| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Galega Ori
   |
Posted - 2010.02.28 16:54:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Galega Ori on 28/02/2010 17:01:01
I've been thinking about this for a while now and would like to know what the rest of the EVE community thinks.
I propose a new set of rigs for ship layout slots. One for each type be it High, Medium, or low. My thoughts on this is that ther are a few ships in eve that have slot layouts that make them useless for solo pvp. Take the Retribution for example, It only has one mid slot limiting it to only being a fleet ship and even then not having the ability to aid as a tackler. Basically what I'm proposing is a new rig for each slot size that can add an additional slot per rig to the ship.
Going back to the Retribution for example you would add a mid slot rig giving this ship two mid slots. Now it will be able to have a propulsion mod and the all to necessary tackle mod (scrambler or disruptor) that it needs. I also propose that the calibration costs for these new rigs be set up like so.
Rig type_________calibration cost___________Max number added slots
High slot rig:................250.......................................1
Mid slot rig:.................200.......................................2
Low slot rig:.................150.......................................2
This setup would help to limit how much a ships natural layout could be changed. This would also force people to consider if adding that extra slot would be better than using that sheild extender rig instead.
This idea is something that I hope would be able to bring the lego mentality of the T3 ships to all of EVEs ships. On a side note I had thought of classifying these rigs as T3 and be made using sleeper salvage.
discuss
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 16:58:00 -
[2]
why would a mid slot cost more than a low slot?
low slots are more valuable than mids if you ask me.
|
Galega Ori
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 17:06:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: darius mclever
why would a mid slot cost more than a low slot?
low slots are more valuable than mids if you ask me.
well that depends on what you want to do with them but in the end it dosn't matter as you can add a max of 2 extra mid slots just like you can add a max of 2 low slots with the current calibration costs I proposed. It just seemed appropriate that low slots should take the smallest calibration cost.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 17:23:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Galega Ori
Originally by: darius mclever
why would a mid slot cost more than a low slot?
low slots are more valuable than mids if you ask me.
well that depends on what you want to do with them but in the end it dosn't matter as you can add a max of 2 extra mid slots just like you can add a max of 2 low slots with the current calibration costs I proposed. It just seemed appropriate that low slots should take the smallest calibration cost.
you definitely didnt think the idea through to the end.
|
Serge Bastana
Gallente
GWA Corp
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 17:42:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Galega Ori
Originally by: darius mclever
why would a mid slot cost more than a low slot?
low slots are more valuable than mids if you ask me.
well that depends on what you want to do with them but in the end it dosn't matter as you can add a max of 2 extra mid slots just like you can add a max of 2 low slots with the current calibration costs I proposed. It just seemed appropriate that low slots should take the smallest calibration cost.
So this would give armour tankers or industrial ships quite an advantage over shield tankers or those that use mid slots for such things as ECM as they would be able to gain more tank slots for less calibration with some to spare for other tank rigs.
------------------------------------------------
You either need a punch up the throat or a good shag.
Nobody round here is offering the second one therefore your choices are limited! |
Galega Ori
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 18:12:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Galega Ori on 28/02/2010 18:15:31
Originally by: Serge Bastana
Originally by: Galega Ori
Originally by: darius mclever
why would a mid slot cost more than a low slot?
low slots are more valuable than mids if you ask me.
well that depends on what you want to do with them but in the end it dosn't matter as you can add a max of 2 extra mid slots just like you can add a max of 2 low slots with the current calibration costs I proposed. It just seemed appropriate that low slots should take the smallest calibration cost.
So this would give armour tankers or industrial ships quite an advantage over shield tankers or those that use mid slots for such things as ECM as they would be able to gain more tank slots for less calibration with some to spare for other tank rigs.
after taking what you have said into consideration I have decided that it would be better for both mid and low slot calibration costs to be the same. This I hope will fix this small problem, thanks for pointing it out. Though it is also prudent to point out that adding that secound mid or low slot rig might not be as good an idea as compared to say adding that armor or shield rig.
Question: Should the mid and low slot rigs be set for 200 calibration points not allowing any room for a third rig if two are installed or should they be set to 150 calibration points and have room for other rigs if two are installed?
keep in mind that the costs I proposed are an idea on what they should be and just that nothing more. If you have your own ideas on what the calibration costs should be set for don't hesitate to suggest them.
|
shady trader
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 19:20:00 -
[7]
This idea has been suggested before. The problem is that CCP use the slot layout to balance ships, if players can add slots its going to undo the work CCP have done in balancing the ships.
Macrointel, the place were the nature order of the universe does not hold sway. Pirates and ore thief's are congratulated by carebears for the actions. |
masternerdguy
Gallente
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 19:47:00 -
[8]
Originally by: shady trader
This idea has been suggested before. The problem is that CCP use the slot layout to balance ships, if players can add slots its going to undo the work CCP have done in balancing the ships.
your forgetting that rigs make or break most ships...for example...
Ravens need CCCs
Drakes need Extenders/Purgers
Hurricanes need Trimarks
the net affect of removing rigs but adding slots would likely come to 0, especially because of powergrid and cpu issues. Honestly, this change would change nothing.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 20:33:00 -
[9]
I don't like the idea of slot rigs.
I disagree that ships have a default need for certain rigs. Versatility is ship setup is one of the hallmarks of EvE, and while there may be a given configuration that min/maxes damage output and tank, a solo PvP or mission setup is not the end-all and be-all of ship configuration. Neither do I agree that CPU and Powergrid issues would eliminate the advantage of additional slots. Simply bumping down gun size or removing a MWD will give you all the CPU and powergrid you need to fit any extra slot.
But I do agree that adding slots would severely break ship balance. Remember when the Deimos had an extra mid on SiSi, the incredible difference that made in its performance? Another high slot on a Curse would be very interesting, and adding a couple lows to a Damnation would have similarly profound repercussions. Imagine a Guardian with seven high slots; a Blackbird with eight mediums.
It would nest lead to too much work. The playerbase would decypher dozens of ultra-powerful mixes in just days that would take thousands of hours of testing to pre-emptively catch, and then CCP is in the position of having to retroactively nerf the superfits, prompting endless whining and doing immense collateral damage among non-augmented fits.
======================
Crusades: Security Status |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |