| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yaay
The Players Club
   |
Posted - 2009.07.07 02:32:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Yaay on 07/07/2009 02:34:04
When rigs were first introduced into this game, the idea was "would you be willing to pay for the extra ump?".
When this patch was first announced, I like the Idea because I and many others were under the impression that smaller rigs would be smaller bonuses for less cost. Instead, what we're getting is cheaper ways to fit smaller ships.
By doing this, not only are smaller ships going to be very easy to rig so much that it will be stupid not to rig them, But large rigs will likely drop in price drastically too because the demand on that grouping of rigs will drop heavily when frigs and cruiser will be using a different set for much lower cost.
The issue I have with this patch is, it's removing the choice to fit rigs and replacing it with the necessity to fit rigs. At such low cost per rig, the Choice not to fit a rig becomes as irrelevant as someone choosing not to fit their last high slot, or someone who has a 6 slot tank on a geddon.
Ultimately, it's removing choice and reward for choice and replacing it with common sense vs the lack there of. It's just another step towards cookie cutter bull**** gaming and that's why PVP is becoming so monotonous.
In todays game, you get to see choices (less than in the past, but still some). With the issue of rigging a frigate for instance, it's usually about a 4k m/s frig going against a 6k m/s frigate. One shells out the cost for more umph. The other chooses not to. It doesn't dictate the fight, but it does factor into the fight.
If the patch goes through as intended, instead what you'll see is every frig racing around at 6k m/s, b/c to justify not spending 500k to 2 mil on 3 rigs is just lunacy and stupidity.
While I don't' ask that people support the below, I do ask that everyone support the dislike of what this patch will bring. It's another set in the direction of cookie cutter bull**** PVP.
=================
The alternative which makes more sense to this is simple... more expensive rigs with greater bonuses, and cheaper rigs will lesser bonuses.
A cheap rig would typically get about 1/3 the bonus of a large rig, but for 1/3 the cost.
What that option does better than the proposed patch is simple, it provides benefits to those willing to scale cost vs reward still. It's essentially the middle ground b/t what we have now, and and the extremely ghetto proposed patch.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 03:27:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Yaay on 07/07/2009 03:28:12
Supported and let me add this... under the proposed patch, unless prices change radically from what they're proposing:
To rig a Frigate's 3 slots will cost less than 1 tech 2 1mn MWD.
To rig a Battle cruiser's 3 slots will cost less than or equal to it's t2 guns.
With those cost, how will virtually anyone not justify rigging their ship. Bye bye prized ships, hello standard fits.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 03:30:00 -
[3]
I support the general idea that pvp ships should be more expensive to lose. I don't like how easy money making has become in this game, and how CCP seem to be interested in making it cheaper and more meaningless
|
Gnulpie
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 04:34:00 -
[4]
With the current proposed rig changes it is a MUST-HAVE to rig your ship, no matter what.
The current rules proposed by the patch are to tight, there is no room left to play around.
It is well explained in the op that not-rigging is as much as an option as not using your low slots for an armor tanker - you can do that but it is completely nonsense. With other words: a must have.
A ruleset which basically ENFORCES you to do something if you still want to be up to par is not a change for the better, it removes CHOICE and VARIATIONS.
|
Tortugan
Internal Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 05:02:00 -
[5]
Supported. I would be interested to see counter-arguments to this proposal-- OP does an excellent job of proving their point.
----
Need Mercenaries? Contact me in-game to hire Internal Anarchy.
Killboard |
XHolyAvengerX
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 05:51:00 -
[6]
Not supported. At the moment rig slots on medium and especially small ships are essentially useless. While you can rig them, it's somewhat idiotic to do so. Also, the patch should also make t2 rigs more reasonable, so if you want to be able to pay more for extra umph, they'll actually be an option.
Also, I don't see how allowing rigs on smaller ships more easily, which are intended to increase diversity, would do the opposite. Particularly if ccp rebalances them correctly like they claim they will.
|
Salpad
Caldari
Carebears with Attitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 06:06:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Yaay
When rigs were first introduced into this game, the idea was "would you be willing to pay for the extra ump?".
I like the concept behind CCP's idea, but I was very surprised to hear that rigs for medium-sized (cruiser) ships would be 20% the price of large (current) rigs, and that rigs for small-sized (frigae) ships would be 4% the price.
That's too aggressive scaling, and will indeed produce the effect you're complaining about, where fitting rigs will be mandatory. According to the dev blog, a frigate rig is projected to cost between 100k and 1M ISK.
When I proposed sized rigs last year, my suggestion as much less aggressively scaled: Small rigs should be 10% of the cost of large rigs, and medium rigs should be something like 30%-40% of the cost of large rigs.
And perhaps even that was too aggressive. Perhaps medium rigs should be half cost, and small rigs be 25% cost?
I want to be able to rig my cruisers and frigates, without revealing to the world the fact that I'm a fool with far too many ISK and far too little common sense, but I do agree with you that variety is highly desirable, and obviously if all frigates are rigged then there is no frigate-variety.
So, what would be an appropriate scaling? 100%/20%/5% obviously isn't it. My original proposal, which was from last year and wasn't not thought through in terms of numbers but simply contained numbers because some numbers should be there, was 100%/40%/10%.
What about 100%/50%/20%?
Also keep in mind that Caldari carebears (like me) already fit their passive Drakes with shield tanking rigs. That's not the issue. A battlecruiser is almost a battleship. The issue is frigates and cruisers, and also destroyers for those of you who can stomach the idea of flying a combat ship with no tubes.
--
Salpad |
Notorious Fuzz
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 06:44:00 -
[8]
I disagree.
Sized rigs are leveling the playing field for those who COULDNT afford to fit rigs. Pay more for more umph? Its still the case, just more in line for average joe. Ever since rigs were introduced, they should have been available for all ship sizes, but logic failures (and people being lazy about salvage) prevented that and thus we have the current price points (there were never any NPC buyers to suggest a price either). It sounds more like a whine than a justification because you are worried about your over-priced rigged tiny ships losing their edge.
If your complaint is that rigs will make PVP more cookie cutter, I couldnt disagree more again. People will choose rigs commensurate with their play style and/or skills. Cant track well enough? Ill fit a tracking rig. Want to be more snipey? A range rig will do. More tank? There are rigs for that as well. If anything, it will be MORE difficult to predict what you will encounter when engaging a T1 target, and thinking about tactics would do EVE a lot of good. If your soft targets are getting a tad more hard, its up to you to adjust for it.
|
Oam Mkoll
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 07:01:00 -
[9]
I agree. Yet another stupid attempt to make EVE identical for everyone.
---
|
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 09:00:00 -
[10]
Not supported.
You're talking all about choice, but the truth is: Currently you do not have the choice to fit rigs on frigates, except for those who have too much money.
This change gives me and other, who are always looking for ISK-efficient ways into PVP, the choice to fit rigs on frigates.
Also, as has been remarked: Prices of BS rigs might as well rise with the change, due to the higher demand for smaller sized rigs.
-
Success=Achievements/Expectations
|
Oam Mkoll
Caldari
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 09:10:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jarne
Not supported.
You're talking all about choice, but the truth is: Currently you do not have the choice to fit rigs on frigates, except for those who have too much money.
This change gives me and other, who are always looking for ISK-efficient ways into PVP, the choice to fit rigs on frigates.
Also, as has been remarked: Prices of BS rigs might as well rise with the change, due to the higher demand for smaller sized rigs.
When everyone has identical fitting everything gets boring. We might as well all fly T1 ships with T1 fittings. Rigs were those "extra effort" slots, anything but mandatory. Now everyone will rig all ships. This isn't about elitist rich jerks versus poor average players. A set of rigs wouldn't kill anyone finacially but it was expensive enough to warrant a decision about risk and reward. Now that entire aspect of the game is gone. Everyone has rigs, people stop caring about them. Rigs become yet another logistic nuisance for ALL players.
---
|
Treelox
Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 09:33:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Oam Mkoll
I agree. Yet another stupid attempt to make EVE identical for everyone.
+1
CCP's price scaling is way too agressive. And combined with their idea of a salvage reactor to make t2 salvage from t1 parts will just have the same effect that the OP puts forth on t2 rigs too.
--
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 10:10:00 -
[13]
This whole thread is based on the premise that there is only one "right combination" of rigs for each ship.
My opinion is that this change will allow multiple equally valid combinations, especially for small ships where at the cost of some million you can try different set up and even change them at a vim.
Not supported.
|
Kaito Haakkainen
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 10:32:00 -
[14]
Not supported.
Presuming a cost of 2m to rig a frigate I'd say that fits with the idea of adding "umph" for more ISK already. Rigging a t1 frigate will still cost several times the price of the hull and on a t2 frigate they'd still represent a significant investment compared to the hull-cost. Personally I don't think rigs will be cheap enough and should scale more appropriately with hull costs.
If you are looking to invest more ISK to get better performance there are faction, deadspace, and officer modules, these are far more suitable for PvP as they may drop in the wreck rewarding the victor.
In my view the performance gap between the rich and the poor doesn't need increasing. The trader/dedicated mission runner/etc can splash out for t2 ships, rigs, and fits and spice it up with faction/deadspace/officer equipment. The weekend warrior who makes ISK for perhaps one hour of the three hours he plays a week is looking at fielding unrigged, t1 ships, with t2/named fittings. I'd say the difference there is vast enough. Forcing those with lives beyond the game, or whose talents don't lend themselves to passive ISK generation to fly sub-par ships with sub-par fits and a rack of empty slots somewhat detracts from the impact of skill in PvP. There should be a gap, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor in as many conflicts as it is.
|
Kaito Haakkainen
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 10:37:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: Oam Mkoll
I agree. Yet another stupid attempt to make EVE identical for everyone.
+1
CCP's price scaling is way too agressive. And combined with their idea of a salvage reactor to make t2 salvage from t1 parts will just have the same effect that the OP puts forth on t2 rigs too.
Reducing prices allows greater variety for people whose current options are A: Not fitting rigs and B: Not fitting rigs. Reducing the price of t2 rigs falls under the same premise only opening up more options for those with the cash to fit t1 rigs. All this is going along-side a re-balancing of rigs with the intent to ensure we see more use from rigs that are currently "underpowered" and the introduction of new rigs.
I'd say that's a rather large increase in variety both for the game and for many individual pilots options.
|
Oam Mkoll
Caldari
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 10:57:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Kaito Haakkainen
Reducing prices allows greater variety for people whose current options are A: Not fitting rigs and B: Not fitting rigs.
Yes, it's why we have T1, T2, T3, faction, deadspace, officer.. To make sure that different people have different stuff. If the majority can't afford premium then the math is solid.
The problem here is that rigs are no longer premium that way. So there's really no middle-ground when it comes to giving your ship an extra kick. It's either million-ISK T2 mods or the billion-ISK deadspace mods.
Rigs were the option in between, with moderate expense and a tangible reward.
In a game like World of Warcraft everyone can wear everything, the problem is getting it (i.e. directly depends on time spent playing). In EVE you can have anything off the market. It's beautiful because there are so many ways of earning money and so many 'premium' items threatened by permanent loss that people actually think not only WHAT but IF they should fit something.
Bulldozing the rigs takes a part of that away.
I know I'm pretty vocal on the issue but in the end I understand CCP's decision. I'm a videogame marketing specialist, I have seen CCP's stats on player wealth and 0.0 versus empire population. Dumbing down EVE is profitable. This doesn't make me happier about the whole thing. |
Uzume Ame
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 11:21:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Yaay
=================
The alternative which makes more sense to this is simple... more expensive rigs with greater bonuses, and cheaper rigs will lesser bonuses.
A cheap rig would typically get about 1/3 the bonus of a large rig, but for 1/3 the cost.
What that option does better than the proposed patch is simple, it provides benefits to those willing to scale cost vs reward still. It's essentially the middle ground b/t what we have now, and and the extremely ghetto proposed patch.
Ultimately, the point is, allow people to close the gap b/t those who are rich and those who are poor, but please please don't just make everyone get the same buffs for nothing.
===============
Compelttly agree, supported
|
McDaddy Pimp
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 13:28:00 -
[18]
All i see is a rig manufacturer who doesn't want to lose money and waste all those researched (now large) rig BPOs. Good try though. 
And also rich ppls who pvp with isk...
|
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 14:42:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Salpad
Originally by: Yaay
price
If it goes through as intended, the only scale that would really make any sense is 100% - 80% - 60%... which would mean you'd rig a frigate for about 27 mil or about equal the cost of a t2 frigate with fit.... would be a deterrent for everyone to rig but a drastic drop in price from the current cost.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 14:44:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Notorious Fuzz
Edited by: Notorious Fuzz on 07/07/2009 06:48:55
I disagree.
Sized rigs are leveling the playing field for those who COULDNT afford to fit rigs. Pay more for more umph? Its still the case, just more in line for average joe. Ever since rigs were introduced, they should have been available for all ship sizes, but logic failures (and people being lazy about salvage) prevented that and thus we have the current price points (there were never any NPC buyers to suggest a price either). It sounds more like a whine than a justification because you are worried about your over-priced rigged tiny ships losing their edge.
If your complaint is that rigs will make PVP more cookie cutter, I couldnt disagree more again. People will choose rigs commensurate with their play style and/or skills. Cant track well enough? Ill fit a tracking rig. Want to be more snipey? A range rig will do. More tank? There are rigs for that as well. This change doesnt enforce behavior, it only enables it. Enforcement is like saying you HAVE to fit this no matter what, and there is no rule against flying naked (a.k.a. no mods, etc).
If anything, it will now be MORE difficult to predict what you will encounter when engaging a T1 target, and thinking about tactics would do EVE a lot of good. If your soft targets are getting a tad more hard, its up to you to adjust for it.
I love it when every word of someone's objection just proves they didn't even read the OP.
As for your last paragraph, it'll be the exact same as it is today, but with people rigged. Speed cruisers will get more speed, Tank cruisers will get more tank, range cruisers will get more range, cap cruisers will get more cap.... The only difference is that you can assure yourself they'll have rigs rather than have to guess.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 14:47:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jarne
Not supported.
You're talking all about choice, but the truth is: Currently you do not have the choice to fit rigs on frigates, except for those who have too much money.
This change gives me and other, who are always looking for ISK-efficient ways into PVP, the choice to fit rigs on frigates.
Also, as has been remarked: Prices of BS rigs might as well rise with the change, due to the higher demand for smaller sized rigs.
PVP is not supposed to be isk efficient. It supposed to show advantages for people willing to pay. What makes it so much fun is killing those people who put way more money into their ships and still lose. I took a t2 fitted Absolution solo against a Faction fit Navy Raven, Imagine how fun a fight it was after 10 minutes and a win for me.
So by your logic, should I be on here screaming about the cost of faction ships and faction gear or should I just learn how to pwn the asses of those who think fit is everything.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 14:49:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kaito Haakkainen
Not supported.
Presuming a cost of 2m to rig a frigate I'd say that fits with the idea of adding "umph" for more ISK already. Rigging a t1 frigate will still cost several times the price of the hull and on a t2 frigate they'd still represent a significant investment compared to the hull-cost. Personally I don't think rigs will be cheap enough and should scale more appropriately with hull costs.
If you are looking to invest more ISK to get better performance there are faction, deadspace, and officer modules, these are far more suitable for PvP as they may drop in the wreck rewarding the victor.
In my view the performance gap between the rich and the poor doesn't need increasing. The trader/dedicated mission runner/etc can splash out for t2 ships, rigs, and fits and spice it up with faction/deadspace/officer equipment. The weekend warrior who makes ISK for perhaps one hour of the three hours he plays a week is looking at fielding unrigged, t1 ships, with t2/named fittings. I'd say the difference there is vast enough. Forcing those with lives beyond the game, or whose talents don't lend themselves to passive ISK generation to fly sub-par ships with sub-par fits and a rack of empty slots somewhat detracts from the impact of skill in PvP. There should be a gap, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor in as many conflicts as it is.
What significant investment on a frigate are you talking about... it'll cost more to buy 1 t2 mod for the frigate than it will to fit 3 rigs? That's not investment.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Dala Kya
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 14:56:00 -
[23]
Not everyone can make tons of billions every week.
PVP should not be for rich people only (and don't talk me about tackling in a t1 frig, becouse nobody wanna do that forever).
This patch will be a good one, there is no reason for having only large rigs.
|
Dave Meltdown
Capital Construction Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 14:59:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Dave Meltdown on 07/07/2009 15:00:24
Originally by: Ephemeron
I support the general idea that pvp ships should be more expensive to lose. I don't like how easy money making has become in this game, and how CCP seem to be interested in making it cheaper and more meaningless
The cause of the easy money is the fact that l4's missions are more rewarding than anything else in the game.. thats the issue and with this patch salvage prices are going up vs more demand, so it gets even more rewarding
|
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 15:11:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Dave Meltdown
Edited by: Dave Meltdown on 07/07/2009 15:00:24
Originally by: Ephemeron
I support the general idea that pvp ships should be more expensive to lose. I don't like how easy money making has become in this game, and how CCP seem to be interested in making it cheaper and more meaningless
The cause of the easy money is the fact that l4's missions are more rewarding than anything else in the game.. thats the issue and with this patch salvage prices are going up vs more demand, so it gets even more rewarding
Salvage prices will fall, not go up. There will be tons more demand, but it will be at a 1/25 and 1/5 level removing a lot of the strain on the current bs sized rigs which if price holds, will stay at the same popularity. Hacs anc BC typically already get rigged, so reducing their build cost will mean more parts left over to build more rigs.
Initially, people will boost their purchases of rigs to rig ships they would not have in the past. Over the long term with ships sitting in hangers as they do already, you'll see the price drop b/c those same people will not have to repeat buy.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Oam Mkoll
Caldari
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:17:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Dala Kya
Not everyone can make tons of billions every week.
PVP should not be for rich people only (and don't talk me about tackling in a t1 frig, becouse nobody wanna do that forever).
This patch will be a good one, there is no reason for having only large rigs.
Exactly the type of whining which brought this change upon us.
Rigs. Are. Not. Mandatory. Now. Stop making everyone who is not a loser look like an elitist rich jerk.
Currently the price of rigs means that you actually have a CHANCE of getting a small but meaningful advantage from fitting them. When EVERYONE can afford them, you just pay less but get much less in return.
---
|
Killshandra
Tides of Silence
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:27:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Killshandra on 07/07/2009 16:26:45
Supported. As much as I like the idea of going 6-7k per second, I realize that everybody else will be also... lame. I would rather trust my superior skill and skills for interceptors then pay the money, but if rigs were cheap of course I would have them on my Crow, just like everybody else...
|
Theocrates
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:27:00 -
[28]
There are some very interesting views in this thread, though I tend to disagree with the idea that somehow the game will become magically less when more ships are rigged. In the end I think that this change will happen and that the rigs will be common and after a while cheap. There will be a time when all rigs are more expensive just due to materials costs.
In the end, the benefits to the many are large enough that the negatives will be considered acceptable losses.
***By coffee alone I set my mind in motion, by the beans of Java thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, by coffee alone I set my mind in motion.*** |
RedSplat
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:43:00 -
[29]
Not supported.
Readily available and cheaper rigs will increase variability in fits rather than make combat generic or monotonous.
Further, the new rigs will be a buff to industry as relating to several other profession.
Further, people will be flying ships that are more expensive than they are now in several cases. More expensive ships (uninsured expense!) means people more likely to pay ransoms and ship losses matter more; aside from increasing isk sinks.
I think your assertion that BS sized rigs will drastically fall in price is misguided and i think anyone involved in rig production could honestly agree with that.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
it does get progressively longer.
|
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:04:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Yaay on 07/07/2009 17:05:42
Originally by: RedSplat
Not supported.
Readily available and cheaper rigs will increase variability in fits rather than make combat generic or monotonous.
Further, the new rigs will be a buff to industry as relating to several other profession.
Further, people will be flying ships that are more expensive than they are now in several cases. More expensive ships (uninsured expense!) means people more likely to pay ransoms and ship losses matter more; aside from increasing isk sinks.
I think your assertion that BS sized rigs will drastically fall in price is misguided and i think anyone involved in rig production could honestly agree with that.
I've yet to hear anyone say how this patch will diversify pvp more. People rig ships to complement setups, not to drastically change them. If I have a speed setup, I rig accordingly. If i have a tank setup, I rig accordingly. It doesn't diversify ships, it just makes them better at what they're already intended to do for that player. FITTINGS diversify ships, rigs enhance that diversity through the choice to pay to use them or not. Removing the question, "should i fit rigs because they cost so much" removes the enhanced diversity because when everyone does it, it's not diverse.
I mean, If you were to tell me that Oh, I'm going to fit speed rigs on my armor tanking ship now, I'd say ok cool, but wait, speed rigs hurt armor tanking, oh yeah, so maybe i should put shield tanking rigs, oh wait, that's kinda dumb. Maybe instead I should put more damage rigs, but that's not really diversity, because I can only fit so many damage buffs with falloff, so it's more likely I'm just freeing a low doing that. Well how about cap. Well I need cap, but If i can 1 slot fit an injector, why the **** would I use 3 rig slots to even come close to that.
So in the end, I decide to use armor rigs on my armor tanking ship, speed rigs on my speed ship, etc. It doesn't make you more diverse, it just makes you better at what you do already. That's where diversity is being hurt. It's just evening the playing field even more for players, which is exactly what this game is not about.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Trebor DeCaldar
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:15:00 -
[31]
THIS BLOWS!!!
I was expecting a decrease in effect with decrease in size and the option to fit all sized rigs to all sized ships!!!
Large rig = what we have now
Med rig = 20 % of Large effect
Small = 40% of Large effect
Can be fitted to any ship so if you still wanted to put larges on your Frigate, help your self. If you were cheap and only wanted to fit smalls on your BB, go for it.
THIS BLOWS BIG TIME!!!
|
Vherkin
Amarr
Lucis TechnoCustodia
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:37:00 -
[32]
I dont support this, its like crying about why low slot module are so cheap, now i cant choose to let them empty. 
Obviously, if you want to pay more than any other person to rigs your ships, fit tech 2 rig.
Its not like its remove reward for isk, tech 2 rigs are like 10 to 20 times more costly than tech 1.
And its actualy give more diversity in pvp: Do i fit tank, capacitor, cpu, powergrid or dps rigs ?
Sure you will never use tank shield rig on an armor tank fregate but you can choice to add some dps rig or on a ships with low tank but high dps, make him more resistant. Not only "Tank armor ---> Armor rig.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 18:29:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 07/07/2009 18:30:21
Not supported. The new change is great and I can only wonder why was it not done sooner. The only legitimate issue, that even remotely needs discussing is what is the correct ratio of cost between different rig sizes. Your "solution" would be a fine addition to the size system, so each size class would also have different quality rigs, but a horrible subsititute to the CCP plan.
|
Ms Murda
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 19:18:00 -
[34]
"The alternative which makes more sense to this is simple... more expensive rigs with greater bonuses"
I like this, but- isint there already T2?
maybe make a T3 and even out the prices?
|
Verys
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 19:52:00 -
[35]
I don't think the rig patch is a really bad idea.
Rigs overall add more diversity it's not like your going to fit every BS you come across with trimark's or every cruiser you come across with polycarb rigs (maybe some people do but they aren't thinking when they "make" a setup).
The level of this diversity ended up being mostly limited to t2 or BS ships because of the price. Not all people have billions in their pocket so they wouldn't rig anything cruiser or frigate size atm. This patch however creates a much bigger market for salvaging parts (which will also lead towards the rise of the price in the end). This patch will make rigs more common which is a good thing because more customisation is always good.
This patch however will not lead to loads of cookie cutter setups.You can fit every upgrade you wish in the rig slots (everything from ecm boost to tank boost) so what it boils down to is that its a load of modules which aren't limited except for the number of how many you can fit (and the calibration max which you will never reach). So this means (if you are not copying a setup) that you really need to choose to max out the potential of your setup.
The op is also comparing individual ships and we all know 1 vs 1 almost never happens in eve and if it happens it is never fair.
--------------------
Support a change in the blueprint locking mechanics!
Click Me |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 20:15:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Rajere on 07/07/2009 20:18:43
Quote:
I was expecting a decrease in effect with decrease in size and the option to fit all sized rigs to all sized ships!!!
let me know how much Armor EHP you get from Small Trimarked Rigged Punishers or Medium Trimarked Rigged Ruptures because i'm pretty sure it's less than I get out of a (large) Trimarked Rigged Armageddon already.
reducing % is stupid when the ship sizes already scale the rigs appropriately. The only rigs that won't scale appropriately are speed rigs, which are used exclusively on small ships already, very very rarely on medium sized ships. So interceptors rigged for speed will maintain the same speed as before, it'll just cost less, instead of getting their speed nerfed, which is what would happen if you scaled it, since they will no longer be able to fit large rigs. That'd create a situation where the ships rigged pre-patch are irreplaceable and flatly superior to the ones rigged post patch. Basically this thread is a whine about nothing. Boohoo you won't be spending 50mil in rigs for a ship costing 15mil anymore. Or are you worried the plebes will finally be able to match your 'leet' pvp skill ie your wallet when they're as fast as you are? The only class of ships this patch effects is interceptors, everything else already scales appropriately.
Seriously OP should cry us a river then drown himself in it (in game).
The opinions expressed in my posts do represent my corp
--------------------------
NOTR
|
Fille Balle
Dissolution Of Eternity
Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 20:43:00 -
[37]
Your logic is flawed. Increased demand = price increase. In the earlier stages more people will fit rigs to smaller ships, but as time progresses, the price will go up, and then suddenly it's not the norm anymore.
Besides, saying that it removes diversity is pretty dumb. People won't fit trimarks to frigs, because it reduces the speed of the ship, which is the best way to tank a frig. You won't get a lot of armor hp out of it either, since it's % based, so you're effectively reducing your tank.
I think it'll do the excact oppposite: increase diversity. Now you have the option to increase grid without sacrificing a lowslot, and without dishing out 15mil for a grid rig. This means that people will do it in order to maximize dps for bigger guns, and people can fit AB's with speed rigs, thus making AB's viable in pvp.
/Not supported
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 20:48:00 -
[38]
It's always been a no-brainer.
No one rigs t1 frigs and cruisers. Everyone rigs t1 BS and t2 cruisers and t2 BC. The ONLY ships where there was actually real choice as to whether to fit rigs or not were t2 frigates t1 BC.
This is an improvement on the current system.
|
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 20:50:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Yaay on 07/07/2009 20:52:39
Originally by: Rajere
Edited by: Rajere on 07/07/2009 20:18:43
Quote:
I was expecting a decrease in effect with decrease in size and the option to fit all sized rigs to all sized ships!!!
let me know how much Armor EHP you get from Small Trimarked Rigged Punishers or Medium Trimarked Rigged Ruptures because i'm pretty sure it's less than I get out of a (large) Trimarked Rigged Armageddon already.
reducing % is stupid when the ship sizes already scale the rigs appropriately. The only rigs that won't scale appropriately are speed rigs, which are used exclusively on small ships already, very very rarely on medium sized ships. So interceptors rigged for speed will maintain the same speed as before, it'll just cost less, instead of getting their speed nerfed, which is what would happen if you scaled it, since they will no longer be able to fit large rigs. That'd create a situation where the ships rigged pre-patch are irreplaceable and flatly superior to the ones rigged post patch. Basically this thread is a whine about nothing. Boohoo you won't be spending 50mil in rigs for a ship costing 15mil anymore. Or are you worried the plebes will finally be able to match your 'leet' pvp skill ie your wallet when they're as fast as you are? The only class of ships this patch effects is interceptors, everything else already scales appropriately.
Seriously OP should cry us a river then drown himself in it (in game).
First of all, your an idiot who would rather talk than read the OP. Secondly, the issue is that the changes they're making are not anywhere near the original intent of rigs. Rigs were about choice. Do I choose to fit these to my ship or do I choose to keep the price down. It has so little to do with the actual buff any rig may give. It's about peoples decision to fit rigs in the first place.
They're removing the option and creating the mandate to fit rigs just like every other slot on the ship is basically manditory to fit. Ever wonder why people get laughed at for not fitting that last high slot, or those 2 mid slots.... nobody cared if you had rigs or not because it was about choice.
I'd be all for the premise of this patch if price weren't so drastically reduced. But when I can fit a Taranis with rigs for less cost than an Ion blaster t2, then there is a huge problem. It completely removes the edge people gained in the past by using rigs. What next, you going to argue for the drastic reduction in cost of Implants because it's not fair someone else can use them but not you. Are you going to ask for the drastic reduction in cost of Titan skill books because someone else can train for it but not you. Are you going to argue that it's unfair that someone else can tank 20x better with faction that cost a fortune so you should get that luxury too? When you start making everyone the same, the game get's dull.
Ever played paper rock scissors? How dull would it be if you removed rock from the game?
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 21:37:00 -
[40]
Not supported.
Quote:
The issue I have with this patch is, it's removing the choice to fit rigs and replacing it with the necessity to fit rigs. At such low cost per rig, the Choice not to fit a rig becomes as irrelevant as someone choosing not to fit their last high slot, or someone who has a 6 slot tank on a geddon.
First off those module choices aren't irrelevant; certain setups may only be able to afford (isk, CPU, power, cap) the setup if they leave that certain slots empty or suffice with not having max of one thing to get another.
Will people "lol" at those who don't fit rigs? Maybe, or maybe they will realize that they only won the fight narrowly because of those rigs. Maybe it will drive the loser to purchase rigs. People could laugh at a sub-meta 4 module setup.
What will be interesting is the rig fits. Some players may choose to further expand the ships specialty, while others may decide to make the ship more well rounded. These are the choices and variety that will be created.
Quote:
By doing this, not only are smaller ships going to be very easy to rig so much that it will be stupid not to rig them, But large rigs will likely drop in price drastically too because the demand on that grouping of rigs will drop heavily when frigs and cruiser will be using a different set for much lower cost.
You may have a price change on the large (current) rigs, but as its components go up in price (due to higher demand for higher turn-over small & medium rigs) the price for the large will stablize at what the market can hold.
A 425mm Railgun cost more than a 125mm Railgun; they have different material and time cost. They also have a different turn-over rate, fewer pilots fly Battleships than Frigates.
Overall, your concern seems misplaced. You are talking about keeping the status quo because it will keep rigs expensive and provide an edge to those with deep wallets. The edge for deep wallets is in T2 equipment (to include rigs) and having substantial skills (like appropriate rig skills to 5!) that minimize any negatives you may suffer.
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
McDaddy Pimp
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 21:45:00 -
[41]
Quote:
Overall, your concern seems misplaced. You are talking about keeping the status quo because it will keep rigs expensive and provide an edge to those with deep wallets. The edge for deep wallets is in T2 equipment (to include rigs) and having substantial skills (like appropriate rig skills to 5!) that minimize any negatives you may suffer.
this.
NOT SUPPORTED
|
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 22:16:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Yaay
Ever played paper rock scissors? How dull would it be if you removed rock from the game?
But not if they added tissue, grovel and diamond to replace rock. You talk about removing options in the sense of "should I rig or not". How about "should I rig this, or this, or this, or this". CCP did mention a rebalance of underused rigs.
|
Sytoru Hiroshyma
SkillzKillz
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 23:12:00 -
[43]
Hmmm. To support or to not support, I've very mixed feelings on this as it stands. Guess I'll make my post and decide at the end.
Firstly, I'd like to take issue with a couple of statements that have been made so far. 1) Yes, some people do rig T1 cruisers and T1 frigs. I happen to be one of them. 2) No, rigging ships is not a way to PVP through isk. I may rig T1 frigs but I do so to save ISK, not extend my e-peen.
I seem to have the impression that when rigging is discussed it is always assumed to be focussed around the cost for the top end rigs. Trimarks, CCCs, SMCs etc.. With these highly priced ones there are certainly good reasons not to fit them to frigates (T1 or otherwise). Seriously, how many extra armour points are you going to get from a trimark if you fit it to a frigate? Yuh. No where near worth it at the current prices. But what about other rigs? Let's take the Rifter as my example and whack some Projectile Ambit Extension rigs on it. Sure they're still expensive and certainly ludicrously expensive when compared on cost per item as a percentage of hull cost, but what does it give me? Well, it gives me survivability and/or increased dps depending on the circumstances. With a pair of ambits and 200mm AC IIs I can fire barrage at 10km at still hit for acceptable dps. So for frig on frig encounters I am basically a hell of a lot more survivable and the ~15M cost of the rigs pays itself back through keeping the same ship. I proved this point to a corp mate in a Brutix fit with blasters. I was able to stay outside of his range and still break his tank after taking out his drones. There is no way that would have happened if I was unrigged (I could have still shot him from outside of his range, but I wouldn't have had the DPS to break him).
Is that a case of winning through ISK? Maybe, but it's not a massive amount of ISK tbh - just an extra L4 for the rigs.
I'm really unhappy with the concept of "salvage alchemy" as well. The markets have still to fully recover from the introduction of "alchemy" with the last expansion and I feel that this is going to lead to a large increase in salvage prices which will knock on to the cost of rigs. However, the supply of salvaged material is much more fluid than the supply of moon materials is so this should flatten out eventually.
Overall I think that different rig sizes with scaled levels of advantage/drawback would be the way to go without restricting hulls to certain rig sizes. Those that believe there is an acceptable benefit in the largest/costliest rigs can still pursue that path whereas those that don't want to risk their ISK can play safe with the minor mods. Hell, if the alchemy side of things kicks off in a sensible way we can even add T2 rigs into the mix outside of super-caps and pimped mission boats.
I guess this means it get's a thumbs up.
|
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum
Pax Romana Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 23:58:00 -
[44]
Not supported.
Originally by: Yaay
I've yet to hear anyone say how this patch will diversify pvp more.
I'm disagree with your point that this will diversify PvP less. In fact, in your own words:
Originally by: Yaay
As for your last paragraph, it'll be the exact same as it is today, but with people rigged. Speed cruisers will get more speed, Tank cruisers will get more tank, range cruisers will get more range, cap cruisers will get more cap.... The only difference is that you can assure yourself they'll have rigs rather than have to guess.
That doesn't sound like there will be less diversity, since you're basically admitting that ships with have exactly the same roles and functionality with and without rigs. The only difference in the situation you mention is the performance of the ships, not the diversity.
However, having three extra slots that can now viably be used can introduce diversity, by allowing ships to take on roles that were just not feasible without rigs. Remote Repair Augmentors, for example, can now feasibly be fitted to T1 cruisers (asides from the Oneiros) making remote repairing on these ships a more viable than it is today. Many ships could fit falloff/range boosting rigs while they have trouble justifying TEs/TCs over other modules, due to limited slots and module effectiveness. Dynamic Fuel Valves can push speed ships to permarun that couldn't do so previously.
I strongly disagree with your sentiment that giving people effectively more slots to fit a variety of performance-enhancing rigs to their ship, is something going to reduce diversity. In the absolute worst-case, the slots are used to improve the ship in exactly the same role it has now, so nothing has changed, and in every other case more diverse fittings become feasible.
So definitely thumbs down on this one.
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 00:09:00 -
[45]
I think you need to reevaluate your concept of omph for ISK
And take this into consideration also with the other rig changes, beside sized rigs.
thumbs down
--
Don't harsh my mellow |
Yarik Mendel
Amarr
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 02:50:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Yarik Mendel on 08/07/2009 02:52:06
-more people using rigs means more isk sink no matter how you cut it
-this sounds like a whine from the same people who said T2 ships and mods should be artificially kept at a higher price so everyone don't fly it, cause you want the advantage over "scrubs"
sadly, your argument is simply a lie, what ccp knows through statistics is that rigs are not used nearly as much on frigates and cruisers as much as they are used on battleships and capitals
with rigs changing the limits of these ship classes, their uses and capability only increases
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 04:03:00 -
[47]
I fully support this thread. I'm really quite confused as to why CCP did it this way - the natural solution was rigs that can be fitted to any ship with variable cost and effect - if all you need on your battleship is 5% cap recharge, fit a CCC-Small. If they were doing the proposal I had seen somewhere of class-specific rigs(i.e., "This rig can only be fit to Exhumers") then I could see why they were going to a fitting-restriction model, but when it's just done by ship size, it's silly. And the dumbing down of T2 rigs is also the wrong move - those things are the officer mods of the rig world, they are supposed to be scary expensive. I don't want them any cheaper.
I do support the re-examination of subpar rigs, and I hope they come up with some sort of implementation of all the proposals for moving rigged ships around(especially now that there are going to be so many more of them). But I think that they made the wrong call on sized rigs.
|
Ann Hunter
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 11:25:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Yaay
First of all, your an idiot who would rather talk than read the OP.
Talking down to anyone who happens to disagree with you, really hurts any credibility you might have otherwise had. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 12:24:00 -
[49]
Not supported.
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 14:19:00 -
[50]
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 ballancing 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.
|
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 15:06:00 -
[51]
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 ballancing 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.
It's not a rough draft 1 month from launch
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Kaylan Jahlar
Minmatar Industrial Limited
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 15:11:00 -
[52]
I don't see the problem with this change, and actually encourage it.
It's not because rigs will be made more affordable (and not just a luxury for the elite player) that everybody will use them. You gotta remember that rigs are skill intensive. You pretty much need to train a different skill for each type of rig. Most players will probably start training them, but not everybody will. Also, I don't think rigs will all of a sudden become that affordable. It will however increase the demand for salvaged materials greatly!
I think rigs are great because they add a certain level of customization to ships that you can't have otherwise. I'm welcoming this change with open arms.
________________
Kaylan Jahlar
The Assembly Hall needs your support! |
Bunzan Cardinal
The Artists
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 15:51:00 -
[53]
not supported. I like the idea and would welcome the idea of being able to fit cheap rigs on cheap ships.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 16:15:00 -
[54]
Not sure about the whole topic, but I agree that the proposed material requirements for small and medium rigs are probably too low and are likely to make rigs into no-brainer options rather than (at a probable cost of less than 1m each for a small polycarb or aux thruster, who wouldn't rig every interceptor they owned?).
However the difference in salvage requirements aren't set in stone and there's still time to tweak the numbers on the rigs (and hopefully fix some of the currently broken ones).
|
Xenon Barinade
Caldari
Helix Protocol
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 16:25:00 -
[55]
Originally by: McDaddy Pimp
All i see is a rig manufacturer who doesn't want to lose money and waste all those researched (now large) rig BPOs. Good try though.
And also rich ppls who pvp with isk...
I agree with this, but imo it is a good thing for them since now theres more variety, personally I found rigs very sticky to deal with.
I think there will be alot more people happy with the patch and possibly the few that dont like 'change' that will cry but get use to it.
Prices change based on demand and stock, while it is true the market (which has already happened) will go crazy for rig related stuff it also means there's more stuff to work with and a challenge after the patch.
|
steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 23:27:00 -
[56]
On T2 ships, rigs are already mandatory for anyone that isn't ******ed, possibly except for frigates, so what this comes down to is basically adding a choice as to if you want to rig your T1 ship or not. 2-3m may not be alot of money, but on a T1 frigate, which are usually only flown by newbies to whom 2-3m is alot of money, or by old players that want a super cheap disposable ship they can loose any number of without caring. Adding 2-3m could quite possibly double the cost of loosing the ship.
Same applies to cruisers. You're now talking roughly 12m for a set of trimarks. When fitting a T1 cruiser, that's quite a significant increase in price compared to what it would cost unrigged. Cruisers have roughly 12-13 slots each on average, average price for a T2 mod is about 1m (some are lower, some higher, should balance out somewhere around there), add in ship cost and you've again double the cost of loosing one.
What this patch will do is lower the price of T2 rigs to a possibly viable level, while increasing the cost of the base materials since the use in T2 rigs will drive up the price. That means that after the patch, you get to choose in the isk VS efficency not only once for the rig slots, but twice: You have the cheap throwaway setup with no rigs, the average setup, not overpriced, but still not at full capability with T1 rigs, and the full price max performance setup with the now viable T2 rigs. Do you want to "pay for more oomph?" if yes, how much do you want to pay for how much oomph?
And finally, even if I'm wrong somehow and rigs become mandatory on all ships, you've still added more versatility: each ship gets 3 more slots that they can use to fine tune their ship to whatever they want: Do you want to go all out with that thorax and bring its gank to the next level with dps rigs, or maybe speed rigs to get in **** range faster, or perhaps you'd like to fix its lack of buffer by fitting damage rigs and some tank in lows, or by simply adding tank rigs.
At the same time as that is going on in the T1 tier, it's still mandatory to fit atleast T1 rigs in the T2/T3 ship tier, but you now get a real choice as to if you want to only fit T1 rigs, or pay for the extra oomph and go with T2 instead.
Not supported, the patch as proposed is great and exactly what's needed.
|
Lladar
Gallente
Gamers Haven
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 23:51:00 -
[57]
This is just like every other game I have ever played before. The people who have played so long they like the way things are hate it when the noobs have access to similar stuff. Lets just play out a scenario...
Lets say for pretend that there is only a +6 implant and no +1 or +2 etc... Of course it would be very expensive and only the most elite, powerful, or rich able to have it. CCP now says they are going to release a +1 - +5 so now everyone can have at least a little boost to attributes. Of course this is awesome, I would fully support that kind of patch. Now the new players can level up their skills lightly faster at a small cost and the Old players are whining about it on the forums. Sound similar?
This is just about the same. A dumbed down item that noobs can now have. Boo hoo, go cry to your f****ng mother. :D
If it wasn't obvious, I do not support this sillyness. lol
|
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 01:20:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Yaay on 09/07/2009 01:21:21
Edited by: Yaay on 09/07/2009 01:20:18
Originally by: Lladar
This is just like every other game I have ever played before. The people who have played so long they like the way things are hate it when the noobs have access to similar stuff. Lets just play out a scenario...
Lets say for pretend that there is only a +6 implant and no +1 or +2 etc... Of course it would be very expensive and only the most elite, powerful, or rich able to have it. CCP now says they are going to release a +1 - +5 so now everyone can have at least a little boost to attributes. Of course this is awesome, I would fully support that kind of patch. Now the new players can level up their skills lightly faster at a small cost and the Old players are whining about it on the forums. Sound similar?
This is just about the same. A dumbed down item that noobs can now have. Boo hoo, go cry to your f****ng mother. :D
If it wasn't obvious, I do not support this sillyness. lol
you're arguement makes about as much sense as a new player flying a battleship after 1 month sporting medium sized gear. This game is about learning and stair stepping to bigger and better things. It's not about being handed a platter, it's about making your own damn food.
CCP has more and more catered to fast ways to equalized new players because apparently, not power leveling in 10 days is a bad thing about this game.
I'm tired of the dumbing down of game play to pander to the asshats who always whine about why they can't do something. Guess what, it's a game that's not ment to let you do everything in a day, if you don't like, it, go find WoW and pay some ******* to level you to 80 tomorrow. god forbid in this game it might take you an extra day to run missions or rat to get the same rigs joe schmoe millionaire got faster because he's one of the lucky ****s with a T2 BPO.
I have like 0 income in this game. My income comes from effort, not from luck, not from industry. So why people think I am some rich asshat who just wants to keep the curve in his favor is beyond me. I just want this game to have some uniqueness to it for a smidge longer until some of the new MMO's come out, then I could GIVE a **** what CCP does, because capitalism will play people like me out of this product and on to something I deem better Just like it has with so many Vets who were there from long ago when this game required work.
Eve was a harsh environment, now it's progressed into so much less. God forbid some of us want it to retain it's old qualities.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 01:20:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Lladar
This is just like every other game I have ever played before. The people who have played so long they like the way things are hate it when the noobs have access to similar stuff. Lets just play out a scenario...
Lets say for pretend that there is only a +6 implant and no +1 or +2 etc... Of course it would be very expensive and only the most elite, powerful, or rich able to have it. CCP now says they are going to release a +1 - +5 so now everyone can have at least a little boost to attributes. Of course this is awesome, I would fully support that kind of patch. Now the new players can level up their skills lightly faster at a small cost and the Old players are whining about it on the forums. Sound similar?
This is just about the same. A dumbed down item that noobs can now have. Boo hoo, go cry to your f****ng mother. :D
If it wasn't obvious, I do not support this sillyness. lol
Yes, because HACs costing 5 mil to rig instead of 40 is clearly a change intended to make life easier for newbies, because newbies are the ones who keep a half-dozen Ishtars on hand to replace losses. Oh, wait...
|
Xiar Zhorr
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 01:24:00 -
[60]
I do not support this patch.
It will decrease rigs from being high end modifications to common t1 crap.
Why would anyone like to see their stuff majorly devalued, I wonder.
Also the rig patch will remove a basis for income for small rig producers. 
Those who invested into expensive rigs get the kick in the butt.
Those who invested into rig manufacturing get a kick in the butt.
As usual CCP punishes any sort of long term planing.
The only long term planning CCP will never touch is investment in T2 BPOs.
I guess lucky if ya got a good lobby at CCP - and fu if you do not. 
|
Mr Intel
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 01:36:00 -
[61]
Sadly, i dont support the new rigs.
Why? because the current rig system is perfectly fine, but needs some balances. The idea is that rigs are on option, and that the risk of losing them should prevent them from bieng standard on EVERY ship, like faction/deadspace/officer mods. Much as T2 ships were once rare and extremely expensive, they now are essentially required to compete in the current PvP world because they have been made so widely available. This is what would happen to rigs, the same standard fits over and over using the same rigs with essentially no loss because of T1 insurance
Really only balancing is needed. Such changes like useless rigs having their bonuses re-assigned to more practical ones, rigs that cost 20-25+ mil have their manufacturing costs lowered (trimarks and cargo opts come to mind), hole filling resist rigs such as EM shield hardening rigs costing more than 4 mil
Example: why pay 20 mil for a buzzard when you could fit your scanners and rigs on a heron for 300K? because the buzzard protects the 35 mil in rigs you have on it with a cloak, the heron has no cloak and is easy to find and kill.
|
steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 12:42:00 -
[62]
Quote:
Example: why pay 20 mil for a buzzard when you could fit your scanners and rigs on a heron for 300K? because the buzzard protects the 35 mil in rigs you have on it with a cloak, the heron has no cloak and is easy to find and kill.
No, because the buzzard can move around without telling hostiles that it's there, and assuming you have cov ops skill at more then level 2, a rigged buzzard has higher strength then a rigged heron.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Infusion.
Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 14:06:00 -
[63]
Not supported.
CCP are doing the right thing here to increase diversity - OP, please consider the following statement: The number of fitting combinations rises exponentially with the number of slots so it is a basic mathematical fact that increasing the number of used slots increases diversity.
Your logic seems to have mashed ship diversity and isk vs reward into the same paragraph because you've got stuck on the original concept rather than seeing that we are moving forward from there:
Originally by: Yaay
When rigs were first introduced into this game, the idea was "would you be willing to pay for the extra ump?".
There are many ways 'to pay for the extra ump' in the game already and by denying rigs to T1 frigates and more casual players you are harming the diversity of the game.
|
Yahrr
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 15:43:00 -
[64]
Originally by: yani dumyat
CCP are doing the right thing here to increase diversity - OP, please consider the following statement: The number of fitting combinations rises exponentially with the number of slots so it is a basic mathematical fact that increasing the number of used slots increases diversity.
Besides that, rigs have drawbacks. Combined with the drawbacks of some modules it would make the ships way more diverse. An armor tanker will be slow as hell, a speed tanker will have the EHP of a wet paper bag, etc.
What I don't get in the whole rig story is why T1 ships get 3 rigs, T2 get 2 rigs and T3 get 3 rigs... How about T1 with 1 rig, T2 with 2 rigs and T3 with 3 rigs? It would make the difference bigger and that would cause more people to go out roaming in an expensive pwn-boat instead of their cheap throw-away ship.
|
Master Chaz
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 18:30:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Ephemeron
I support the general idea that pvp ships should be more expensive to lose. I don't like how easy money making has become in this game, and how CCP seem to be interested in making it cheaper and more meaningless
because that"s what the people are screaming for.
remember 3 years ago when you had to work for things.....
today people dont want to work for things....
can you say.....WOW
i do agree with most of op points tho
|
hired goon
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 19:46:00 -
[66]
g
-omg-
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 19:55:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Yahrr
Originally by: yani dumyat
CCP are doing the right thing here to increase diversity - OP, please consider the following statement: The number of fitting combinations rises exponentially with the number of slots so it is a basic mathematical fact that increasing the number of used slots increases diversity.
Besides that, rigs have drawbacks. Combined with the drawbacks of some modules it would make the ships way more diverse. An armor tanker will be slow as hell, a speed tanker will have the EHP of a wet paper bag, etc.
What I don't get in the whole rig story is why T1 ships get 3 rigs, T2 get 2 rigs and T3 get 3 rigs... How about T1 with 1 rig, T2 with 2 rigs and T3 with 3 rigs? It would make the difference bigger and that would cause more people to go out roaming in an expensive pwn-boat instead of their cheap throw-away ship.
actually i would like thow-away ships to stay valuable, as that's about the only way new pilots get in pvp.
Do small rigs make sence? Yes
Does it make sence that they are cheaper? Yes
Does it increase diversity? Yes
Does it add more content? Yes
Does it make game more interesting? Yes
Does it make life easier for me? Yes
Will small rigs alow me to rig my destroyer and make it a badass ship and go shoot crap and get it blown up and have fun? Yes
IS this topick trying to take away all of the above from me? Yes
What are the benefits of the stuff author offers, what is the alternative? ....
Is the tpick pure whine and trling? ....
Conclusion: No support.
Use your brain peoples! I feel that currently ai is often smarter then some people when i read topicks like this.
Fix Destroyers |
Karad Forsky
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 23:21:00 -
[68]
It's not CCP introducing smaller rigs that will cause more people to adopt "cookie-cutter setups." It's those setups working. People already fit and fly ships with cookie-cutter setups today, because someone else did the math for them, and it turned out some combination of modules did better in the majority of situations than another one. It is inevitable that someone, somewhere will do that math, as it is that people will pick up on it and copy successful fits. It's just simpler to do this today than it was three years ago, because of EFT, Battleclinic etc.
I agree that smaller rigs should provide a slightly smaller bonus though, it makes sense. In fact, I hope CCP will review rigs in general and make sure that small rigs, for instance, have bonuses which are meaningful for frigates to have. But suggesting that adding other rig sizes "dumbs down" EVE PvP is ridiculous. What is does is give small ship pilots more options.
|
Tortugan
Internal Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 00:25:00 -
[69]
Why not just make Tech 1 rigs a bit cheaper, and Tech 2 rigs a bit over what T1 are now? Say the average T1 rig was 4m- I'd almost definitely be rigging my T1 cruisers, and if I felt the need to PVP in a T1 frig, I'd be tempted to rig it as well. Then just make T2 rigs reasonably priced- maybe 25-40m so bigger ships will make the extra investment. Rigging should always be a choice- it shouldn't be a necessity.
----
Need Mercenaries? Contact me in-game to hire Internal Anarchy.
Killboard |
Trinity Nova
Amarr
Unaccompanied Souls
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 01:30:00 -
[70]
Negative do not support.
Should die in committee.
CCP: We really need a thumbs down option.
Thumbs down on this issue.
Solo Corp: Unaccompanied Souls |
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 08:58:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Tortugan
Why not just make Tech 1 rigs a bit cheaper, and Tech 2 rigs a bit over what T1 are now? Say the average T1 rig was 4m- I'd almost definitely be rigging my T1 cruisers, and if I felt the need to PVP in a T1 frig, I'd be tempted to rig it as well. Then just make T2 rigs reasonably priced- maybe 25-40m so bigger ships will make the extra investment. Rigging should always be a choice- it shouldn't be a necessity.
I like what CCP is doing with this, it keeps the cost of the rigs in proportion with the cost of the ship. And that last part, with this rigs will not be more of a necessity than a regular module. I don't see people complain having to fit modules, they do complain if one module becomes mandatory, that is not the issue here. All I see is more options made more available, it just might make a Destroyer slightly useful outside of salvaging even (while I doubt it, I'll at least try it).
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 14:29:00 -
[72]
Rigs are too expensive.
Esp T2.
Patch will be gooood.
Not supported.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:03:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Dav Varan
Rigs are too expensive.
Esp T2.
Patch will be gooood.
Not supported.
Faction gear is too expensive, especially deadspace. The "bump everything 5 meta levels" patch is going to be awesome.
|
Space Pinata
Amarr
Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 15:20:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Dav Varan
Rigs are too expensive.
Esp T2.
Patch will be gooood.
Not supported.
Faction gear is too expensive, especially deadspace. The "bump everything 5 meta levels" patch is going to be awesome.
Hint: This is more along the lines of keeping deadspace modules at the exact same price but having varying sizes, with larger sizes tending to cost more.
... Oh wait..
*Looks at deadspace frigate MWD. Looks at deadspace cruiser MWD.*
It's already implemented!
1mn microwarpdrives are turning EVE into WoW since frigate pilots pay less to fit deadspace MWD than cruiser and battleship pilots |
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 17:38:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Space Pinata
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Dav Varan
Rigs are too expensive.
Esp T2.
Patch will be gooood.
Not supported.
Faction gear is too expensive, especially deadspace. The "bump everything 5 meta levels" patch is going to be awesome.
Hint: This is more along the lines of keeping deadspace modules at the exact same price but having varying sizes, with larger sizes tending to cost more.
... Oh wait..
*Looks at deadspace frigate MWD. Looks at deadspace cruiser MWD.*
It's already implemented!
1mn microwarpdrives are turning EVE into WoW since frigate pilots pay less to fit deadspace MWD than cruiser and battleship pilots
That actually has a lot more to do with demand. CCP is bypassing demand by affecting build cost with rigs. I mean, say small rigs were 10x more popular after patch. If they're implemented at 200k build cost, they're only going to cost 2 mil.
By comparison, if CCP were to half the about of small Gisti Shield boosters dropped, they're price would go through the roof. And since they already run at 700 mil a pop, That's significant. BTW, small gisti boosters are already in heavy demand which is why their cost is so much greater than most small faction loot.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 21:16:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Space Pinata
Hint: This is more along the lines of keeping deadspace modules at the exact same price but having varying sizes, with larger sizes tending to cost more.
... Oh wait..
*Looks at deadspace frigate MWD. Looks at deadspace cruiser MWD.*
It's already implemented!
1mn microwarpdrives are turning EVE into WoW since frigate pilots pay less to fit deadspace MWD than cruiser and battleship pilots
I was referring to the "Esp T2" bit - I can sort of see the way they did sized rigs(disagree with it, but understand it), but the move to make T2 rigs cheaper is just fundamentally dumb IMO. T2 rigs are the equivalent of deadspace gear - they're supposed to be luxury goods that are only really cost-effective choices on mission ships and supercaps. Making them cheaper just defeats the purpose.
|
Arcane Azmadi
Caldari
First Flying Wing Inc
Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 22:03:00 -
[77]
Not supported.
You seem to be completely missing the point- you're right that rigs are supposed to allow you to add extra power to a ship in exchange for an additional investment. Perfectly correct. But why the hell should rigs cost the same across all ship sizes? Only a twit with more money than sense (or someone entering a restricted tournament like the Alliance Tournaments) would rig any T1 ship smaller than a battlecruiser because a single rig would cost several times the value of the damned hull! That's just silly. Yes, I admit the new price scaling is a bit surprising, but to my mind rigs have always been badly overpriced anyway. And from a purely fluff/common sense perspective it's frankly ridiculous that rigs cost the same for all ship sizes- why would a kit designed to modify your ship's entire hull cost the same regardless of whether it's put on a t1 frigate or a Titan?
|
fuze
Gallente
Chosen Path
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 23:01:00 -
[78]
Not supported.
On the whole PvP gains from it and if those oldies wanna play with expensive gear there is plenty of that left.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 00:42:00 -
[79]
Not supported.
|
Emperor Cheney
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 02:43:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 12/07/2009 02:43:03
Do not support this ridiculous whine. "I might not be able to feel extra-special for spending 200 mil on a frigate anymore. Here are fifteen (15!) paragraphs about why that is horrible!" Oh, also there is the danger of "cookie cutter setups." That's pretty amazing.
|
Cpt Gobla
The Dark Space Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 11:44:00 -
[81]
Totally disagree.
For a few year old vets with 2 accounts both having marauders grinding lvl 4 missions it might be a matter of: Should I spend 45mill extra on rigs or not?
For however another rather large portion of the player base. The more casually orientated crowd. The question is instead: Should I spend 45mill... ow wait, don't actually have that much money to waste. nvm.
For us the current rigging system does not give options. In fact it takes about every single choice I have away. Because I can't use CCC rigs I have to fill my med slots with cap recharges to become cap-stable. Because I can't use damage rigs I have to fill my low slots with heat sinks or gyrostabs to deal ganky damage.
I would love access to CCC rigs for a decent price so that when fitting my BC I can actually make the choice if I want to use CCC rigs so I can free a med slot for an afterburner, or maybe a tracking computer. Wait, even a web could work. Or I could decide for some armor rigs so I can free up a low-slot and maybe fit a heatsink or keep as it is and benefit from an increased tank. Maybe I'll even go for some weapon rigs to increase my optimal or my damage.
You say this system removes choice? I say it adds hundreds.
The only thing that will come from the change you're suggesting is that richer players will have even more advantages over those that do not spend 16 hours a day grinding ISK.
What this patch will do is introduce a more reasonable spending limit on ships. It will make it so that you can only spend 10mill on a frigate before it reaches around it's max performance.
Exactly the same as you can only have so many SPs dedicated to flying frigates before it reaches it's max performance.
This patch will not remove choices. It will add tons of choices. Instead of wondering only about what modules to fit you also have to wonder about rigs and how the 2 interact.
All this patch will do is even out the playing field so that newer poorer players can also enjoy flying rigged drakes into lvl 4 missions. So that they also get the joy of flying those 6km/s frigates in PvP.
And for the older richer players it will only make it so that they'll have to spend less time grinding ISK and can spend more time doing what they enjoy because the rigs they buy are cheaper.
Everybody wins save for the players that win fights not by skill, intelligence or tactics but instead by spending insane amounts of ISK on their ships.
|
irion felpamy
Minmatar
SkillzKillz
United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 14:39:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Emperor Cheney
Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 12/07/2009 02:43:03
Do not support this ridiculous whine. "I might not be able to feel extra-special for spending 200 mil on a frigate anymore. Here are fifteen (15!) paragraphs about why that is horrible!" Oh, also there is the danger of "cookie cutter setups." That's pretty amazing.
Agreeing with this and not supported.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 17:56:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Cpt Gobla
Totally disagree.
For a few year old vets with 2 accounts both having marauders grinding lvl 4 missions it might be a matter of: Should I spend 45mill extra on rigs or not?
For however another rather large portion of the player base. The more casually orientated crowd. The question is instead: Should I spend 45mill... ow wait, don't actually have that much money to waste. nvm.
For us the current rigging system does not give options. In fact it takes about every single choice I have away. Because I can't use CCC rigs I have to fill my med slots with cap recharges to become cap-stable. Because I can't use damage rigs I have to fill my low slots with heat sinks or gyrostabs to deal ganky damage.
I would love access to CCC rigs for a decent price so that when fitting my BC I can actually make the choice if I want to use CCC rigs so I can free a med slot for an afterburner, or maybe a tracking computer. Wait, even a web could work. Or I could decide for some armor rigs so I can free up a low-slot and maybe fit a heatsink or keep as it is and benefit from an increased tank. Maybe I'll even go for some weapon rigs to increase my optimal or my damage.
You say this system removes choice? I say it adds hundreds.
The only thing that will come from the change you're suggesting is that richer players will have even more advantages over those that do not spend 16 hours a day grinding ISK.
What this patch will do is introduce a more reasonable spending limit on ships. It will make it so that you can only spend 10mill on a frigate before it reaches around it's max performance.
Exactly the same as you can only have so many SPs dedicated to flying frigates before it reaches it's max performance.
This patch will not remove choices. It will add tons of choices. Instead of wondering only about what modules to fit you also have to wonder about rigs and how the 2 interact.
All this patch will do is even out the playing field so that newer poorer players can also enjoy flying rigged drakes into lvl 4 missions. So that they also get the joy of flying those 6km/s frigates in PvP.
And for the older richer players it will only make it so that they'll have to spend less time grinding ISK and can spend more time doing what they enjoy because the rigs they buy are cheaper.
Everybody wins save for the players that win fights not by skill, intelligence or tactics but instead by spending insane amounts of ISK on their ships.
Actually, the option I gave provides a chance for the less wealthy to close the gap without making everyone equal. My system essentially implements meta levels to the system rather than sizes that skew cost.
Want better performance, fine, pay for it, want to just boost your ship a bit, fine too, but don't cheapen the work of some for the sake of others.
I have never understood this casual player arguement. I'm a casual player. I don't expect to be as wealthy as some Mom's basement dweller who plays eve 16 hrs a day.
What ****es me off is people who want the easy road to life b/c they can't figure out how to make things work faster.
Half the nay arguments in this thread remind me of a thread a while back about 0.0 income from ratting. People were constantly saying 20-30 mil an hr is the limit, yet I could go out there in a standard t2 hac with a hauler on standby in a station and pull in much closer to 60 mil an hr. Is it my fault for understanding how to utilize my time to the full benefit over someone who'd rather go out there and do it the wrong way?
I've got alts in newer corps, I've got spies in alliances. The truth is, the guys who complain about being causal players are really the guys who are a) too young to know better (people who prolly shouldn't be in a battle cruiser less not a rigged ship) or b) people to stupid or lazy to play this game effectively.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Marcus Druallis
Quantum Industries
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 18:50:00 -
[84]
I support his first message
--
|
Cpt Gobla
The Dark Space Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 19:21:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Cpt Gobla on 14/07/2009 19:22:30
Originally by: Yaay
Actually, the option I gave provides a chance for the less wealthy to close the gap without making everyone equal. My system essentially implements meta levels to the system rather than sizes that skew cost.
Want better performance, fine, pay for it, want to just boost your ship a bit, fine too, but don't cheapen the work of some for the sake of others.
I have never understood this casual player arguement. I'm a casual player. I don't expect to be as wealthy as some Mom's basement dweller who plays eve 16 hrs a day.
What ****es me off is people who want the easy road to life b/c they can't figure out how to make things work faster.
Half the nay arguments in this thread remind me of a thread a while back about 0.0 income from ratting. People were constantly saying 20-30 mil an hr is the limit, yet I could go out there in a standard t2 hac with a hauler on standby in a station and pull in much closer to 60 mil an hr. Is it my fault for understanding how to utilize my time to the full benefit over someone who'd rather go out there and do it the wrong way?
I've got alts in newer corps, I've got spies in alliances. The truth is, the guys who complain about being causal players are really the guys who are a) too young to know better (people who prolly shouldn't be in a battle cruiser less not a rigged ship) or b) people to stupid or lazy to play this game effectively.
I see where you're coming from.
But imho you're coming from the totally wrong direction.
I'm not saying that your tiered rigs are a bad idea. In fact had it not been a replacement for the sized rigs idea I would have definitely supported it.
But what exactly is wrong with the sized rigs idea? What's so bad about giving poorer players the option to fly the same quality frigates as you can?
Making 60mill an hour you can still field rigged T2 equipped BS for PvP while I can not as they're simply way too expensive. You can still field rigged T2 command ships which I can't. Maybe you can even field carriers or even better, I don't know. I sure can't.
What's so horribly wrong with allowing me to field the same quality frigate as you can? Why does your frigate have to be better just because you have found a perfect way to rat? It's not my fault either that I don't have access to your method of ratting.
I don't want the easy way. I don't want T2 fit rigged Sleipnirs appearing instead of reapers when I dock in my pod.
I just don't want to have to own a marauder, HAC, CS or whatever and grind rats, missions or whatever to be able to field a competitive frigate! I want to be able to field a good ship in PvP after 2-3 months of playing. Not just throw-away ships for me to 'learn' in until I manage your 60mill/hr technique after 2 years of playing before I can field a well fit frigate!
Notice how I said frigate every time. I totally agree that it's not fair that those who go around wasting time and following cookie cutters not earn the same as people who went out and managed to get real information and tactics first hand and as such should not be able to fit and field expensive ships such as BS, CS, dreads, carriers etc.
But we're talking about frigates and cruisers here. Every time I hear pro PvPers talking about newbies they say that you can join from day 1 in a tackling frigate helping out. But now that this patch is on the horizon enabling those very same newbies to field more properly fit frigates that can potentially match those of more experienced players we get complaints.
Please explain: What is wrong with somebody that's at the stage he's doing lvl 3 missions in a BC is able to field a rigged frigate in PvP? And I'm not talking about any kind of diminished meta rigs, I'm talking about full blown rigs.
for the coming months I won't be able to field properly fit HACs, BS, recons etc. And probably for the coming year CS, carriers and/or dreads. But I'd like to be able to field a properly fit and rigged frigate by now.....
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 21:57:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Yaay
*emo crying*
Hey, I heard about you, your one of those "The glass is half empty" kind of guys right?
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 00:26:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Cpt Gobla
the problem is, rigs were ment to define differences in ships. They were advantage at a cost. There is nothing that says a rigged ship will always beat a non rigged ship. The problem is, if you let this one go, just like we've let so many others go in the past, then it's one more step towards making everyone equal for no cost.
This game was built on cost vs reward. Risk vs reward. You drop the price on rigs, you remove risk. The lower the risk in game, the less fun it is for everyone. I always loved the quote in the incredible that said when everyone becomes special, nobody is. This is a step away from uniqueness. It's also a step away from competition to have the best stuff. Both of those things are what drive this game.
This game is the Competition to be the best at whatever cost. For some that means hours played, for some that means blobbing, for some that means griefing for hours on end, or scamming, or whatever. It's supposed to be hard, it's supposed to be demanding. That's what motivates people to do better.
I just do not like removing aspirations from the game. And removing rig cost for frigates and cruisers in the manner in which they are choosing is doing just that.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
LegendaryFrog
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 01:13:00 -
[88]
Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 15/07/2009 01:13:38
Quote:
b) people to stupid or lazy to play this game effectively.
Oh Yaay, never change. "Anyone who disagrees with my idea or wants some part of this game to be more accessible in some way is just stupid or lazy"
Not supported. Tech 1 rigs SHOULD be relatively cheap, such that a little more money can grant you a little extra performance out of your ship, relative to its size. Tech 2 rigs are for the people who want to spend the big bucks min/maxing their ship.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 03:30:00 -
[89]
Originally by: LegendaryFrog
Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 15/07/2009 01:13:38
Quote:
b) people to stupid or lazy to play this game effectively.
Oh Yaay, never change. "Anyone who disagrees with my idea or wants some part of this game to be more accessible in some way is just stupid or lazy"
Not supported. Tech 1 rigs SHOULD be relatively cheap, such that a little more money can grant you a little extra performance out of your ship, relative to its size. Tech 2 rigs are for the people who want to spend the big bucks min/maxing their ship.
A goon telling me about stupidity
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Terrigal
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 04:30:00 -
[90]
No one fits T2 rigs anyway. Is 100x the cost (isk or salvage components) for a 5% increase worth it, I think not. The only issue I may have with these is new smaller rigs will be if there not available like the existing rigs. CCP will have to seed the market with 250k x how many of the new rigs. If this doesnt happen they'll become just like the old T2 BPO's, ie dam I wasnt on the day of release and now I cant get any of them. 
|
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 11:01:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Yaay
the problem is, rigs were ment to define differences in ships. They were advantage at a cost.
They were. Now they become increased options instead. It is like they add yet another layer of slots where you now can realistically modify even a Frig.
And how do you get it to become a step away from uniqueness? One sold GTC would make any type of rig available for anyone, even in the good ol days. With rebalanced and perhaps even new rigs there will be an increase in diversity between ships. Suddenly you have more ways to address a role. Now how is that bad? I could afford rigs before, so for me it's no different except that I might meet a greater variation of ships. And I consider that fun.
Also, I have to admit, the Goon has a point.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 13:53:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Terrigal
No one fits T2 rigs anyway. Is 100x the cost (isk or salvage components) for a 5% increase worth it, I think not. The only issue I may have with these is new smaller rigs will be if there not available like the existing rigs. CCP will have to seed the market with 250k x how many of the new rigs. If this doesnt happen they'll become just like the old T2 BPO's, ie dam I wasnt on the day of release and now I cant get any of them.
Not an issue - BPOs will be for sale, just like the present rigs.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
Endemic Aggression
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 16:17:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 15/07/2009 16:21:54
Quote:
What I don't get in the whole rig story is why T1 ships get 3 rigs, T2 get 2 rigs and T3 get 3 rigs... How about T1 with 1 rig, T2 with 2 rigs and T3 with 3 rigs? It would make the difference bigger and that would cause more people to go out roaming in an expensive pwn-boat instead of their cheap throw-away ship.
actually lower tech ship should get always more rig slots with reasonable logic.
Salvage is supposed to be floating junk in space. You just gather useful parts.
You put together this junk and add some positive effects on your ship. It shouldn't cost much at all.
General idea should be that you can put rigs in your rifter or kestrel without worrying too much about cost.
battleship costs 50-100mil. frigate costs 10-100k. Rig prices should follow similar scale by all logic.
This rig patch will be great and should've been done ages ago.
|
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 22:14:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Yaay
Originally by: Cpt Gobla
the problem is, rigs were ment to define differences in ships. They were advantage at a cost. There is nothing that says a rigged ship will always beat a non rigged ship. The problem is, if you let this one go, just like we've let so many others go in the past, then it's one more step towards making everyone equal for no cost.
This game was built on cost vs reward. Risk vs reward. You drop the price on rigs, you remove risk. The lower the risk in game, the less fun it is for everyone. I always loved the quote in the incredible that said when everyone becomes special, nobody is. This is a step away from uniqueness. It's also a step away from competition to have the best stuff. Both of those things are what drive this game.
This game is the Competition to be the best at whatever cost. For some that means hours played, for some that means blobbing, for some that means griefing for hours on end, or scamming, or whatever. It's supposed to be hard, it's supposed to be demanding. That's what motivates people to do better.
I just do not like removing aspirations from the game. And removing rig cost for frigates and cruisers in the manner in which they are choosing is doing just that.
Let me breakdown your arguments for you:
-Less difference in ships due to everyone having rigs.
Did I miss the patch note saying they removed all rigs save for 1? Last time I checked there were 78 rigs total. With about 25 or so useful ones.
So in the case of frigates and cruisers we got from almost every single ship with no rigs to almost every single ship with one of possible 25 rigs. Doesn't that make for more differences?
-Less risk/reward.
Well currently paying 45 million isk to make a frigate slightly better ( as you said, rigs aren't auto-win but instead a small advantage. ) seems like a pretty darn messed up risk/reward mechanism. So unless you're mistaken about rigs not being such a huge factor this argument holds no value. And in the case that rigs are a huge factor then this patch only evens the playing field. Giving newer players a chance as well.
-Removes the motivation to improve
You remember that immense feeling of despair when you made your first skill plan to get into that awesome ship you really liked with a perfect fit and realised it would take you over a year to get there? You remember that same feeling of despair when you were flying your first cruiser gawking over battleships, HACs and carries and thinking how the hell you were ever going to afford that?
That's not motivating at all. Long term goals don't motivate. Short term goals do. Moving from no rigs to small rigs is a short term goal. Moving from small to medium another short term goal. Moving from no rigs to normal rigs is not. This will instead add a lot of motivation to do better. Instead of goals attainable only by those with years of experience and billions of ISK rigs will become goals attainable by all players. Rigs on a frig will still make it 10 times as expensive. It's still a risk and an investment. But now it will become a realistic risk and investment.
Just because 5mill for a T1 frig is nothing to you doesn't mean that it's nothing to everyone. It's definitely a small amount but by no means something I'd personally throw away on a whim. That's not even speaking about cruisers totalling 25mill. Which I'd say are already on the expensive side for a ship you're expecting to lose in PvP.
|
Felix Mibaz
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 22:45:00 -
[95]
Seems like rigs are going to be like t1 named mods...
Boring. Before you go and make even more ships harder to move without physically being in them, how about making them available to being removed and added when necessary.
|
Typhado3
Minmatar
Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 23:22:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Typhado3 on 17/07/2009 23:23:50
I disagree,
Rigs while having a heavy cost where imo more about getting a bonus in one area for a sacrifice in another area. They do this quite well and people have chosen to ignore or sacrifice aspects of their ships they don't care about for important parts (shield/armour rigs).
Also I think this is actually going to push it further away from cookie cutter setups, after all there's say 10 good or 20 ok ways to rig your ship. So now cause there's 20 more options for your frigates that will greatly change it's performance it's more cookie cutter? Not even sure how you get that =s
-----------------------------------
ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
|
shuckstar
Gallente
Hauling hogs
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 19:42:00 -
[97]
Originally by: XHolyAvengerX
Not supported. At the moment rig slots on medium and especially small ships are essentially useless. While you can rig them, it's somewhat idiotic to do so. Also, the patch should also make t2 rigs more reasonable, so if you want to be able to pay more for extra umph, they'll actually be an option.
Also, I don't see how allowing rigs on smaller ships more easily, which are intended to increase diversity, would do the opposite. Particularly if ccp rebalances them correctly like they claim they will.
Not supported, i agree with this guy.
|
Phantom Slave
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 08:56:00 -
[98]
I propose to reverse your proposal. Sized rigs will be fine, but I want to see sized modules for every ship type! No more Heatsink II's for your BS's, you'll need XL Heatsink II's that cost 20 mil a piece! XL 1600mm plates for 50 mil a piece!
Your reasoning isn't very sound. People fit rigs to smaller ships right now, the only thing this is going to change is people with less isk will be able to rig their ships to compete with those who already rig their ships. I see no negative effects coming from this, other than me having to redo a lot of EFT setups to account for rig bonuses on my t1 ships.
|
Gaven Darklighter
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 04:33:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Gaven Darklighter on 20/07/2009 04:37:37
Edited by: Gaven Darklighter on 20/07/2009 04:36:06
Not Supported.
Don't be alarmed, tl;dr @ teh bottom
whoever thinks the rigs will become standard on all ships obviously has no sense of innovation in terms of ship fitting and pvp. there never has been a stadard fit for any ship. there have always been tried and true fits, those which weather battles and tank missions with relative ease, but there are always ways to break the mold, and this change is going to serve as a catalyst to open up that creativity.
lets take a few ships into account for the expected change in fitting.
Thorax, possible rigs, almost any hybrid rigs, the armor rigs, and the speed/cap astrometric rigs. Use it in a mission? add some resists and a few CCCs. A new player with a rigged thorax is going to be much better off in missions when given a shot at rigging. who cares? So what is the price they pay to do a mission is affected, I don't see them blowing anything up any time soon.
On to a PVP Rax, we have a common plate rax, load that up with some trimarks and you have a great bait ship. lets say you are in a tackle rax. load up some astrometrics to help with the cap or maybe overall speed. Be realistic, there are so many ways to fit a combat oriented t1 cruiser. I see way more lolfits and innovation on the horizon, and both of which are things I look forward to seeing on a regular basis. Makes the game more fun to think of different ways to play.
I'll bring up frigates in general, which can be insanely versatile in the right hands. A frig rarely has the ability to run half their mods for a full minute before they cap out. Tack on some rigs, whatever you want, who knows what you can really do, speed, armor, tracking, range, shields, extra dps, whoever said it will make standardized fits a norm has obviously been stuck in industrial ships for a bit too long.
A third and final point is the rigging of t2 ships. Who has ever had a ship get nerfed, or changed their mind on a flying style of any particular ship? nano ishtars, nano curses, for whatever reason a trimarked anything, and decided, maybe now I need to swap up the setup a little, but those rigs are going to be a bihotch to replace. Now, you have the option to rerig a ship for a decent price. I know rigs are permanent for a reason, but when each one costs 5 mil it's still going to be a dent in your wallet when considering the overall price of the ship.
tl;dr: what makes you want to force everyone to pay a premium for something that doesn't fiscally make sense at the moment? So what if you do, this makes it so other people can enjoy that luxury. Standardization is not going to be a problem. It really seems like a whine from a bunch of rig builders and people who forgot this is a GAME and should be enjoyed by everyone, not just people who voluntarily forfeit hour upon hour grinding missions just to get ahead of everyone else, that's what faction and deadspace mods are for. Share the rig love, and stop being so greedy.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 04:48:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Yaay on 20/07/2009 04:51:07
Edited by: Yaay on 20/07/2009 04:48:21
Originally by: Gaven Darklighter
all that crap
Virtually every bit of what you said is exactly my point. Rigs complement setups, they do not change them. Your ceptors are just going to be more cap stable. Your cruisers are just going to do a bit more damage.
It's not like some git is going to mix a plated thorax with CCC rigs or polycarbs or eccm rigs or anything else that wouldn't make sense.
The point of rigs has always been a choice between do or dont use them. If you risk the cash, you reap the reward.
I mean i just don't get people's logic here. What next, do you want the cost of the navy vexor to drop to the same as the vexor because then maybe you''ll have more options on what ships to fly and how to load out your setup? NO! Navy vexor is better because you choose to pay more for it's performance with both mission time and lp cost.
Is it the dev's fault that the navy vexor takes way more time to get and therefore isn't conducive to 1 hr a day players who want to pvp in it? Is it the rich guys fault? It's a game, just like all games. You arent intended to do everything there ever was in this game, you make a choice. I make the decision to log out and go play soccer or bike for 2 hrs a day, is that they nerd's fault who would rather sit at his desk for 2 hrs or is it my own?
I'm so sick of this equality bull**** because guess what, you aren't. All the rig patch does is dumb down the game for the masses.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Gaven Darklighter
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 05:30:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Yaay
Originally by: Gaven Darklighter
all that crap
garbage etc
Anyway, its about fun, for everyone, not only the people who can passivly make isk with all the isk they have already. FFS we are talking about sub 10 mil hulls here, and you are whining about people actually using things that are there for people to use. Sure there is a sense of risk vs reward. all the mods you put on your ship are a risk, be it 50k or 11 mil, your choice. but ffs, you are rigging a 200k ship with rigs that cost a couple mil, you are still putting forth a risk, but it's not a battleship risk. scaled investment is scaled reward.
What if every ship in game cost as much to kit out as a battleship? do you really think people are going to use them on a regular basis? it closes off the accessibility to players who play this as a game not as a job. You are putting so much of your argument into isk value, as if it outweighs the players skill. Let people explore another part of the game, and realize every single thing you add to a ship is risk, including rigs, no matter how expensive they are.
|
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 09:19:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Yaay
I mean i just don't get people's logic here.
You don't seem to get logic, period. This patch will increase options, not remove them. It will make ships more diverse, not less. This is not faction gear, it is produced. You might as well complain about modules for low-slots.
|
Dapto
Dissolution Of Eternity
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 09:50:00 -
[103]
I support this as i've read many posts as to how people have worked realy hard to obtain skills and T2 bpo's for specialised profession only for CCP to along once again to basically destroy it.
Dapto |
Marked Ugler
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 11:04:00 -
[104]
I whant trolls to die in hell!
People, you are not using your brain. Regging destroyers and small ships is good.
|
Tagami Wasp
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 06:22:00 -
[105]
Not supported. I already rig my T1 cruisers (and they have survived many fights because of that) so why not be able to do it cheaper and better? Also, most of my fits require rigs to work at their best or at all, especially on frig sized ships.
CCP has the right idea.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 06:44:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Tagami Wasp
Not supported. I already rig my T1 cruisers (and they have survived many fights because of that) so why not be able to do it cheaper and better? Also, most of my fits require rigs to work at their best or at all, especially on frig sized ships.
CCP has the right idea.
Umm great, so what you're telling me is that you invested more into a ship so that you would ultimately gain from it's advantage in situations. what you're missing is, when it's less about what you did because everyone is choosing to invest in something since investment cost it lowered, your gained advantage in scenarios is diminished. Thus it lowers the payoff of choosing to use those rigs while necessitating that you do rig because the standard has risen.
Ultimately what's happening is your ability to survive because of rigging is being cheapened by the fact that your competition is going to be bigger, stronger, faster too.
When you make everyone special, nobody is. Lowering the cost of rigs is removing the choice and adding the necessity to use them. You made my point for me and yet you still argue against it because you don't see the whole picture.
Everyone here who's argued against this point has argued a "ME" centric argument without considering how it plays out within the entire environment. Yes your ship gets a boost, but so does everyone else. where as there was once distinction in ship performance for set roles, now there will be none. So when your now armor plated t1 cruiser get's pointed more easily because the average newb in a frigate is sporting the latest and greatest in rigs, how will you see things any differently than you do now?
The only difference is that your still going to run through the same amount of ships that you always have, and those rich bastards are just going to have more money to throw in different directions than they did before.
So rather than rigs being the standard by which ship monetary class warfare is raged, it will instead be all faction gear from the LP store, or more implants, or more drug use. I mean where do you draw the line once you go down this path? You're not solving any problem you may have listed, you're just shifting the problem elsewhere.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 06:47:00 -
[107]
Yaay, your an idiot.
CCP is doing it right. So stop this crusade you have of, you know I still don't know what your complaining about really. It's like your just complaining to get attention.
Let it go man, let it go...
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 06:54:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Yaay, your an idiot.
CCP is doing it right. So stop this crusade you have of, you know I still don't know what your complaining about really. It's like your just complaining to get attention.
Let it go man, let it go...
Yes, everybody look at me, I'm Moses coming down from the top of the mountain!
It has nothing to do with how out of whack this game is going to become because of this patch. Surely that isn't my intent at all.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 06:56:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Yaay
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Yaay, your an idiot.
CCP is doing it right. So stop this crusade you have of, you know I still don't know what your complaining about really. It's like your just complaining to get attention.
Let it go man, let it go...
Yes, everybody look at me, I'm Moses coming down from the top of the mountain!
It has nothing to do with how out of whack this game is going to become because of this patch. Surely that isn't my intent at all.
Let it go...
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 04:00:00 -
[110]
Not Supporting.
I think I'm going to by default say no to the majority of Yaay's posts.
Can I get an amen for that? : O P
Nothing personal Yaay...but your really turning into a paranoia-delusional some such or another.
Let's face it... how can this so called rig patch be that bad?
Cheaper rigs for small ships? Frigate pilots can now afford to put rigs in?
And still have the option for larger rigs? (If I read the patch notes right)
Don't you think your just jumping the gun a wee bit?
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
=========================
Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense
Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 05:24:00 -
[111]
how is adding 3 more slots which could have countless diffreent fittings each making pvp more cookie cutter??????
if anything, pvp fittings were cookie cutter even more so than now. NOBODY rigs frigates unless they're stupid and have too much isk. now it's possible. i like the rig changes, it adds more diversity to the game. screw you all who have enough isk to stupidly rig your frigates and don't want me to be able to!
|
Mashashige
Minmatar
Eternal Perseverance Flight School
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 08:51:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Mashashige on 28/07/2009 08:55:20
I'm seeing several major points in the OP, and I'll address each in its own section.
- Large rig prices will decrease drastically: The current lack of understanding of market pricipals buffles me to be quite honest. Rigs atm are a niche market - increase for rig demand (more people buying small and medium rigs cause they are finally logical to use) ----> increase for salvage material prices and better prices for the less used materials ---> equal or higher rig prices.
- Gain vs loss: Read the rig description - on most rigs you gain something and lose something in return. For example, armor rigs increase armor relate stuff, but decrease speed. Price is another factor, but isn't the main issue at hand. So allowing the use of rigs on frigs/cruisers will not remove the win vs. loss equation, but rather make it more reasonable.
- Loss of diversity : Diversity and cookie cutter fits are very rarely influenced by rigs. I could fly a buffer tank cane or a repper cane or even a nano cane - and the rig prices will have little effect on that. However, being able to rig it reasonable might might Ill use more T2 frigs over using battleships, which means more diversity, rather than less. If a rig that was nay affordable before make my nano or other less common fit much more reasonable, it will only increase the sightings of such fits.
- "smaller rigs would be smaller bonuses for less cost": I'm starting to doubt your intelligence level here. This is EXACTLY what is going to happen. Let me teach you a simple truth about about math - 10% increase for 1k armor is less that 10% increase on 10k armor. Same for any other number. Will a 1k increase in speed mean my frig will be able to speed tank more effectively if I'm going over 3k either way? Not very likely. Will it mean I'll get the tackle on people far away or on faster ceptor/etc more often? pretty likely.
- "Everything will be rigged now = rigs meaning nothing" argument: thats actually pretty cool IMO. Will that mean all frigs will be rigged? almost def. Will it change anything in frig vs frig fights? not noticeably, and def. not more than fitting and ammo choices will. Will we see frigs being more effective as a ship group? idk, but I think that is more than likely - same for cruisers and bcs, and it will allow for much specialization in niches, meaning the "big, bad bs owning everything" myth will be much less prevalent. Also, will that mean that rigs will have no more "umph" factor? NO, cause we still have t2 rigs that will cost 40mil or so for med, and 5-6mil for small (thats just guessing, though I think its gonna be much higher still, more on the factor of 2/3 decrease per size group rather than the 8 decrease for t1 rigs) and will still allow the concept of bang for buck fittings. Also this will increase the use of t2 rigs on non mission or faction ships, which IMO might reduce the "OMG ITS FACTION AND T2 FITTED" factor, but will make it more of a real T2 rig, and less of a "T2 but more like faction" rig.
In conclusion, will this rig change have its problems? more than likely. Will this change lead to some balance issues? prob. Is it more reasonable than only using rigs on t2 ships and BS/BCs? YES.
P.S
Does this post have too many of the "Is my mom a ****? more than likely" type sentences? Yes, but I still like them 
Edited for legibility.
=======================================
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." |
Another Forum'Alt
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:09:00 -
[113]
Supported - a small rig should have a significantly smaller effect than a large - perhaps 1/4, 1/5 or even 1/6 or so, with a correspondingly lower price.
BECAUSE OF FALCON.
Guide to forum posting |
irion felpamy
Minmatar
HellJumpers Corp
Indecisive Certainty
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:41:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Another Forum'Alt
Supported - a small rig should have a significantly smaller effect than a large - perhaps 1/4, 1/5 or even 1/6 or so, with a correspondingly lower price.
Rigs do they are percentage based,a trimark on a mega adds far more (2000ehp unfitted vs 80) than on a punisher. Not supporting this topic.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:53:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Another Forum'Alt
Supported - a small rig should have a significantly smaller effect than a large - perhaps 1/4, 1/5 or even 1/6 or so, with a correspondingly lower price.
What's the point of a rig that gives a 1.5% bonus to a frigate? who would bother with such a worthless item?
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Money Liberation Services Corp
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:59:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Yaay
When rigs were first introduced into this game, the idea was "would you be willing to pay for the extra ump?".
Nope.
This, the basis of your entire thread, is not correct.
They have drawbacks for a reason. They were intended to be used to specialize your ship for a specific role, allowing for more, different roles. It's also the reason why t2 has less rig slots than t1, since t2 already is a specialized version of t1.
So yes, we're getting cheaper ways to fit smaller ships. This will open up rigging for smaller hulls too, especially t1 hulls, where it previously didn't make a lot of sense, since the same rig would be better spent on a larger hull instead.
In conclusion, there will be cost effective means to specialize t1 frigates in the future. This is great news for everyone who loves to fly small hulls.
By the way, i'm not getting why smaller rigs should be less effective. The bonuses are already percentual, it's not like we had a rig that gave you a flat 500pg which would be hilariously overpowered on small hulls.
----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X
In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 14:53:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 28/07/2009 14:54:31
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Another Forum'Alt
Supported - a small rig should have a significantly smaller effect than a large - perhaps 1/4, 1/5 or even 1/6 or so, with a correspondingly lower price.
What's the point of a rig that gives a 1.5% bonus to a frigate? who would bother with such a worthless item?
That's an additional 1.5% of survivability... seconds count in this game.
For you to call that worthless... is nothing short of laughable.
Course I'm not supporting this thread by answering that statement or re-enforcing it... only that I'm stating a fact that people will use these "Worthless" rigs to get that extra edge.... even if its a very small edge.
Small edges win the game these days...
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
=========================
Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense
Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
irion felpamy
Minmatar
HellJumpers Corp
Indecisive Certainty
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 15:01:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 28/07/2009 14:54:31
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Another Forum'Alt
Supported - a small rig should have a significantly smaller effect than a large - perhaps 1/4, 1/5 or even 1/6 or so, with a correspondingly lower price.
What's the point of a rig that gives a 1.5% bonus to a frigate? who would bother with such a worthless item?
That's an additional 1.5% of survivability... seconds count in this game.
For you to call that worthless... is nothing short of laughable.
Course I'm not supporting this thread by answering that statement or re-enforcing it... only that I'm stating a fact that people will use these "Worthless" rigs to get that extra edge.... even if its a very small edge.
Small edges win the game these days...
Son stay off the drugs
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
Endemic Aggression
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 17:07:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Yaay
lotsa stuff
In my opinion you're missing the whole point. Rigs are made up out of junk you gather from wrecks. They're not so hi tech or shiny.
I think it's more like assembling self-made turbo on your toyota corolla mark II. Makes your car do some noise, maybe burn some rubber on wet concrete too on good day then engine blows up.
I think some rigs should have more hilariuos side effects though.
|
Lookabout
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 18:28:00 -
[120]
CCP has got a good idea going with this proposed change to rigs. The only problem is that many people with existing, well researched rig blueprints are going to get the short end of the stick when all of their existing blueprints become large rig blueprints by default.
For example, those with control capacitor circuit blueprints can rest easy, as those are popular rigs for ravens. However, people possessing gravity capacitor upgrade blueprints are out of luck, as there are probably few (if any) who would want to put those rigs onto large ships. It would be nice if, after the change, there would be a way a player could convert existing (and now large) rig blueprints into small or medium rig blueprints, at the owner's discretion.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 19:10:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Another Forum'Alt
Supported - a small rig should have a significantly smaller effect than a large - perhaps 1/4, 1/5 or even 1/6 or so, with a correspondingly lower price.
uhhhhhhh that's why we use percentages in EVE.
with bigger ships you get more effect and in smaller ships you get less effect cause of smaller hp, damage, etc.
|
Dayamb
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 19:42:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Yaay
Punisher before patch...
3x axuiliary nano pumps ~75 mil
boost active tank from 60-84 dps using 2 energized adaptives and a t2 small repair
after patch...
punisher
3x auxiliary nano pumps 300k, 2 amarr navy EAN 44 mil, 1 coreli c-type small repairer 9 mil. +20 mil for additional mods.
Save 1 pg, 13 cpu. Equal cap use, 100 dps tank.
After patch... the guy who chose to invest still gets a massive boost to his ship for the same cost over the guy who just rigged. Slass warfare arguement still exist, nothing has changed. That to me looks like a farse of a patch that has created a non issue out of something that people were content with until CCP brought up the issue. There was very very limited grumbling before this patch was ever mentioned... It's amazing how after CCP created the issue, all the wealth envy came out in droves. And yet still, it won't change that fact. All it does is remove part of the choice people have in game. This patch has 0 to do with the cost of rigs and that affect on gameplay.
The rich are still going to be rich, and you're still going to be at a disadvantage. The only difference is going to be the diversity the choice to use rigs vs not had on this game.
This actually makes sense. I'm not sure how this patch is going to change wealth envy much. Seems like a lot of fluff without a lot of content.
|
Knara Semosin
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 21:23:00 -
[123]
supported
these expensive rigs, can clear the dirt between the good and great pilots. You say it doesn't make a difference, but i am sure it does, small may it be, but that small difference can change everything in a fight
|
Awesome Possum
Insert Obscure Latin Name
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 22:02:00 -
[124]
Edited by: Awesome Possum on 28/07/2009 22:03:30
Originally by: Jarne
You're talking all about choice, but the truth is: Currently you do not have the choice to fit rigs on frigates, except for those who have too much money.
PVP isn't expensive, but it isn't cheap either. How about doing some isk making work to pay for your play time. Don't whine to CCP and demand cheap pvp.
You want to min/max, you should have to pay dearly for it.
Otherwise, get in a rookie ship and go to a starter system.
Highly supported to OP.
edit for typo and to add this:
The casuals whining for free epics have come to EVE.
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Orakkus
m3 Corp
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 22:03:00 -
[125]
Yeah, I support this argument. I do not think this is a good idea for the balance of the game. Frigates already have good advantages over their bigger siblings, and really the upgrades are the reason why you move into T2 class ships.
I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet. |
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 00:04:00 -
[126]
I don't support because this whole thing can be resolved by rebalancing the price structure.
Something like: 100%/50%/25% as someone suggested would work pretty well. As the dev blog stated, small rigs are slated to be between 100k-1m, but if you think about it...it's either a whole ship or a single rig for a ship that will die quickly regardless of what rigs it has on it.
In a way, the rigs seem to balance themselves out because almost all rigs are percentages; i.e, an armor pump rig won't give a frigate 10k more armor HP; it would give something like 100-200. Now tell me, is that worth the potential cost of another ship you could buy? This may not make a difference for the rich, but for people who try to conserve every single ISK (like myself), it's a huge difference. Small ships get blown up quicker, so you end up spending more ISK fitting ships anyway.
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 05:11:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Agent Known
I don't support because this whole thing can be resolved by rebalancing the price structure.
Something like: 100%/50%/25% as someone suggested would work pretty well. As the dev blog stated, small rigs are slated to be between 100k-1m, but if you think about it...it's either a whole ship or a single rig for a ship that will die quickly regardless of what rigs it has on it.
In a way, the rigs seem to balance themselves out because almost all rigs are percentages; i.e, an armor pump rig won't give a frigate 10k more armor HP; it would give something like 100-200. Now tell me, is that worth the potential cost of another ship you could buy? This may not make a difference for the rich, but for people who try to conserve every single ISK (like myself), it's a huge difference. Small ships get blown up quicker, so you end up spending more ISK fitting ships anyway.
ah, but a speed rig of 10 % will benefit a frigate considerably more than a battleship. You can't argue straight numbers, b/c not all ships are equal in the same regaurd. 10% more speed on a frigate can break tracking just like 10% more armor rep on a battleship can break some ships DPS advantage.
Do you know what 10% more armor on a frigate is like when missiles are in play? Have you ever shot an afterburner based armor tanked retribution with heavy missiles?
|
Rin Ji
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 16:29:00 -
[128]
In short: agreed.
Resized rigs need to be looked at very closely again prior to implementation. |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 14:54:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Kazzac Elentria on 31/07/2009 14:54:06
Supported only cause I can see the break coming with speed and tracking. We already have issues on some fronts, so allowing it to just get worse would be a no no.
In the same vein, you'll need to make the balance on cruiser size rigs well enough also, since some rigs slated for HACs are going to be all but required IMHO. |
Plutonian
Intransigent
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 15:34:00 -
[130]
Not Supported.
Sub-battleship PvP has needed a boost for some time. The breakout of rigs into class sizes is a step in the right direction. It increases options.
|
Kytanos Termek
Caldari
Darkstorm Command
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 16:13:00 -
[131]
I feel you have missed the point. Not supported
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 18:42:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Yaay on 31/07/2009 18:45:05
Originally by: Kytanos Termek
I feel you have missed the point. Not supported
I fully understand the intent of the patch, which is why I'm against it. I also understand the original intent of Rigs and am fully for that intent.
Research Assembly hall and tell me how many whines there were about rig cost and balancing before the announced plan. Compare that to any of about 100 other issues and topics.
I think the system was fine before the Developers created an issue out of something that was non-existent. I also feel the Patch is a reduction in game play variety as it removes an element of risk and choice. People Attempt to counter me on that last point, but they're not comparing apples to apples. Yes I realize that ship setups are limited without the aid of rigs. Yes I realize that ship setups can be altered using rigs. It does not change the fact that Diversity of scale is lost.
If Rigging becomes a necessity, where is the wonder in how a ship might perform with and/or without them? The fast frigates will become slightly faster, the tougher frigates will become slightly tougher, the Ewar frigates will become slighly stronger. But everyone will be doing it, so the new Averages and Lows of performance will all be slightly better.
Before this patch goes live, The disparity of the high end performance of a frigate and low end performance of a frigate were/are much greater. If rigs become so cheap that they're common place, you're just improving the low end number, which ultimately affects the average.
If for some reason the patch went live and both the low end performance of a non rigged ship were countered by the High end performance of a Fully t2 rigged ship both improving, I'd be all for it. But when comparing strictly rigged ships using what amounts to equal quality of gear, that's not happening.
And for those who complain about benefits to the poor, it's not fixing that problem, it's just reallocating in into one of the other fields of diversity of scale. Rather than blow 60 mil on rigs, I'll instead throw 60 mil on faction gear, where as you won't choose to do it, or have the option/money to be able to do it. The class warfare will still exist, and a level of diversity will be removed.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 21:55:00 -
[133]
Quote:
Originally by: Kytanos TermekI feel you have missed the point. Not supported
I fully understand the intent of the patch, which is why I'm against it. I also understand the original intent of Rigs and am fully for that intent.
Research Assembly hall and tell me how many whines there were about rig cost and balancing before the announced plan. Compare that to any of about 100 other issues and topics.
I think the system was fine before the Developers created an issue out of something that was non-existent. I also feel the Patch is a reduction in game play variety as it removes an element of risk and choice. People Attempt to counter me on that last point, but they're not comparing apples to apples. Yes I realize that ship setups are limited without the aid of rigs. Yes I realize that ship setups can be altered using rigs. It does not change the fact that Diversity of scale is lost.
If Rigging becomes a necessity, where is the wonder in how a ship might perform with and/or without them? The fast frigates will become slightly faster, the tougher frigates will become slightly tougher, the Ewar frigates will become slighly stronger. But everyone will be doing it, so the new Averages and Lows of performance will all be slightly better.
Before this patch goes live, The disparity of the high end performance of a frigate and low end performance of a frigate were/are much greater. If rigs become so cheap that they're common place, you're just improving the low end number, which ultimately affects the average.
If for some reason the patch went live and both the low end performance of a non rigged ship were countered by the High end performance of a Fully t2 rigged ship both improving, I'd be all for it. But when comparing strictly rigged ships using what amounts to equal quality of gear, that's not happening.
And for those who complain about benefits to the poor, it's not fixing that problem, it's just reallocating in into one of the other fields of diversity of scale. Rather than blow 60 mil on rigs, I'll instead throw 60 mil on faction gear, where as you won't choose to do it, or have the option/money to be able to do it. The class warfare will still exist, and a level of diversity will be removed.
The question always comes down to, Why would I pay 15 mil or more to rig a ship that cost 500k or less? The answer is, Because that's the intent of choice verse performance. Do I think rigs as a whole could be less tedious and/or slightly cheaper, sure. But This patch is completely removing the point of Rigging and the value it adds to a particular ship. Can you honestly tell me after this patch goes through you won't be more suicidal in that rigged frigate, where as before you might have held off using it for another unrigged in that particular instance? Can you tell me you expect to face ships consistently who said, NOPE, no rigs for me, the trade off just isn't worth it? Or can you tell me you won't continuously destroy rigs on ships at leisure just because you desire a different flavor that day, where as before, it was about having different ships for different abilities? Even the rich now aren't stupid enough to destroy rigs rather than buy a new ship with a new rig setup, because it's just not worth it. Rigged ships, no matter the size, are a valued commodity in game that shouldn't be altered as such.
Have you ever forgotten to upgrade your clones and realized it just before a really good fight was about to take place? Remember how the Risk of going into that fight weighed heavily on you because you had to decide if it was really worth getting podded. Have you ever gone into the fight anyway and gotten the rush of adrenaline from doing so? That is the thrill of this game. Rigs are just another take on Risk.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 22:54:00 -
[134]
Originally by: I'm Down
Originally by: Agent Known
I don't support because this whole thing can be resolved by rebalancing the price structure.
Something like: 100%/50%/25% as someone suggested would work pretty well. As the dev blog stated, small rigs are slated to be between 100k-1m, but if you think about it...it's either a whole ship or a single rig for a ship that will die quickly regardless of what rigs it has on it.
In a way, the rigs seem to balance themselves out because almost all rigs are percentages; i.e, an armor pump rig won't give a frigate 10k more armor HP; it would give something like 100-200. Now tell me, is that worth the potential cost of another ship you could buy? This may not make a difference for the rich, but for people who try to conserve every single ISK (like myself), it's a huge difference. Small ships get blown up quicker, so you end up spending more ISK fitting ships anyway.
ah, but a speed rig of 10 % will benefit a frigate considerably more than a battleship. You can't argue straight numbers, b/c not all ships are equal in the same regaurd. 10% more speed on a frigate can break tracking just like 10% more armor rep on a battleship can break some ships DPS advantage.
Do you know what 10% more armor on a frigate is like when missiles are in play? Have you ever shot an afterburner based armor tanked retribution with heavy missiles?
Armor rigs will kill a frigate's speed if the penalty stays as-is, which means that it won't have much effect anyway. Trimarks are so popular because large ships don't need speed; frigates do, and any decrease will hurt a frigate considerably.
Also, a 10% armor bonus is nothing...a frigate has ~600 armor hitpoints...so a 10% boost would be what, 40 more?
|
steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 23:26:00 -
[135]
Edited by: steave435 on 31/07/2009 23:36:56
Quote:
And for those who complain about benefits to the poor, it's not fixing that problem, it's just reallocating in into one of the other fields of diversity of scale. Rather than blow 60 mil on rigs, I'll instead throw 60 mil on faction gear, where as you won't choose to do it, or have the option/money to be able to do it. The class warfare will still exist, and a level of diversity will be removed.
What are you complaining about then? Go get those faction mods.
Rigs give a % boost, and with mods like that, the cost of them should scale aswell. Fitting a set of 3 20m trimark to your 60m geddon will increase your hp by 45% at the price of doubling the cost of the hull before adding mods. In the same way, increasing the hp of a punisher by 45% should increase the cost of loosing the ship by 100%, but with the current planned changes the price for a frigate trimark will be 4% of the current trimark price, aka 800k, so a full set would be 2.4m, so on a frigate you're still spending 800% of the hull cost to increase hp by 45%. For newbies that don't have the skills to fly a T2 frig instead, that 2.4m is actually a big chunk of money, and if you're an old player that can fly better ships, and are just looking for a cheap throwaway ship that you can keep loosing all day long without having it make a dent in your wallet, spending a few m extra on each one ruins the point.
Quote:
Can you honestly tell me after this patch goes through you won't be more suicidal in that rigged frigate, where as before you might have held off using it for another unrigged in that particular instance?
I can honestly tell you that only idiots would rig a T1 frig instead of spending the isk equivalent of 1 single rig on flying a T2 frig instead, and T2 ships should be rigged anyway so nothing changes there.
Quote:
Can you tell me you expect to face ships consistently who said, NOPE, no rigs for me, the trade off just isn't worth it?
Considering the groups of people that would choose to fly T1 frigs outside of comedy ops ala battle haulers, yes.
Quote:
Or can you tell me you won't continuously destroy rigs on ships at leisure just because you desire a different flavor that day, where as before, it was about having different ships for different abilities?
Ehm, yes, I'd rather switch to my second ship with different rigs then spend 2-3m every time I want to change a setup.
Quote:
Have you ever forgotten to upgrade your clones and realized it just before a really good fight was about to take place? Remember how the Risk of going into that fight weighed heavily on you because you had to decide if it was really worth getting podded. Have you ever gone into the fight anyway and gotten the rush of adrenaline from doing so? That is the thrill of this game. Rigs are just another take on Risk.
Like you said yourself, people that like to waste money can buy faction mods instead and experience the same risk. That also adds the excitement of getting good loot for the other side and the challenge of getting it back home safely aswell, or the same thing for your own side if they manage to win the fight despite a few losses and can loot the field and bring lost mods back to the owners.
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 23:37:00 -
[136]
Do not support.
The status quo is that one ALWAYS rigs t2 cruisers, makes a personal choice on t2 frigates and BS (usually depending on where one lives/ difficulty of logistics [for example, in empire and lowsec rigging BS is dumb, in remote space, it makes a lot more sense]), and NEVER other t1 ships (with the possible exception of a really cheap one or two on a BC).
Making smaller rigs cheaper will increase fit variety by making rigging much more viable on frigates and t1 cruiser/battlecruiser. Since rigs are so varied, there are a lot of useful things you can do with those slots (although some rigs of course are useless, there's still a lot of choice: cap, speed, guns, tank, etc.)
Also, it will help solve the t2 problem. The soaring prices of t2 ships have dramatically increased the rich/poor power wedge, and made pvp less fun: needing to spend a couple hours to replace a ship is good because it adds consequence to pvp. Needing to spend 4 or 5 hours is bad because it strongly deters pvping as much (except in a huge cheap ship blob, which ain't nearly as fun), and adds an unpleasant element of extra grind for those who just pve to fuel pvp. Cheaper rigs will significantly buff t1 ships due to the extra rig slot, which will bring the rich/poor gap back down and return more fun to pvp; its not quite as good as changing the moon mineral system to produce more and move around would be, but, its a good alternative to help solve the symptoms of the t2 moongold problem.
The one and only issue I have with the proposed changes is scaling: 100%/20%/4% will make fitting rigs on frigates completely mandatory, and make fitting the strongest rig possible regardless of price mandatory there too. Rigs will also become mandatory gear on BC and cruiser, but it will still be worth choosing which rig to take based on price. The 20% is too low too, but not nearly as insane. Maybe 100%/50%/25% would be better, maybe 100%/66%/33%, whatever, I don't know the exact numbers but the ones proposed by CCP are definitely too much.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 23:44:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Mahke
Do not support.
The status quo is that one ALWAYS rigs t2 cruisers, makes a personal choice on t2 frigates and BS (usually depending on where one lives/ difficulty of logistics [for example, in empire and lowsec rigging BS is dumb, in remote space, it makes a lot more sense]), and NEVER other t1 ships (with the possible exception of a really cheap one or two on a BC).
Making smaller rigs cheaper will increase fit variety by making rigging much more viable on frigates and t1 cruiser/battlecruiser. Since rigs are so varied, there are a lot of useful things you can do with those slots (although some rigs of course are useless, there's still a lot of choice: cap, speed, guns, tank, etc.)
Also, it will help solve the t2 problem. The soaring prices of t2 ships have dramatically increased the rich/poor power wedge, and made pvp less fun: needing to spend a couple hours to replace a ship is good because it adds consequence to pvp. Needing to spend 4 or 5 hours is bad because it strongly deters pvping as much (except in a huge cheap ship blob, which ain't nearly as fun), and adds an unpleasant element of extra grind for those who just pve to fuel pvp. Cheaper rigs will significantly buff t1 ships due to the extra rig slot, which will bring the rich/poor gap back down and return more fun to pvp; its not quite as good as changing the moon mineral system to produce more and move around would be, but, its a good alternative to help solve the symptoms of the t2 moongold problem.
The one and only issue I have with the proposed changes is scaling: 100%/20%/4% will make fitting rigs on frigates completely mandatory, and make fitting the strongest rig possible regardless of price mandatory there too. Rigs will also become mandatory gear on BC and cruiser, but it will still be worth choosing which rig to take based on price. The 20% is too low too, but not nearly as insane. Maybe 100%/50%/25% would be better, maybe 100%/66%/33%, whatever, I don't know the exact numbers but the ones proposed by CCP are definitely too much.
I don't know many instances where I couldn't take a t1 BC gang up against a Hac/Recon gang and not win consistently. That's not an issue of t2 vs t1 price wars, that's an issue of tactics. T1 frigates are meant to be throw away ships, Rigs are not throw away devices. That said, good pilots can choose to rig t1 ships currently and make them perform insanely well.
Why does everyone always make this boil down to class warfare?
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Muad' Dib
Gallente
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:20:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Yaay
Edited by: Yaay on 07/07/2009 03:00:48
Edited by: Yaay on 07/07/2009 02:59:58
When rigs were first introduced into this game, the idea was "would you be willing to pay for the extra ump?".
When this patch was first announced, I like the Idea because I and many others were under the impression that smaller rigs would be smaller bonuses for less cost. Instead, what we're getting is cheaper ways to fit smaller ships.
By doing this, not only are smaller ships going to be very easy to rig so much that it will be stupid not to rig them, But large rigs will likely drop in price drastically too because the demand on that grouping of rigs will drop heavily when frigs and cruiser will be using a different set for much lower cost.
The issue I have with this patch is, it's removing the choice to fit rigs and replacing it with the necessity to fit rigs. At such low cost per rig, the Choice not to fit a rig becomes as irrelevant as someone choosing not to fit their last high slot, or someone who has a 6 slot tank on a geddon.
I stopped after this.
Why ?
Because you fail to understand that a MMO is dynamic, what was was pimp 3 yrs ago - t2, is now given. What was unthinkably expensive 5 yrs ago - arbalest siege launchers, is now affordable to everyone.
Eventually what is an option to use to gain an advantage, will eventually become a requirement.
To give a parallel in your in-game life, you kicked the goons out of Syndicate when they were in frigates, and they came back 2yrs later in hacs/recons/caps.
---
I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:33:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Yaay
I don't know many instances where I couldn't take a t1 BC gang up against a Hac/Recon gang and not win consistently. That's not an issue of t2 vs t1 price wars, that's an issue of tactics. T1 frigates are meant to be throw away ships, Rigs are not throw away devices. That said, good pilots can choose to rig t1 ships currently and make them perform insanely well.
Why does everyone always make this boil down to class warfare?
That a BC gang can slugfest better than a t2 cruiser gang if the BC gang can catch the t2 gang, get in range, and tackle them is a red herring. The difference is, t2 cruisers have more range and can GTFO when a blob of two or three times your gang size comes chasing you while BC's can't: the dividing line is between cruiser hulls and BCs.
I'm rich enough to be able to fly whatever I want, but, remember not being so. This DOES boil down to class warfare because (a) the rise in t2 pricing has made it so that poor players for the most part (there are of course tactical exceptions, for example fitting aml's to a caracal and going t2 frig hunting, but these make up a minority of playtime experience for a minority of players) cannot both remain highly effective without blobbing and still be able to GTFO when the inevitable blob forms up and (b) because the grind for ship replacement has gotten way too long.
The rise in t2 prices has created a legitimate class gap problem, and for many of the people who think cheaper (although not crazy 100/20/4 cheap) rigs for smaller ships is a good thing, this change is a way to address the yawning gap in effectiveness between the rich and poor in smaller gangs and increasing price disincentives to non-blob pvp.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 01:23:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Mahke
The rise in t2 prices has created a legitimate class gap problem, and for many of the people who think cheaper (although not crazy 100/20/4 cheap) rigs for smaller ships is a good thing, this change is a way to address the yawning gap in effectiveness between the rich and poor in smaller gangs and increasing price disincentives to non-blob pvp.
I've already addressed several times exactly how it's not shrinking the gap of rich v poor. If I don't spend 60 mil on 3 rigs for my cruiser, I'll just have 60 mil to spend on faction gear. How is it any different being rigs or gear that the money goes into, both drastically improve my ship. A poor person will still not elect to spend as much as I will, and will ultimately suffer for it.
It's not fixing the class war, it's just reallocating it elsewhere. And because of that, it makes no sense.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 01:26:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Knara Semosin
supported
these expensive rigs, can clear the dirt between the good and great pilots. You say it doesn't make a difference, but i am sure it does, small may it be, but that small difference can change everything in a fight
Sorry just have to clarify something here...
These expensive rigs, can clear the dirt between the absurdly rich pilots and not so rich pilots.
Just cause you're rich enough to afford rigs on your frigates doesn't make you good.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 01:30:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Yaay
I've already addressed several times exactly how it's not shrinking the gap of rich v poor. If I don't spend 60 mil on 3 rigs for my cruiser, I'll just have 60 mil to spend on faction gear. How is it any different being rigs or gear that the money goes into, both drastically improve my ship. A poor person will still not elect to spend as much as I will, and will ultimately suffer for it.
It's not fixing the class war, it's just reallocating it elsewhere. And because of that, it makes no sense.
ehh when you drop that faction stuff it'll get immediately sold by the poorer players, funding their t2 and rigs. I don't think that's as big of an issue. I'd happily fight your faction fitted ship with my t2 fitted ship. Faction stuff costs more than rigs did imo
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 02:02:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Yaay
I've already addressed several times exactly how it's not shrinking the gap of rich v poor. If I don't spend 60 mil on 3 rigs for my cruiser, I'll just have 60 mil to spend on faction gear. How is it any different being rigs or gear that the money goes into, both drastically improve my ship. A poor person will still not elect to spend as much as I will, and will ultimately suffer for it.
It's not fixing the class war, it's just reallocating it elsewhere. And because of that, it makes no sense.
You don't quite get it. Cheaper rigs on t1 ships won't close the gap between the difference of t1 rigged and unrigged (because except for t2 frigs, poor and rich will make the same rigging cost/benefit decisions, more or less; this difference doesn't matter). Rather making it worth rigging smaller t1 ships closes the gap between non-BS t1 hulls (now not worth rigging now, would be after change) and t2 hulls (worth rigging now and later).
If someone wants to buy faction to reopen the gap, perfectly fine for them: doing so is really isk inefficient and the mods can drop, so it doesn't pose any sort of systemic problem like the t2 ship price jump does.
Finally, the point is NOT to erase the rich/poor gap, but rather to return it, in both magnitude and nature, to the balanced point it was at before moongold prices went through the roof.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 03:53:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Salpad
What about 100%/50%/20%?
Exactly this.
Can't support the OP but it's obvious the new rig prices will be bad.
|
galphi
Sileo In Pacis
The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 03:42:00 -
[145]
You make a fine argument - I hate that the game is becoming more 'cookie-cutter' with regards to ship fittings. The rig abilities themselves should be balanced out, but smaller/cheaper rigs should be stopped.
|
Raukho
Evoke.
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 06:29:00 -
[146]
Supported also because opposite to what you think I beleive salvage and BS sized rig prices will go up.
|
OwlManAtt
Gallente
Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 06:50:00 -
[147]
Not supported. The rifer doesn't have rig slots for decoration; they were intended to be used. Current market forces make rigging T1 sub-BC ships too expensive. This needs to be rectified.
Certain small and medium rigs may need to be examined closely to ensure that they don't break game balance. A frigate will get a bigger benefit from a speed rig than a battleship. Right now, this is not a problem because the rig would cost you significantly more than your hull, but this could become a problem when rigged frigates are prevalent.
---
Owl |
Joe Widowmaker
Quantum Industries
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 13:03:00 -
[148]
I like the rig changes on sisi, so no support from me i'm afraid.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 17:22:00 -
[149]
Originally by: OwlManAtt
Not supported. The rifer doesn't have rig slots for decoration; they were intended to be used. Current market forces make rigging T1 sub-BC ships too expensive. This needs to be rectified.
Certain small and medium rigs may need to be examined closely to ensure that they don't break game balance. A frigate will get a bigger benefit from a speed rig than a battleship. Right now, this is not a problem because the rig would cost you significantly more than your hull, but this could become a problem when rigged frigates are prevalent.
The Advantage of a T1 frigate is it's cost benefit. It's player choice that removes that advantage by adding a 3rd rig over a t2 ship.
It's not an issue with rigs that drives the problems you're speaking about. It's a jacked up economic model... which i ranted about 2 years ago... that is messing with the price difference. Ships are way more disposable today than they were 2 years ago. If you assume that a rigged battleship dies more often today than it did 2 years ago for the same player, then that's an issue with the income being far to disposable.
People argued about inflation and inflationary pressure 2 years ago, most saying it didn't exist. Look what happens when supply in a t2 market becomes limited again after an exploit was found. Prices shot up and continue to go up daily still 6 months later.
The argument is always about cost of rigs vs cost of ships. Well what if the market weren't so jacked up that T2 ships were wildly expensive by comparison.
If you removed insurance in 0.0 for instance, Imagine how much more cautious people would be with ships and how much less inclined they would be to rig those ships. Less loss means less demand, which ultimately means cheaper rigs. Less stupid loss means less t2 loss which means lower t2 ship cost again skewing the same argument about ship cost.
If Price is 100% of the reason for this patch, then I think there's far better places to put Dev resources than tweaking something that isn't broken. Changing rigs isn't going to fix a ridiculously jacked up economy.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Aditia Holdem
Doom Guard
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 04:40:00 -
[150]
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
|
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!
|
irion felpamy
Minmatar
HellJumpers Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 08:03:00 -
[181]
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.
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?
wow you really are out of touch are you not? 5 weeks for a new player to be PVPing in a BS. I think you have got new players mixed up with alts.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 12:29:00 -
[182]
The horse is dead. For the love of god, stop beating it.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:56:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Yaay
When rigs were first introduced into this game, the idea was "would you be willing to pay for the extra ump?".
When this patch was first announced, I like the Idea because I and many others were under the impression that smaller rigs would be smaller bonuses for less cost. Instead, what we're getting is cheaper ways to fit smaller ships.
By doing this, not only are smaller ships going to be very easy to rig so much that it will be stupid not to rig them, But large rigs will likely drop in price drastically too because the demand on that grouping of rigs will drop heavily when frigs and cruiser will be using a different set for much lower cost.
I don't see a problem with the rig patch.
They simply balanced the build cost for rigs across ship classes.
Now the question "do I rig this ship or not" uses the same rig cost vs hull cost parameters that it did before for battleships.
Now, either, fitting rigs to battleships was a 'no brainer' before the patch, or it wasn't.
If it wasn't, then it's similarly not a 'no brainer' for smaller ships.
Also, there are differences in cost among rigs of the same ship class. So you might choose to go with an expensive CDF or go with cheaper resist rigs.
|
Jarna
Amarr
Eternal Frontier
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:36:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Jarna on 25/09/2009 17:37:08
Originally by: Oam Mkoll
When everyone has identical fitting everyone gets harder for me to kill.
Fixed. QQ some more.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with CCP making a move like this.
A good majority of modules have various sizes to fit various ships. It doesn't make sense that a rig that can fit on a Frigate can also fit on a Battleship. And the fact they all give the same returns should mean nothing because smaller ships have less to start with anyway.
15% of 100PG is 15 added PG. Oh NOES, that Frigate gained so much more PG. As if it makes such a huge difference. It's not like Frigates getting rigs means they can kill BS's now.
This option does add choice: choice to people who don't have all the money in Eve at their beck and call.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |