive armor pump on same ship)
2. Remove stacking penalties
3. Increase bonuses (where appropriate)
4. Increase/change/introduce penalties
Some random ideas for new bonuses/penalties:
Weapon rigs
Ambit: falloff bonus, optimal penalty
Burst: rof bonus, tracking penalty (also includes increased ammo consumption, capacitor need and more frequent reloads)
Collision: damage bonus, rof penalty (aka alpha rig)
Locus: optimal bonus, tracking penalty
Metastasis: tracking bonus, optimal penalty
Armor rigs
change speed to mass penalty (to make affect on larger ships more significant - align time is important for every size)
Astronautic rigs
Polycarbon: mass bonus, armor penalty (no, single rig won't reintroduce nano age)
Energy grid rigs
ACR: powergrid bonus, heat penalty(?)
CCC: recharge rate bonus, capacity penalty (more like flux coil - higher peak recharge rate)
SMC: capacity bonus, recharge rate penalty (more like reverse flux coil - also higher peak recharge rate)
Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS. |
Zephyr Mallory
Starfire Oasis
Thalion Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 23:15:00 -
[238]
Lumy..how bout on the CCC's -a little different proposal.
CCC: Shields into Cap ala CPR.
But really, to be fair there should be a cap rig for shield tankers...
Auxiliary Dynamo something-or-other: reduces armor to increase cap recharge rate.
Salvage Ninjas are Annoying and Lame, but within rights. |
Lumy
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 23:56:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Zephyr Mallory
Edited by: Zephyr Mallory on 24/07/2009 23:18:33
Lumy..how bout on the CCC's -a little different proposal.
If you're interested in what do I think:
Originally by: Zephyr Mallory
CCC: Shields into Cap ala CPR.
But really, to be fair there should be a cap rig for shield tankers...
Auxiliary Dynamo something-or-other: reduces armor to increase cap recharge rate.
This would make the penalty on CCC rig irrelevant. Everybody would just pick the rig with penalty that does not affect him. Originally by: Zephyr Mallory
And as for the one rig per category...
Instead would you be willing to accept an increased calibration cost per subsequent rig of that type? (i.e. you could fit 2 CCC's etc but would not have enough calibration to fit another one) - along that line, I think all Rigs could be given the same calibration cost with the cost stacking modifier.
It depends... Would you be able to fit another rig of different type? Let's say 2x CCC + 1x Trimark? How about 2x CCC + SMC? How about faction ships (they have reduced calibration)? T2 Rigs?
Originally by: Zephyr Mallory
Instead would you be willing to accept..
I don't make any decisions here, why do you ask me? 
Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS. |
EdwardNardella
Caldari
Capital Construction Research
Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 15:46:00 -
[240]
I have an interesting rig idea.
Sensor recalibration rig. Converts one sensor type to another at a slight loss.
Turns your 10 gravimetric sensor strength to 7.5 Ladar.
|
| |
|
| 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 |