| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jason Arbitor
   |
Posted - 2007.04.05 12:42:00 -
[1]
I am wondering why as the ships get bigger we lose weapon mounts for more mid to lower slots? I was not that happy when I upgraded to a cruiser from my destroyer and effectivelly lost 50% of my firepower due to lack of slots.
So sinc eI am very new still I was wondering if there is a way to customize a ship. Say, delete 2 low slots in favor of 1 hardpoint or high slot.
Luckily I like drones and I can use medium scout drones as an effective make up for missing hardpoints but I would still love to have in effect a stronger offensive punch to knock pirates out quicker than trying to figure out the multitude of devices for a more jack of all trades type ship.
There is plenty of time to diversify my skill set after I get my specialized role down.
So long question short, is there as way to customize and if not are they talking about it?
Thanks
|
Emma Green
Caldari
Enterprise Estonia
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 12:51:00 -
[2]
U cant change ships slot layout in any way. bigger ships can mount bigger weapons and those do more damage.
----------------------------------------------
EVE-Files
Don't run my drones will catch u anyway ..  |
Gartel Reiman
Project F3
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 13:10:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Gartel Reiman on 05/04/2007 13:06:26
 Originally by: Jason Arbitor
So long question short, is there as way to customize...
No.
Quote:
...and if not are they talking about it?
No. It's hard enough for CCP to balance the ships as it is without worrying about people changing the loadouts. I was going to go into more detail, but that's basically it. The only way that they might realistically consider implementing it would be to make the tradeoff so painful that no-one sane would do it - which would defeat the purpose of putting it in the game.
Slot loadout is as much a feature of the ship as the CPU, powergrid or cap. It's what makes Caldari ships shield tankers and Amarr ships armour tankers. Arguably the game wouldn't be as fun either if you couldn't have a reasonable guess at what a loadout was like by looking at the hull... and it would make the surprises when you're wrong less enjoyable.
|
Vasiliyan
Gallente Ordnace Research and Development
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 13:15:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jason Arbitor
So since I am very new still I was wondering if there is a way to customize a ship. Say, delete 2 low slots in favor of 1 hardpoint or high slot.
Lengthy forum whoring to get the ship changed has occasionally worked.
More seriously, note that the 25% ROF penalty to rate of fire on destroyers means that they have effectively 6 turrets rather than 8, and that cruiser guns do more damage.
|
Nyana
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 13:17:00 -
[5]
Just FYI, people usually consider cruisers to be the next step from frigates. Destroyers have a quite specific role.
|
heheheh
Singularity.
The Cartel.
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 13:21:00 -
[6]
when you switched from destroyers to cruisers, you didnt loose any of your firepower, yes you cant fit as many guns, but the ones you can fit (medium sized ones) do more damage than the small ones.
|
lofty29
Athanasius Inc.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 13:56:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Gartel Reiman
Quote:
...and if not are they talking about it?
No. It's hard enough for CCP to balance the ships as it is without worrying about people changing the loadouts. I was going to go into more detail, but that's basically it. The only way that they might realistically consider implementing it would be to make the tradeoff so painful that no-one sane would do it - which would defeat the purpose of putting it in the game.
Slot loadout is as much a feature of the ship as the CPU, powergrid or cap. It's what makes Caldari ships shield tankers and Amarr ships armour tankers. Arguably the game wouldn't be as fun either if you couldn't have a reasonable guess at what a loadout was like by looking at the hull... and it would make the surprises when you're wrong less enjoyable.
I'd say 'WTS Clue' but im feeling nice today 
CCP have said that they might like tech 3 to be upgradeable / moddable tech 2 items. For example, you get an eos, and are given 5 upgrade points. New slot is 1 point, new hardpoint is 1 point, more armor is 1k / point, more res costs more the higher you go (0 - 50 = 5 points, 90-95 = 5 moints).
That sort of thing.
---
|
Gartel Reiman
Project F3
|
Posted - 2007.04.06 13:02:00 -
[8]
WTB Clue, thanks! That's interesting... I can't say I knew much about T3 ships other than that they are going to exist in some not-too-soon release, and that they'll be better than T2. You know, citing rational arguments in order to invalidate someone's opinion isn't really in keeping with the spirit of the forums... 
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
Minmatar
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.04.06 13:19:00 -
[9]
The main article in the new E-ON suggests rather strongly that tech III is now going to be (new) ships and modules optimized for the new heat system.
.
-----
Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Galliana Foresta
Fleeting Moments of Insanity
|
Posted - 2007.04.06 15:16:00 -
[10]
Zyrla speaks true - the article in E-ON states quite specifically that the TIII equipment and ships aren't going to be "better", per se, just different, and better able to handle the new Heat function in overloading modules. As a rough guide, they say that the TIII will be roughly on par with TI - maybe sub-TI performance even - but you'll be able to push them further than TI/TII variants.
You want more, get the magazine. 
Regards,
Galliana.
---------------
|
|
|
Lance Hawke
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.04.06 15:44:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jason Arbitor
I was not that happy when I upgraded to a cruiser from my destroyer and effectivelly lost 50% of my firepower due to lack of slots.
If this were right, I'd fly a catalyst more than I do a thorax.
But here's a hint for you: I don't.
Fit the right size weapons for your ship class.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |