Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a bit left-field, but I had an idea the other day about changing the ship fitting system, and I think this would work well.
Do away with high, medium and low slots, rig slots, and launcher and turret hardpoints. Each ship will have a fitting space, defined by cubic metres. There would be a calibration requirement to fitting modules, much like there is with rigs. The current capacitor and powergrid system would remain.
After all, a ship is a platform, shouldn't I be able to fit what I want to it, so long as I have the skill to fit it and use it, the power supply and capacity to run it, and the space to fit it.
Each module would have it's own volume, so in a ship with only a small fitting space you can fit fewer large modules. Small blasters will have a smaller volume than T2 large blasters. Rigs will have very large space requirements and calibration cost. Larger volume modules also add more to the mass of your ship, increasing signature radius and reducing velocity and AB/MWD/warp capacitor costs.
There will be 2 new skills, module fitting, for each level of fitted module, and calibration fitting, so you can fit a more calibration-hungry (ie T2) module per level. There would be a different calibration fitting skill per tech level.
The idea is maximum fitting flexibility, but still constrained by the player skill level, and the size of fitting space, powergrid and cap of the ship.
This would mean that if I wanted to fit another railgun at the expense of a couple of armour hardeners then I could, which is how I think spaceships should work.
I guess some people would try to fit ships with only defence or only offence for use in fleets, so the calibration and power requirements of offensive and defensive modules would be set up to discourage this, but to be honest i would be curious to see how PvP would change. There's no point having a ship that's 100% defence because it could be safely ignored, and ships that are 100% offense are very fragile. A ship that's 90% defence and 10% smartbomb would be a worry, but it would also be very slow.
Anyway, that's my loonie idea. What do you all think? I doubt CCP would introduce such a large change to the core mechanic, if they tried everyone would emoragequit. But in my mind this is full of win. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó http://goo.gl/uX5vk |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mara Tessidar wrote:I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó
So you lack imagination, good for you! Now go bother mommy, grown-ups are talking here. |
Ifly Uwalk
Concentrated Evil Mining For Profit Alliance
161
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ifly Uwalk wrote:I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó
Rather than outright rejecting the idea, and failing to be witty at the same time, why don't you either a) Join the discussion and say WHY it might be a bad idea, or b) keep your opinion to yourself :P |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
114
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ifly Uwalk wrote:I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó
Not empty quoting |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Ifly Uwalk wrote:I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó Not empty quoting
I get the impression that people replying to my idea without taking the trouble to critique it either a) do not understand it, or b) they are afraid of change.
I'm not saying it's the world's best idea but it IS worthy of discussion if it fixes a few fundamental flaws in the gameplay mechanic in one hit. |
Aiwha
101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
128
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 07:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Ifly Uwalk wrote:I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó Not empty quoting
Of course not. Regards,
LCpl. Aiwha-á Senior Recruiter |
ACE McFACE
Acetech Systems
584
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 07:11:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mara Tessidar wrote:I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó A registered trademark of the Bat Country Corporation Real men wear goggles and a Navy shirt! |
Cindy Marco
Expanse Security
42
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 07:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
Your idea must diaf. |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
336
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 07:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
I dont think we need another Tim McGraw album. but thanks anyways.
Yeah the idea a ship is a big hole, you throw things into and everything works real well. Maybe you should send it to CCP, almost sounds like space barbies. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 07:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
rodyas wrote:I dont think we need another Tim McGraw album. but thanks anyways.
Yeah the idea a ship is a big hole, you throw things into and everything works real well. Maybe you should send it to CCP, almost sounds like space barbies.
No, the idea is that the ship is a platform, to which you mount your fit. The ship is a framework with a battery and a bunch of cables. How well it works depends on your skill training and your ability to fit.
Is it really that difficult to understand? |
Kobayashi Marru
Templar Caste
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 07:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
Launcher and Turret points wouldn't make sense for being able to fit another armor hardener. Think of the physical location on a ship, where you would put either. Nope.
Might make more sense to have categories of internal and external mounting. 1EXTERNAL. Guns, turrets, probe launcher. stuff that is released from ship. this is more limited then category two, they should not be merged even tho they are similar. mostly because a cloak in a high slot pisses me off, same with the drone mod 2SOMETHING, requires access to the outside of your ship but doesn't release physical stuff: webs, bubbles, transport for shield and energy, cloak, armor and shield repair since, well yea 3INTERNAL, doesn't need access to the outside of your ship: passive and active mods, sebo
Yett we must ask, why? what would we gain. nothing is broken by the current system, other then being able to throw 20 of the same thing on a ship, which you shouldn't be able to do. |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 08:30:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kobayashi Marru wrote:Launcher and Turret points wouldn't make sense for being able to fit another armor hardener. Think of the physical location on a ship, where you would put either. Nope. Might make more sense to have categories of internal and external mounting. 1EXTERNAL; Guns, turrets, probe launcher. Stuff that is released from ship. this is more limited then category two, they should not be merged even tho they are similar. mostly because a cloak in a high slot pisses me off, same with the drone range mod (why, just why) 2SOMETHING: Webs, bubbles, transport for shield and energy, cloak, armor and shield repair. Requires access to the outside of your ship but doesn't require special mounting like a gun that rotates or a launcher that reloads would since, well yea 3INTERNAL: Sebo, Hardeners, Gyro, Rigs. Subsystems. Doesn't need access to the outside of your ship. Yet we must ask, why? What would we gain, What that is currently broken by the current system will be fixed?
Thank you Kobayashi for a reasoned response. Your last point first, is that I thought no spaceship manufacturer would in-build limitations into how their client would be able to use their ships, instead they would make them as versatile as possible. As a construction platform with a power supply and power delivery infrastructure, well, this is how I would approach spaceship construction. Deliver the platform and let the client use it how they see fit.
I'm not reinventing the fitting system for the sake of it, or as an intellectual exercise. I genuinely believe that my approach has a more consistent internal logic, and more closely approaches 'realism' than the current one. |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 08:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
Any species or race capable of space-flight would seek the most efficient technology to suit their needs. Realistically, there would be no racial differentiation between ships, only skill-based differences. The races in EvE have different skill biases, which is enough to separate their play-styles from each other, so why is their also ship differentiation? All it does is limit player choice.
Why should I not be able to fit a vindicator with 8 launcher turrets instead of 8 railguns, if I have the skills to use launchers? |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Dark Matter Coalition
882
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 08:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
I foresee titans and carriers being fitted with dozens of battleship sized weapons and ******* up EVERYTHING The Drake is a Lie |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 08:59:00 -
[17] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:I foresee titans and carriers being fitted with dozens of battleship sized weapons and ******* up EVERYTHING
That's why there's a calibration cost to each rank of module. Ultimately the gameplay should remain consistent, but it will give us more flexibility to suit our own individual play-style. |
Captain Stupid
The Jeremy Kyle Holding Pen
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mara Tessidar wrote:I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to DieGäó
Not empty quoting :)
|
W1rlW1nd
The Scope Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
bad idea for several reasons,
a) CCP would have an even harder time balancing modules for gameplay, if not an impossible task. b) less ship variety, since without slot differences only a few hulls would be required to supply the 'platform' to build on, the rest would just be different looking skins. c) large ships would have so many guns, that they would alpha anything that got near, and everyone would only use those fits further reducing variety. d) incorrect poasting, this thread needs to be moved to the F&I forum. e) probably more reasons, but that is enough.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
377
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
Your idea isn't BAD per se. It just runs in the opposite direction of the current system we currently have.
Right now... a Drake cannot be fitted the same way a Hurricane can be. While this does limit choices in what you can and cannot fit (because both ships have different slot configurations, hardpoints, CPU/PG, different base stats, and different bonuses), it also opens the doors towards differing tactics which use those differences to their maximum potential.
Your idea (if I understand correctly) seeks to do away with those differences and allow players to create fits however they want to... so long as they do not exceed the one restriction you place ("calibration").
From my perspective I don't see players using that "flexibility" the way you envision it. I see players either fitting ships to be hyper-specialized in one sole task (making everything unable to compete unless similarly fit) or fit in such a way that a ship does not have any inherent weaknesses and cannot be "outmaneuvered" through superior tactics.
The current ship fitting method does leave a little part of me longing... but I understand that it was done for a reason. Some inherent strengths, weakness, and/or restrictions that cannot be altered can be a good thing as it encourages people to think "how best can I use this" rather than "well, lets fit this here so I don't have to worry." "Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
|
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:35:00 -
[21] - Quote
W1rlW1nd wrote:
bad idea for several reasons,
a) CCP would have an even harder time balancing modules for gameplay, if not an impossible task. b) less ship variety, since without slot differences only a few hulls would be required to supply the 'platform' to build on, the rest would just be different looking skins. c) large ships would have so many guns, that they would alpha anything that got near, and everyone would only use those fits further reducing variety. d) incorrect poasting, this thread needs to be moved to the F&I forum. e) probably more reasons, but that is enough.
a) CCP would have a standardised benchmark for balancing modules, it would make their job easier not harder. b) yes less ship variety, but that would be in line with the way things would be in real life. Sports cars still use petrol engines and four wheels, right? c) see point a d) you're right, i wasn't aware there was an F&I forum when I posted here e) bring it on! |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
915
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:43:00 -
[22] - Quote
I, for one, believe that it should be possible for a MWD to be fit in any slot. Also, multiple MWDs should be allowed to run at once. Also, rather than stacking they should exponentially get better.
Only then will EVE Online reach the OP's true vision. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
201
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
Why not have just one ship in EVE, maybe in different sizes, it would also fit well with the new naming scheme: i.e. instead of various frigates, cruisers and battleships we would have a small spaceship, a medium spaceship and a large spaceship.
That is what you are proposing right? |
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 10:08:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Why not have just one ship in EVE, maybe in different sizes, it would also fit well with the new naming scheme: i.e. instead of various frigates, cruisers and battleships we would have a small spaceship, a medium spaceship and a large spaceship.
That is what you are proposing right?
I guess reducto ad absurdum applies here, but essentially yes. As I said in an earlier post, what space-faring race/species would limit their ships capabilities? It's a simple cost/benefit thing. A skeletal structure with energy delivery infrastructure that is only limited by the pilot's skill and experience is the most logical path to follow for anyone who wants to make money selling spaceships, and for any pilot that wants a platform that suits their unique style. Telling clients what they can and can't do is bad business practice. Perhaps I'm role-playing a bit too much here. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
201
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 10:25:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ploppy McPlop wrote:Lexmana wrote:Why not have just one ship in EVE, maybe in different sizes, it would also fit well with the new naming scheme: i.e. instead of various frigates, cruisers and battleships we would have a small spaceship, a medium spaceship and a large spaceship.
That is what you are proposing right? I guess reducto ad absurdum applies here, but essentially yes. As I said in an earlier post, what space-faring race/species would limit their ships capabilities? It's a simple cost/benefit thing. A skeletal structure with energy delivery infrastructure that is only limited by the pilot's skill and experience is the most logical path to follow for anyone who wants to make money selling spaceships, and for any pilot that wants a platform that suits their unique style. Telling clients what they can and can't do is bad business practice. Perhaps I'm role-playing a bit too much here.
Fair enough I can see where you are coming from. But current system already provide very good customization of our spaceships. From a realistic point of view maybe even too good e.g. how can the whole internal structure of a ship be changed by swapping in a nanofiber module? It would make more sense in having it as a rig tbh. But so probably does turret/launcher hardpoints. |
Alara IonStorm
1556
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 10:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:I, for one, believe that it should be possible for a MWD to be fit in any slot. Also, multiple MWDs should be allowed to run at once. Also, rather than stacking they should exponentially get better.
Only then will EVE Online reach the OP's true vision. You know that the non stacked multiple MWD's was a thing right? Ravens that would start at like 100km firing Torp (Longer Range Back Then) and match the Torps speed so like 48 Torps would just Alpha Targets. Their was also a Scorp fit that could move at Warp Speeds for a short Time.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |