EVE Search - Rigs: Ship Fitting Versatility

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Rigs: Ship Fitting Versatility

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.12 04:20:00 - [1] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 12/06/2007 04:19:33 It's probably been suggested before, but the search didn't return anything useful... Fittings rigs: We currently have rigs to increase the power grid of a ship, and I can only surmise there's a very good reason we don't have rigs to increase a ship's CPU allotment... although it eludes me at present. My proposition however is the addition of a rig that allows you to alter the hi-slot allotment on a given ship. For example: Supplemental Turret Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of CPU use Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 turret slot Drawback: -10% Supplemental Turret Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of CPU use. Calibration Cost: 300 Bonus: +2 turret slots Drawback: -10% Supplemental Launcher Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's launcher fitting capabilities at the expense of power use. Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 launcher slot Drawback: -10% Supplemental Launcher Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of power use. Calibration Cost: 300 Bonus: +2 turret slot Drawback: -10% My reasoning is simple: When I first heard about rigs, I was rather excited - I assumed (incorrectly) that it would allow us much greater flexibility in fitting ships, but instead it's simply given us "OMGWTFBBQPWN" damage setups, unbreakable tanks and oodles of cap. The above would allow us to choose what we want to do with a specific ship's hull, rather than being forced into specific ships time and time again. For those of you who aren't as strange as I and who don't want to fly a fully missile fitted Vengence, what about squeezing that extra turret onto a Megathron? Giving the Cerberus a full rack of HAMs? Turning the Vagabond into a missile boat from hell? How about a proper Battle Badger, witha pair of Assault Missile launchers? (My figures may not be perfect - please only criticise them if you have another suggestion. I chose CPU as the penalty for turrets and PG for launchers because in my own fitting experience, this is where I struggle most. Otherwise, flame at will) -- Fix Caldari \| Fix Rigs
Avalon Ranger	Posted - 2007.06.12 04:32:00 - [2] A really nice idea but seems a little too much, I love the idea of adding extra slots but doing it in rig form may cause problems. For the Rig idea I'd give it a 3/5 but for general concept a good 4.5/5 Make it so only 1 of these 4 rigs can be fit to a ship at any one time. This way you won't end up with Apocs with 6 missile slots ect.. Nice idea but doesn't work with rigs very well.
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.12 04:47:00 - [3] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 12/06/2007 04:48:40 Quote: Make it so only 1 of these 4 rigs can be fit to a ship at any one time. This way you won't end up with Apocs with 6 missile slots ect.. I haven't looked through every single ship yet, but random testing shows that ships have a calibration capacity of 400. I have set them at 200 and 300 for tech one and two respectively, meaning that the best possible configuration would be the addition of two turret/launcher slots using the tech two rig. In the example of the Apocalypse that you gave, this would mean a total of 4 maximum launcher slots, with 100 calibration left. -- Fix Caldari \| Fix Rigs
Letheeth Kayl Amarr Chosen Path FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.12 07:23:00 - [4] I always thought you could erase the older edits . . . But I love you, er, your idea I mean. A geddon with 8 lasers, a manticore with 4 launcher slots For that matter, all the amarr ships with utility slots would instantly have another gun on them, and caldari ships would start sporting more missles. This would definetly make combat faster and deadlier again (since the 25% health boost that nerfed the fun ships::shakes fist at CCP::). I like. (PS, this is the answer to fixing stealth bombers . . . more missle slots!) Put down the mirror and return to live With pain With sin With despair Live with penance in God's glory Lesson of Tobias and the Mirror Scriptures Verses26-29
Dogfighter Gallente ORUS Corporate United Corporations of Eve	Posted - 2007.06.12 19:31:00 - [5] Originally by: Avalon Ranger A really nice idea but seems a little too much, I love the idea of adding extra slots but doing it in rig form may cause problems. For the Rig idea I'd give it a 3/5 but for general concept a good 4.5/5 Make it so only 1 of these 4 rigs can be fit to a ship at any one time. This way you won't end up with Apocs with 6 missile slots ect.. Nice idea but doesn't work with rigs very well. Ship modification was not achieved with rigs. They do not really modify a ship, they just boost some attributes. I think the real modification idea is good. And why not to create a Apoc with more missile lauchers? I don't see any problem. But once modified, one should not be able to remove the ship modification once installed. CCP must also think in a way for people to sell such modified ships, and the buyers should be sure they are not buying their modified ships from market scammers. Dogfighter, UCE Diplomat.
Sanctus Maleficus Oberon Incorporated Oberon Imperial Governance	Posted - 2007.06.12 20:54:00 - [6] I think this would be too powerful... you would be increasing firepower by 25-33% on some ships! However, I have a modification to your idea. What about a rig that lets you turn a launcher slot INTO a turret slot, or vice versa. This could have unseen consequences though, especially with ships like the Sacrilege or Damnation... they'd be some serious beasts.
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.12 21:20:00 - [7] Quote: What about a rig that lets you turn a launcher slot INTO a turret slot, or vice versa. I thought about this, but decided against it - however, these are the numbers I came up with: Augmented Turret Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of launcher fitting. Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 turret slot Drawback: -1 launcher slot Augmented Turret Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of luncher fitting. Calibration Cost: 300 Bonus: +2 turret slots Drawback: -2 launcher slots Augmented Launcher Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's launcher fitting capabilities at the expense of turret fitting. Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 launcher slot Drawback: -1 turret slot Augmented Launcher Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's launcher fitting capabilities at the expense of turret fitting. Calibration Cost: 300 Bonus: +2 launcher slots Drawback: -2 turret slots The reason I decided against this was simple: it doesn't fit in with the drawback system, whereby the penalty is reduced depending on your rigging skills. As such, I feel should such an idea come to fruition, the original post is the only one that could successfully function in-line with other available rigs. -- Fix Caldari \| Fix Rigs
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2007.06.13 02:00:00 - [8] I think it would break balance in some/many cases, as most ship designs were made with their current highslot layout in mind. Tempest with 8 turret hardpoints? Uhm.. _________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well.. -
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.13 04:14:00 - [9] Quote: Tempest with 8 turret hardpoints? Uhm.. Yes - not to mention a Scorpion, Raven and Typhoon with 6 turrets, and a Megathron and Armageddon with 8. The balance is unaffected simply because all ships are equally capable of using such rigs, so no single race/ship is penalised through their addition. -- Fix Caldari \| Fix Rigs
Lance Fighter	Posted - 2007.06.13 04:20:00 - [10] hmm I was thinking along the lines of a Malediction being able to use missiles effectively. Not that that is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it sounds nice.
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.13 05:29:00 - [11] Quote: I was thinking along the lines of a Malediction being able to use missiles effectively. Not that that is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it sounds nice. Absolutely! Think of it like this: If a Caldari pilot wanted to fly Amarr ships, he's not going to use lasers, is he? Likewise, a Gallente flying Caldari wouldn't want to use missiles - he's want to fit as many rails as possible. -- Fix Caldari \| Fix Rigs
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.14 02:41:00 - [12] Could a forum moderator please rename this thread to something more appropriate, such as "Hardpoint rigs"? -- Fix Caldari \| Fix Rigs
Neuromandis Novastorm Inc Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.14 15:18:00 - [13] Edited by: Neuromandis on 14/06/2007 15:18:43 This sounds nice, but I hate to break it to you, IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Why? Because turrets need hardpoints to be visible to the ship's model. I.e. you need to abuse the graphic artists to put as many turret hardpoints as high slots on all ships, which will not happen anytime soon(imagine that it's about a year that the ferox's 6th turret has not been added for that exact reason). It's not just a matter of the balancing team/devs fooling around with a few numbers and - voila! It needs actual work. That said, I cannot say the idea sounds half bad.
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.15 04:05:00 - [14] To be honest, I'd happily not see my turrets at all. Sure it's nice, but gameplay > graphics no matter which way you look at it, and giving pilos more versatility in their fitting choice is surely more important than getting the eye candy right? That said, you're right: it's not going to happen any time soon. I do see it as the next logical step for rigging though... -- Fix Caldari \| Fix Rigs
Galdaron xax Gallente Cloak and Daggers	Posted - 2007.06.15 13:15:00 - [15] how about interchanging slots ?? a low slot for a med slot a high slot for a med slot or a low slot. and so on.I know most will take high slots or low slots depending the ship.A hauler with 7 low slots anybody ?? just an idea but this would also mean ppl will losse the idea of combat abiliets of ships and are no longer able to predict battle actions.It would make a ship scanner very valuable at that point :)
Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.15 13:37:00 - [16] The drawbacks seems inverted, missile ships often don't care about pwg and some gunships (not talking about the blaster setups that eats loads of CPU) don't care about CPU (I think my hurricane has 25% free). So, if the turret points has pwg drawback and the missile points have cpu drawback, it will make people thing more before using one. It will not be the type of rig you can fit to any ship! Still, a tempest with more turrets would be extremely deadly considering the twin bonus on guns. This would mostly boost the half turret/half missile setups, allowing pilots to forget about missile or turret skills (saving the minmatar ships skill cost). The models are notmade for that, so, yes it is a problem, but... Look the NPCs, ever looked at an officer's megathron? it sounds like 11 turrets for some and the model is clean, no turret misplaced, it just looks like a really powerful gunboat! And missiles are not a problem because we don't see hardpoints. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.15 14:36:00 - [17] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 15/06/2007 14:39:13 Quote: how about interchanging slots ?? a low slot for a med slot I can't agree with this I'm afraid. A rig that sacrifices high slots for either mid or low slots yes, but I think converting mids to lows and vice versa would create many, many balance issues - and that's ignoring the fact that the UI can only cope with a maximum of eight slots on any one position. I think it would require a lot more work than could be considered reasonable. Converting a high slot to either a low or a mid however seems quite reasonable (UI changes aside) - for example: Linear Power Transformer I This ship modification is designed to increase the low slot allotment at the expense of high slots. Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 Low slot Drawback: -1 High Slot Linear Power Transformer II This ship modification is designed to increase the low slot allotment at the expense of high slots. Calibration Cost: 300 Bonus: +2 Low slots Drawback: -2 High Slots Switched Mode Power Regulator I This ship modification is designed to increase the mid slot allotment at the expense of high slots. Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 Mid slot Drawback: -1 High Slot Switched Mode Power Regulator II This ship modification is designed to increase the mid slot allotment at the expense of high slots. Calibration: 300 Bonus: +2 Mid slots Drawback: -2 High slots As I said, I'm not keen on the idea, but there's my take on it nonetheless. Quote: The drawbacks seems inverted, missile ships often don't care about pwg and some gunships (not talking about the blaster setups that eats loads of CPU) don't care about CPU (I think my hurricane has 25% free) I have updated my posts to reflect this. I'm not too concerned about which penalty there is - it should be whichever makes the use of these rigs most difficult. The last thing we'd want is to make such a rigged ship too easy to fit: I see these being usable only with power/cpu rigs - the latter of which does not exist, but probably should... Quote: Still, a tempest with more turrets would be extremely deadly considering the twin bonus on guns. This would mostly boost the half turret/half missile setups, allowing pilots to forget about missile or turret skills (saving the minmatar ships skill cost). It would be a nice boost for the Tempest, but more than what can be achieved with current rigs? I'm dubious... with damage mods and rigs, I think a similar sniper setup could be achieved without this rig. If you did fit this, you'd struggle to get those damage rigs fitted - not to mention you'd be VERY tight for power/CPU and would struggle to fit anything else. As a former Caldari pilot, I was predominantly thinking about such unpopular split setup ships as the Moa and Scorpion, but it's equally applicable to the Khanid ships and of course any split setup ships. It also allows for more variation with sniper settings, allowing other races to concentrate on their range to keep up with, for example the Rokh's extreme sniping abilities. -- Fix Caldari \| Fix Rigs
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH Black Sun Cartel	Posted - 2007.09.03 04:25:00 - [18] Bump for a not unreasonable idea on which further ripping is required?
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2007.09.03 05:10:00 - [19] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Could a forum moderator please rename this thread to something more appropriate, such as "Hardpoint rigs"? Try editing your original post. You can change the title there. On topic, as much as I like an 8 launcher Drake, I think you would get some SERIOUS balance issues. There are reasons that Tempests can only fit 6 guns, while the Mega fits 7. . . and an Auto-Pest vs. a Blaster-Mega is not always the gankathron's fight Worse issues with moving slots. . . Midslots have always been a precious commodity in pvp. And some ships (Some Recons, Drone Boats, etc.) don't need high slots to be effective as much as their peers do. Imagine an 8-midslot, 3-lowslot Rook. And I'm sure people can come up with much nastier variant ships. . . -------------------------------------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH Black Sun Cartel	Posted - 2007.09.03 05:17:00 - [20] Quote: Try editing your original post. You can change the title there. Thanks. Quote: On topic, as much as I like an 8 launcher Drake, I think you would get some SERIOUS balance issues. There are reasons that Tempests can only fit 6 guns, while the Mega fits 7. . . and an Auto-Pest vs. a Blaster-Mega is not always the gankathron's fight I believe with the penalties quoted in the original post (or with a slight modification to them) it would be entirely possible to prevent an eight neutron blaster mega being a possibility, whilst allowing an eight electron blaster setup with ease. The same rules could, if properly balanced apply to each and every shiptype. Either increase the cpu/power penalty, or even apply both penalties simultaneously. Quote: Worse issues with moving slots. . . Midslots have always been a precious commodity in pvp. And some ships (Some Recons, Drone Boats, etc.) don't need high slots to be effective as much as their peers do. Imagine an 8-midslot, 3-lowslot Rook. And I'm sure people can come up with much nastier variant ships. . . Indeed, which is why when I posted the idea of interchanging one slot type for another or one turret type for another I specifically said I did not think it could work. It is the additional hardpoint rig in which I am most interested: The ones in the original post. For clarity, I will edit the posts that refer to anything other than these rigs.
Surrah	Posted - 2007.09.03 05:30:00 - [21] I think this is a fantastic idea. If for no other reason than unpredictability. As it is, when you see a ship, or even just its type on the scanner, you can instantly begin identifying its combat capablilities. A Scorpion can only have 4 launchers (I'm ignoring its turret slots). So if you can tank 4 Torpedo II's until the scorp goes cap dead, you've got him. <---Thats really a bad example, but currently assumptions can be made, and very accurately, about any ship you come across. Loosing that safety factor would make things a lot more fun on the small scale stuff.
Ellaine TashMurkon MetaForge Ekliptika	Posted - 2007.09.03 08:41:00 - [22] You know this would end in 50 thousand people having 8 launcher Ravens to farm isk 25% faster?
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH Black Sun Cartel	Posted - 2007.09.03 09:24:00 - [23] Quote: You know this would end in 50 thousand people having 8 launcher Ravens to farm isk 25% faster? I admit I've been up a long time and so I may no longer be able to count, but wouldn't it be 33.3% faster? However, this wouldn't be a bad thing: It'll mean they stop fitting cloaks in their last slots out of greed and hence can be "policed" by the community. Also, please re-read the part where I mentioned that using these rigs should give a penalty to the fitting requirements of the weapon type for which they have provided an extra slot. Such a measure is designed specifically to make this a tactical fitting, rather than an "I-WIN" rig, such as the current Auxiliary Nano Pumps are. The idea is variety, not superiority: Detriments are the key to this.
Thorek Ironbrow	Posted - 2007.09.03 09:57:00 - [24] Would this add on the high slots as well? So that if you have 6 high slots with 6 turret hardpoints, you could put on one of your rigs and it would be boosted to 8 high slots with 8 turret hardpoints? If not then that'd be a good one to add: Extra Slottage I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's Hi Slot capacity at the expense of Power and CPU. Calibration Cost: 100 Bonus: +1 High Slot Drawback: -15% Penalty: Only one of this modifications can be fitted at a single time, any others will have no effect to the ships High Slots. Extra Slottage II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's Hi Slot capacity at the expense of Power and CPU. Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +2 High Slot Drawback: -20% Penalty: Only one of this modifications can be fitted at a single time, any others will have no effect to the ships High Slots.
Joshua Mendle Gallente The Bewlay Bros. Inc	Posted - 2007.09.03 10:30:00 - [25] Bump this great idea. I'd love this, more ship modifications and augmentations. Needs more thought though, but great initial idea.
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH Black Sun Cartel	Posted - 2007.09.03 11:25:00 - [26] People have quoted examples of ships that they believe may be unbalanced should rigs like these be brought into the game. I'd like to demonstrate why I do not believe this to be the case: Firstly let's start with the Megathron, which of course one would probably want to use to the turret housing I rigs to increase the maximum number of guns it can fit from seven to eight: Quote: Supplemental Turret Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use for turrets Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 turret slot Drawback: -10% With this in mind, let's assume the pilot has the best possible skills for both the ship and the rigging, meaning a 50% reduction in the penalties in using these rigs, which means for the one rig which would be fitted, a 5% increase in power and CPU requirements for turrets would be applied. Using the Neutron Blaster Cannon II as an example, the requirements for fitting would be thus when fitted to the hypothetically rigged Megathron: Quote: Neutron Blaster Cannon II CPU: 48.09 Power: 2233.035 With the Megathron sporting 687.5 CPU and 19375 power with the best skills, fitting eight of these on would rack up to a total power consumption of 17864.28 and a CPU consumption of 384.72 - leaving just 302.78 CPU and 1510.72 power - not enough in other words, to also fit any kind of tank without adding further rigs such as the Ancillary Current Router I. Assuming with the remaining 200 calibration we were to fit two of these, this would boost the Megathron to 23443.75 Power, which after fitting the turrets would leave some 5579.47 remaining - enough for dual reps, but not for the Microwarpdrive or Cap Injector which the Megathron dearly needs.
Thorek Ironbrow	Posted - 2007.09.03 11:28:00 - [27] Seems pretty balanced.
Mashie Saldana Hooligans Of War	Posted - 2007.09.03 11:30:00 - [28] I think this has crossed the devs minds already.
Nikol Kidman Sadistic Influence	Posted - 2007.09.03 11:35:00 - [29] raven navy issue with 8x t2 siege launcher, 8x med slots hrhrhrhrhr way to overpowered
Camilo Cienfuegos EP0CH Black Sun Cartel	Posted - 2007.09.03 11:35:00 - [30] The Tempest would be even more difficult than the Megathron, as it would require either to use the entire calibration amount for two tech one rigs, leaving no room for other rigging or to use the tech two rig, which would no doubt be prohibitively expensive and would leave only enough calibration for one Ancillary current router. Let's assume they go with the tech two rig for now: Quote: Supplemental Turret Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use for turrets Calibration Cost: 300 Bonus: +2 turret slots Drawback: -10% Again, let's assume the pilot has the best possible skills for both the ship and the rigging, meaning a 50% reduction in the penalties in using these rigs, which means for the one rig which would be fitted, a 5% increase in power and CPU requirements for turrets would be applied. Using the 800mm Repeating Artillery II as an example, the requirements for fitting would be thus when fitted to the hypothetically rigged Tempest: Quote: 800mm Repeating Artillery II CPU: 32.34 Power: 2079 With the Tempest sporting 687.5 CPU and 19375 power like the Megathron with the best skills, fitting eight of these on would rack up to a total power consumption of 16632 and a CPU consumption of 258.72 - leaving 428.78 CPU and 2743 power. Like the Megathron, this would require an Ancillary Current Router I to make a decent setup, which in this case is going to max out your calibration. With this power grid rig, the Tempest is boosted to 21312.5 power, which after the guns leaves 4680.5 power. Like the Megathron, this Tempest needs to get up close and as such would require a Microwaprdive, and as with the Megathron the obligitary Cap Injector and dual rep configuration. As I'm sure you realise, there's just not enough power to pull this off.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.