These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Ship Bonuses, Good or Bad?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#21 - 2013-08-09 15:31:04 UTC
Psycros wrote:
That's an interesting concept to say the least. If you think about it, a ship should be really defined by how big its hull is and, more importantly, how its divided up. How much room does it have for engines and so on? How much cargo space? How much propulsion can it fit? If its a big ship and you want it to still have some pep, its gotta have a good chunk of space devoted to thrusters, gravity controls and other tech of that kind. Not much different from seagoing vessels, honestly. If we're talking about a non-combat military ship (transport, support vessel and so on) it will need to be larger than a civilian version in order to allow for more defensive systems (armor, shield, countermeasures, etc). Rigs or something like them would be the logical way to modify the basic role of a vessel. "Calibration" really represents the concept of, "how much can I modify this hull in a certain way before I break it?" I can see what you're getting at here - way more customization without a huge extra load on the servers. I can certainly get behind that. While we're at it..maybe we should consider the whole idea of "slots" as their currently defined in EVE. I've never really understood why you have low and mid-slot items that do essentially the same job with varying degrees of effectiveness and/or marginally different focus. When I started playing I thought maybe the slot types represented how deeply integrated into the ship they were. It seemed logical since power plant stuff, cargo holds and so on were low slot - that is, pretty fundamental to a ship's performance. Sadly, I soon realized the inconsistency in that theory or any other theory I could come up with. For example, say low slots represent engineering - power, thrust, CPU and other things that are really the "heart" of a spaceship. How am I increasing turret tracking with low mods exactly..boosting power to the aiming servos? Seems like if a ship could aim turrets faster it simply would, and without needing to waste a slot. A targeting computer add-on makes more sense and it lets us pretend that the middle slots are the "command and control" range of equipment. High slots are obviously gear with external connections - weapons, remote reppers and so on. Shield reppers are mid-slot, suggesting their mostly just a series of optimized power relays, frequency modulators and that sort of technobabble. But wait - armor reppers are low slot mods! How can this be, if lows are supposedly the very guts of a ship? Shouldn't armor modules be midslotted as well?? This is when I started wondering if there was any logic behind the slot system at all. Frankly I would like to see each range of slots replaced with a number similar to calibration. You would still have high, mid and low modules but ships would have "zones" instead of slot categories. You'd be able to cram as many modules into the high, mid and low "zones" as the zone allowed for. That limit would be akin to a cargo container's size and each module would have a size as well. How a ship's hull was portioned up between zones would depend on the ship's basic role, the ship design philosophies of its manufacturer and so on. Think of MMOs where they have bags that will only hold certain types of crafting items and you have a good idea of what I'm talking about. Say I want to build the fastest transport in the galaxy. OK, you fill the low zone with power grid and propulsion modules, but now you have minimal room for cargo. So maybe you install a rig that converts part of your mid-zone to low zone, allowing you to put a cargo expander in there. Naturally, this leaves you with less room for defensive systems (which would ALL be mid zone except for defender weapons).

Its a variation on what we already have to be certain, but IMHO a more believable and interesting one.


WOW! Where was the wall of text warning on that or was your Enter Key taking a long vacation? Paragraphs were added for a reason, please try and use them before they are nerfed along with English being evolved in2 txt spk mkay? Gr8 2 c u m8.

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#22 - 2013-08-09 15:32:55 UTC
the ship bonus system is fine. Some bonuses being better than others are part of the balancing, and sometimes these bonuses are rebalanced.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#23 - 2013-08-09 15:47:00 UTC
Bonuses contribute towards particular ships having specific attributes. This is essential. In a PVP environment, the only thing you know about the opponents prior to being on grid with them is which ships they're flying. Right now, there's some uncertainty, but you can usually gauge how they're going to perform.

This is good. It opens up opportunities to make intelligent decisions with regards to engaging vs not engaging, or how you want to approach the fight.


If every ship is excessively customizable then that disappears, and fights become a crapshoot of what the other person happened to have fit.


If there are things which cannot be done with the current ship selection, then it is far better to simply add new ships to fill those roles
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-08-12 19:16:36 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Bonuses contribute towards particular ships having specific attributes. This is essential. In a PVP environment, the only thing you know about the opponents prior to being on grid with them is which ships they're flying. Right now, there's some uncertainty, but you can usually gauge how they're going to perform.

This is good. It opens up opportunities to make intelligent decisions with regards to engaging vs not engaging, or how you want to approach the fight.


If every ship is excessively customizable then that disappears, and fights become a crapshoot of what the other person happened to have fit.


If there are things which cannot be done with the current ship selection, then it is far better to simply add new ships to fill those roles


Actually, I'll use the point you just made to counter point your argument.

Currently ships are underwhelmingly customizable because of the Module Bonuses on each ship's hull. So not only do you know what your ship can go up against but your enemy knows what your ship's capabilities are.

The ability to make "intelligent" decisions as whether or not to engage prevents many engagements. So it is in and of itself a detriment to pvp overall.

Without knowing if the enemy ship is designed to engage smaller targets with damage application bonuses or larger targets with damage output bonuses you then rely on how well you fit your ship and your own personal skill to engage the opponent(s)' ship.

There are pretty much defined roles but because of assumed racial differences some of the Ships over lap in roles.
Maximus Aerelius wrote:

And balance is thrown completely out of the window never to return. No, in the name of the four empires, no.

There is a disparity in the four empires because of ship hull bonuses. Most notably in the BC size. Gallente don't have a fleet worthy ship. And by fleet i mean large full fleet.

And really the only reason the Megathron is Fleet worthy is because they flip-flopped the Hyperion and Mega as combat/attack and gave the Mega the Combat Attributes and the 2 Weapon Bonuses. If the roles were reversed and the Hyperon was the Combat BS with a rep bonus then there would be no Fleet worthy BS for Gallente.

This pretty much proves my point about where bonuses go wrong. But for further customization i believe the rig idea is the best idea.

Really why do we have rigs? They're basically just extra modules. Why not give them some addition purpose? Why not give them the ship bonuses.

From a realism standpoint think about this. Why does one ship have more effective weapons than another? Because of a modification to that ship that is unique? Well arn't rigs just modifications? Should different ships be easier to modify than others, shouldn't attack ships have easier modified weapons? And combat ships more easily modified shield/armor systems?

How about this for a tech III ship idea....

Tech III ships can swap rigs in and out in space without destroying them.

Does that tickle anyone's fancy?
Alundil
Rolled Out
#25 - 2013-08-12 21:21:03 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:

#1 - Without knowing if the enemy ship is designed to engage smaller targets with damage application bonuses or larger targets with damage output bonuses you then rely on how well you fit your ship and your own personal skill to engage the opponent(s)' ship.

#2 - How about this for a tech III ship idea....Tech III ships can swap rigs in and out in space without destroying them.

Does that tickle anyone's fancy?


Numbering mine...

#1 If you see a caracal (for example) on overview/dcsan do you know whether it is looking for small ships or same size ships or larger ships?
Answer: You don't. You can only make assumptions based on historical experience/anecdote of that hull type. Simply because there might be a hull bonus doesn't mean that everyone or even almost everyone will fit with that in mind.
Mrymidons also come to mind for the exact same reasons. Armor bonus on the hull and yet many people don't armor tank them.
These are but a few examples.

#2 This (and other similar) has been suggested a few times. I think it'd would lend itself to the overall idea of T3 flexibility and generalization.

I'm right behind you
Alundil
Rolled Out
#26 - 2013-08-12 21:22:37 UTC
Oh, and "large, full fleet" is not a requirement for balancing, imo. Not every ship has to perform in the same roles/circumstances. That's part of the flavor of EVE. They all have a niche (well most of them anyway).

I'm right behind you
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-08-12 23:29:44 UTC
like the bonuses on another ship, fly that ship instead. problem solved.

Kind of the reason why ccp has several ships per class. and several races. Otherwise ccp has 3 issues.

One is it gets boring. It be one ship model to rule them all and jsut reskinned several times over. This is bad game design.

Second is this would not solve your issue. Your large fleets would still pick the same ships, dictate its rigs and voila....its still the same stuff running around.

Third is balance. How does ccp balance when the same ship is several ships in one. this is the current issue with t3's. Someone says nerf tengu, I ask which sub/mod setup needs nerfing. As I think its safe to say a hybrid tengu is far from op.


the stuff about lack of gallante bc's mentioned above....while it may be due in part to ship stats I tend to see lack of fleet variety also stems from fleet leadership liking cookie cutter setups and pick what fits thier mold.

Example: I started pvp in apocrypha. Your typical bc fleet comp was canes and harbs and a very small number of faildari in drakes (and in apocrypha and before faildari was a cute nickname generally used for caldari). I recall actually showing up to bc fleets and being asked "got anything better than a drake?".

Drake saw no ships changes in dominion and later patches yet somehow drake train came to town. Why? SOme people said wtf, lets spam drakes and see what happens. they liked the results. And more jumped on board.

Why no one has tried this with gallente bc's you'd have to ask the masses. I am not even sure why drake was chosen. IMO its a very average boat. I in fact x-trained out of caldari to fly something else more fun and interesting.


Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-08-13 05:00:17 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Oh, and "large, full fleet" is not a requirement for balancing, imo. Not every ship has to perform in the same roles/circumstances. That's part of the flavor of EVE. They all have a niche (well most of them anyway).

True, but at the very least each different Empire should have a Fleet Doctrine worthy ship of every size. Currently it has to do with the Unreasonable mindset the Devs have about Minmatar and Gallente needing to have Local Rep as their Racial Tank bonus. My whole idea thinger is in regards to bonuses in general but it would also effectively encompass Racial Local rep probs.

Zan Shiro wrote:
like the bonuses on another ship, fly that ship instead. problem solved.

Kind of the reason why ccp has several ships per class. and several races. Otherwise ccp has 3 issues.

One is it gets boring. It be one ship model to rule them all and jsut reskinned several times over. This is bad game design.

Second is this would not solve your issue. Your large fleets would still pick the same ships, dictate its rigs and voila....its still the same stuff running around.

Third is balance. How does ccp balance when the same ship is several ships in one. this is the current issue with t3's. Someone says nerf tengu, I ask which sub/mod setup needs nerfing. As I think its safe to say a hybrid tengu is far from op.


the stuff about lack of gallante bc's mentioned above....while it may be due in part to ship stats I tend to see lack of fleet variety also stems from fleet leadership liking cookie cutter setups and pick what fits thier mold.

Example: I started pvp in apocrypha. Your typical bc fleet comp was canes and harbs and a very small number of faildari in drakes (and in apocrypha and before faildari was a cute nickname generally used for caldari). I recall actually showing up to bc fleets and being asked "got anything better than a drake?".

Drake saw no ships changes in dominion and later patches yet somehow drake train came to town. Why? SOme people said wtf, lets spam drakes and see what happens. they liked the results. And more jumped on board.

Why no one has tried this with gallente bc's you'd have to ask the masses. I am not even sure why drake was chosen. IMO its a very average boat. I in fact x-trained out of caldari to fly something else more fun and interesting.

So you think that the reason the ships are picked for Fleets is just arbitrary? You don't think any of the stats or bonuses have anything to do with the ships being fleet worthy? When was the last time you saw a ship with a Local Rep bonus in a fleet doctrine?

Let me address your 3 Issues in a specific order for a specific purpose.
Your 2nd Issue: That's fine, I'm pretty happy with the most recent turn of events in that Gallente now have a Fleet Worthy BS. Which of course, was a fluke thanks to the crazy Gallente fans in the BS rebalance thread. I wish more ship classes had such luck.

Your 3rd Issue: Easy fix, you nerf either the bonus or the rig. Simple. And luckily Rigs already have a built in balance mechanism. So you don't have to worry too much about it getting out of hand immediately. Also, because of the broad scope of the bonuses, no single ship will be OP because of the specific bonus. Lots of people would be able to utilize it.

Your 1st Issue: I'm assuming you're saying that this idea would leave ships boring by doing the same thing over and over. I saved this issue for last because i wanted to leave an impression as the last thing you read....I'm going to make a comparison to one of the most successful games in history. That game is Diablo 2.

Diablo 2 had 5 classes (or comparatively 5 ships) each with 3 skill trees that provided an almost unlimited amount of customization that never seemed to get old. And as time went on new builds were found over and over again to much success and/or fun. They even added 2 more classes with just as much customization as the rest causing people to have to delete one or more of their 3 of the same class to try out..... Until of course they introduced Synergies. With Synergies the customization grinded to a massive halt. To become most effective you weren't given options to be better but were pretty much forced into the specific Skill Tree you started with. Otherwise you'd become very much ineffective. The game devs sold this as a way to reward players for spending skills early and not saving them for cookie cutter builds. Or in other words catering to the new or not so dedicated players. This of course backfired and extremely effective builds were made by the very dedicated and the new cookie cutter builds were much stronger than before.

The Comparison is this. Each ship is like a class, Rigs are like Skill trees and Ship bonuses are like Synergies. A ship with unlimited fits would not be boring. It would actually be a lot of fun to see how many different fits would work and how effective they'd be. With Rigs you can choose 3 (on most ships) you can choose 1 of 3 different types, you can go all 3 of the same type or you can mix it and be 2-1 and still be very much effective. Buffing Rigs would be a type of mastery. Having the choice between 3 types of rig buffs would be like having a Class system for each ship Though you can still rig outside of your class.

D2 was a great game. Why not build upon the single thing that made it so great?
Previous page12