These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

New Mining rigs - why no drawbacks?

Author
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#1 - 2012-08-09 00:46:06 UTC
I think this is a bit of a **** up by CCP.

Rigs were originally introduced as a positive modification to your ship at the expense of some negative modification. The only exception being Energy (Capacitor) type rigs.

By making these rigs have no drawbacks but benefitting mining efficiency/speed you're effectively making them the same as modules that will be essential on almost every mining ship (bait ships etc excluded).

Just wondered if CCP would comment on this addition and comment on how they see this fit in with rigs in general in the future. Why have any drawbacks on any rigs anymore then I think is a valid question?

Comment, speculation, abuse all welcome. Cheers.

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#2 - 2012-08-09 00:47:57 UTC
Shield capacity. 'Nuff said.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Doomheim
#3 - 2012-08-09 00:48:20 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Shield capacity. 'Nuff said.


Sig radius bloom.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-08-09 00:48:39 UTC
the drawback is that they preclude the fitting of a shield rig

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#5 - 2012-08-09 00:49:50 UTC
The icon is drawback enough.

/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#6 - 2012-08-09 00:51:28 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
the drawback is that they preclude the fitting of a shield rig


Exactly my point. The choice becomes exactly the same as fitting an extra module in a free slot. Which rigs were never meant to be just additional slots.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7 - 2012-08-09 00:53:03 UTC
Fit a mining rig, lose out on tank.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#8 - 2012-08-09 00:53:52 UTC
Chribba wrote:
The icon is drawback enough.

/c


Heh, but the question is.... have you been able to, or would you put them on the Veldnaught ? Big smile
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-08-09 00:56:26 UTC
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
the drawback is that they preclude the fitting of a shield rig


Exactly my point. The choice becomes exactly the same as fitting an extra module in a free slot. Which rigs were never meant to be just additional slots.


every electronics rig lacks drawbacks, as do PG/capacitor rigs

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#10 - 2012-08-09 00:59:13 UTC
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Chribba wrote:
The icon is drawback enough.

/c


Heh, but the question is.... have you been able to, or would you put them on the Veldnaught ? Big smile

For two - or three reasons I will not.


  1. Can't fit Ice Harvesters
  2. No Mercoxit in Amarr
  3. I need the cargo rigs since Dreads has no Ore bay (yet)


/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#11 - 2012-08-09 01:09:19 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
the drawback is that they preclude the fitting of a shield rig


Exactly my point. The choice becomes exactly the same as fitting an extra module in a free slot. Which rigs were never meant to be just additional slots.


every electronics rig lacks drawbacks, as do PG/capacitor rigs


Energy rigs I already mentioned but yes some of the electronics rigs do have no drawbacks, but then they added the new:

Processor Overclocking Unit I - this adds CPU at the expense of like 5% shield recharge rate.

Another example of inconsistency I'm talking about. why have drawbacks at all on any rigs if CCP are now pushing them out (with consideration to balancing) as if they are just modules to be plugged into 2-3 additional slots?

Rigs were originally intended/introduced as a hard choice of weighing pros and cons. Now they're essential free slots that must be filled, however I recall Oveur saying at time of implementation (parsing from memory) "Rigs will never become madatory [to compete]" - however flying ships without rigs now would be exactly that - more so given more traits of ships are now being modded with rigs WITHOUT any drawbacks.

make sense?
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#12 - 2012-08-09 01:12:25 UTC
Chribba wrote:
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Chribba wrote:
The icon is drawback enough.

/c


Heh, but the question is.... have you been able to, or would you put them on the Veldnaught ? Big smile

For two - or three reasons I will not.


  1. Can't fit Ice Harvesters
  2. No Mercoxit in Amarr
  3. I need the cargo rigs since Dreads has no Ore bay (yet)


/c


Cry This cannot stand! I demand all 3! Big smile
stoicfaux
#13 - 2012-08-09 01:26:31 UTC
The rigs are temporary placeholders until the T3 (actually modular) mining ships are deployed, and they'll be replaced with proper bonus/drawback rigs.


/seriously

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#14 - 2012-08-09 01:30:51 UTC
The problem with drawbacks is, the people fitting the mining ships might need to make choices. Sad
Alyssa Yotosala
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-08-09 02:11:21 UTC
Vyktor Abyss wrote:

Rigs were originally introduced as a positive modification to your ship at the expense of some negative modification.


And this is exactly what CCP has done, your point is moot.

The new rigs have a positive modification to the ship at the expense of the negative modification, just like you said. The expense to the negative modification is so great, that it is completely gone. We now have no negative modification with these new rigs.



Yes? Suddenly realised that what you said is not what you meant due to a poor choice of words?

Next time type what you mean.

Dont like being called out on it?

Tough, you are posting in the EVE Forums, you know what we are like in here, and you knew what you were getting yourself into when you hit the 'Post' button.
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-08-09 02:17:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Urgg Boolean
It's because anything related to ice or mercoxit have mystical properties with no drawbacks.

Actually, I think there are no drawbacks because these rigs are replacements for the old ship bonuses, which had no drawbacks...

The negative drawback is that you must displace a tanking rig if you use one of the specialization rigs.
Ohanka
#17 - 2012-08-09 02:19:26 UTC
I hate this thread.

North Korea is Best Korea

Mushu V
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2012-08-09 02:26:57 UTC
they have no drawbacks because they are meant to replace the old role bonus's at the expense of those rig slots
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#19 - 2012-08-09 06:10:33 UTC
It's not that strange seeing as how they're meant to bring back the ship specialisations that were previously inherent in the hulls, and those bonuses came without any particular drawbacks. I suppose that, if they wanted to be mean, they could make it so that adding a [special space-rock]-bonus rig would create a penalty on other forms of mining, just to hammer that specialisation angle home: fit your Hulk with an ice rig and it becomes horrid for rock mining…

…but it's all really just a duplication of previous mechanics using a different system that makes every mining ship (somewhat) equally useful by default.
Alara IonStorm
#20 - 2012-08-09 06:17:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
I hope they scrap all rig penalties altogether. They shoe horn Astro Rigs and Elec Rigs, and the penalties to tank rigs screw up armor pretty bad and the shield penalties disproportionately effect small ships. No one cares what size a Drake is.
12Next page