These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ideas about ship fitting mechanics
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Umino Iruka
#1 - 2014-10-29 03:34:24 UTC
The things I am about to mention/propose in here will probably earn me a lot of flak from the community, so I would appreciate if people who comment this actually read the whole thing - here it goes...



I've been playing with ship fittings for a long time now and I've noticed some things that really make no sense to me.


You can hear the statement "bigger is not better in EvE" quite a lot, but in practice, the majority of players always trains for something bigger (mostly battleships, battlecruisers and some of the useful t2 cruisers). Why? Because bigger IS actually better in EvE, not necessarily because of more dps or bigger buffer, but because of more customization options which simply means more fitting slots.

Who ever tried to fit a frigate, destroyer or even a t1 cruiser knows what I'm talking about - it's a nightmare, even if you're a maxed out pilot, you simply lack the fitting slots to build something decent and even t2 ships often suffer from the same problem.

When it comes to fitting slots, things are as follows (these numbers are without counting rig slots and apply for t1,t2,navy and pirate ships):
BS's 19-20
BC's 16-17
cruisers 13-15 (t3 ships have around 16, depending on the subsystem configuration)
destroyers 12-14
frigates 10-12


Let's face it, all destroyers and frigates that are not cov ops, or e-war oriented are just another form of tackle, nothing more - their dps is horrible, and even if you wanted to fit some kind of damage mods to get some dps out of it, you are either screwed by the horrible lack of CPU (t2 damage mods are murder on frigate/destroyer CPU) or the lack of fitting slots. All you can do is fit as much tank as you can, stick with the tackling role, and hope you won't die if someone looks at you the wrong way.


It's a bit easier with cruisers,but not much. Some cruisers also have a different problem - when was the last time anyone saw a shield tanked e-war platform? All e-war cruisers, even T2 ones have the least fitting slots available in their respective categories, not to mention some of them have these useless damage bonuses like the falcon for example - 3 turret slots and 5% per caldari cruiser skill.....seriously? The only thing that is that much useless are those 15m3 drone bays on some ships!

And yes, before you start barking at me, I know recons have not been balanced yet, but that's beside the point - my point here is a broken e-war fitting mechanic and a horrible lack of fitting slots. Of all the e-war cruisers out there, only Pilgrim has more than 4 low slots - and every single e-war ship in the game is armor tanked - Scorpion BS is an exception to this in some rare cases! Ask yourselves, why are Jamgu's so popular? Simple - it takes more than just harsh language for it to explode.

Logistics cruisers are also horribly lacking when it comes to fitting in general - not just fitting slots, but PG and CPU aswell. Is it really good game design when the main logistics ship in the game can't be fitted without 2 powergrid rigs for it's designated role? And The logistics ship that specializes in tracking links cannot really fit any outside of a controlled PvE enviroment?


Battlecruisers are closest to battleships in terms of fitting slots but they too are somewhat lacking - what ever you want to do with them, you are always lacking that little something extra to make it work well (it's one of the reasons why battlecruisers in general are capable of doing higher level PvE, but in fact just suck at it compared to battleships).



Why can't all ships have 20 fitting slots?

Think about it for a moment - maximum possible dps would not change (number of guns/launchers is fixed as well as PG and CPU, and stacking penalties of damage modules prevent abuse anyway. Wouldn't it be nice to fit a frigate/destroyer/cruiser with tank as well as some gank? Or maybe fit them well enough to do higher level PvE without the pilot being frowned upon when looking for a fleet?

Try not to misunderstand me here, I am not looking for ships that can fit EVERYTHING and be perfect in every aspect - I would like to see a game where even these smaller ships have a place on the battlefield without being there just to tackle and die horribly - such a thing would go a long way in encouraging new players to participate in PvP before they train up for "something proper", but it would also encourage more casual carnage from the feeling you have a decent ship rather than a half-ass fitted bath tub that you know is gonna be useless or almost useless in a fight. Also, this would affect many PvP engagements in a way that the fight would last longer - ships would die slower or the remote reps would hold, and as a result, other tactics would come more into play like neuting and e-war.

In the end, I believe this would change PvP experience for the better.
Umino Iruka
#2 - 2014-10-29 03:34:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Umino Iruka
There is one other thing that I feel would change things for the better.

Lots of shield oriented ships in the game are a real disaster to fit mainly because of the lack of fitting slots of course, but also because medium slots are used for too many important things - prop mods, warp jammers, webs, cap boosters, e-war modules...

So, how about moving all propulsion jamming modules, and all e-war modules to high slots?

How? Well, all combat oriented ships would have to be adjusted to have at least 2 free high slots (by free I mean slots that are not weapon hardpoints) - I don't think this would be a problem because ship dps bonuses could easily be adjusted to compensate for any lost turrets on any ship.

Why? Because it would allow for better fitting options - more tank for shield ships (they are seriously lacking in buffer) and simpler usage of tracking comps, sensor boosters, ECCM, cap boosters and batteries...

E-war ships would no longer need to have those silly dmg bonuses and would not have to be armor tanked, PvE ships could easily have a point fitted to be PvP ready at any time (adding some actual risk to solo gankers?)




What are your thoughts?
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2014-10-29 03:59:34 UTC
No. Most of what you have a problem with works pretty well.

On a long enough timeline, the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#4 - 2014-10-29 04:05:26 UTC
Frigate fits are typically some of the cleanest and most optimized fits, because the very lack of slots you complain about creates a strong focus and tight constraints create creative fittings. On the other end, you see battleships with fits that just *BOGGLE* the mind as to what sort of boosters the dude that created it was on when they came up with it, and frequently these fits are complete rubbish. This sort of fitting to fill the ships slots, rather than as a way to actually fill roles effectively, is one of the worst trends I see amongst newer players or players from more traditional MMOs.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#5 - 2014-10-29 04:14:23 UTC
Finds broken record, fires it up on record player......

If you are looking at a ship that has you going if I just had one more slot I'd be uber chances are real good ccp had that by design after internal testing.

CCP balances by slot layout put another way.



Also utitlity highs are something ccp controls for many reasons. Your second idea could bring back dual neut o cane potentially for example. People whined they were op. I flew them and have to say....they had reason to whine lol. CCP went so far as to nerf high slots and grid to make this go away. Give back the 2 slots...people might find a way to overcome the grid real fast. Currently they fight the slots and grid so forget about it.



ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#6 - 2014-10-29 04:47:19 UTC
Umino Iruka wrote:
You can hear the statement "bigger is not better in EvE" quite a lot, but in practice, the majority of players always trains for something bigger (mostly battleships, battlecruisers and some of the useful t2 cruisers). Why? Because bigger IS actually better in EvE, not necessarily because of more dps or bigger buffer, but because of more customization options which simply means more fitting slots.

Nuuuuuuuuuu...

The reason people train up to use bigger ships is because, when used in sufficient numbers with "good tactics," bigger ships are basically "wrecking balls" that are good at smashing up infrastructure and fighting groups that MUST defend (and not run away).
Smaller ships are the opposite... being quite bad for structure warfare (unless used in large numbers) and quite good at running down targets.

Umino Iruka wrote:
Who ever tried to fit a frigate, destroyer or even a t1 cruiser knows what I'm talking about - it's a nightmare, even if you're a maxed out pilot, you simply lack the fitting slots to build something decent and even t2 ships often suffer from the same problem.

What is the problem with having to be creative with your fit? This was by design.

Pro-tip: you are not supposed to fit the best of everything. You have to make tradeoffs. Even big ships have to do this... though, you don't see it as much when fitting such a ship because their design already rolls their weaknesses into their stats (see: they largely give up speed and mobility).


Umino Iruka wrote:
Let's face it, all destroyers and frigates that are not cov ops, or e-war oriented are just another form of tackle, nothing more - their dps is horrible, and even if you wanted to fit some kind of damage mods to get some dps out of it, you are either screwed by the horrible lack of CPU (t2 damage mods are murder on frigate/destroyer CPU) or the lack of fitting slots. All you can do is fit as much tank as you can, stick with the tackling role, and hope you won't die if someone looks at you the wrong way.

So ~150-200 dps is "bad" for a frigate that costs around 10 mil (with T2 fittings) and can pick and choose its fights more easily that most other ships in the game?

Speed and mobility IS your tank. You don't NEED to slap on as much armor or shields as you can (though, going in undertanked is a bad idea too).


Umino Iruka wrote:
It's a bit easier with cruisers,but not much. Some cruisers also have a different problem - when was the last time anyone saw a shield tanked e-war platform?

... (snip)...

my point here is a broken e-war fitting mechanic and a horrible lack of fitting slots. Of all the e-war cruisers out there, only Pilgrim has more than 4 low slots - and every single e-war ship in the game is armor tanked - Scorpion BS is an exception to this in some rare cases! Ask yourselves, why are Jamgu's so popular? Simple - it takes more than just harsh language for it to explode.

The Lachesis would like a word with you (people shield tank it).

And yes... the current meta for Ewar ships is basic armor tank in the lows (if even that) and load up the mids with Ewar. But having more slots isn't going to change that. It will just allow people to load up on even more Ewar AND put on a stiff armor tank (though... the meta will still be that Ewar ships stay far, far away from the field of battle because anyone worth his/her salt will gun for the Ewar ships FIRST).

Then again... the lack of tanking ability (or low slots in this case) might actually be part of their overall intended design. After all... they have the potential to be VERY powerful force multipliers.


Umino Iruka wrote:
Logistics cruisers are also horribly lacking when it comes to fitting in general - not just fitting slots, but PG and CPU aswell. Is it really good game design when the main logistics ship in the game can't be fitted without 2 powergrid rigs for it's designated role? And The logistics ship that specializes in tracking links cannot really fit any outside of a controlled PvE enviroment?

Wait... you want to make Logi even MORE powerful than it currently is????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Get out.



Why can't all ships have 20 fitting slots?

For the simple reasons of...

- you should have to make hard choices when fitting a ship (again, with big ships the choices have already been made for you before you open up the fitting window).
- some ships already have built in strengths that make them quite good.
- it will only increase the capacity for min/maxing.
- it upsets the delicate balance between ship classes.

How did you Veterans start?
Sigras
Conglomo
#7 - 2014-10-29 05:30:09 UTC
There are a few problems with your proposal. The first is that armor tankers are not limited by CPU/PG, armor plating costs 1 PG and 0 CPU.

This would give armor tanking frigates and destroyers a massive advantage over everything else.

The second is your complaint about shield tankers. You claim that too much important stuff goes into mid slots, so shield tanking is at a disadvantage. Current fitting wisdom says that this is untrue. Power Diagnostic Systems and Damage controls benefit shield tanks from a low slot, and Damage mods are also fit down there. Most skirmish ships are only fit with a prop mod and a warp scrambler.

Why is a hurricane fit as a shield tanker when it has 4 mids and 6 lows? Even the talos gets a shield fit with 4 mids and 5 lows. In fact the only ships I can think of who are armor tankers without an armor bonus or 3 more lows than mids are recon ships (and the scorpion/widow) because they have a specific role for their mids.

The evidence shows that spare mids are far more useful than spare lows because spare mids can be farmed out to dedicated ships where the lows must be on each ship to make a difference IE you can have dedicated tackle ships to replace your warp scramblers, but nothing on any other ship helps your damage.
Umino Iruka
#8 - 2014-10-29 16:56:28 UTC
Quote:
Also utitlity highs are something ccp controls for many reasons. Your second idea could bring back dual neut o cane potentially for example. People whined they were op. I flew them and have to say....they had reason to whine lol. CCP went so far as to nerf high slots and grid to make this go away. Give back the 2 slots...people might find a way to overcome the grid real fast. Currently they fight the slots and grid so forget about it.


The only reason why utility high's are watched over carefully is the ability to fit vamps/neuts - currently, there is nothing really useful to fit there other than that, but all that would change if all 4 types of e-war mods + points and webs could be fitted in high slots. Then, you would have to make a choice - 2 utility highs = 2 neuts? or maybe a point and a neut? or a point and a web?


Quote:
The reason people train up to use bigger ships is because, when used in sufficient numbers with "good tactics," bigger ships are basically "wrecking balls" that are good at smashing up infrastructure and fighting groups that MUST defend (and not run away).
Smaller ships are the opposite... being quite bad for structure warfare (unless used in large numbers) and quite good at running down targets.

What is the problem with having to be creative with your fit? This was by design.

Pro-tip: you are not supposed to fit the best of everything. You have to make tradeoffs. Even big ships have to do this... though, you don't see it as much when fitting such a ship because their design already rolls their weaknesses into their stats (see: they largely give up speed and mobility).



The only real connections between structure grinding and large ships is their dps and damage projection, and the real reason large ships are used is their ability to HOLD THE FIELD! And holding the field is what makes you a winner or a loser in PvP. Why can they hold the field AND deal dmg? Fitting slots, plain and simple.

Pro-tip: Smaller ships also have their strengths rolled into their stats (see: they are more mobile and agile), that is what balances the huge difference between dps and ehp, but it is no reason to screw up the fitting options on smaller ships!


Quote:
So ~150-200 dps is "bad" for a frigate that costs around 10 mil (with T2 fittings) and can pick and choose its fights more easily that most other ships in the game?

Speed and mobility IS your tank. You don't NEED to slap on as much armor or shields as you can (though, going in undertanked is a bad idea too).


150-200 dps is not a bad thing, the bad thing is that you can achieve that on non-blaster frigates only by going full ****** with the fit (we're talking about those 10mil t1 frigates here). Picking and choosing your fights is all fine, but speed and mobility is your tank ONLY when it comes to getting to your target - once you get close enough to shoot, a web and a neut will reduce your speed tank to 0 and you just die horribly.



Quote:
The Lachesis would like a word with you (people shield tank it).

And yes... the current meta for Ewar ships is basic armor tank in the lows (if even that) and load up the mids with Ewar. But having more slots isn't going to change that. It will just allow people to load up on even more Ewar AND put on a stiff armor tank (though... the meta will still be that Ewar ships stay far, far away from the field of battle because anyone worth his/her salt will gun for the Ewar ships FIRST).

Then again... the lack of tanking ability (or low slots in this case) might actually be part of their overall intended design. After all... they have the potential to be VERY powerful force multipliers.


After you fit a prop mod, 2 points and 2 sensor dampeners you are left with 2 medium slots for tank - if you use the low slots and rig slots for tank aswell, you get 20-25k EHP ship with ~ 55% resists (kinetic is 80 because of the natural resist profile) - that is not a tank, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

The current meta is not what defines ship layout, it's the other way around. More fitting slots alone would not change that, I agree, that is why I proposed here that all e-war modules should be placed in high slots which would allow the ship to be fitted either shield or armor, and it would make those silly gun/missile hardpoints and dmg bonuses even more useless than they already are.

Do you know why tanked Jamgu's are the current meta in WH space? Or why do dps Legions and brawling command ships fit e-war mods into their free medium slots? Fleet cohesion and the need to keep e-war alive and well in an engagement. The community itself is showing that paper thin e-war is not really desirable.

Quote:
Wait... you want to make Logi even MORE powerful than it currently is????


As far as Logi are concerned, their "power" could easily be adjusted by increasing their sig radius.


- you should have to make hard choices when fitting a ship (again, with big ships the choices have already been made for you before you open up the fitting window). - The only ship choices that are already chosen for you are those in small ships with very little fitting slots, unless you find full ****** fits to be good game design.

- some ships already have built in strengths that make them quite good. - irrelevant

- it will only increase the capacity for min/maxing. - Min/maxing is the difference between good and bad players, the difference between planners and those who don't plan ahead - more fitting slots only means more room for innovative fits

- it upsets the delicate balance between ship classes. - there is no "delicate balance", there are ships you use, and ships you don't use because they either suck, or you can't fit them well - sometimes both
Umino Iruka
#9 - 2014-10-29 17:14:09 UTC
Quote:
There are a few problems with your proposal. The first is that armor tankers are not limited by CPU/PG, armor plating costs 1 PG and 0 CPU.

This would give armor tanking frigates and destroyers a massive advantage over everything else.

The second is your complaint about shield tankers. You claim that too much important stuff goes into mid slots, so shield tanking is at a disadvantage. Current fitting wisdom says that this is untrue. Power Diagnostic Systems and Damage controls benefit shield tanks from a low slot, and Damage mods are also fit down there. Most skirmish ships are only fit with a prop mod and a warp scrambler.

Why is a hurricane fit as a shield tanker when it has 4 mids and 6 lows? Even the talos gets a shield fit with 4 mids and 5 lows. In fact the only ships I can think of who are armor tankers without an armor bonus or 3 more lows than mids are recon ships (and the scorpion/widow) because they have a specific role for their mids.

The evidence shows that spare mids are far more useful than spare lows because spare mids can be farmed out to dedicated ships where the lows must be on each ship to make a difference IE you can have dedicated tackle ships to replace your warp scramblers, but nothing on any other ship helps your damage.



Adaptive plates have much lower resistances and shield ships offer more cpu than armor boats so no, there would be no massive advantage over everything else.

Shield fitted ships with power diagnostics are either capital ships or a failed attempt to fit a shield tank on an e-war platform - shield combat ships do not fit power diagnostics to further their tank.

Hurricane, Talos and even Thorax are prime examples of a fail shield tank, you fit a prop mod, a long point and 2 shield extenders 99% of the time, and call it "tanked" - it's not a tank, it's a paper thin illussion and only works to certain extent on t2 minmatar ships because their shield resist profile is more or less uniform without any large resist holes to plug

I don't really understand your point with that last paragraph, but I think you missed the part where I proposed all e-war and points+webs should be fitted in high slots, not medium slots....