Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ISpydeRI
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:28:00 -
[1]
Just a casual observation, t3 cruisers are supposed to be modular correct? Well, I was under the impression that could mean that I could use the same hull for both ratting and pvp, with only the exchange of a couple (in my case three) subsystems and the fittings. However, It came to my attention, that like all other (non-modular, standard) ships, the rigs are attached to the hull.... as I wanted CCC's on my tengu for pve, instead of my Shield extender rigs that i had with my pvp setup, I thought to myself well, maybe all I need is another hull, and then I can simply swap over the subsystems I want.
Incorrect, essentially I'd have to buy a whole new hull, and all the subsystems for it, as well as the rigs.... So honestly I fail to see the whole purpose of the modular hype. Of course, outwardly it makes sense, if you come up against a t3, your never quite sure what your going to get in to! but it doesnt make as much sense.....inwardly, if you get my meaning.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Green-Core The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:36:00 -
[2]
Originally by: ISpydeRI Just a casual observation, t3 cruisers are supposed to be modular correct? Well, I was under the impression that could mean that I could use the same hull for both ratting and pvp, with only the exchange of a couple (in my case three) subsystems and the fittings. However, It came to my attention, that like all other (non-modular, standard) ships, the rigs are attached to the hull.... as I wanted CCC's on my tengu for pve, instead of my Shield extender rigs that i had with my pvp setup, I thought to myself well, maybe all I need is another hull, and then I can simply swap over the subsystems I want.
Incorrect, essentially I'd have to buy a whole new hull, and all the subsystems for it, as well as the rigs.... So honestly I fail to see the whole purpose of the modular hype. Of course, outwardly it makes sense, if you come up against a t3, your never quite sure what your going to get in to! but it doesnt make as much sense.....inwardly, if you get my meaning.
I've never understood this myself. The rigs should be attached to a modular subsystem that can be replaced. So you can have sets of rigs preset to be swapped in.
I'm probably not explaining this very well, but I know what I mean. --Vel
I'm more of a care-badger. |
ISpydeRI
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:38:00 -
[3]
Exactly, because quite frankly, you can only truly consider it modular if your not using rigs on it at the moment, or if the "modular fits" you had in mind just happen to use the same rigs...
|
Tiberu Stundrif
Waking Nightmare Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 23:00:00 -
[4]
I agree with this completely.
Signed. ---------------------------------------
|
Cutter Isaacson
Minmatar Hollow World Mining Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 00:51:00 -
[5]
Agreed wholeheartedly. This should be posted up in the Assembly Hall section of the forums where people can actually take a vote on it
Originally by: Haks'he Lirky Some people should just stick to Pac Man.
|
Jay Wareth
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 04:59:00 -
[6]
Not opposed to this idea, but a couple questions.
a. What subsystem would each rig attach to? It seems logical they would attach to the sub they effect, i.e. shield rigs attach to the defensive sub.
b. If a, what happens when you try to fit two subs that have more than 3 rigs between them?
|
Tiberu Stundrif
Waking Nightmare Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 05:01:00 -
[7]
OP might be proposing a 6th sub-system slot for rigs. If so, I support wholeheartedly. ---------------------------------------
|
Thyme Wasted
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 05:05:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Tiberu Stundrif OP might be proposing a 6th sub-system slot for rigs. If so, I support wholeheartedly.
Isn't that basically like a massive loophole for the whole permanence of rigs thing?
Not supported.
|
AtheistOfFail
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 07:29:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tiberu Stundrif OP might be proposing a 6th sub-system slot for rigs. If so, I support wholeheartedly.
If you do this, you could have to add a "Rig Subsystem" to every ship in EvE. Otherwise it would OP. Rigs are normally not part of the modular nature of the ship. They're more of an option. You can either rig or not rig. You do need 5 subsystems to undock from a station but not 3 rigs.
|
Hentes Zsemle
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 07:51:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Hentes Zsemle on 26/12/2010 07:51:15
Originally by: AtheistOfFail
Originally by: Tiberu Stundrif OP might be proposing a 6th sub-system slot for rigs. If so, I support wholeheartedly.
If you do this, you could have to add a "Rig Subsystem" to every ship in EvE. Otherwise it would OP. Rigs are normally not part of the modular nature of the ship. They're more of an option. You can either rig or not rig. You do need 5 subsystems to undock from a station but not 3 rigs.
Subsystems are normally not part of the ships either.
signed
|
|
Fenren
Minmatar Bure Astro Photography
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 09:51:00 -
[11]
not signed
it would totally overpower the t3 and you can use your pvp rigs in pve without too mych problems
|
12433412
Freemason Core
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 09:56:00 -
[12]
Oh yes, that kind of kills the concept.
A bit off topic: Have you ever tried running missions in your pvp fit (i take it you are using heavies on it)? With an afterburner for speedtank you should be able to do any lvl4 mission easily (I even do lvl5's in my pvp fit sometimes). The mission is long over before you run out of shields. It is also less likely that somebody will try to gank your pvp fit.
_____________________________________________________ Beware of what you want, it might want you more! |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 10:59:00 -
[13]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
I've never understood this myself. The rigs should be attached to a modular subsystem that can be replaced. So you can have sets of rigs preset to be swapped in.
I'm probably not explaining this very well, but I know what I mean.
Thy are attached to the hull for a very simple reason: if they were attached to the sub-systems people would attach a rig to every subsystem and exceed the 400 point calibration limit.
If they were attacked to a 6th rig sub-system people would be swapping right without destroying them.
Having them attached to the hull is already more convenient than what was possible for other ships.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 12:22:00 -
[14]
That's why I currently have several Tengu's, all with different rigs.
So, you'd think I'd support this, but you're wrong. :) The T3 hull itself is very cheap these days (far less than the price of a single decent T2 rig); and since you don't have to buy several extra sets of subsystems, not supported, for lack of urgency/need.
-1 --
|
Nosferatu Zodd
Behelith
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 15:36:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Nosferatu Zodd on 26/12/2010 15:43:52 Edited by: Nosferatu Zodd on 26/12/2010 15:40:16 1. Modular ships: What's the purpose of a modular ship if you have to replace the ship itself?
2. Selling a rigged ship on auction I tried to sell an armageddon (worth 45mil) with 50mil worth T1 rigs on it (total value=95mil) on auction for 70mil, nobody buys. So I have to destroy more that the ships worth in fittings to be able to sell or loose more than 50% of the rigs value. Rigged ships and market/contracts are not compatible.
3. Refitting any other ship Once you have rigged a ship in many cases you cannot refit it to something that fits your needs. You have to destroy and install a new rig. This is just another isk drain for ccp. Rigs have already enough penalties applied. No need to apply another isk penalty.
In my opinion rigs destroy to some extend the concept of refitting and completely that of modular ships.
But ... rigs play a big role on the market and salvaging. If you make them modular like the other items the market will overflow and the prices will drop, then the concept of salvaging will be broken.
Solutions: 1. Make T2 rigs refitable ... they are the improved version aren't they. And the market is saturated at all. More people will buy them, so the market will even benefit from it. 2. Change the whole concept of salvaging: When you salvage a ship you get ship components. Yet with these ship components you manufacture rigs which are modules? It would be more logic that you would build ships with components salvaged from ships. And that you need minerals to build these ship components. Now we have two ways to gather the materials to build T1 ships. - Salvaging destroyed ships drops ship components -> manufacture a ship - Mining ore -> refining them to minerals -> manufacture ship components -> manufacture a ship Then how would you solve the problem with rigs? Implement rig components manufactured with minerals or planet materials/reactions. It's a big deal and needs a lot of (re)-thinking.
ccp is re-thinking and rewriting the whole concept on the neocom at the moment and that's a good thing. I think the next step is to review components and manufacturing. Take a step back, look at the basics, make it more logic. There are a lot of things in EVE that are coherent and logical like relations between distances/mass of planets/stars, the names of the people of the different races, really a lot of little things that many people don't even realize. I miss that a bit in the manufacturing process. -------------------------------------------------------
|
Karn Velora
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 16:59:00 -
[16]
T3 is the dumbest idea since T2... It's way too much firepower and defensive capabilities for one ship. Now we need rigs on the subsystems because the ships aren't useful / powerful / versatile ENOUGH? Hell no...
/unsigned
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 17:00:00 -
[17]
T3 are overpowered already as they are currently, so not supported.
|
Nosferatu Zodd
Behelith
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 17:34:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Robert Caldera T3 are overpowered already as they are currently, so not supported.
The fact that rigs are modular or not has nothing to do with T3 ships being overpowered. We're talking about refitting/destroying modules.
-------------------------------------------------------
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 17:52:00 -
[19]
as I said, not supported.
|
Karn Velora
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 18:13:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Nosferatu Zodd
Originally by: Robert Caldera T3 are overpowered already as they are currently, so not supported.
The fact that rigs are modular or not has nothing to do with T3 ships being overpowered. We're talking about refitting/destroying modules.
Looking at this from a purely logical perspective, or a scientific perspective it might make more sense if the rigs belonged to the t3 modules - but there's plenty that doesn't make any sense in eve from scientific or logical perspectives: making sense is not the only criteria for an idea being good or bad.
Nothing in a game ever gets implemented without discussing how it affects the game, the balance. So yes, the fact that a ship is overpowered already certainly matters when it comes to discussing changes, that would further worsen the situation.
The rigs as they are now allow you to change a ship, on the condition that you accept that it also LIMITS you, permanently, and that any attempt to change it implies a total loss of investment. Rigs are intended to make every specific ship less versatile. Moving the rigs from the ship to the module will circumvent much of the intended functionality of the rigs, and that's not desirable.
T3 ships already have versatility beyond any other ship class, and is the very last one that needs more versatility, available on the fly, with no cost for destroyed rigs. Over-powered or not, this ends up as a bad idea. Even if the T3 ships were under-powered, this would not be a suitable way to buff them, as it still overrides the rigs' intended functionality and limitations.
/unsigned, again
|
|
Nosferatu Zodd
Behelith
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 08:28:00 -
[21]
I'd rather see the rigs completely gone. But if you think the T3 cruisers are overpowered you can also flush half of the faction/officer/deadspace mods/ships down the drain. A deadspace fitted zealot equally or more overpowered than a T2 fitted legion. If the T3 cruisers are overpowered do something about the subsystems. I don't have a problem with that. But to make a modular ship that isn't modular because of another implementation that's not right. ISpydeRI is talking about the concept "modular", not "I want to refit rigs on my T3 cruiser". In my opinion rigs also break the concept of refitting to some extent. Almost everybody uses rigs, this is the new standard, the new level. In PVP a rigged ship will win against a non rigged ship (same fittings). Same goes for PVE a rigged ship is more powerful than a non rigged. You can handle more and will earn more money per hour with a rigged ship. This is a heavy restriction on your freedom to refit your ship and even more to refit the subsystems on a modular ship. It breaks the concept of both refitting and subsystems. Once you've fitted your ship with rigs and I'm sure you do you're limited to a few valid setups.
Like I said, I'd rather see the rigs disappear. That would be the best solution. -------------------------------------------------------
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 08:45:00 -
[22]
Rigs are the equivalent of welding roll-bars to a car, removing "unnecessary" parts of the body to make it lighter and so on. It is not the equivalent of putting a different brand of radio or CD reader in it (that is what modules are).
It is a way to change them beyond the builder specifications at the expense of other functions.
They should costly to change (i.e. they are destroyed when you remove them) and they should be a well thought decision, not a change that you do on the spur of the moment.
|
Nosferatu Zodd
Behelith
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 08:48:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Karn Velora The rigs as they are now allow you to change a ship, on the condition that you accept that it also LIMITS you, permanently, and that any attempt to change it implies a total loss of investment. Rigs are intended to make every specific ship less versatile. Moving the rigs from the ship to the module will circumvent much of the intended functionality of the rigs, and that's not desirable.
So you agree to make a ship less versatile but more powerful? -------------------------------------------------------
|
Nosferatu Zodd
Behelith
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 09:15:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Nosferatu Zodd on 27/12/2010 09:17:23
Originally by: Venkul Mul Rigs are the equivalent of welding roll-bars to a car, removing "unnecessary" parts of the body to make it lighter and so on. It is not the equivalent of putting a different brand of radio or CD reader in it (that is what modules are).
It is a way to change them beyond the builder specifications at the expense of other functions.
They should costly to change (i.e. they are destroyed when you remove them) and they should be a well thought decision, not a change that you do on the spur of the moment.
... CD reader Modular in your comparison would be more something like replacing the diesel motor with a gasoline motor. Refitting would be changing the tires from a hard compound to a soft compound. If you want anti-roll bars (or sway bars) you'll have those standard on a rally car (T3 cruiser) if you have to go shopping with granny you'll do than with the family van (Iteron Mark I) ... the family van doesn't need anti-roll bars. I have two friends that are mechanics/pilots in competition racing, they don't destroy parts when replacing them. Anti-roll bars are fixed with bolts, you can replace them with a harder of softer ones.
If you really want to compare rigs on spaceships to cars then : Car : you put a turbo on your motor T3 Spaceship : you put a rig on a subsystem
I don't even want that in EVE! -------------------------------------------------------
|
Jennifer Starling
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 10:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ranka Mei That's why I currently have several Tengu's, all with different rigs.
I have the same. T3 hulls aren¦t that expensive (anymore). It's still a bit illogical to have to have a different hull to support each module, it doesn't make any sense, regardless of the price.
It kind of defeats the purpose. It¦s not that I need another PC for each mouse, monitor or speaker set because every component is noticably less effecive with my standard PC, it would be very silly. So I'm in favour of the OP's idea.
Perhaps we can make it that a t3 needs an extra subsystem, the "rig" subsystem.
|
Karn Velora
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 10:17:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Nosferatu Zodd
Originally by: Karn Velora The rigs as they are now allow you to change a ship, on the condition that you accept that it also LIMITS you, permanently, and that any attempt to change it implies a total loss of investment. Rigs are intended to make every specific ship less versatile. Moving the rigs from the ship to the module will circumvent much of the intended functionality of the rigs, and that's not desirable.
So you agree to make a ship less versatile but more powerful?
Absolutely, in theory at least. The rigs were a bit of a bastard child spawned from player suggestions, and they never got it right. Most rigs are barely useful, and others are overpowered as hell. Most of what players asked for was never included in the rig system at all. In theory, I can live with rigs, though some, like trimarks could use some serious rethinking, becuase they add ridiculus stat buffs with no stacking penalties.
Many ships, t1 especially, desperately needed the buff the rigs can provide. Other ships certainly didn't. CCP had the foresight to cut the calibration numbers on the t2 ships (generally 300 on t2 vs 400 on a t1) but unfortunatley, I don't think this cut them nearly enough. Not by a long shot. 100 calibration points on a T2 ship would still leave them vastly superior to their T1 counterparts.
Most of the old threads on "allowing us to customise ships" which is what became "rigs" in the end - they were mostly about making the T1 ships competitive again, to some degree. I, and many others, were disappointed to see them equally useful for T2 ships, that didn't need the buff in the first place. In fact, the old system with one-size-fits-all rigs made them cost effective only for T2 ships and battleships - which was completely the opposite of what EVERYONE had been asking for. Following the user-rage, CCP had to get their heads out of their bums and fix the problem by introducing small and medium rigs asap, but they never bothered to tone down the usefulness of rigs on the T2 ships. In fact, looking at the ships now, it seems they have increased the calibration points of t2 ships back up to the level of t1 ships, and the t3 cruisers seem to follow suit. They are all at 400 calibration points.
Personally, I would redesign the entire rig system ground up if I had the chance, and get it RIGHT. I don't have that chance, but I'll do what I can to make sure the rigs do not become even more powerful for the ships that need them the very least.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 10:55:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Jennifer Starling
Originally by: Ranka Mei That's why I currently have several Tengu's, all with different rigs.
I have the same. T3 hulls aren¦t that expensive (anymore). It's still a bit illogical to have to have a different hull to support each module, it doesn't make any sense, regardless of the price.
It kind of defeats the purpose. It¦s not that I need another PC for each mouse, monitor or speaker set because every component is noticably less effecive with my standard PC, it would be very silly. So I'm in favour of the OP's idea.
Perhaps we can make it that a t3 needs an extra subsystem, the "rig" subsystem.
Ok, you convinced me. :) A rig subsystem actually *does* make sense. --
|
Nosferatu Zodd
Behelith
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 11:41:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Karn Velora Personally, I would redesign the entire rig system ground up if I had the chance, and get it RIGHT. I don't have that chance, but I'll do what I can to make sure the rigs do not become even more powerful for the ships that need them the very least.
So we both agree that the rig system is not what we want especially for T3. Then I would suggest this: "Due to the modular concept of the strategic cruisers rigs can not be installed on this hull. Installing an upgrade module on a ship that has been designed and optimized to install or replace the core components in a minimum of time is beyond the technical limits" The subsystems might need to get some minor bonuses to compensate for the loss. -------------------------------------------------------
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 11:52:00 -
[29]
Have a look at the volume of the T3 modular components. They're tiny. Take a look at the T3 hull. It's about cruiser-sized. The rigs attach permanently to the hull of every other ship in EVE. The most "permanent" part of a T3 ship is the basic hull, not a subsystem.
T3 ships are already overpowered as they are. Having rigs permanently affecting the hull they're attached to is a small price to pay for this overwhelming cosmic power.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Karn Velora
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 12:01:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Nosferatu Zodd
Originally by: Karn Velora Personally, I would redesign the entire rig system ground up if I had the chance, and get it RIGHT. I don't have that chance, but I'll do what I can to make sure the rigs do not become even more powerful for the ships that need them the very least.
So we both agree that the rig system is not what we want especially for T3. Then I would suggest this: "Due to the modular concept of the strategic cruisers rigs can not be installed on this hull. Installing an upgrade module on a ship that has been designed and optimized to install or replace the core components in a minimum of time is beyond the technical limits" The subsystems might need to get some minor bonuses to compensate for the loss.
Works for me. ;)
Can we redesign the rig system anyway? :) I'm unhappy with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |