| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
   |
Posted - 2006.10.13 05:58:00 -
[1]
So far I haven't come up with a good name for the module, as you can plainly see. The idea is this: a module that uses CPU and Grid and in exchange can be placed in a high slot/mid slot/low slot and exchanges that slot for a high/mid/low. There would of course be 9 distinct types of this module: one for each slot type (high/mid/low) and then it's sub variants for type of slot added.
Note that adding more high slots to a ship wouldn't add more hardpoints for missiles/turrets, just the high slot. And there could be a possible further limitation that only one of these modules is allowed to be fitted per ship, similar to a damage control.
This concept is just an extension of the 'rigs' concept, but would allow for more flexibility and uniqueness (is that a word?) in ship setups, while still allowing for each ship to retain it's original design focus.
These modules wouldn't be the instant 'perfect fix, I win' button either. They would use enough CPU and grid so that it wouldn't be a complete no-brainer free lunch type situation. It would always be a compromise as to how you fit your ship, but modules like this would allow a little bit more flexibility.
These modules could also have the further restriction that only players could produce them, but the BPOs/BPCs are freely available on the market, all that is required are rare materials that can only be generated through NPC style missions, or mining/harvesting in low sec/0.0 etc. so that some more player interactivity is built into the production process and bringing more player (carebear) interest to low sec/0.0.
So in addition to all the knee jerk flames that are surely going to present themselves, I'd also like to hear any suggestions as to what we should name the modules. 
Because I said so...
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 07:42:00 -
[2]
another big surprise, no one reads the ideas forum :p
Because I said so...
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 07:58:00 -
[3]
ok, so I have one post telling me that I'm in the wrong forum, and another agreeing that my grammar and spelling is correct. Any posts about my idea?
Because I said so...
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 09:42:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Ithildin
So, do I get this correct. This module takes, for example, some powergrid, some CPU, and a low slot and in return adds a mid slot?
It's just too bad the number of slots on a ship isn't a variable, so they can't be increased or decreased, afaik.
That's correct. And there would be individual modules for each type of change required. Additionally I should point out that the CPU/Grid requirements to install one of these modules could be quite significant for balancing reasons. So all the guys thinking about the uber ECM Raven setups etc, think about the limiting factors of CPU/Grid usage as well.
Because I said so...
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 10:12:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Countessa D'Marko
.... 9 distinct types of this module: one for each slot type (high/mid/low) and then it's sub variants for type of slot added.
I want to use one of these, a mid slot module that uses cpu & grid to give me ... a mid slot o.O
Sorry - just being picky there - but as has been said before, converting utility highs into tanking/ew slots would be generally a 'bad thing'
yer right about the module count. there needs to be 6 types, not 9 lol.
What if there was only allowed a maximum of 8 slots in any one position? So for example if you were flying a Geddon w/ 8 lows, you couldn't add in another low? So far I'm still not feeling the 'too many mids' arguement. Looks to me that what I'm suggesting would simply work to put ships like the Megathron or Geddon on even footing with ships like the Raven, Tempest etc. with respect to mid slot options. And I don't think that given some decnet CPU/Grid requirements for these modules that you'd be handing a Scorp/Raven etc. an "I win" combo.
Because I said so...
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 11:44:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Lakotnik
Hmmm even with only one module, ship capabilites can be increased a lot. For example, geddon wont miss one hislot but will kill for another med. Raven will gladly sacrafice one of hislots for another med. Most of the ships have one slot they can spare for another med. Better ew/tackle. Ferox with another lowslot for better passive tank?
So - nope, i strongly disagree.
Precisely. Lets see what the players do with the extra flexibility. Lets see what kinds of setups become the most popular and effective. Remember that we're not just limiting this to one particular ship or another- *anyone* can use this module to adjust their ship as they see fit.
What I think we would see are a lot of ships having their major design issues/flaws compensated for and we'd see a much wider variety of ship setups used. Right now there is a very narrow range of effective ship setups when it comes to PVP, especially solo PVP. This module concept would allow for more variety and more creativity in ship setups, and attacking a specific type of ship wouldn't be such a sure thing with regards to assumptions about how it's fit.
Given the choice, most people prefer a Raven over a Geddon for PVP due to the Raven's superior flexibility due to the current state of the game mechanics (i.e. because they're horribly flawed, but w/e). If this module were available, I think we would see a rise in the use of Geddons for example vs. Ravens or other more common PVP ships. Sure, the Raven pilots might have the same opportunity to modify their ships in the same fashion, but at least the Geddon pilots have some sort of option available to them compared to the current state of the game.
Moving one or two module slots isn't going to completely change the way a ship works. There are still it's ship bonuses and it's fitting limitations to consider. A Megathron isn't going to become a Tempest and a Dominix isn't going to become a Raven. Each ship will still be very unique and will retain it's intended design.
What I *do* see happening however is a wider number of ships being used for PVP than is currently the case, and in ways more creative and interesting than would otherwise be the case. With a sliding CPU/Grid use penalty for the modules, like 2% base CPU and Grid for instance, using the modules wouldn't be a 'free' option. BCs and BS would get hit harder than the smaller ships would, and with setups already *extremely* tight with respect to CPU/Grid, using one of these modules wouldn't be without it's own very imposing set of limitations. It isn't just some instant 'I win' module. Not if it's designed/balanced correctly.
Anyway, I encourage everyone to actually think about all the possibilities and implications of something like this and come up with more ideas of how to balance it and how it could be best implemented.
Because I said so...
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 13:35:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
It's the differences between ships that give them all their unique flavours.
Again, how would this decrease ship differences? If anything it could possibly make each design a more extreme version of it's original focus.
Because I said so...
|
| |
|