Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
OneSock
Crown Industries
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 11:00:00 -
[1]
Isn't it about time small, med and large rigs were introduced ? It's just daft that a frigate gets rig slots, but to actually use them you have to spend many times the value of the frigate (even with T2 frigs).
I propose rig component build requirements are reduced for small and med rigs.
Large rigs = normal rig componment requirements. Med = normal x 0.5 Small = normal x0.1
This would bring frigate size rigs to the 1-2mill mark which is reasonable.
Rig bonus would remain the same obviously.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 12:04:00 -
[2]
Originally by: OneSock Isn't it about time small, med and large rigs were introduced ? It's just daft that a frigate gets rig slots, but to actually use them you have to spend many times the value of the frigate (even with T2 frigs).
I propose rig component build requirements are reduced for small and med rigs.
Large rigs = normal rig componment requirements. Med = normal x 0.5 Small = normal x0.1
This would bring frigate size rigs to the 1-2mill mark which is reasonable.
Rig bonus would remain the same obviously.
Signed, signed and signed once more. Oh, singed another time.
What's the last time anyone rigged a, say, T1 cruiser (not a Stabber)? T1 frig? T1 destroyer*? Hell, even AFs and short-range ceptors aren't worth rigging.
With the rig for a BS costing the same as a rig for a frig, will anyone in their right minds buy them?
*PvP, not salvaging.
Rifters!
|
Dinslan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 12:15:00 -
[3]
I agree, but the Medium one should be 0.33 times, rather than 0.5.
One other question, how would this actually be implemented?
Using the example of guns, powergrid is used to prevent oversized weapons being fitted. Should the same be done for Rigs? I think so.
So frigates have much less calibration, cruiser has less too. The smaller sized rigs would would need less calibration to fit too.
To prevent fitting the smaller sized rig, I would make it so that undersized rigs are only say a third effective per size class ( so frigate rigs would fit easily on a Battleship, but only provide 1/9th of the effect ). Maybe that would work the other way around too, although trying to fit BS rigs on a Cruiser probably shouldn't be very easy, if at all possible.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 12:22:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Dinslan I agree, but the Medium one should be 0.33 times, rather than 0.5.
One other question, how would this actually be implemented?
Using the example of guns, powergrid is used to prevent oversized weapons being fitted. Should the same be done for Rigs? I think so.
So frigates have much less calibration, cruiser has less too. The smaller sized rigs would would need less calibration to fit too.
To prevent fitting the smaller sized rig, I would make it so that undersized rigs are only say a third effective per size class ( so frigate rigs would fit easily on a Battleship, but only provide 1/9th of the effect ). Maybe that would work the other way around too, although trying to fit BS rigs on a Cruiser probably shouldn't be very easy, if at all possible.
Actually, rigs are percentage-based and as such you'd only need to make frig-sized rigs have 1/9th of a effect when fitted to a BS and such. You'd get nothing out of fitting a BS-sized rig on a frigate.
Rifters!
|
Chani Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 13:53:00 -
[5]
possibility to limit rigs to their 'designed' shipclass
large rig: usual components, usual calibration ... small rig: less components (cheaper), higher calibration cost
just need to allow smaller ships to have more calibration points, rig benefit is percent based and the same for large and small rigs
which would lead to you use a small ship ('high' calibration points): - either use expensive large rigs, beeing able to fit 3x whatever II - use cheap small rigs, beeing able to fit 2x whatever II + 1x whatever I (as it is now if i am correct)
you use a big ship ('low' calibration points): - either use cheap small rigs - if you are lucky you can fit one - use expensive large rigs ... same situation as now
|
HeadWar
North Star Networks Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 23:57:00 -
[6]
Edited by: HeadWar on 19/12/2007 23:59:37 Chani, that is both backwards, beautiful and brilliant.
Granted, there is some room for "abuse" in that you will be able to fit more than normal amount of rigs (even though the slot amount limits this) by using oversized ones, but hey, it'll cost more, and it's not like you can't boost the performance of your ship already by spending ISK to buy faction modules.
On the bright side, it should require a minimum of coding, just a matter of changing database entries for the ships, and entering a number of new rigs.
--- Не поговорите русского. F1, F2, F3... |
Chani Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 10:47:00 -
[7]
trying to get some more support for this nice little idea :)
---
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 13:25:00 -
[8]
This idea is good.
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 13:34:00 -
[9]
Only argument I can see against this is that reactors, relays and diags etc are all 1 size but personally I'd love it if this happened.
|
Tmarte
Caldari BODA-BOOM
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 14:17:00 -
[10]
They are percentage based. They don't add + a solid number. Just like shield amps and resistence amps are avail only in one size. The bigger ship you put them on the "more effect" they will have. A 5% dmg modifier to a BS will increase it's dmg more than compared to 5% on a frig.
If rigs were meant to be cheap and easy to obtain our salvagers would have a 50KM range, and the drops from wrecks would be insane. They are modifications to a ship, not a module.
|
|
Chani Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 15:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Tmarte They are percentage based. They don't add + a solid number. Just like shield amps and resistence amps are avail only in one size. The bigger ship you put them on the "more effect" they will have. A 5% dmg modifier to a BS will increase it's dmg more than compared to 5% on a frig.
i think everyone reading this thread will know that rigs are percent based. actually thats why it would be 'realistic' to get rigs with different sizes ... the modifier will be still percent based. but rigging a frig would be less expensive than rigging a bs ... like most modules for a bs (as well as the battleship itself) are cheaper than stuff for frigs. and yes, i know, there are some modules without size, that you can put on a frig and/or a bs.
Originally by: Tmarte If rigs were meant to be cheap and easy to obtain our salvagers would have a 50KM range, and the drops from wrecks would be insane. They are modifications to a ship, not a module.
i suppose i just didnt understand what the purpose of the suggestion is/was...
---
|
Coreden
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 16:02:00 -
[12]
/signed for size determined rigs
|
Tmarte
Caldari BODA-BOOM
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 18:20:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Chani Fedaykin
Originally by: Tmarte They are percentage based. They don't add + a solid number. Just like shield amps and resistence amps are avail only in one size. The bigger ship you put them on the "more effect" they will have. A 5% dmg modifier to a BS will increase it's dmg more than compared to 5% on a frig.
i think everyone reading this thread will know that rigs are percent based. actually thats why it would be 'realistic' to get rigs with different sizes ... the modifier will be still percent based. but rigging a frig would be less expensive than rigging a bs ... like most modules for a bs (as well as the battleship itself) are cheaper than stuff for frigs. and yes, i know, there are some modules without size, that you can put on a frig and/or a bs.
Originally by: Tmarte If rigs were meant to be cheap and easy to obtain our salvagers would have a 50KM range, and the drops from wrecks would be insane. They are modifications to a ship, not a module.
i suppose i just didnt understand what the purpose of the suggestion is/was...
Haha yeah i didn't quite finish that i supposed. My train of thought was, that frigs, destroyers, cruisers, are... well.... in some cases throwaway ships. It was just my point of view, because I guess there's more important things CCP could be working on. Again just an opinion.
I do understand after rereading this, that it would be cool to see rigs in different sizes. They would definitely have ot be restricted to a certain ship type, and this in itself could be done pretty easily. A problem would be how would you deal with non combat ships then? They would not be feeling any love from it (left out again).
My other arguement still stands though, since it's percentage based, it should be only one size, just like shield booster amps, and resistence amps are all the same size, even cargohold expanders and nanofibers etc. etc.. . With different rig sizes IMHO it would only be necessary if you were introducing different module sizes for the things i listed.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 19:44:00 -
[14]
I agree thats a brilliant idea. In theory, smaller cars are easier to modify since they are simpler anyway, why not the same theory with smaller ships? Calibration would be based on how hard a ship is to modify (complexity) with simpler ships getting more calibration and bigger ships being harder. It also fits logically... a larger ship would require more broken bits and pieces to jury rig its electronics than a frigate, right? ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish. |
Shaemell Buttleson
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 13:13:00 -
[15]
While I am a nanoship user and not complaining about them at all by making frigate/cruiser sized polycarbon rigs it would mean that every ceptor and hac in the game would be fitted out the same.
|
Chani Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 14:55:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Chani Fedaykin on 05/01/2008 14:55:46
Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson While I am a nanoship user and not complaining about them at all by making frigate/cruiser sized polycarbon rigs it would mean that every ceptor and hac in the game would be fitted out the same.
well ... proposal: 1 rig 'size' for frig/dessy 1 rig 'size' for cruiser/bc 1 rig 'size' for bs
dont know where the industrials/ore ones should fit in.
you COULD differentiate between those by giving them a different modifier (still percent based). on the other hand you COULD differentiate between t1/t2 ships giving them different calibration values (the amount of rig slots is different already).
the main idea would be that a smaller rig requires more calibration ... and smaller ships 'supply' more calibration. thus smaller (=cheaper) rigs will rather be fitted an smaller (=cheaper) vessels. however you could set the calibration for frigs to allow a maximum of one t2 rig beeing used while using cheap (small) rigs ... whereas if you use more expensive (bigger) rigs, you will be able to fit up to three t2 rigs on the same ship.
i dont know where you see that problem of "every ceptor and hac in the game would be fitted out the same" ... i admit i am quite new to the game, so i could miss something in my considerations. but i dont see any major impact compared to the current system (besides beeing able to fit cheaper ships with cheaper rigs).
edit: spelling :P
---
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 22:37:00 -
[17]
At the moment without a snake set and faction mods it will cost 100 mil isk or thereabouts to get the incredibly fast ceptorsand prolly 200-250 mil isk for the same in the nano hacs based on the price of polycarbon rigs.
There is allready a large anti-nao lobby of eve players who think it is incredibly unfair and moan like hell about them. I don't as I personaly like them as i stated so it's not an issue for me.
However if polycarbon rigs for Intis and HACs became cheaper (by introducing different size rigs) loads more ppl would use them than they are now and the whining about nanoships will increase.
That's all I am saying that would happen. Some rigs obviously would not cause the same type of thing as they are not as popular etc but unless polycarbons were treated differently this is what would happen.
I for one wouldn't use anything but poly's and I doubt CCP would like them to be the new WCS/NOS/dampener mods that they have taken up to 4 years to start getting the balance right on.
|
Chani Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 10:41:00 -
[18]
nothing would prevent ccp from altering stats for 'low-end' rigs perhaps. IF the nannoing is really an issue - why not make the cheap small poly's have a lower bonus compared to the expensive ones?
in general a percentage based modifier applying to already modified stats is not very 'realistic' eg: take cargo expansions ... you 'convert' hull into more cargospace. IF the gain would be always calculated of the base value, each mod would give the same benefit for the same negative effect. but as it is now the 2nd mod gives more benefit for less loss because you have more cargospace already but less hull. how is it reasonable that you get more cargospace out of less hull for additional mods? with calculation based upon base value it perhaps wouldnt even be necessary to 'force' stacking penalties. however this would have a huge effect on many calculations, so it could create some balancing issues ^^
---
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 07:43:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson While I am a nanoship user and not complaining about them at all by making frigate/cruiser sized polycarbon rigs it would mean that every ceptor and hac in the game would be fitted out the same.
Well assuming the cruiser-sized polycarbons would be 1/2 of the current polycarbon prices, and frigate-sized polycarbons would be 1/4th of the current polycarbon prices, it'd probably mean we'd see a lot more inties with polycarbons and maybe a few more HACs with polycarbons (as people are extensively using them for HACs right now anyway).
They'd probably have to get nerfed to have comparable effect to T2 nanos if they'd start getting overused, but I think, on the whole, the sized rig thing is a very good idea which'd make rig slots of frigs/dessies/T1 cruisers something more then just wasted slots which they quite definitely are now.
Then again, I killed a Punisher with 3xCCC rigs in Tama a few days ago in my Rifter, so I guess nothing is too expensive for some people.
Rifters!
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 22:41:00 -
[20]
The only reason certain rigs have a certain price (a.k.a. CCCs and Polycarbs) is because of their utility, not because their salvage material is rare. Ill admit to being guilty of flying to Amarr space to rat just so I can collect some MCCs to produce my own. I don't believe that reducing the build cost will make those ships used on more viable, but it will take some of the sting out of purchasing them for some. Furthermore, this could increase the market flow for certain rig parts and rig types prior seen as useless. I might not use a signature reducing rig on my BS, but it sure would be nice to have on a frigate, etc. ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish. |
|
Chani Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 08:10:00 -
[21]
bump from a long time ago
lets see if there could me more comments/input on this ^^
---
|
Yon Andon
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 09:19:00 -
[22]
wonderful idea! perhaps simplest to make small rigs only fit on frigs and dessies and so forth since they're all percentage based. Another problem is backwards compatibility i.e. what to do with current rig BPs? Perhaps same BPs but a choice during manufacturing whether to make a S/M/L/C sized one with a multiplier applied to the material cost, like a simple drop down in the window where you choose facility. This would increase the overall demand for salvage mats also so an increase in salvage drop might go well with this. looking forward to a polycarbon who's price actually makes sense :)
|
OneSock
Crown Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 15:58:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Chani Fedaykin nothing would prevent ccp from altering stats for 'low-end' rigs perhaps. IF the nannoing is really an issue - why not make the cheap small poly's have a lower bonus compared to the expensive ones?
I don't really see it as a problem against sized rigs, it's a balance issue with the game and should be treated seperately IMO.
I personally think nano is due a small nerf. But introduction of cheaper frig sized poly rigs kinda balances that out a bit, (at least in fitting cost).
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 16:09:00 -
[24]
Sized rigs makes useful the rig slots on smaller ships...
Ever rigged an incursus? I didn't personnaly...
The cheapest ship I rigged is my enyo and I made compromises on which rigs I added because I already put 3 times the price I bought it (and it was long ago, not todays's price) in rigs.
Sized rigs would make T1 small/med ships more riggable and also, it would cut a bit the loss for the T2 rigged ships that are already not properly insured. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
EadTaes
Minmatar Veni Vidi Vici. Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 21:32:00 -
[25]
I proposed this idea before like 2 or 3 months ago very shortly after rigs came out. It was shot down inf lame and yet here it is again with a different welcome.
And for the fitting or smaller rigs it like it was said small rigs need more calibration and so do smaller ships.
Ships all have 400 calibration points and the lower calibration for rigs is 50. So 50*8=400 so a *9 factor would be sufficient to prevent someone from fitting medium rigs on a BS, But i like round numbers so make it a time *10.
Ship Cali Rig Cali BS: 400 (50 to 200) Cruisers: 4000 (500 to 2000) Frigs: 40000 (5000 to 20000) 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents |
Chani Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 22:23:00 -
[26]
i dont see a problem if you would be able to fit 1 cheaper rig into a bigger sized ship than it is meant for. as long as you have to stick to the 'proper' size if you want to use more than one rig thats ok.
or rather adjust them that you could fit 2 t1 or 1 t2 'cheap' rig on an 'oversized' ship. if you want to use 3 t1 rigs you have to purchase the 'proper' size, the same if you want to use more than 1 t2 rig.
eg: bs can fit: 1xt1 fr | 2xt1 cr | 1xt2cr | any br combo possible now c can fit: 2xt1 fr | 1xt2 fr | any current cr combo | 3xt2 br f can fit: any current fr combo | 3xt2 cr/br
-> you can go the cheap way, limiting your options a lot, or the expensive way, increasing your options (at least for small ships)
---
|
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:53:00 -
[27]
/signed
It would be awsome if I could get a rig that didn't cost more than my interceptor... ç¦ |
Chani Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 10:50:00 -
[28]
bump :) |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 10:53:00 -
[29]
Oh, yes, we *NEED* those. Thanks for saving this thread from the grasp of oblivion. |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 11:55:00 -
[30]
Yay, sized rigs.
Would really make rigging small ships more useful.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |