Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darkdood
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 01:58:00 -
[61]
I'm not sure which way is the best way to solve this but there certainly is a problem here. Even making a T 1/2 rig that is 50% the bonus but 30% the materials would be a nice help. Anything to allow you to put some sort of bonus on smaller ships.
|
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 09:09:00 -
[62]
Definitely like this methodology for the sized rigs. And I honestly see no problem with it. The pricing levels would have to be determined. My suggestions:
CostShip Class (t2 versions as well) 0.1xFrigate/Destroyer 0.3xCruiser/Battlecruiser/Industial/Barge 1.0xBattleship/Capital I don't see the need to create a Capital level, as it would get into the rediculous price ranges, and would actually hurt those currently building/collecting their rigs.
New Prospector Class |
Wannabehero
Caldari Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 18:57:00 -
[63]
Way to rescue the the thread there Darkdood, from the very jaws of locked oblivion.
My own two ISK.
This is a great idea and should be implemented. Rigging frigs, cruisers, and often Battlecruisers is a losing proposition, not because of the base cost of the hulls, as insurance covers that almost 100%, but instead due to survivability and overall effectiveness. A T1 frig or cruiser is not really expected to survive all that often, but players always hope to keep their BS under them when the fight is over. A rigged battleship recieves a greater absolute bonus than any frig or cruiser does with everything except speed modifying rigs.
If it only cost an extra 500,000 - 3,000,000 ISK to rig a frigate, it would be a welcome option for many players. Same if it only cost 1,500,000 - 9,000,000 ISK for a cruiser.
As was mentioned previously in this thread, calibration could be used as a regulator of rigging ships to cheaply or expensively. T2 ships, particularly assault frigates, HACs, and Command ships, could have calibration points adjusted such that they require the use more expensive rigs (such as cruiser rigs for assault frigs, and Battleship rigs for HACs), to keep rigging expense balanced (more expensive as ships become more expensive/powerful).
In anycase, I've been waiting a while for this and nothing has come of it.
Where are the real overhauls? The changes to the game that actually make it more fun to play? We need mining and industry revamps in a bad way, and greater niches and profitably from such professions. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 19:39:00 -
[64]
After a while i started grazing over the topics, personally i'm opposed to this, its sound in theory sure, but the problem is continuity. Why have only rigs based upon ship size and not other modules (something similar was mentioned but never discussed in detail). I.e. to have any sort of comparison with "generalized rigs" that were ship classed, you'd need modules to do the same, PDU's, BCS, hardeners, amplifiers, damage mods etc.. it would require a total overhaul of the system otherwise you lose continuity and it just becomes stupid. |
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 09:17:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Nnamuachs After a while i started grazing over the topics, personally i'm opposed to this, its sound in theory sure, but the problem is continuity. Why have only rigs based upon ship size and not other modules (something similar was mentioned but never discussed in detail). I.e. to have any sort of comparison with "generalized rigs" that were ship classed, you'd need modules to do the same, PDU's, BCS, hardeners, amplifiers, damage mods etc.. it would require a total overhaul of the system otherwise you lose continuity and it just becomes stupid.
Partly because the cost of rigs is considerably higher, proportional to their effects, than modules. This results in a them not even being used on smaller vessels. This is not the case with modules. They are priced such that their effects are worth the cost, even on smaller vessels.
|
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 19:42:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Clansworth
Originally by: Nnamuachs After a while i started grazing over the topics, personally i'm opposed to this, its sound in theory sure, but the problem is continuity. Why have only rigs based upon ship size and not other modules (something similar was mentioned but never discussed in detail). I.e. to have any sort of comparison with "generalized rigs" that were ship classed, you'd need modules to do the same, PDU's, BCS, hardeners, amplifiers, damage mods etc.. it would require a total overhaul of the system otherwise you lose continuity and it just becomes stupid.
Partly because the cost of rigs is considerably higher, proportional to their effects, than modules. This results in a them not even being used on smaller vessels. This is not the case with modules. They are priced such that their effects are worth the cost, even on smaller vessels.
I guess its just about who you talk to, i fit rigs on my t2 frigs and most of my faction frigs. Most people dont fit rigs on a regular frig/cruiser for the cost sure.. but additionally because those ships have a lower chance of survival and wont be helped much by the rigs anyways. |
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 20:36:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Nnamuachs I guess its just about who you talk to, i fit rigs on my t2 frigs and most of my faction frigs. Most people dont fit rigs on a regular frig/cruiser for the cost sure.. but additionally because those ships have a lower chance of survival and wont be helped much by the rigs anyways.
Many pilots would make the decision to rig their tech 1 small craft, if it made the ships more fun to use, if the cost wasn't insane. This is what the proposal is attempting to correct.
New Prospector Class |
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 21:05:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Clansworth
Originally by: Nnamuachs I guess its just about who you talk to, i fit rigs on my t2 frigs and most of my faction frigs. Most people dont fit rigs on a regular frig/cruiser for the cost sure.. but additionally because those ships have a lower chance of survival and wont be helped much by the rigs anyways.
Many pilots would make the decision to rig their tech 1 small craft, if it made the ships more fun to use, if the cost wasn't insane. This is what the proposal is attempting to correct.
By that definition then shouldnt they make deadspace/faction/officer gear cheaper because it would make the small ships more fun to use if it was affordable enough to put them on?
|
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 21:55:00 -
[69]
That's not a fair comparrison, you're talking about a specific level of an item, We're talking about an entire class of items that are put economically out or practical use.
New Prospector Class |
ollobrains2
Gallente New Eve Order Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 22:26:00 -
[70]
has some credit but then again would boost smaller ships. Perhaps small could be a 0.3% modifer medium classes would be 0.7 modifer and 1.0 for battleships and perhaps a 2.0 modifer for capital ships if they have any slots
|
|
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 06:49:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Clansworth That's not a fair comparrison, you're talking about a specific level of an item, We're talking about an entire class of items that are put economically out or practical use.
I dont see how its an unfair comparison.. you pay more to put something better on your ship, rigs are the same way, if you want rigs on your ship, you pay their cost because its either worth it to you or it isn't. Yes rigs cost more comparitively to put on a frig than they do on a battlecruiser.. the same is true for faction/deadspace/officer gear, if you put it on a frig its expensive but doesnt do any more/less for the frig than it does for any other ship.
|
Kitt JT
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 04:10:00 -
[72]
Dont forget capital-class rigs. They should be more expensive, so that losing a rigged titan means something. If you are flying a multi-billion isk ship, whats another 100 mil?
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 05:10:00 -
[73]
I would like to add something to this. After hard and long thought (the time it took for me to read the first sentence) I came up with the following. It begins with an N and ends on ON. I fully support the non-implementation of this idea.
Did you see what I did thar? Nein? Too bad.
|
Xindi Kraid
Cerulean Sky Fire Industries
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 05:18:00 -
[74]
Sized rigs FTW
Small rigs, small cost, only *****ble on Frigates, destroyers and their T2 versions Medium rigs, medium cost, only *****ble on cruisers, battlecruisers and their tech 2 versions Large rigs, large cost, only *****ble on battleships, capitals, and their tech 2 versions Capital rigs, Massive cost, only *****ble on super caps -Xindi Kraid CSFI lead engineer and shipwright
Improve POS cargo access |
Altris
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 16:57:00 -
[75]
Let me resurrect this idea/thread again. I'm glad to find that other people have been thinking about this too. My thoughts have run in a similar, but slightly different direction.
It is reasonably clear (because rigs actually exist) that their bonuses and drawbacks have been considered with respect to balance. From what I understood, they were intended to be a step in the direction Eve is going anyway with T3, i.e. ship customization. Obviously CCP is giving T3 their primary attention, but hopefully rigs are not going to be ignored henceforward.
(T3 ships have rig slots, don't they?)
The way I understand it, T1 ships were given 3 rig slots while T2 ships were given 2 slots to help a little bit with balancing T1 against T2. Obviously this didn't work entirely as intended. Almost nobody rigs T1 frigates or cruisers because the rigs cost more than the ships. There is no point then, to a Rifter for instance, having 3 rig slots. Unless there were rigs that cost ~250k or so.
So why not? If the bonuses and drawbacks of rigs are balanced, then why not make them almost ubiquitous? Allow practically everyone to rig their ships. How much more interesting would solo/small-gang PvP be, or heck, any kind of Eve gameplay, if you didn't know exactly what to expect from that Omen, or that Rupture?
I imagine this would most easily be accomplished by tripling both the drop rate of salvage materials and the range of the salvager module. What salvagers and rig manufacturers would lose in per-unit profit, they would make up in volume.
Ignore size, there's no need for small/medium/large since everything is percentage-based. Instead, introduce meta-levels for rigs, as with modules. T1, some meta-level items, and then T2, with increasing bonuses and perhaps reduced drawbacks, and obviously greater costs (and hence prices) along that path.
If rigs are not completely balanced for ubiquitousness, then expend the resources to make them so. Unless the current level of usage is what the game designers had in mind. It'd be nice to know if that's true or not.
What do people think?
|
Julien Marius
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 23:06:00 -
[76]
/signed It certainly should be expensive to rig ships, but if the rigs for a t1 frig cost more than the t2 variant of the ship, there is no incentive to buy rigs for t1 frigates, making it pointless to even have rig slots. If CCP wanted rigs to only apply to large ships they wouldn't have given frigates slots.
Also, this wouldn't be an unfair boost to small ships, rather it would be a much needed rebalance of a concept that boosted large ships. Everything else in the game is more or less indexed by price to the size of ship that it is used by, why not rigs?
|
Sara Mise
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 17:31:00 -
[77]
good ideas.
|
David Grogan
Gallente The Motley Crew
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 13:07:00 -
[78]
Edited by: David Grogan on 12/03/2009 13:09:19 sized rigs would be great but also u would need to balance them out
t1 small rigs --- boost a small amount -- but need lvl 1 of the rig type skill t1 medium rigs --- boost more -- but need lvl 3 of the rig type skill t1 large rigs --- boost alot -- but need lvl 5 of the rig type skill
t2 small rigs --- boost a small amount but twice t1 -- but need lvl 1 of the advanced rig type skill t2 medium rigs --- boost more but twice t1 -- but need lvl 3 of the advanced rig type skill t2 large rigs --- boost alot but twice t1 -- but need lvl 5 of the advanced rig type skill SIG: if my message has spelling errors its cos i fail at typing properly :P |
Kusum Fawn
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 22:58:00 -
[79]
Please! /Signed
|
Shaka Quatuic
|
Posted - 2009.03.14 23:59:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Shaka Quatuic on 15/03/2009 00:00:17 I actually have an idea of how to implement this on the manufacturing side, but it would be a fundamental change from how rigs are currently handled and applied to ships.
basically it goes like this:
a rig blueprint would be applied to the ship being rigged, and the parts requirements and calibration cost would be determined at that time, within the manufacturing GUI. as i envision it, it would be similar to how T2 ships are manufactured, but with a few important differences, as what you are really doing is custom building a module that will be permanently affixed to the vessel until the module is destructively removed. any vessel could be used as a 'component' for the rig BP, and would come out of the oven with the rig applied. rigs wold no longer be commodities in and of themselves, as every install would be considered a custom job - kind of like installing a custom turbo kit or audio system on a car. as such, rigs would not be tradeable on the market as they are now.
this idea both reduces the cost of rigs for smaller ships, but keeps their implementation simple for the end user.
|
|
Lord macattack
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 10:14:00 -
[81]
Sounds like a great idea.
|
Tekashi Kovacs
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 01:15:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Tekashi Kovacs on 29/03/2009 01:16:55 Edited by: Tekashi Kovacs on 29/03/2009 01:15:44 Bump! Best idea ever posted here in ideas discussion section. What? OP post too old? Dont worry, im sure in two more years or so they will implement this!
|
ShadowMaster56
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 01:23:00 -
[83]
Edited by: ShadowMaster56 on 29/03/2009 01:23:37 Brilliant!
this would help so much
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |