Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Irish Vixen
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 06:16:00 -
[151]
Not Supported. Your desire for "choice" does not outweigh the commensurate boost to sub-battleship pvp. Moreover, reducing the barriers for entry into pvp for new players and empire carebears is nothing but a plus.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 16:56:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Irish Vixen Not Supported. Your desire for "choice" does not outweigh the commensurate boost to sub-battleship pvp. Moreover, reducing the barriers for entry into pvp for new players and empire carebears is nothing but a plus.
New players don't desire frigate and cruiser sized warfare at t1 levels. It's merely a bridge to getting to better things. Most new players are in a battlecruiser in 3 weeks and a battleship in 5. I don't consider 3-5 weeks of gameplay justifiable for a complete change to the system.
There is and very well should be a graduated learning curve in this game. Learn the basics, then expand. You guys seem to want everyting thrown on the new guys at once. And that's not a practical choice. All it will do is overwhelm them with even more skills that they'll consider "necessary" and probably give them yet another reason to leave.
Entry to pvp is to use what you can and learn. That way, the more you add to it later, the bigger the bonus to coincide with your training. Rigs fall under an optional tag atm. Making them so cheap that they're mandatory is not a good option for newer players who are already overwhelmed with other task. I mean, how do you even gauge a draback to a ship if you've never had time to experience the options available in the first place without those drawbacks?
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 16:59:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Aditia Holdem Edited by: Aditia Holdem on 03/08/2009 04:41:02 I too thought that u would have 3 tiers of rigs with increasing bonusses at increased cost (making it actually worthwile to rig t1 frigs/cruisers with cheap rigs). And I even thought that idea was a bit silly, but a lot better (depending ofcourse on the quality difference between the rigs).
And yes, if the salvage drops don't change drastically, BS sized rigs will reach ridiculous levels.
Supported
Pay no attention to the people who deal with the markets on a daily basis.
Assuming drop rates stay the same, this will do nothing but bottom prices out of nearly every single salvage part out there.
Hell every mission runniner and industrialist should be screaming for joy, cargo expander's, CCCs and a few of the other carebear heavy rigs are going to be next to nothing here soon. |
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 11:17:00 -
[154]
This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard in a while. But I understand where your bizarre assumptions are coming from. You assume that given a wide swath of choices, player will always choose the same "best" option for their ship.
So, lets say on an interceptor, as you said, everyone will put speed rigs, and so everyone will be the same.
Right...
Just to make things clear - I'm not trolling. but saying giving frigates more options makes them the same is pretty stupid. I mean, just take the interceptor for example. What rigs would you likely put on them?
-Warp speed + -Speed + -Scan Res + -Damage + -Tracking + -Resistance + -Agility +
I could go on, but I think you get my point. If some idiot just wants an inty to quickly fly between Dodixie and Jita, he might fit it differently than a guy who is gate camping for war targets or a pod popper enthusiast. Cheaper Rigs will allow this type of specialization in cheaper ships.
We might actually see T1 frigates become useful.
Well, that last sentence was kind of a lie unless its a rifter, but you get me.
________________________________
Originally by: Lone Gunman Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would |
Taua Roqa
Minmatar junQtion
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 13:49:00 -
[155]
I don't agree with you yaay but i'm not entirely sure i like the idea of basically free rigs for frigates. Obviously they will become mandatory, but what is worse, instead of them making currently weaker frigates more capable of exerting their niche, it'll just exaggerate the more popular frigs strong points to imbalance. Uber-tanked passive merlins, huge buffered punishers, interceptor-fast vigils, crazy-gank incursuses...and whatever else people conjour up.
so yeah, i'm just worried free/very cheap rigs will create horribly OP cookie-cutter builds on the classes of ships that should be having their flexibility emphasised.
[ |
Cthul
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:57:00 -
[156]
I don't agree, anything that helps make pvp cheaper for new players, and lessens the performance gap between new players and old is a good thing. Rigs should not cost 100x the cost of the hull
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 17:05:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Terra Mikael
I just got on the test sever and examined the rigs myself. They will be the biggest isk sink ever. You are right - fitting rigs now will be more common then it is now, but you have to think that these will be going on paper-thin ships. So now every frigate that goes down will cost 2-5 million without tech two fittings. This is a better isk sink then medals and implants combined.
This is in no way an isk sink. Isk sinks mean money is removed from the game. This money is not removed, it is transfered.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 17:08:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Cthul I don't agree, anything that helps make pvp cheaper for new players, and lessens the performance gap between new players and old is a good thing. Rigs should not cost 100x the cost of the hull
How does this make PvP cheaper for younger players. 1 they have to train more skills just to rig. 2 they have to buy said skills. 3 they have to buy even more equipment, which everyone else flying the same class ship will be buying now too. It won't make PVP cheaper, It'll make it more difficult for young players.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 06:19:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Yaay This is in no way an isk sink. Isk sinks mean money is removed from the game. This money is not removed, it is transfered.
I'm not much for investing, but I would say a few mil in a t1 frig is a highly risky investment.
Especially since if you die, you will never see that isk again, and your opponent can't loot it so that isk disappears forever.
Sounds like an isk sink to me. ________________________________
Originally by: Lone Gunman Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would |
Taua Roqa
Minmatar junQtion
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 08:27:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Taua Roqa on 06/08/2009 08:31:27
Originally by: Terra Mikael
Originally by: Yaay This is in no way an isk sink. Isk sinks mean money is removed from the game. This money is not removed, it is transfered.
I'm not much for investing, but I would say a few mil in a t1 frig is a highly risky investment.
Especially since if you die, you will never see that isk again, and your opponent can't loot it so that isk disappears forever.
Sounds like an isk sink to me.
but you buy that rig off a rig builder (like me!) and then i spend that isk on more components/waste the profit if i've made any on exotic dancers.
the isk is not sunk as it continues to flow about the economy :) skillbooks are isk sinks as the isk is technically destroyed.
the only real isk sinks in the chain are NPC station slot fees and sales taxes and whatnot.
[ |
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 13:25:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Yaay
This is in no way an isk sink. Isk sinks mean money is removed from the game. This money is not removed, it is transfered.
Salvage doesn't work on the same model that minerals do, so yes it is an item sink when rigged ships get popped.
However... as noted before. Because we'll be seeing a price plummet because usage amounts are lower, I really don't think its going to be that significant of an impact.
...assuming drop rates are equal. |
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 17:52:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Yaay
This is in no way an isk sink. Isk sinks mean money is removed from the game. This money is not removed, it is transfered.
Salvage doesn't work on the same model that minerals do, so yes it is an item sink when rigged ships get popped.
However... as noted before. Because we'll be seeing a price plummet because usage amounts are lower, I really don't think its going to be that significant of an impact.
...assuming drop rates are equal.
The amount used /rig will decrease, but more rigs will be used. The price may go down, but it could also stay the same or go up.
|
Ravenja
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 18:57:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Ravenja on 07/08/2009 18:58:03
Originally by: Salpad So, what would be an appropriate scaling? 100%/20%/5% obviously isn't it.
100%/50%/25% is a good compromise IMO. |
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 20:09:00 -
[164]
Originally by: steave435
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Yaay
This is in no way an isk sink. Isk sinks mean money is removed from the game. This money is not removed, it is transfered.
Salvage doesn't work on the same model that minerals do, so yes it is an item sink when rigged ships get popped.
However... as noted before. Because we'll be seeing a price plummet because usage amounts are lower, I really don't think its going to be that significant of an impact.
...assuming drop rates are equal.
The amount used /rig will decrease, but more rigs will be used. The price may go down, but it could also stay the same or go up.
The initial high demand and speculation will make prices go up for sure. But over time, as ship after ship that were rigged continue to sit in the hanger and market demand normalizes, it will likely fall below current prices.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Gaven Darklighter
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 23:14:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Yaay
my name is yaay. I have to keep posting because no one agrees with me. But what do I care? I want this game to be all about me
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 01:55:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Gaven Darklighter
Originally by: Yaay
my name is yaay. I have to keep posting because no one agrees with me. But what do I care? I want this game to be all about me
Who are you again? Maybe you should post more too so I can care enough to get clever with the insults.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 03:03:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Gaven Darklighter
Originally by: Yaay
my name is yaay. I have to keep posting because no one agrees with me. But what do I care? I want this game to be all about me
|
Arcane Azmadi
Caldari First Flying Wing Inc Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 07:52:00 -
[168]
You know, we can stop posting in this thread now. Why? Because the rig update is going through and there's not a GOD-DAMNED thing you or anyone else can do about it, no matter how much you whine. If CCP decide to try changing part of the game, saying "No, we don't want anything to change, we want things to stay the same!" is hardly going to dissuade them.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 12:08:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Yaay
This is in no way an isk sink. Isk sinks mean money is removed from the game. This money is not removed, it is transfered.
Salvage doesn't work on the same model that minerals do, so yes it is an item sink when rigged ships get popped.
Its item sink but not isk sink. You dont get it.
|
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 21:34:00 -
[170]
the cheaper rigs give smaller ships more versatility, making fights last longer and have a better chance at killing your opponent and surviving
if we do as the op states then the bonus will be almost useless and their wont be a point to even using the smaller rigs on the ships because it wont be in the correct ratios
thumbs down from me
|
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:31:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Yaay on 17/09/2009 18:38:17 Edited by: Yaay on 17/09/2009 18:32:27 I would like for people to watch market trackers for the basic construction components of all rigs.
Typically that means:
tripped power circuits smashed trigger units Fried interface circuits burnt logic circuits etc
Notice every one of them peaking and then declining to near, or lower levels than pre patch announcement 3 months ago.
These are the most basic building blocks of all rigs, small medium or large.
If demand over time really went up rather than an initial spike due to a flood of ship reserves needing to be fitted, shouldn't those prices continue to go up.
Consider this, it's only been 3 months. What will happen at 6 months when this has had more time to normalize to the new settings?
Rig prices for the most part have returned to near pre patch levels and most are still on the decline even more. The most pronounced I've found so far is the core defense extender line. the larges have declined 33% from their pre patch levels due to the mechanics of building. By all the logic listed in this thread, that shouldn't have happened if the prices of mediums would drive up demand on all the drakes in game.
Since it's much harder to track, I'd love someone who frequents the faction markets to comment, but per the example I listed pages ago.
Centi c-type small armor repairer has seen an increase from 8 mil average to about 12 mil average since the patch.
Corpum medium armor repair appears to have increased by about 10 mil average.
Amarr navy energized adaptive nano membrane has gone up by around 80% from 22-25 mil up to 41-43 mil.
All of this I miraculously predicted as the simple shift in funding from rigs to other gear to get the same type of edge that people claimed was class warfare in rigs.
You can't solve that problem with the patch that was implemented.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Niskin
Minmatar Conflagration. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 20:42:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Yaay
Originally by: Irish Vixen Not Supported. Your desire for "choice" does not outweigh the commensurate boost to sub-battleship pvp. Moreover, reducing the barriers for entry into pvp for new players and empire carebears is nothing but a plus.
New players don't desire frigate and cruiser sized warfare at t1 levels. It's merely a bridge to getting to better things. Most new players are in a battlecruiser in 3 weeks and a battleship in 5. I don't consider 3-5 weeks of gameplay justifiable for a complete change to the system.
The Faction Warfare system disagrees with you and it is essentially a PvP training ground for people ranging from newbies to long time players that never learned pvp. There are plenty of people flying around in things that are smaller than BC's because at 3-5 weeks most people can't afford to lose a BC every few days.
Simply put, the cost of a rig for a ship should be relative to the cost of the hull itself. You have yet to explain why that should not be so, or furthermore why it shouldn't have been that way all along. CCP either didn't think about it or didn't have the mechanics to implement it originally but now they do. I realize that you *want* rigs to be expensive things that make the owner feel like a unique snowflake but that's not what is best for the game.
The skills for rigging aren't particularly expensive or long to train, it makes sense that newer players should be able to afford the rigs since they can afford the skills. Beyond newer players though it makes sense for a rigged T1 frigate to incur a loss of a few million when it's blown up instead of 50m or so. If I had 50m to blow I'd fly an unrigged BC or cheaply fit BS which would be far more useful than a rigged frigate.
Rigs are not magical super mods and they shouldn't be priced as such. ------------- I am the n00b that time forgot. |
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 23:12:00 -
[173]
your assessment of what the rig patch did, and then your claim that it is therefore bad is a pretty huge jump with pretty much nothing in the middle to explain how you get there.
i understand the "power creep" issues and we were talking about that in Iceland. if i remember right, it was agreed upon that rigs did create new balance issues and introducing yet more mods to alter ships is probably a bad idea past this point.
but the rig patch itself, it was a boost to everything not a battleship or a capital. it provides me with more options to make my frigates better in certain ways that i wouldn't have bothered to do otherwise, and i think it's great.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Nekmet Awai
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 00:02:00 -
[174]
not supported, sizing the rigs where the most sensable change ccp have made in ages.
now do the same with all 1 sized modules. and people stop *****ing because you lost some isk on a balance that was CLEARLY needed.
|
Anargirou
Fatal System Error Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 08:18:00 -
[175]
Everything I have to say has already been said so I will simply say this; Not supported.
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 02:57:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Yaay on 21/09/2009 03:00:52 Edited by: Yaay on 21/09/2009 02:58:52
Originally by: mazzilliu your assessment of what the rig patch did, and then your claim that it is therefore bad is a pretty huge jump with pretty much nothing in the middle to explain how you get there.
i understand the "power creep" issues and we were talking about that in Iceland. if i remember right, it was agreed upon that rigs did create new balance issues and introducing yet more mods to alter ships is probably a bad idea past this point.
but the rig patch itself, it was a boost to everything not a battleship or a capital. it provides me with more options to make my frigates better in certain ways that i wouldn't have bothered to do otherwise, and i think it's great.
I'm pretty sure what I stated was that the rig patch made no sense based on the claims that it would help balance rich vs poor.
I've furthermore provided statistical evidence that my claims on the economics behind their change based on their stats and everyone's assumptions were wrong, but we are merely at the midpoint of what I was preaching... I was just building up the platform for 3 months from now when I revist the market stats once more.
The point I made, and will continue to make is that by making rigs availible to everyone, the only real change is a loss in diversity of ships.
Now as predicted, Ships have become less uncertain to gauge before a fight because you can be certain they have rigs rather than need to guess.
Furthermore, for those who claim it was an issue of weath, I've attempted to show just how the faction markets were impacted by the rig changes. I would love to have a statistical analysis of how much more faction loot has been purchased per player since the change, but for now, I can simply go off price.
Rigs didn't help anyone out. Can you fly a frigate better, absolutely, but the standard of fit for every frigate has been raised, not just you personally. About the only impact this has had positively is the balance of frigate vs bs in combat. But when comparing similar class warfare, it's deteriorated. There is no longer as wide a gap between potential as their once was.
===============
If CCP wanted to achieve more balance while not doing everything I've and apparently at least a few others have fought against, they could have made all small medium and large rigs available to all ships, but with diminished bonuses and cost for smalls. That would have lowered the gap, but also the reward for spending less, similar to the meta scale for gear currently in game.
It's hilarious when people always toss out the money arguement to me in game. I've never met a player yet who couldn't fit rigs pre-patch if they so desired, with 2 or 3 exceptions that were extraordinarily overpriced due to demand. It was a choice of performance vs economics, which is exactly how it should be. If that's not the case, should we remove Tech 2's distinct advantages next and reduce the cost so that everyone can afford a zealot or nighthawk?
Or for that matter, should we remove Meta levels so that all new players can afford the best neutron blasters and solace large RR's for their Mega?
============ I've accepted the changes at this point because their's obviously not any going back. All my aim is now, is to show the mistake it's created so that in the future, maybe just maybe the dev's will actually think something through more than their 30 minute brainstorming sessions they apparently currently use. But then again, we have the new DD changes, so my hope is diminished.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 08:32:00 -
[177]
Stop being a damn drama queen.
Get over yourself.
The patch has not broken the game... rigs are now a little more affordable... and making the game more challenging is not going to ruin your already overweight ego.
Seriously... give it up already. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Niskin
Minmatar Conflagration. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 16:29:00 -
[178]
Yaay,
You are missing the point, rigs were implemented incorrectly in the first place and this was the fix. Every other T1 or T2 module in the game that can fit multiple sized ships was priced low because the components to build it were few and common. Hardeners, rechargers, weapon mods, ewar, the list goes on and on, they are all cheap. When rigs were introduced the opposite was done, the components were many and harder to come by. The result was that rigs were priced higher and were not cost effective to use below the BS level.
Now they could have fixed this two ways, the first being what they did already. The second would be to convert completely to the model that I mentioned above, the existing model of one size fits all equals cheap. IMO that would be worse because it would mean BS's could fit triple trimarks for around 5m ISK. So lets be glad they did what they did in this case.
The rig market has a solid "build cost" floor for prices. Sometimes people will sell below the floor to get money now but they do so at a loss. In general this market is controlled by cost. The faction market on the other hand is 100% supply and demand, there are no hard line costs for the top or bottom. Any price increases you've seen there would have to be due to an increase in demand or decrease in supply. The change in rig prices could certainly be responsible for people having extra cash to burn now but that's not a bad thing, in fact it was the point. ------------- I am the n00b that time forgot. |
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 05:54:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Forge Lag Edited by: Forge Lag on 08/07/2009 14:21:40 The issue lies entirely with the categorization of ships.
Cheap rigs for T1 frigs and T1 cruisers are ment to help newer players and do not affect the power scale too much. Yet Drakes do not need 5x cheaper rigs or they become auto-include, Ceptors do not need full rig job cheaper than single module or they become auto-include.
The division should be small: T1 frigs, T1 destroyers medium: T1 cruisers, T2 frigates and destroyers large: T1 BC+, T2 cruiser+
This preserves the current balancing as close as possible while giving new toys to new players; lowering rig costs makes rigs still not automatic include but more plausible option. The result is richer EvE, contrary to the rough draft CCP has now, that spends dev time to take choices away.
Okay that is a step in the right direction. I waited a while to actually feel this out and see if this was an acceptable change to EVE, and it still rubs me sore.
Class restriction, that goes against the sandbox AND lore(amount of rigging can be variable) AND Capitalism(Risk v Reward). I smell a WoW employee in that choice...it's like FW items not being useable by people not enlisted...that's how awkward this feels.
All while leaving the Calibration system that can work to handle all that and balance against extreme rigging just to grief.(cheaper suicide ganker fits with T1 mods inbound!, mandatory inty rigging inbound!.)
Plus, a 5% bonus to a Large ship with a S rig is more newb friendly, and customizable, all around. The player gets the EXACT choice of what risk and reward he fits to which ship. I'd even want bigger bonuses beyond what we see now if the sizes are appropriate. Like S ECM rig gives 40% boost(stacking) on a Kestrel but you have to pay for the M ECM rig to get that extra for a Caracal. That give players MORE options who use ECM/varied skills no? An ECM skilled player fitting useful ECM to Ferox/Brutix. Not in my EVE.
*Rigging skills at 3-5 to unlock the extra efficiency from rigs would be EVEN MORE CUSTOMIZABLE, not just timesinks like they are now. Jeez, CCP this looks lazy, the more I look at it.(no offense, but I practice tough love.) Also, put it on the Drawingboard, some way skilled up riggers can convert T1 rigs to T2 with the materials and locking the ship into an "Overhaul" job on Sci+Industry window. Make it take a week. That's more sandbox.
I am enjoying this fun change just like a Vaga pilots who kited T2 light drones/webs/neutranges/missiles/gunfire ...but I gotta support this thread. The right thing and the fun thing are never the same thing.
You can fit 3x rig to any T1 cruiser even if you should run out of Calib on the important/dangerous additions. e.g: rig for tracking,damage, AND range, fit T2 Pulse Harby/Zealot. Game.
Cheaper rigs are boosting max/min in EVE, that is the definition of game-breaking and auto-include. I used to think about rigging my Razus but at seeing the new ratios that CCP chose(don't even scale dynamically lol) I'd be a damn fool not to slap 2 on.
No amount of player talent will save your inty from a rigged Rifter. That breaks the game as Rifters with T2 could already gank T2 frigs. And nothing in the old/new rig system stops dps rigging from stacking properly. Some crafty griefer is already looking for a Rifter v AF duel. And in no way should you nerf Rifter, it's perfection, incarnate. It's just MORE perfect at less cost ratio. Change the ratio.
Why do they get all 3 that affect dps on a nano/buffertank/ANY setup? Because the system is broken. Calibration points do not run out. 7 |
Lino Licker
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 11:31:00 -
[180]
I've not read all the posts before me, but I totally love the new cheap rigs. Doesn't make sense to put 15m of rigs on a frigate, totally makes sense they're more expensive the bigger ship you have.
Absolutely love them. Makes a headache for manufacturers having to do more stuff, I just wish this was the case from day 1 when I couldn't afford to lose a badger!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |