| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Crausaum
Ixion Defence Systems
The Cyrene Initiative
   |
Posted - 2007.06.05 18:32:00 -
[1]
Forgiveness please if this idea has been debated a dozen times before but I did not see any posts containing a similar idea.
The idea, simply put, is to create a subset of a ships powergrid that is used to control fittings to high slots.
This system would allow better control of ships and their fittings while allowing ample master powergrid for fittings in other areas of the ship.
Other slot limitations could be used to prevent excessive plate and shield fittings if desired.
Perhaps and example is in order?
Take you standard battlecruiser that currently flies with a rack of cruiser sized guns (or missiles) and has its powergrid limited to avoid a gank configurations that contain excessive numbers of battleship sized guns (as was somewhat possible when battlecruisers where in play testing).
Now imagine if the battlecruiser were allowed ample grid but was only allowed to fit modules using under 1800 power to it's first two high slots while all the remaining slots allowed only up to 300 grid.
This allows the ship more useful guns for certain types of engagements but avoids the "max the grid and cram it with big guns" type fittings.
This example also runs in reverse with larger ships being limited to undersize guns.
For example picket battleships that are limited to 500 grid per slot but have all the grid of a standard battleship so they may fit themselves defensivly.
Carriers with cruiser guns for point defence?
Anyways, I feel that this system if far from ideal but believe if offers the simplest way for the developers to avoid the nerfing modules due to unexpected fittings.
Hopefully this system would actually expand the number of fitting options available to ships.
Now please begin the flaming so that we may better refine this idea 
---------------------------
absit iniuria verbis |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Caldari
EP0CH
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 18:49:00 -
[2]
Whilst I like any idea that allows me to try and rig a torpedo launcher onto a frigate, would it not be much simpler to allocate the power to the racks rather than the slots?
Example: 1000PG
Hi: 500
Mid: 250
Low: 250
This would allow pretty much the same as what you propose, and would allow for more specific (but still simple) ship tweaking.
--
Tractor Beams
Caldari Buff |
Crausaum
Ixion Defence Systems
The Cyrene Initiative
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 22:38:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Example: 1000PG
Hi: 500
Mid: 250
Low: 250
This would allow pretty much the same as what you propose, and would allow for more specific (but still simple) ship tweaking.
Yes, that would work as well and perhaps be a lot simpler.
I liked the slot by slot version because it would allow fine detail control (ex: limit the last two slots on a BS to frig weapons) but your version is much simpler and still gets most of the effect.
Also I was just going to say, in case anyone thinks this is a move to get OMFGPWN weapons on small ships, that I really think EVE could be opened up to some more interesting fittings this way.
The fitting system has grown a bit rigid more since I started playing 3+ years ago and I am growing concerned by the increase of cookie cutter fittings.
Destroyers that can give up their racks of small guns for two mediums and a few lesser small guns could serve uses.
Cruisers that are limited to fitting frigate weaponry but have interesting features elsewhere would be interesting.
Capital ships with capital sized grids yet limited to battleship weaponry could serve a purpose on the front line.
In any event some improvements to the fitting system are needed to give the limited number of ships we have more open uses on the battlefield.
I've noticed that it has become far easier to guess what a ship type is going to do on the battlefield that when I started.
There is still innovation in some peoples fittings but I think more should be allowed.
---------------------------
absit iniuria verbis |
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:53:00 -
[4]
Place holder for later reply. I have to drive home first ^^
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Caldari
EP0CH
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:55:00 -
[5]
Quote:
Destroyers that can give up their racks of small guns for two mediums and a few lesser small guns could serve uses.
Cruisers that are limited to fitting frigate weaponry but have interesting features elsewhere would be interesting.
Capital ships with capital sized grids yet limited to battleship weaponry could serve a purpose on the front line.
Not to mention, a frigate with a torpedo launcher 
--
Tractor Beams
Caldari Buff |
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 03:53:00 -
[6]
This is from my earlier post, but didn't fit.
---COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC---
*note: I think warp drives should have power coils that recharge like shields and cap. Warping would then require a certain amount of power in the warp coils to initiate as well as some cap to cover the distance of the warp. This would work best with the ability determine in which direction and the distance away from your target you would come in at. AKA precision warp. It would make pvp combat much more tactical and less fps-ish. It would also partially remove the requirement of a warp scrambler for pvp.
For travel from system to system, gates could recharge warp coils after every jump, but in system, you'd have to wait a bit for the coil to recharge to warp again. Secondary coils could be added as a module if people realy need to get 2 or 3 consecutive warps in a row. They'd still need to recharge after used though.
**note: I think MWD's are slightly overpower and thus overpromote close quarters combat. Long range weapons are nearly useless in pvp (also do to the requirement of a warp scram). There is no reason one ship should be 100 times faster then another. I think base speeds of all ships should be upped, and that the MWD bonus should be limited. My goal would be the same top speeds on the high end, but higher tops speeds for the slower ships. Anything slower then 200 m/s is just and agonizing waste of time at best, and a sever handycap at worst.
|
Roshandari
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 04:17:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Roshandari on 06/06/2007 04:21:54
To the OP: Sounds like an interesting idea, but I don't see how it will be viable with power requirements for all the weapon classes as they are right now. To do this system of yours justice, the gap between classes would have to be scaled -way- back to allow that kind of flexibility. Adjustment to all of the ships larger than frigates would follow. We'd have to do a lot more balancing after the fact.
Here's something more specific; from the sound of your idea, the ship's power grid is the parent grid, with each slot getting a portion of it. As things are now, you could put 99.99% of the grid into one item at any location. Even so, you can't realistically fit oversize guns on almost anything. Many ships don't have any problems fitting oversize AB or Armor Plates (but they're a lot more inconvenient to fit these days compared to yester-year). Limiting grid to specific slots really only nerfs oversize fittings more without a lot of change to the current system.
To make it really useful and viable as a tool to increase fitting diversity, I see it being necessary to allow for a limited number of oversize fittings by combining grid from two or more of the subgrids; for example, take your Hurricane and fit 3x Dual 425mm Autocannons (smallest large autocannon) by combining your six medium turret points into 3 large turret points. To make that work, you would need to be able to fit 3x Dual 425's in your main powergrid. You can't just edit the fitting requirements or battleships and bigger ships will be able to fit a lot more things and still have good guns.
On the other side, there's no advantage to fitting smaller guns aside from being able to track better. Unless your ship gets some bonus for not having guns of the right size to the lower subgrids like a better ability to fit over-size mods or pump more power to them to make them more effective, there's little point; the heat system will allow for 'overcharge' of modules for increased effectiveness, and if you're creative, you can almost always find a way to fit oversize armor plates...some ships just take modules a few more steps oversize than others.
All in all, grats on original thinking. It sounds great, I just don't see that it has much practical application in Eve now...it would probably require going back to square one and balancing all of the ships and modules.
The key to living in a sci-fi universe: Never wear a redshirt with an blank nametag...they always die first. |
Crausaum
Ixion Defence Systems
The Cyrene Initiative
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 20:59:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Roshandari
Edited by: Roshandari on 06/06/2007 04:21:54All in all, grats on original thinking. It sounds great, I just don't see that it has much practical application in Eve now...it would probably require going back to square one and balancing all of the ships and modules.
Yes as you pointed out it would require a narrowing the gap between size classes of guns along with numerous other tweaks that are not eaily done unless you break some of EVE back down into it's basic building blocks.
I am of the opinion that the fitting system is starting to show it's age and the introduction of new modules that require odd bonuses (or powergrids) to ships are all examples of a subtle error in the fitting system.
I'm most certainly not overly attached to my proposal for a fitting system alteration but I do feel some change in the system is needed.
The developers are obviously aware of the age of the game as they are updating large sections of the code, I just want to point out that the fitting system is another part of the game that needs to be freshened up as it has slid a little far from ideal.
---------------------------
absit iniuria verbis |
Jinmie
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 23:09:00 -
[9]
Limited the powergrid per rack of slots is limiting the setups you can come up with and therefore limiting the game and its potential diversity.
/veto
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |