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) |
Zephyr Mallory
Starfire Oasis Thalion Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 22:31:00 -
[241]
CCC rig penalty being irrelevant: Fine by me, what this would do is split the demand a bit more, instead of everything using a CCC, leading to a little more diversification.
and I ask if that's alright with you, Lumy, because it was a modification of your idea, and the more united the players are as a front on an issue the more likely it is to be implemented.
Salvage Ninjas are Annoying and Lame, but within rights. |
Turma Tapa
Napapiirin Telakka ja Louhinta Oy
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 14:04:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Sylthi 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.
+1 I agree this. No more nerf! just boost some rigs for example reduce drawback or stacking penalty.
|
Verlokiraptor
All Around Research Inc Onslaught.
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 20:21:00 -
[243]
I propose changing the trimark penalty to a hefty mass increase: Align time matters for almost everyone, speed does not :D
20% base would be about fair, 3 would increase mass (and align time if I remember the formula right) by 39% or so at armor rigging 4, still increasing armor by what, 50%?
Okay, maybe 15% would make more sense, but 10% is a little low.
Then give an active tanking rig -10% armor hp and active tanking becomes the thing for anyone who likes being mobile. Could leave the other active tanking rig alone with the current speed drop I suppose.
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 22:54:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Verlokiraptor I propose changing the trimark penalty to a hefty mass increase: Align time matters for almost everyone, speed does not :D
20% base would be about fair, 3 would increase mass (and align time if I remember the formula right) by 39% or so at armor rigging 4, still increasing armor by what, 50%?
Okay, maybe 15% would make more sense, but 10% is a little low.
Then give an active tanking rig -10% armor hp and active tanking becomes the thing for anyone who likes being mobile. Could leave the other active tanking rig alone with the current speed drop I suppose.
Worst post in the history of the Eve forums.
You're obviously not a blaster ship pilot. Most idiotic idea ever.
How about armor rigs give you a sig res penalty and shield rigs give you a speed penalty? Works for me.
-murder one
[07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 |
W3370Pi4
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 23:27:00 -
[245]
Edited by: W3370Pi4 on 26/07/2009 23:29:08
Medium RIG BPC
so in a normal station it will take 20 days + to make 20 max run copies
at the moment it takes at worst 1 week to make 20 max run copies
this is not cool maybe a duration of 7days+ to produce 20 max run copies would be fine if you do it in an Advanced lab but not 20 days this is silly
Edit : and i actually realized that it will take twice as much time to copy large rigs bpc
the balance is way off from what we are used to
how about a copy time of 1 minute for small / 2.30minute for medium and 5 minute for large ?
opinions _______ Join the "Legit Trading"Channel *Scam Free Trading Channel* |
Verlokiraptor
All Around Research Inc Onslaught.
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 00:23:00 -
[246]
Originally by: murder one
Originally by: Verlokiraptor I propose changing the trimark penalty to a hefty mass increase: Align time matters for almost everyone, speed does not :D
20% base would be about fair, 3 would increase mass (and align time if I remember the formula right) by 39% or so at armor rigging 4, still increasing armor by what, 50%?
Okay, maybe 15% would make more sense, but 10% is a little low.
Then give an active tanking rig -10% armor hp and active tanking becomes the thing for anyone who likes being mobile. Could leave the other active tanking rig alone with the current speed drop I suppose.
Worst post in the history of the Eve forums.
You're obviously not a blaster ship pilot. Most idiotic idea ever.
How about armor rigs give you a sig res penalty and shield rigs give you a speed penalty? Works for me.
I fly blaster ships... I just don't armor rig them. Also it was a joke...
|
nimaine
Caldari Aries Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 09:26:00 -
[247]
My suggest: 1. Possibly adding one (only one) similar item (weapon, shield extender, hardener...) with same characteristics.
2. Ammo: possibly adding a space of ammos (ammunitions, cap booster, torpedo...) Mining is source of power. |
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 11:15:00 -
[248]
No NO NO the only 1 Idea is the same path that is destroying eve!
Stop tryign to homogenize everything! Eve was much much more fun at tiems when SPECIALIZATIOn was even more possible.
The everyone fitting trimarks effect is just because the other rigs are CRAP. Give us several types of WELL CREATED rigs and things will balance itself. Also make ALL rigs have stack nerf.. ALL rigs.. . and make that stacknerf NOT nerf along modules (liek locus rigs were)
Limiting to 1 of same type is childish and lazy fix.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 11:47:00 -
[249]
Do away with any rig penalties, ôOh no!ö you say, ôwe must have penalties!ö à uh why? No penalties will make balancing easier as well û less variables to manage. What is the penalty for putting a gun on my ship? None, unless you consider the penalty is, IÆve used a turret high slot and IÆll use up some CPU and power grid. Rigs have two of these resources, slots and calibration as it is. If I choose Rig X, Y and Z, then I can not also use Rig N. ôWhat of all the Rig penalty decreasing skills! Oh No!ö à change them around to rig boosting skills. Done.
The penalty of rigs should be not using them. This will increase demand, as the new small and medium rigs are going to do anyway. They however should be more of a consumable than they already are, but prices are simply too high for that. A ten fold increase in the drop rates will bring the prices more in line with the BPO cost of rigs, and allow them to be a consumable commodity, the eve economy needs more consumables as it is. Rig manufactures and salvagers will not see a significant impact on the bottom line as demand will increase by close to the same factor.
The market is already built into the system, there are thousands, dare I say a million rigs slots out there ready to be stuffed full of jury rigged goodness. But the market can be expanded further by increasing supply, as the destructibility factor, the willingness of someone to unfit a rig, will increase because the cost isnÆt as significant.
Oh, and keep your grubby nerf mitts away from CCC rigs pls, thanks :)
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Great Artista
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 12:12:00 -
[250]
Okay, let me get out of the box... hnnngh...
...
...
Ah, here we go;
AUXILIARY BALLISTIC COMPUTING UNIT THINGY áááááááááááááááááááT1 / T2 Calibration: 350 / 400
Enables guidance on 'dumb' missiles (rockets, hams, torps). The skill "Guided missile precision" now gives bonuses to the fore mentioned missile types. T1 rig: 75% bonus from the skill T2 rig: 100% bonus from the skill ____ Rockets need a boost. CCP status: [_] Told. [x] Not told.
◕◡◕
|
|
Taua Roqa
Minmatar junQtion
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 15:53:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Great Artista Okay, let me get out of the box... hnnngh...
...
...
Ah, here we go;
AUXILIARY BALLISTIC COMPUTING UNIT THINGY áááááááááááááááááááT1 / T2 Calibration: 350 / 400
Enables guidance on 'dumb' missiles (rockets, hams, torps). The skill "Guided missile precision" now gives bonuses to the fore mentioned missile types. T1 rig: 75% bonus from the skill T2 rig: 100% bonus from the skill
p cool idea.
|
EdwardNardella
Caldari Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 01:14:00 -
[252]
Rig Idea
Heat Redirection Conduit (High Medium and Low slot varieties)
Redirects most of heat generated by overloaded module to structure but increases damage amount to structure enough that the ship would not survive very long about twice or three times the normal length of a normal module overload period.
It would also increase the efficteveness of overloaded modules by 100% or more.
I intend for this rig to only be useful on a ship you do not expect to pilot very long, a suicide ship.
It is a shame that this would buff suicide ganking but I like the idea anyway. |
Windryder
New Fnord Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 07:54:00 -
[253]
With respect to the suggested idea of Capital scale rigs;
They should be cheap - definitely LESS than a capital module or fighter. 100M is way too much.
There should be a certain "Capital-ness" about what you can get captial rigs for; e.g. rigs that affect jump range or fuel, siege modes, ship maintenance bay sizes, fighter range/damage/speed, uber damage on capital scale weapons, DD warm-up times, number of clones in clone vats etc.
|
BIZZAROSTORMY
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 11:38:00 -
[254]
Originally by: Windryder With respect to the suggested idea of Capital scale rigs;
They should be cheap - definitely LESS than a capital module or fighter. 100M is way too much.
There should be a certain "Capital-ness" about what you can get captial rigs for; e.g. rigs that affect jump range or fuel, siege modes, ship maintenance bay sizes, fighter range/damage/speed, uber damage on capital scale weapons, DD warm-up times, number of clones in clone vats etc.
|
Atropos Kahn
Caldari Solarflare Heavy Industries Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 15:20:00 -
[255]
T3 Ships should be able to replace rig slots without having them destroyed. Or have a new class of expensive T3 rigs that do not break.
The purpose of the T3 ship is to be able to create multiple set ups, but if you want to "optimize" various set-ups, then you are forced to destroy rigs in order to do so. It takes the fun out of creating various set ups... If I set my rigs for shield tanking on one fit, but want to nano it out on another fit, then I need swap out the rigs spending about 60 million each time doing it. How does that make T3 fun?
T3 ships are expensive enough.
Enabling T3 ships to swap out rigs, or creating a new more expensive T3 class of rigs that are swapable should be a new feature in the game IMO.
|
Atropos Kahn
Caldari Solarflare Heavy Industries Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 15:25:00 -
[256]
One other feature... maybe you could add scripts to rigs... like sensor boosters have the range or sensor strength script... Would add a whole new dimension to customization.
|
Irn Bruce
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 16:24:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Atropos Kahn T3 Ships should be able to replace rig slots without having them destroyed. Or have a new class of expensive T3 rigs that do not break.
The purpose of the T3 ship is to be able to create multiple set ups, but if you want to "optimize" various set-ups, then you are forced to destroy rigs in order to do so. It takes the fun out of creating various set ups... If I set my rigs for shield tanking on one fit, but want to nano it out on another fit, then I need swap out the rigs spending about 60 million each time doing it. How does that make T3 fun?
T3 ships are expensive enough.
Enabling T3 ships to swap out rigs, or creating a new more expensive T3 class of rigs that are swapable should be a new feature in the game IMO.
How about simply binding the rigs to the subsystems, rather than the hull? The issue would be deciding which subsystems the rigs were attached to, though it would make sense that astronautics ones were attached to propulsion, weapons to offensive, tanking to defensive etc. Perhaps each subsystem has 3 rig slots, but only a maximum of 3 rigs can be attached to the ship at a time, meaning if you want to use 2 subsystems on a setup, and each has 3 rigs attached, you either have to destroy some of them, or you just need to buy another copy of the subsystem. It's certainly cheaper than buying a new ship for every setup.
On your other point about scripted rigs, I don't think that's a great idea. The whole point of rigs is that they specialise your ship to a particular role. I know T3 goes in the opposite direction a bit, but rigs still specialise it, and even with the change i just mentioned, the rigs would still specialise the subsystem. Scripting rigs makes them more general purpose, which is kind of against the point of them.
|
Atropos Kahn
Caldari Solarflare Heavy Industries Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 19:37:00 -
[258]
I think that just either creating a new T3 rig class or having the current rigs exchangable will be the best option. If you are able to swap out entire sub-systems, it doesnt make sense that the "technology" is not there to swap out rigs... even from a role playing perspective, it doesn't make sense. :)
I have already destroyed one set of rigs so that I can optimize a shield tanking set up. I will not do it again... but what if I want to swap out the shield tanking set up for the amour tanking sub-system... I am stuck with the shield rigs... unless I destroy them... losing the 60 million... and not counting the new armour tanking rigs that I would have to purchase.
So I am supposed to spend 140m to turn my optimized shield tanking ship, to an optimized armour tanking ship... Not that I would go to that extreme, but going from tank boat to DPS boat is still the same.
|
EdwardNardella
Caldari Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 22:10:00 -
[259]
Why not just buy a second hull?
|
Atropos Kahn
Caldari Solarflare Heavy Industries Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 01:29:00 -
[260]
Good point....
|
|
Arrs Grazznic
Pawn Sauce
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 12:49:00 -
[261]
I've always found it odd that you can fit multiple rigs of the same type to a ship. Rigs are meant to be permanent modifications to your ship made by a bit of hack and lash, rather than the addition of modules. Being able to fit 2 or 3 of the same rig type doesn't fit with this idea.
My suggestion is that you can only fit one rig of the same type to a ship, i.e. only one ccc, one trimark, etc. You would still have the 2 or 3 rig slots so it would force people to be more creative in their rig choices.
Cheers, Arrs
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 14:23:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Arrs Grazznic I've always found it odd that you can fit multiple rigs of the same type to a ship. Rigs are meant to be permanent modifications to your ship made by a bit of hack and lash, rather than the addition of modules. Being able to fit 2 or 3 of the same rig type doesn't fit with this idea.
My suggestion is that you can only fit one rig of the same type to a ship, i.e. only one ccc, one trimark, etc. You would still have the 2 or 3 rig slots so it would force people to be more creative in their rig choices.
Cheers, Arrs
taht wil make peopel LESS criative. Because findign 1 good rig in a set of 90 where msot are crap is hard. Finding 3 good different rigs is almost impossible., IF that goes live. We will for sure have a SINGLE combination of rigs on 95% of the ships. Becauyse there will be no other 3 different rig combinations worth fitting.
|
EdwardNardella
Caldari Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 16:27:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Arrs Grazznic I've always found it odd that you can fit multiple rigs of the same type to a ship. Rigs are meant to be permanent modifications to your ship made by a bit of hack and lash, rather than the addition of modules. Being able to fit 2 or 3 of the same rig type doesn't fit with this idea.
My suggestion is that you can only fit one rig of the same type to a ship, i.e. only one ccc, one trimark, etc. You would still have the 2 or 3 rig slots so it would force people to be more creative in their rig choices.
Cheers, Arrs
I agree with this and I suggested it a couple pages back.
|
Windryder
New Fnord Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 03:46:00 -
[264]
Okay I have put a bit more thought into this and the arithmetic is looking grim:
Currently there are 76 Rigs (to my knowledge) each with a T2 counterpart.
Without adding more, with the proposed "sized" rigs that will make 228 Rigs, each with a separate BPO and each with a T2 counterpart.
I think this is more numerous than actual ship module BPOs. Add in more rig effects and Capital sized rigs and this number will balloon further.
228 different BPOs. I think these numbers are getting silly.
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. I don't think CCP can do this easily.
A counter-proposal I have is this;
1. All BPOs manufacture small rigs, at substantially less cost in materials and substantially less effect. This would be scaled carefully - read on. 2. All rigs are stack-nerfed and stack-buffed (like shield boost amplifiers) so that stacking provides an effectively linear increase in boost/bonus amount. 3. The number of rig slots scales with the class of ship - in the same way that S, M & L rigs were meant to anyway; so a frigate has 3 slots, cruiser 6, battleship 9. Calibration scales similarly. 4. The rig effects are scaled so that 3 of these small rigs stacked together equals the effect of 1 "old" rig. 5. The effect of a "new" rig in a medium or large ship is inversely scaled so that 1 rig in a frigate provides the same bonus as 3 stacked rigs in a battleship.
Upshot: Without increasing the number of BPOs needed, rig size has effectively been scaled, but backwards compatibility maintained. To gain approximately the same benefit of rigging across ship sizes you must use the same percentage of rig slots dedicated to that rig type, and the same percentage you have always had to use in the past. But for a larger ship you need more rigs to make that percentage - thus requiring more materials/isk etc. The other effect is that you can now customise larger ships in more diverse ways, but not to any greater magnitude than you could before - which should mean the game balance does not change significantly, except in the manner that larger ships require more money/materials to rig them.
Windy
|
Aethrwolf
Caldari Home for Wayward Gamers
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 06:57:00 -
[265]
rig penalties should all affect a system not directly related to what the rig is boosting.. ie. shield rigs would penalize armor in some way. either armor amount or effectiveness of reppers.
rigging skills: >insert name here< Rigging V should = no penalties
OR introduced advanced rigging skills that would either boost effectiveness of rigs or if the above was not taken action upon.. further reduce drawbacks til they were 0% at V
drone rigs: been addressed fairly well by others
mining rigs: would love to see them in a way, but I can see them being a buff to macro mining
IMHO rigs are a modification to the basic structure of the ship and, as such, should not have stacking penalties with anything other than themselves.
CPU rig... why doesnt this already exist?
heres a new one (I think): Upgrade rigs: corresponding with the various upgrade skills designed to at least partially compensate for drawbacks to various upgrade modules. Doubles the drawback reduction from the skill it corresponds with. Absolutely everything is subjective. |
Ollora Denebe
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 14:20:00 -
[266]
"Jury rigging refers to makeshift repairs or temporary contrivances" -- Wikipedia. In fact, in game, rigging is more permament than modules, more expensive than station repairs and has nothing to do with repairing a ship. The modules as they are are more like rigging than rigging is - really.
What rigging SHOULD allow is modifications to a ship WITHOUT having to buy anything. Of course, we already have skills that modify ships abilities (to sometimes silly degrees), so you'd just be reduplicating effort there as well.
Rigging, like many things, was pushed into the game to artifically add complexity when the real problems of game balance and accountability go completely unchecked. Why are we even discussing this? Simply eliminate rigging. Stop wasting our time.
|
Zephyr Mallory
Starfire Oasis Thalion Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 17:16:00 -
[267]
Quote: What rigging SHOULD allow is modifications to a ship WITHOUT having to buy anything. Of course, we already have skills that modify ships abilities (to sometimes silly degrees), so you'd just be reduplicating effort there as well.
Really, the current rig system in eve isn't that much different from any myriad of websites that explain how to turn a mag-lite into a killer laser beam using cannibalized parts from a busted DVD-RW and a couple bits from radio shack.
Blueprints represent the idea somebody else had written down and shared. "this is what I did and this is how I did it"... Quoting wikipedia as a source for information doesn't make you seem more right. Even if its the same wording, you'll get better effect quoting Dictionary.com, or some other non-peer-edited resource.
Salvage Ninjas are Annoying and Lame, but within rights. |
EdwardNardella
Caldari Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 18:12:00 -
[268]
Yeah... When I first learnt about rigs I was excited. Then I found out that they are produced just like modules are. I had imagined something that you could do in space. Take the salvage, take the BP and have a rigging module that takes a few mins and build and apply the rig in space.
All this without needing industrial skills. Making rigging an activity more like overloading than anything.
|
Leaping Tiger
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 04:46:00 -
[269]
Make Jury Rigging a Rank 3 skill and the area specific Rigging skills Rank 5.
With that done you can have the skills add to the bonus of the rigs, reduce whatever penalties if any and reduce the Calibration requirement.
So, for instance, the new Somebody Else's Problem rig to reduce the ship's signature radius can have a -5% plus -1% per level of Electronics Rigging bonus. The -5% penalty to shield strength can be mitigated with the now standard -10% feedback penalty per level. Additionally, Jury Rigging offers -5% calibration requirement per level. Perhaps the Tech II version could be -5% bonus & -2% per level. Because ships' signature radius is already class-balanced we can use the same numbers for all three or four sizes of rigs.
I don't think any of the Tech I rigs should give bonuses of more that 10% or so when maxed. If it's kept to a modest level there'll be less min-maxing and more creativity.
No duplicate rigs on a ship and no stacking penalties vs. modules. Ideally rigs shouldn't be providing bonuses to the same statistics as modules anyway.
Another alternative to having to play around with all of the blueprints and materials to produce rigs of different classes is to drop the price for the raw materials for the rigs, but in the fitting screen add a cost for the installation of the rigs. I know this takes money out of the economy sort-of artificially, but it's just an idea. Perhaps there can be a new specialised skill set for the installation of rigs so that it can become a new micro-profession. Just brainstorming here.
I realize that CCP thinks a selling point of the game is that new players can catch up to old players relatively quickly and therefore CCP wants to moderate the effect of skills, but if the new players catch up to the old players too quickly it becomes pretty lame for the old players.
And if CCP wanted to enable level 6 for all skills, that'd be great too.
I forget, what time frame are we looking at for these changes to take place? _________________________ . . . but that's just me. |
Allen Ramses
Caldari Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 06:56:00 -
[270]
Edited by: Allen Ramses on 31/07/2009 06:56:24 I hate the fact that rigs exist in the first place. I hate them with every inch of my body. They destroyed the low/medium slot layout balances of both the types and sizes of ships, and should be significantly modified to fill a different role, if not removed outright.
I can see a rig that increases weapon damage by 10%, with a 10% ROF penalty. Or perhaps a 30% increase in resistance with a 10% HP penalty. What doesn't make sense is 15% to repper amount with a 10% penalty to ship velocity. That's just plain stupid.
But then again, making it so a rigged ship is different instead of better would upset the morons, cowards, and anybody who doesn't like things to make sense (I'm looking at you, CCP). ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
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 |