Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khira Kitamatsu
536
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
EVE claims to be a sandbox game, but I find it not to be the case in regards to what we can and cannot do to our ships. Of all the things in this game we players should be able to tinker with - it should be our ships. Just as Han Solo was able to make some special modifications to his beloved Millenium Falcon, so should we pilots be able to make special modifications to our ships.
So here is a proposal. Why not added another layer of Jury Rigging that goes further than just being able to add rigs to a ship? Why not allow us to skill up further in "jury rigging" with an advanced version that would allow us to add low, medium, and high fitting slot to our ships - based on your level of "Advanced Jury Rigging"?
To be able to train Advanced Jury Rigging, you need Jury Rigging skill trained to level 5. Science skill trained to level 5. Engineering skill trained to level 5. Mechanic skill trained to level 5. Electronics skill trained to 5. You would also require Electronic Upgrade skill to 4. Hull Upgrades skill to level 4. Energy Grid Upgrade skill to level 4.
When you have met these pre-requirements, you can train Advanced Jury Rigging. Training time multiplier x6.
Training to level 1 in this skill allows a player to add - 1 low fitting slot. Training to level 2 in this skill adds 2% to CPU. Training to level 3 allows a player to add - another low fitting slot or add a medium slot(not both - one or the other - just one slot). Training to level 4 in this skill adds 2% to Power Grid. Training to level 5 allows a player to add - either a high fitting slot - or another low or medium fitting slot(not all - just one slot).
Doing this will allow players more freedom to customize their ships to a greater extent than ever before. The skills required are steep so this will definitely be a skill that takes time to gain - but the rewards for training it would be well worth it.
In a sandbox game - there should always be more options to what a player can do and an addition like this, does just that - gives us players options. Ponies!-á We need more ponies! |
Vesan Terakol
Almost Deliberate
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ship customization is limited for a reason - they define the role of the hull and are not meant to be tempered with by players - this has been stated by CCP and supported by a large percent of the player base. |
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
125
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Part of me wants to take time to explain why this would be a bad idea. The other part wants to say, "No. Just no." and leave.
As a compromise, slot layout is one of the most important factors in defining a ship and its abilities. Being able to add a low slot and high slot to ships is way too much. 9 low slot Archons, giving every frigate utility highs.. yeah, no. Save the drones! |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
1135
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1 Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
441
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Just what the world needs, a vindicator with a utility high. |
Khira Kitamatsu
537
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vesan Terakol wrote:Ship customization is limited for a reason - they define the role of the hull and are not meant to be tempered with by players - this has been stated by CCP and supported by a large percent of the player base.
Can you provide a link to where CCP states this?
Also, this is merely a proposal. It means it can be modified to make it work. To just dismiss it because you do not like it accomplishes nothing. I remember people slamming me for asking for a dueling option, telling me it is not the EVE way. Well, I am so glad CCP saw it differently and thought it through - and then added it. This proposal is in my opinion another good proposal that can open the door to more varied ships and game play options.
Ponies!-á We need more ponies! |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
441
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Khira Kitamatsu wrote:Vesan Terakol wrote:Ship customization is limited for a reason - they define the role of the hull and are not meant to be tempered with by players - this has been stated by CCP and supported by a large percent of the player base. Can you provide a link to where CCP states this? Also, this is merely a proposal. It means it can be modified to make it work. To just dismiss it because you do not like it accomplishes nothing. I remember people slamming me for asking for a dueling option, telling me it is not the EVE way. Well, I am so glad CCP saw it differently and thought it through - and then added it. This proposal is in my opinion another good proposal that can open the door to more varied ships and game play options. We dismiss it because it breaks things. The dueling feature was added because suspect flags made the old system unworkable.
People always churn out these ideas parroting "it will add variety" failing to realize that 99 times out of 10 their system just ends up creating some horrendously broken monster that becomes THE thing to fly because it's just *that* much better than everything else out there. |
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
18
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Khira I am in agreement with you on your idea.
I think that a rigging removal service should be added to the stations services so that rigs can be removed for a fee. |
Khira Kitamatsu
537
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:Khira Kitamatsu wrote:Vesan Terakol wrote:Ship customization is limited for a reason - they define the role of the hull and are not meant to be tempered with by players - this has been stated by CCP and supported by a large percent of the player base. Can you provide a link to where CCP states this? Also, this is merely a proposal. It means it can be modified to make it work. To just dismiss it because you do not like it accomplishes nothing. I remember people slamming me for asking for a dueling option, telling me it is not the EVE way. Well, I am so glad CCP saw it differently and thought it through - and then added it. This proposal is in my opinion another good proposal that can open the door to more varied ships and game play options. We dismiss it because it breaks things. The dueling feature was added because suspect flags made the old system unworkable. People always churn out these ideas parroting "it will add variety" failing to realize that 99 times out of 10 their system just ends up creating some horrendously broken monster that becomes THE thing to fly because it's just *that* much better than everything else out there.
Actually I proposed the dueling option when we learned that dropping cans would muck with our only way to duel legitimately. Even then lots of people whined saying it wasn't the EVE way and a dueling option would ruin the game. So yeah...they were wrong.
As for this proposal, I'll say it again, it is a proposal. We can add and subtract things to it to make it work within the games framework. To just dismiss it outright - because you do not like it - it not how things are improved or advance. Like the one guy who has said he'd like to see another addition to the skill of being able pay a fee to safely remove rigs so they are not destroyed. I could go with that as a good addition to this skill and is much needed. Ponies!-á We need more ponies! |
Dark Drifter
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
even better 3 skills.
rig calibration: (support skill) jury rigging 5 , all rig spec skills to 3 - 3% less calibration points needed to fit per level rigging proficiency (support skill) jury rigging 5 , all rig spec skills to 4 - 2% less penalty per level on fitted rigs advanced rigging (support skill) jury rigging 5 , above 2 skills at 5 - 5% chance per level for rig to survive unfitting per level
these skills would be awesome. |
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
4177
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:Just what the world needs, a vindicator with a utility high.
..or another mid slot...making the triple webbed vindi ..... while tempting...no.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
441
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Khira Kitamatsu wrote: As for this proposal, I'll say it again, it is a proposal. We can add and subtract things to it to make it work within the games framework.
You would have to rework the entire thing from the ground up as just being able to add slots to ships will pretty much never be balanced. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2173
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 19:50:00 -
[13] - Quote
Vesan Terakol wrote:Ship customization is limited for a reason - they define the role of the hull and are not meant to be tempered with by players - this has been stated by CCP and supported by a large percent of the player base.
Not meant to be tempered with? Do you mean you aren't supposed to use a ships in completely random and unintended manners?
Like, using an Iteron V to solo a Megathron?
Or like using a Hulk to gank cruisers and destroyers and frigates?
Or like Using a Helios to solo Frigates and Dessies?
Helios vs Fed Navy Comet Helios vs Slicer Helios vs Slicer Helios vs Thrasher Helios vs Taranis Helios vs Jaguar Helios vs Harpy Helios vs Autocannon Wolf Helios vs Arty Wolf Helios vs Sabre
Or like Mine Veldespar in a Dreadnaught!
Surely people wouldn't ignore the primary principle of these ships and use them for unintended purposes!!!! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2173
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 19:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
Khira Kitamatsu wrote:... Generally bad idea....
Opening up new avenues to play is generally awesome, and I appreciate the spirit of your suggestion.
However, the ability to add a slot to a ship is a MAJOR modification that significantly changes it's overall performance balance. When fitting your ship, you have to weigh the pro's and con's of every fitting decision, and arbitrarily adding slots is simply a pro without a con. Now, we know you didn't suggest any drawbacks for these "upgrades", but also realize I'm not sure you could balance this!
Even the ability to move a slot from a low to a high (which has been suggested) really enables some extremely unbalanced setups as people min/max their ship to perform specific roles. CCP just spent a HUGE amount of resources rebalancing frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers, and, come tuesday, Battleships. This change would undo much of those efforts, as the ability to get an extra low slot or mid slot or high slot (even at substantial cost), is a dramatic change that is non-trivial to balance.
In short... I don't think this could be balanced, so NO!
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3449
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
ExAstra wrote:Part of me wants to take time to explain why this would be a bad idea. The other part wants to say, "No. Just no." and leave.
As a compromise, slot layout is one of the most important factors in defining a ship and its abilities. Being able to add a low slot and high slot to ships is way too much. 9 low slot Archons, giving every frigate utility highs.. yeah, no.
He's suggesting a skill allowing 11 Low Slot Archons.
@OP: This is a terrible idea. The advantages your proposed skill are so enormous that everyone would effectively have to train it to 5 immediately to remain competitive, and **** new players until they can train it up.
Incidentally, you'd break Freighters.
Finally, it would be virtually impossible to balance ships in the face of that skill.
Must-Train-Skills are bad, mmmkay. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:10:00 -
[16] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:ExAstra wrote:Part of me wants to take time to explain why this would be a bad idea. The other part wants to say, "No. Just no." and leave.
As a compromise, slot layout is one of the most important factors in defining a ship and its abilities. Being able to add a low slot and high slot to ships is way too much. 9 low slot Archons, giving every frigate utility highs.. yeah, no. He's suggesting a skill allowing 11 Low Slot Archons. @OP: This is a terrible idea. The advantages your proposed skill are so enormous that everyone would effectively have to train it to 5 immediately to remain competitive, and **** new players until they can train it up. Incidentally, you'd break Freighters. Finally, it would be virtually impossible to balance ships in the face of that skill. Must-Train-Skills are bad, mmmkay. Actually he's not. Only skill levels 1 and 3 allow for additional low slots to be added. It's not 1 low slot per level or anything. Which sort of doesn't work because that's not how skill bonuses usually work. So it'd be up to 2 extra low slots, up to 2 extra mid slots (can't do 2 mids if you take 2 lows), and up to one extra high slot (can't do one high if you do 2 mids) Save the drones! |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
443
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
ExAstra wrote:RubyPorto wrote:ExAstra wrote:Part of me wants to take time to explain why this would be a bad idea. The other part wants to say, "No. Just no." and leave.
As a compromise, slot layout is one of the most important factors in defining a ship and its abilities. Being able to add a low slot and high slot to ships is way too much. 9 low slot Archons, giving every frigate utility highs.. yeah, no. He's suggesting a skill allowing 11 Low Slot Archons. @OP: This is a terrible idea. The advantages your proposed skill are so enormous that everyone would effectively have to train it to 5 immediately to remain competitive, and **** new players until they can train it up. Incidentally, you'd break Freighters. Finally, it would be virtually impossible to balance ships in the face of that skill. Must-Train-Skills are bad, mmmkay. Actually he's not. Only skill levels 1 and 3 allow for additional low slots to be added. It's not 1 low slot per level or anything. Which sort of doesn't work because that's not how skill bonuses usually work. So it'd be up to 2 extra low slots, up to 2 extra mid slots (can't do 2 mids if you take 2 lows), and up to one extra high slot (can't do one high if you do 2 mids) An archon with 10 lows is still bad. |
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:ExAstra wrote:RubyPorto wrote:ExAstra wrote:Part of me wants to take time to explain why this would be a bad idea. The other part wants to say, "No. Just no." and leave.
As a compromise, slot layout is one of the most important factors in defining a ship and its abilities. Being able to add a low slot and high slot to ships is way too much. 9 low slot Archons, giving every frigate utility highs.. yeah, no. He's suggesting a skill allowing 11 Low Slot Archons. Actually he's not. Only skill levels 1 and 3 allow for additional low slots to be added. It's not 1 low slot per level or anything. Which sort of doesn't work because that's not how skill bonuses usually work. So it'd be up to 2 extra low slots, up to 2 extra mid slots (can't do 2 mids if you take 2 lows), and up to one extra high slot (can't do one high if you do 2 mids) An archon with 10 lows is still bad. That'd be 9 lows actually (7+2=9). Which is what I said. And I already said I wouldn't like that, soooo Save the drones! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2173
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
ExAstra wrote:RubyPorto wrote:ExAstra wrote:Part of me wants to take time to explain why this would be a bad idea. The other part wants to say, "No. Just no." and leave.
As a compromise, slot layout is one of the most important factors in defining a ship and its abilities. Being able to add a low slot and high slot to ships is way too much. 9 low slot Archons, giving every frigate utility highs.. yeah, no. He's suggesting a skill allowing 11 Low Slot Archons. @OP: This is a terrible idea. The advantages your proposed skill are so enormous that everyone would effectively have to train it to 5 immediately to remain competitive, and **** new players until they can train it up. Incidentally, you'd break Freighters. Finally, it would be virtually impossible to balance ships in the face of that skill. Must-Train-Skills are bad, mmmkay. Actually he's not. Only skill levels 1 and 3 allow for additional low slots to be added. It's not 1 low slot per level or anything. Which sort of doesn't work because that's not how skill bonuses usually work. So it'd be up to 2 extra low slots, up to 2 extra mid slots (can't do 2 mids if you take 2 lows), and up to one extra high slot (can't do one high if you do 2 mids)
The ability to add and/or swap slots on a ship will MAJORLY alter the balance of ships in this game.... You have to be really dense, or really new to not realize that...
As for the other benefits: 2% CPU or PG, this is much, much more reasonable... although some serious thought needs to be provided.
I would be more likely to support an advanced jury rigging skill that added potentially (in no particular order, preference): (maybe 12.5% more rig Calibration so 400 -> 450), 1% more PG/CPU, 1% more speed/agility, 1% more lock range, +1 maxed targets (for hull), -2% to all rig penalties, etc...
Small changes are ok, big changes (like +1 slot) are waaaayyy to much!
Note: the above suggestions are off-the-cuff, and obviously need to be thoroughly thought out!
|
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The ability to add and/or swap slots on a ship will MAJORLY alter the balance of ships in this game.... You have to be really dense, or really new to not realize that...
As for the other benefits: 2% CPU or PG, this is much, much more reasonable... although some serious thought needs to be provided.
I would be more likely to support an advanced jury rigging skill that added potentially (in no particular order, preference): (maybe 12.5% more rig Calibration so 400 -> 450), 1% more PG/CPU, 1% more speed/agility, 1% more lock range, +1 maxed targets (for hull), -2% to all rig penalties, etc...
Small changes are ok, big changes (like +1 slot) are waaaayyy to much!
Note: the above suggestions are off-the-cuff, and obviously need to be thoroughly thought out!
How about you read what I posted before you go calling me dense? I clearly stated that I was not in support of the addition of any slots to any ships.
ExAstra wrote:Part of me wants to take time to explain why this would be a bad idea. The other part wants to say, "No. Just no." and leave.
As a compromise, slot layout is one of the most important factors in defining a ship and its abilities. Being able to add a low slot and high slot to ships is way too much. 9 low slot Archons, giving every frigate utility highs.. yeah, no.
Clearly. Stated. Save the drones! |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2176
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
ExAstra wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The ability to add and/or swap slots on a ship will MAJORLY alter the balance of ships in this game.... You have to be really dense, or really new to not realize that...
As for the other benefits: 2% CPU or PG, this is much, much more reasonable... although some serious thought needs to be provided.
I would be more likely to support an advanced jury rigging skill that added potentially (in no particular order, preference): (maybe 12.5% more rig Calibration so 400 -> 450), 1% more PG/CPU, 1% more speed/agility, 1% more lock range, +1 maxed targets (for hull), -2% to all rig penalties, etc...
Small changes are ok, big changes (like +1 slot) are waaaayyy to much!
Note: the above suggestions are off-the-cuff, and obviously need to be thoroughly thought out!
How about you read what I posted before you go calling me dense? I clearly stated that I was not in support of the addition of any slots to any ships. ExAstra wrote:Part of me wants to take time to explain why this would be a bad idea. The other part wants to say, "No. Just no." and leave.
As a compromise, slot layout is one of the most important factors in defining a ship and its abilities. Being able to add a low slot and high slot to ships is way too much. 9 low slot Archons, giving every frigate utility highs.. yeah, no. Clearly. Stated.
Try not to take offense... You was not meant in the Ex Astra is really dense, but as in People have to really dense not to realize this... With the quotes I can see why you thought I called you dense, for which I apologize! |
Khira Kitamatsu
560
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 23:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
I'll tweak and refine this proposal a little more. :) Ponies!-á We need more ponies! |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
79
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 23:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:Just what the world needs, a vindicator with a utility high.
No, what the world needs now is a Vindicator with love sweet love :) My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
450
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 23:25:00 -
[24] - Quote
ExAstra wrote: That'd be 9 lows actually (7+2=9). Which is what I said. And I already said I wouldn't like that, soooo
I got the aeon and the archon backwards, so I was basing my math off of a ship with 8 lows. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
79
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 23:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
OK, I'll add my two pennies worth in here:
Adding Slots: Whether they be High\Medium\Low = No! This unbalances things that have and are still going through re-balancing.
Adding new skills to add Calibration Points, remove\reduce Drawbacks, remove Rigs with damage but not destruction or add Station Rig Removal Services = awesome ideas.
+1 for adding this idea but a -0.5 for the Slot Addition idea. Overall +0.5
EDIT: +0.25 for posting with your Main or at least an aged Alt. Overall +0.75 My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
191
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 00:12:00 -
[26] - Quote
Absolutely NO to anything that adds module slots to ships, it COMPLETELY undermines CCP's effort to balance the game. That said, i could see the skill further reducing the penalty the Rig adds until it's 0-2.5% at lvl 5 instead of 5%. It would need to be a high ranking skill like Rank 8 or something so that not everyone will bother with it thus giving those hard core min-maxers an edge over the rest of the sheeple. The Operative:-á"There are a lot of innocent people being killed in the air right now".
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds:-á"You have no idea how true that is". |
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
128
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 05:29:00 -
[27] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:ExAstra wrote: That'd be 9 lows actually (7+2=9). Which is what I said. And I already said I wouldn't like that, soooo
I got the aeon and the archon backwards, so I was basing my math off of a ship with 8 lows. Understandable, you'd kind of expect the Amarr capital ships to be full on low slots. Save the drones! |
monkfish2345
D'reg The Methodical Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 10:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
A large part of why this will never happen is peoples natural tendency to max/min. balance is something that is horribly difficult to maintain in a game as complex as eve, and by giving the players tha ability to adapt these ships it will just push further into extreme 'overpowered' fits.
certain ships will benefit far more than other, and as people have said before it would also cause issues with the core fitting mechanic of 8 slot max per power type.
Eventually more tech 3 ships will be introduced which should give you all the customization you need |
PavlikX
You are in da lock
65
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:02:00 -
[29] - Quote
I say no, because it's against entire EVE's philosophy to add slots for a ship |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
747
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:06:00 -
[30] - Quote
I look foward to a Navyscorp with ten medslots. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |