These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[T3 cruiser rebalance] 1 rig per subsytem instead of the 'hull'
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mirakel
Inner Circle Exploitation
#1 - 2014-05-12 10:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirakel
If the rigs on strategic cruisers were in the subsytems, in stead of the hull, they would keep the diversity.

The problem is that there are 5 subsytems.

What could be done to keep in the diversity role of the strategic cruisers and not being 'best in slot' for a role, is to give each subsystem a list of rig categories that can be fitted into that one slot.
For example the defensive subsytem can fit only the defensive rigs and within the subsystem category different subsytems can also slightly differ in what rig categories can be fit.
(for example subsystems that give drone bay/bandwith are the only ones able to fit from the drone rigs category)

This should be distributed in such a way that you can only fit up to 2 rigs of a rig category and not 3 like you can now to max a single stat.

Still need a solution for rig calibration. Any ideas for that besides limiting it on the hull and you cant use the subsystem if the total calibration exceeds the cap?
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2014-05-12 11:10:05 UTC
I dunno, this sounds like an easy way to make an already powerful ship become stupidly overpowered. If I understand correctly, you want to be able to fit five different rigs, albeit of different types. This would require a substantial rebalance of the ship and a drastic nerf of most of the subsystems. I do like the idea of rigs traveling with subsystems instead of the ship though...

For example, perhaps the Engineering, Combat, and Defensive subsystems lend the ships their rig slots, and the rigs are tied to that subsystem. When you replace the subsystem, the rig will go with it, allowing you to reconfigure the ship without having to throw out rigs for a specific purpose.
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#3 - 2014-05-12 11:13:49 UTC
I'd rather they just buff all the sub systems and get rid of rigs all together.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
Mirakel
Inner Circle Exploitation
#4 - 2014-05-12 11:37:18 UTC
Auduin Samson wrote:
I dunno, this sounds like an easy way to make an already powerful ship become stupidly overpowered. If I understand correctly, you want to be able to fit five different rigs, albeit of different types. This would require a substantial rebalance of the ship and a drastic nerf of most of the subsystems. I do like the idea of rigs traveling with subsystems instead of the ship though...

For example, perhaps the Engineering, Combat, and Defensive subsystems lend the ships their rig slots, and the rigs are tied to that subsystem. When you replace the subsystem, the rig will go with it, allowing you to reconfigure the ship without having to throw out rigs for a specific purpose.


I did see this as an additional point to take into consideration for the upcoming strategic cruiser rebalance. They are going to nerf it somehow anyways.
if the ship cannot be best in a certain role anymore (after the 'rebalance') then at least let it be best in reconfigurability. This way you are forced to choose from at least 3 different rigtypes.

After te rebalance it will not have many reasons going for it to be flown as it will not have the DPS of a max-dps HAC, cannot have the tank of a max-tanked HIC, will not have the scanning strength of a covops. It will only have MAX utility left as the thing going for it (and most pilots in EVE don't like max utility, although I do)
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#5 - 2014-05-12 12:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Rayzilla Zaraki
As an avid user of T3's I really like this idea because it makes sense. The subsystems give the ship a lot of diversity but the three general rig slots take some of it away. Doing this brings back the diversity.

HOWEVER

As a player, wow...talk about over powered!


Edit: they could give each subsystem 0 to 2 rig slots but then have the calibration points come from the hull thus causing players to have to turn rigs on and off like we do modules that require more PG/CPU than the ship has.

It would be technically still possible to fit up to 10 rigs but they would be the low-powered ones, give the bonuses the stacking penalty but the negatives of each could satck fully.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#6 - 2014-05-12 12:43:33 UTC
from a game design standpoint this seems kinda cool
from a balancing standpoint this would be a lot of work, since the ships would have to be nerfed to not be op
from a programmer standpoint it would be easier to just remove rigs from t3s which would probably nerf them enough and the thing then left would be to buff the bad subystems
from a player standpoint it would make t3s a LOT more expensive since you would optimally fit 10rigs probably all t2 but it would give an amazing amount of customization options

all in all I like it =)
but the technical hurdle will make it impossible since the fitting window can't even display 10 rigs and making each subsystem its own ship or something would probably be a lot of work

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-05-12 12:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Jezza McWaffle wrote:
I'd rather they just buff all the sub systems and get rid of rigs all together.


This.

Crazy KSK wrote:
but the technical hurdle will make it impossible since the fitting window can't even display 10 rigs and making each subsystem its own ship or something would probably be a lot of work


"Technical hurdle" is a term describing laziness and lack of imagination. Where there's a will (and knowledge), there's a way.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#8 - 2014-05-12 13:11:53 UTC
Much better to remove rigs all together. This would fix the over the top ehp a lot of them have without really needing to change much else. They'd also be able to be switched around easily without having to base anything around rigs.