EVE Search - Create more compelling choices for low slots

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Create more compelling choices for low slots

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:13:00 - [1] All this talk about Amarr being broken has had me shaking me head for a while now. A close friend of mine and I will sometimes spend a good while talking EVE over lunch... and one of my common tirades (and I'm a Caldari specialist) is that there are so few compelling choices for low slot modules. No wonder Amarr complain. Off the top of your head count out how many truly useful mid slot modules there are. There are tons of them. Tackling gear, shield tanking gear, tracking computers, sensor boosters, the list goes on and on. Now... list the number of useful combat oriented low slot modules. While there are some... there aren't many. Mid slot real estate is incredibly valuable. Mid slots allow a tremendous amount of flexibility... and can be used to usefully augment most any ship. Low slot real estate is cheap. Fit your armor tank and/or your damage mods... and maybe a damage control... and you're done. Valuable low slot modules are lacking. There either need to be more useful options... or some balance needs to be created between the value of a mid slot mod... and a module used in a low slot. All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise.
Deja Thoris Revelations Inc.	Posted - 2006.09.20 05:24:00 - [2] I agree pretty strongly with this. I'm generally satisfied with Amarr. They get the job done but they are pretty boring with little room for innovation. While other races can generally tweak out a setup to "do the job", amarr lack this capability because many of their ships are challenged on the mid-slot front. What they really lack is versatility. Versatility comes with mid slots, not low slots. Even when there are low slot equivalents of a midslot item they generally arent as effective. Signal amp compared to sensor booster, ECCM variants etc. (Cap use doesn't bother me!)
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.09.20 06:01:00 - [3] I have one word to describe how I feel about this...... YES. Low slots need to be more valuable. Mids and lows are like two men standing beside each other. One with a handful of diamonds, and one with a handful of quartz. They may both have the same amount, but one handful is WAY better than the other, even if they are both pretty and sparkel in the sun. There are also a lot of tanking mods in the database that just aren't useful (like the old version of a damage control). A little tweaking of existing mods would be easy to do and fast to implement. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Ephemeron	Posted - 2006.09.20 06:16:00 - [4] This would be a good thing, as long as there's nothing overpowered introduced. A while ago there was some movement to add low slot modules that reduce signature radius. That could be a nice defensive modules. But really what is needed to make low slots as versatile as mid slots is introduction of active offensive EW. However, it seems like offensive EW already secured its niche as mid slot-only. Therefore, it seems like choices for more low slot modules are rather limited. You could have a bunch of defensive modules, but that's about it. Without new offensive low slot modules, low slots will never be as important as mid slots.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 06:33:00 - [5] Originally by: Ephemeron This would be a good thing, as long as there's nothing overpowered introduced. A while ago there was some movement to add low slot modules that reduce signature radius. That module was tested for a while (from what I understand)... and as far as I'm concerned it would meet your first qualification - it would be incredibly overpowered. Such a module would function (unpenalized from stacked resist penalties) as added damage reduction on top of resists... and would serve to hurt missile users far more than turret users. However, I do agree that some form of offensive modules should be introduced for low slots. Amarr ships are fine... their DPS is solid, they tank very well (armor tanking is far more common in PVP due to mid slots being required for tackling and EW... and armor having better base resists). The problem isn't with Amarr... the problem is with low slot module choices... or the lack thereof. All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise.
Tor Anasa	Posted - 2006.09.20 06:51:00 - [6] I agree totally. CCP really needs to boost low slots. Take sensor amps for example. You need to take around (and i'm approximating here..) 4 of them to get the same boost as a sensor booster. Find a way to prve that thats fair... Maybe if ccp made better low slot modules people would have a reason not to fit stabs... Tor
Krist Valentine Amarr Bad Omen Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.20 07:09:00 - [7] I agree with this, I've fallen out of touch with the Amarr a bit just because I'm so sick of the exact same thing happening every fight, pretty much. Maybe instead of having offensive Ewar, they could put lowslot items which boost existing electronic warfare modules - eg. a lowslot mod that increases webber range or something like that. - - - - - Yarr?
Ephemeron	Posted - 2006.09.20 07:18:00 - [8] Originally by: Krist Valentine I agree with this, I've fallen out of touch with the Amarr a bit just because I'm so sick of the exact same thing happening every fight, pretty much. Maybe instead of having offensive Ewar, they could put lowslot items which boost existing electronic warfare modules - eg. a lowslot mod that increases webber range or something like that. Low slot mods that boost mid slot mods don't do anything to help balance of low and mid slots. Such mods would simply make ships with more mid slots even more popular than ships with less mid slots.
Anpi Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.20 07:26:00 - [9] It's rather silly that all the mods that are needed for pvp are in the midslots. Webbers, afterburners and most of all scramblers take slots that should have been used for tanking, making sure that noone can fit a realistic shield tank in pvp...and that sucks to me. At the same time ships like most amarr-ships who don't have any midslots end up getting a lot of slots of a kind that basically does nothing for you. Except for giving you a really good tank of course...something I as a caldari/minmatar player miss out on.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.09.20 08:13:00 - [10] Lowslot = passive Midslot = active That's the way they generally work. Even the active lowslot modules (tanking mods, generally) are essentially passive in their use. They don't have cool effects like jammers or damps, don't make you go faster like MWDs and don't cripple your opponent like scramblers or webbers. But while they might not seem outwardly interesting, they're just as good in a lot of ways. I dont think damage mods, armour tanking, nanofibers/overdrives, and such, need a boost to be honest. Some modules (tracking enhancers and sensor amps spring to mind) definitely do, though. There's no reason why lowslot modules should be the lesser of two choices; that just gives the impression that mids are better, and hence, ships with more mids are better. Which currently, unfortunately, they do tend towards being. So yes, I agree with you in part. Some lowslot mods need boosting. And we could probably do with more 'interesting' lowslot modules, too - just remember that lowslots are internal to a ship, so anything that would affect other ships directly is out. Stat boosting (or lowering, eg sig radius) is what lowslots do. Scrapheap Challenge Forums - All the cool kids are doing it!

Scordite	Posted - 2006.09.20 10:59:00 - [11] I really can't understand this discussion. Sure, you need ab/mwd, web, scram, injector and whatever for pvp, and thus midslots are valuable. But you also need a tank, and thus low slots are valuable too. Yes, it's not as "fun" because there's no instant pwn effect, but it works regardless. Honestly, the main thing I'd like to see is lowslot and midslot eccm swap stats. ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Android Mindslave Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2006.09.20 11:49:00 - [12] I'm of the opinion that 'counter point' for low-slot heavy ships works like this: Cap Injector + Dual Reppers + resistance mods + damage mods. When you can do that without having to sacrafice in one of those areas... I don't think that is a bad thing. Sure, its boring like oatmeal, but that does not make it bad. I think where it all falls down though is called targets. I think low slots will get a LOT better if CCP finds a way to 'prolong' combat.
Boris2k Elite United Corp Antigo Dominion	Posted - 2006.09.20 11:56:00 - [13] Edited by: Boris2k on 20/09/2006 12:02:31 silly double posts
Boris2k Elite United Corp Antigo Dominion	Posted - 2006.09.20 11:56:00 - [14] Edited by: Boris2k on 20/09/2006 12:00:31 Originally by: Testy Mctest Lowslot = passive Midslot = active Midslots items are plugged into your ships power grid, while low slots are attached to hull points much like turret hardpoints, makes sense to me, just like asking to attach ram to your case instead of a fan or for a fan to slot into your dimm instead of onto your case.
Deathbarrage	Posted - 2006.09.20 12:44:00 - [15] dude creating more low slot choices wouldn't generally benefit amarr cuz now we have to choose between tank/gank, well if we get even more choices we'll be royally ****** cuz we won't be able to fit all the good stuff meaning we'll be more vulnerable to others who CAN have the good stuff (btw you're a caldari specialist you just wanna fill up your lowslots with useful stuff aswell ;))
Vathar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.20 12:52:00 - [16] There's some logic that goes with what slots do, hence we see weapons on high and powercore mods on lows ... usually goes with (non exhaustive): Hi : weapons, most modules affecting other ships hp or cap Med : Shields, tackling, EW, various active enhancers (SB/ECCM/Tracking comps), some passive (cap recharger, cap batteries), active propulsion mods, the odd hull repper Lows: Armor, fitting mods, passive enhancers (propulsion, hull, dmg mod), DCU The active=meds and passive= lows also holds water. If we look at the above list, considering the fact that active enhancers are usually better than passive, we get a crapload of subpar lowslot modules (tracking enhancers, signal amps, ECCM backups) which are really poor options. Crazy ideas I've thought about involved moving some interesting medslot items to lowslots (AB/MWD being the only propulsion module in meds, we could use a "propulsion goes in lows" logic and turn it into a lowslotter), but overall, it would be a bad idea. Lowslots surely lack versatility, but I don't end up wondering "what the hell am I going to put in lows" very often. Decent tank usually chews most of your slots, damage mods get the remaining, or things like this. Main problem is if you don't go for a damage/tank route ... in this case, there's not much you can put into those lows. Sadly, I don't think we should get "aggresive" modules on lows, since they represent the last layer of modules before the core and hull of the ship. ___________________________________________ Originally by: Stamm Minmatar are kind of like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair firing
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.09.20 13:22:00 - [17] "Tank" is no argument really. With a shieldtank you do have less room for propulsion, EW, cap injectors, sensor boosters, tracking comps, ECCM, cap rechargers. With an armortank you have less room for damage mods, DCU, fitting mods, CPR and sub-par sensor boosters, tracking comps and ECCM. So, yes, if you have an armotank you have OF COURCE no problems to fill your lows. Because most of them are filled with the bloody tank. But there is this thing called "shield tank", too. What you should ask yourself is: on a ship with 6 meds and 6 lows with equal shield and armor and which HAS to tank stuff, where would you rather fit a tank? Where would you have more non-tank modules which will help you?
Slevin Kalebra	Posted - 2006.09.20 13:39:00 - [18] Edited by: Slevin Kalebra on 20/09/2006 13:41:08 I'd like to see what would happen if there was no distinction made between 'med' and 'low' slot modules (in the way they are presently assigned) - i.e. you can fit med or low slot mods in either tier, (high slot mods, being external hardpoints are a slightly different matter) - possibly even removing the slot limit on the med and low slots. However, instead of the powergrid and CPU being a single value that can be distributed as you wish, there would be a per-tier limit to the grid / CPU and that amount would vary with the ship. e.g. Ship A may be able to assign 60% grid / 40% CPU to high slot mods 25% grid / 40% CPU to mid slot mods 15% grid / 20% CPU to low slot mods Ship B may be able to assign 50% grid / 40% CPU to high slot mods 20% grid / 30% CPU to mid slot mods 30% grid / 30% CPU to low slot mods (these numbers are just to convey the idea btw). You could even take the idea further and allow 'hardwire' custom refits to the ship that might allow power / cpu assignments to be varied on a given ship by (for example) +/-5%. Anyway... just an idea... probably belongs in the Features and Ideas forum as it completely changes current game mechanics, but it's my lunch hour and I'll speculate if I want to
Arnold Duncan	Posted - 2006.09.20 13:45:00 - [19] Agreed. That is probably the main effect of the stacking penalty. Once a time you could get over the lack of good modules fitting huge quantities of the only good mods for low slots. i.e. damage mods. Every time i'm fitting an amarr ship i wish it have a couple low less and a couple mid more for things like tracking pc or, on some ships, even for fitting a disruptor or a webber that sometimes you can due to the lack of mid. And that's because most of good modules are mid slots. BTW: i don't care about cap usage, that's not making any difference for me to use passive or active. I will always prefer active as cap is not an issue and it has bigger bonus. I use active tank even on frigates without any cap problem ffs.
Krist Valentine Amarr Bad Omen Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.20 15:02:00 - [20] Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: Krist Valentine I agree with this, I've fallen out of touch with the Amarr a bit just because I'm so sick of the exact same thing happening every fight, pretty much. Maybe instead of having offensive Ewar, they could put lowslot items which boost existing electronic warfare modules - eg. a lowslot mod that increases webber range or something like that. Low slot mods that boost mid slot mods don't do anything to help balance of low and mid slots. Such mods would simply make ships with more mid slots even more popular than ships with less mid slots. It wouldn't be completely balanced, no, but it would definitely make the people in Amarrian ships feel a lot less inferior. You can fit one more webber than me? Well check this 15k 2point scrammer, biatch! - - - - - Yarr?

Vathar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.20 15:16:00 - [21] Originally by: Aramendel So, yes, if you have an armotank you have OF COURCE no problems to fill your lows. Because most of them are filled with the bloody tank. But there is this thing called "shield tank", too. In fact, I will find it easier to fill my lows for a pure shieldtank setup that my meds for a pure armortank. When talking about pvp fittings, the only medslot an armortank requires is often a cap injector, since cap rechargers aren't that good for pvp (at least they fall behind more useful things) On the other hand, a shieldtank can AT LEAST use a DCU and a couple of powerdiags which will help his tank much more than cap rechargers will help an armortank. But that's beside the point. Quote: The active/passive for meds/lows isn't really that correct anymore, too. It was mainly aimed at modules that exist in an active and passive version, (ECCM, sensor boosters, tracking modules) Quote: One idea: Remove the medslot sensor boosters, tracking comps, ECCM. Give the lowslots the stats of the former medslot modules. So you have at medslots agressive "EW": warp scramblwer/disruptor, ECM, TD, SD. And on lowslot "defensive" modules: WCS, ECCM, TC, SB. That would balance med & lowslots at least halfway. Thought about this one, but it would be a double edged sword, and would require extensive testing since I feel the implications would be a bit deeper than expected! ___________________________________________ Originally by: Stamm Minmatar are kind of like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair firing
Rhuu Gallente Es and Whizz	Posted - 2006.09.20 15:29:00 - [22] Originally by: Testy Mctest Lowslot = passive Midslot = active That's the way they generally work. Even the active lowslot modules (tanking mods, generally) are essentially passive in their use. They don't have cool effects like jammers or damps, don't make you go faster like MWDs and don't cripple your opponent like scramblers or webbers. Lowslot = modifications to ship structure. Midslot = modifications to ship systems. Nanofibers, overdrives, and eventually gyrostabs will make you go faster. I suddenly want MWDs and ABs to move to low slots. I'll probably get over it as soon as I realize what it would do to my armor tanks, though...
Ben Booley Coreli Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.20 16:43:00 - [23] Originally by: Rhuu Originally by: Testy Mctest Lowslot = passive Midslot = active That's the way they generally work. Even the active lowslot modules (tanking mods, generally) are essentially passive in their use. They don't have cool effects like jammers or damps, don't make you go faster like MWDs and don't cripple your opponent like scramblers or webbers. Lowslot = modifications to ship structure. Midslot = modifications to ship systems. Nanofibers, overdrives, and eventually gyrostabs will make you go faster. I suddenly want MWDs and ABs to move to low slots. I'll probably get over it as soon as I realize what it would do to my armor tanks, though... Bolded for emphasis. I hope you mean Inetial stabilizers, because gyrostabs are the minmatar damage mod, and I think it'd be really unbalanced if their damage mod made their ships go faster.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 20:40:00 - [24] Edited by: Tovarishch on 20/09/2006 20:42:20 Actually, upon a bit of reflection this afternoon... I'm not sure that creating 'offensive' low slot modules would be a balanced solution. Amarr do not suffer from a deficiency in offensive capabilities. Generally speaking... they suffer (and more accurately low slots suffer from) a lack of flexibility. There are simply only a very few useful things to do with low slots. I do agree that some of the mid slot modules that are more useful than their low slot counterparts (tracking computers versus tracking enhancers, etc) should be swapped... so that the low slot module is the more useful of the two options. As it stands now... there are simply far too few useful and compelling choices for low slot modules. There are generally two types of low slot mods - great ones... and useless ones. Yes, there are some situational choices... but, for the most part, setting up low slots is an exercise in cookie cutting. There is an optimal setup among low slots... because there just aren't enough really solid choices to be made. How about creating a low slot module that reduces the cap use of specific turret types (Lasers and Hybrids)? Gallente and Amarr pod pilots would suddenly be forced to make some crucial setup decisions regarding what to do with their lows. There are myriad other ideas that I can come up with for low slot mods... but I'd prefer to listen to what others have to say. All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.