These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Auxiliary Drone Bay
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-12-07 18:57:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Cebraio
Edit: tl;dr - for the lazy:
- Low slot modules are giving drone bay size, have drawbacks like cargo expanders.
- Hi slots are giving bandwidth (and drone control range) via Drone Link Augmentors (they use CPU)
- Rigs can give either bonus, but to a smaller extent. Rigs also have other drawbacks: Since they are drone rigs, they reduce total CPU.

Introduction
Yes, it's this time of the year again. I'm sure this suggestion has come up a few times already but from what I saw, the suggestions are either six years old (1, 2) or not very elaborated (1, 2). Now with CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise working on spaceships, this may be a good time to think about it with a fresh start.


The proposal
I'm proposing variants of a new module (+rig) for an auxiliary drone bay (aptly named so) together with a change on the Drone Link Augmentor (and a new rig), to increase the drone bay size and drone bandwidth. This would work on any ship - if it has drones already or not - but would come with a lot of drawbacks to keep it balanced.

At first, I thought about making one module that offers both: Drone Bay and Bandwidth. But I've come to the conclusion that this may be overpowered and lead to many fits just having a small drone bay added, because it doesn't hurt.

So I came up with the split approach of having a low slot module (+rig) for the drone bay and a high slot module (+rig) for the bandwidth. The high slot module is the existing Drone Link Augmentor - unchanged except for the added bandwidth.
Bandwidth is the main balancing consideration I found, so I tried not to throw around a lot of it.

The drawbacks are derived from existing modules and rigs with similar functions, such as existing cargo and drone rigs and modules.

The stats - Drone Bay Size

New module: Auxiliary Drone Bay I
Increases a ships drone bay size or adds a drone bay to a ship which does not have a drone bay.
Note: Your ship may also need increased drone bandwidth to operate the drones.

+10 Drone Bay Size
-10% Speed
-12.5% Structure HP
Requires a low power slot

New module: Auxiliary Drone Bay II
+17.5 Drone Bay Size
-5% Speed
-5% Structure HP
Requires a low power slot

New modules: Meta 1 - 4 Auxiliary Drone Bays
Have various size bonuses between 10 and 17.5 and various speed and structure maluses in between.

New rig: Drone Bay Optimization I
+10 Drone Bay Size
-10% Armor Edit: Should be -10% CPU

New rig: Drone Bay Optimization II
+15 Drone Bay Size
-10% Armor Edit: Should be -10% CPU


The stats - Bandwidth

Module change: Drone Link Augmentor I
+7.5 Drone Bandwidth
Unchanged:
+20km Drone Control Range
50 CPU
1 PG
Requires a high power slot

Module change: Drone Link Augmentor II
+10 Drone Bandwidth
Unchanged:
+24km Drone Control Range
55 CPU
1 PG
Requires a high power slot

Module change: Black Eagle Drone Link Augmentor (Storyline module; goes for 200m isk)
+15 Drone Control Bandwidth
Unchanged:
+26km Drone Control Range
45 CPU
1 PG
Requires a high power slot

New rig: Drone Bandwidth Augmentor I
+7.5 Drone Bandwidth
-10% CPU

New rig: Drone Bandwidth Augmentor II
+10 Drone Bandwidth
-10% CPU

I think these changes can add more variety to all kinds of fittings - comedy fittings or genuine new approaches - without making them overpowered. You won't just turn a ship without a drone bay into a heavy drone boat and you won't be able to pimp a drone boat without seriously affecting your tank or other aspects of the fit. For more details on that, check the next post.

Keep in mind, that the drone limit of 5 still applies, even if you can get more than 125 bandwidth.


Edit: I have updated the drawbacks on the drone bay size rigs. As they are also drone rigs (and not cargo rigs) they should have a drone-riggish drawback. Like other drone rigs: -10% CPU
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-12-07 18:58:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Cebraio
As said before, fitting those modules will not turn any ship into a heavy drone boat without serious drawbacks.
I have thought about different ships and fittings to see how things could turn out. Here are some examples:

Dominix, Ishtar, Vexor Navy Issue - you don't really gain anything, except some more space to resupply drones.

Vexor - 3 T2 rigs and 2 T2 highs would allow the Vexor to field 5 heavy drones. Alternatively 3 T1 rigs and 4 T1 modules would do the same (at 200 CPU cost and a CPU malus).

Taranis - A Taranis could go for a full flight of small drones by fitting a low slot and two high slots, or a low slot and two rigs. Add a Drone Damage Amplifier and you may have a new drone fit that's actually useful.

Wolf - With two low slots and two T2 rigs it could field 4 small drones.

Ishkur, Worm - An Ishkur or Worm could field 5 medium drones by using two rigs and a high slot.

Drake - A drake would need two low slots in addition to tree rigs (or two rigs and a high slot), to be able to field unbonussed medium drones.

Stabber Fleet Issue - An SFI could add a T1 low slot module and a T2 rig to get another medium drone, to make it 5.

Cynabal - 5 heavy drones on a Cynabal? Just sacrifice 3 rigs, at least 4 highs and 5 lows for it ... or better don't.

Prophecy - A prophecy could control 5 heavies or sentries, by fitting 3 T2 rigs and two T2 high slot modules. Alternatively it could use the rigs for tank and fit 4 (storyline) or 5 highs (at high CPU cost).

Raven - You could turn a Raven into a 5x heavy drone boat, but you would have to use 3 low slots, 3 rigs and 4 or more high slots. Those rigs need to be T2, or you have to fit Storyline mods in the high slots. So, it would be quite expensive and still you'd be worse than a Dominx, without the extra drone space and damage bonus.
A less drastical change could be to add two low slot modules for some medium drones and a flight of salvage drones.

Megathron - Similar to the Raven, you'd need 3 low slots but "only" 3 rigs and two high slots.

Gnosis - To be honest, I had this ship in mind when I first thought about the changes. It would simply rock as a heavy drone or sentry boat. Like the Raven it would have to fit 3 lows, 3 rigs and at least 4 highs but it comes with a 50% drone damage bonus. I guess this is the only real balancing issue, but it's more a matter of lowering the ridiculously high drone damage bonus of that ship.

Guardian-Vexor - Undock it and bring it on!

I think it's clear where I'm getting at: Some small and medium drone ships could benefit greatly from this while the dedicated big drone ships don't get buffed. Other ships with small or no drone bays could mix in some drones, but will never be as powerfull as a dedicated drone boat. In total, it will bring more variety to fittings.

I am aware that there is an ongoing discussion about sentry drones and drone assist mechanics, so this may seem like a bad time to cry for moar drones, but I think those issues need to be addressed seperately (at the same time?).
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-12-07 19:00:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Cebraio
Edit 10-Dec-13: I have updated the drawbacks on the drone bay size rigs. As they are also drone rigs (and not cargo rigs) they should have a drone-riggish drawback. Like other drone rigs: -10% CPU
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#4 - 2013-12-07 19:32:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
"...or adds a drone bay to a ship that does not have one"

Absolutely not. This handcuffs the devs to having to balance every ship around possibly having a drone bay greatly increasing their balancing headaches and player bellyaching about whether certain ships should have a drone bay.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-12-07 19:49:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Cebraio
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"...or adds a drone bay to a ship that does not have one"

Absolutely not. This handcuffs the devs to having to balance every ship around possibly having a drone bay greatly increasing their balancing headaches and player bellyaching about whether certain ships should have a drone bay.

I understand your point, but I think the balancing comes with the modules and rigs: CPU limitation, speed, structure, armor and the many slots required to fit these things should take care of the balancing. Also, a drone bay and some bandwidth alone don't make a good drone ship. You'll also want damage amps etc.
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#6 - 2013-12-07 20:23:24 UTC
Why is there no shield penalty despite a faction being completely based off drones and shield tanking?

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#7 - 2013-12-07 20:28:49 UTC
Make it rigs that add 25/50/125 drone bay and another set for 5/10/25 bandwidth and it's going to work.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-12-07 20:38:46 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:
Why is there no shield penalty despite a faction being completely based off drones and shield tanking?

Good point. The Guristas may have an advantage here. The reason for the penalties are: I wanted them to be in line with existing penalties:

Drone rigs: CPU penalty
Cargo rigs: Armor penalty
Drone Link Aug: CPU requirement
Expanded cargohold: Speed and structure penalties (also drone boats usually have lower speeds)

If you check the Guristas, you'll see that it is only a single ship that is not affected by an armor penalty: The Worm.

The other two Guristas ships, the Gila and the Rattlesnake, already have a 400m³ drone bay and 125 bandwidth, so fitting any of the proposed modules or rigs on them wouldn't make much of a difference.
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#9 - 2013-12-07 20:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Cebraio
Abrazzar wrote:
Make it rigs that add 25/50/125 drone bay and another set for 5/10/25 bandwidth and it's going to work.

Abrazzar, as you can see in the second post. I have thought quite a bit about existing ships and fittings. The numbers you propose here seem way too high for the balancing, in my opinion. Big drone bays may still work, but adding high amounts of bandwidth to just any ship will break a lot of things, I guess.

Maybe I was too cautious with my numbers, but if this ever goes life, it will be a big change.

Edit: Also, you probably mean rig bonuses by the size S/M/L. Currently, all rigs of a type give the same bonus, no matter the size. So this would break with the current scheme of things a bit.

Thank you all for your input, btw.
NearNihil
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
#10 - 2013-12-07 21:37:51 UTC
When I saw the thread title I thought "Finally the Zealot can have at least token defence against frigates!".

Then I read the post. Left disappointed.
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-12-07 21:51:19 UTC
:) Well, with two rigs and two low slots you can have frig defense. Final numbers would be up to the CCP experts anyway, so maybe you're lucky and get a better deal from them.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#12 - 2013-12-07 22:12:22 UTC
If not this, then something. You should be able to modify drone usage.

This was a bit tl;dr, but I got the gist of it. I would like to see something that traded bandwidth for space or vice versa. I think losing/using a hard-point would be worth it too. That would build balancing in.

My point is this: you can balance a change like this very easily.
I mean, hey, lets just slap longer reload time on it. :P
Electrique Wizard
Mutually Lucrative Business Proposals
#13 - 2013-12-08 13:35:36 UTC
I like this.

I am the Zodiac, I am the stars, You are the sorceress, my priestess of Mars, Queen of the night, swathed in satin black, Your ivory flesh upon my torture rack.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#14 - 2013-12-08 23:20:56 UTC
For balancing purposes, the design to increase the size of the drone bay should be percentage based instead of a flat rate. This would prevent the rig or module from becoming say overpowered for a maruader to fit, but underwhelming for a vexor. I would see this module being more in line as a rig with drawbacks instead of a module.

For the increase in drone bandwidth I can see this falling in line as a percentage base as well so it scales the same with the current balance of the game. I can also see this as being a lowslot module because it modifies the potential damage you can output.

The other good aspect of changing the drone modifications as described in the OP to percentage based instead of a linear, is we will not see dreads and T3 battlecruisers with drones, and we will see a minimal affect on changing the balance of various ships.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
killer persian
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#15 - 2013-12-09 00:42:58 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"...or adds a drone bay to a ship that does not have one"

Absolutely not. This handcuffs the devs to having to balance every ship around possibly having a drone bay greatly increasing their balancing headaches and player bellyaching about whether certain ships should have a drone bay.

This is eve, if i want to add a drone bay, i damn well wish too, good lord i love this game, but everything is so damn static, all the same ships, look all the same and there is no "personal" touch.
Karma Codolle
Chimera Research and Development
#16 - 2013-12-09 06:54:43 UTC
killer persian wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"...or adds a drone bay to a ship that does not have one"

Absolutely not. This handcuffs the devs to having to balance every ship around possibly having a drone bay greatly increasing their balancing headaches and player bellyaching about whether certain ships should have a drone bay.

This is eve, if i want to add a drone bay, i damn well wish too, good lord i love this game, but everything is so damn static, all the same ships, look all the same and there is no "personal" touch.



If you want more of a personal touch stop fitting based on guides or get a t3
killer persian
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#17 - 2013-12-09 07:32:31 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"...or adds a drone bay to a ship that does not have one"

Absolutely not. This handcuffs the devs to having to balance every ship around possibly having a drone bay greatly increasing their balancing headaches and player bellyaching about whether certain ships should have a drone bay.

Why does EVERYTHING have to be balanced?
Jake Sake
Doomheim
#18 - 2013-12-09 07:36:40 UTC
When I saw the topic I've read it Ancillary Drone BayX
killer persian
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#19 - 2013-12-09 07:42:33 UTC
Karma Codolle wrote:
killer persian wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"...or adds a drone bay to a ship that does not have one"

Absolutely not. This handcuffs the devs to having to balance every ship around possibly having a drone bay greatly increasing their balancing headaches and player bellyaching about whether certain ships should have a drone bay.

This is eve, if i want to add a drone bay, i damn well wish too, good lord i love this game, but everything is so damn static, all the same ships, look all the same and there is no "personal" touch.



If you want more of a personal touch stop fitting based on guides or get a t3


What if I don't want a tech 3? Is that the best you've got?
Just one ship out of hundreds? Thank you.
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-12-10 21:31:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Cebraio
Thank you all for your feedback!

Hopelesshobo wrote:
For balancing purposes, the design to increase the size of the drone bay should be percentage based instead of a flat rate. This would prevent the rig or module from becoming say overpowered for a maruader to fit, but underwhelming for a vexor. I would see this module being more in line as a rig with drawbacks instead of a module.

I have thought about the percentage approach, but I don't find it convincing. You make the example of an underwhelming effect on a Vexor, but I find this is actually positive thing from my OP: My proposed modules will have a higher effect on ships with small drone bays and nearly no effect on ships that are already dedicated drone boats. This is what I was aiming for.

Let's think about a percentage example: The Taranis has 10m³ drone bay. To give it another small drone, you'd have to gain a 50% bonus. Even if you would split that bonus into two modules, you would need 23% per module at least. Let's say we make it 25% bonus per module, for nicer numbers. On a dedicated drone boat with 400m³ this would mean 100m³ extra drone bay for fitting just one module.

Personally I don't like this approach of underwhelming effects on small ships (small drone bays) and overwhelming effects on drone boats.

Hopelesshobo wrote:

For the increase in drone bandwidth I can see this falling in line as a percentage base as well so it scales the same with the current balance of the game. I can also see this as being a lowslot module because it modifies the potential damage you can output.

Yes, it could be a low slot module, for this reason. On the other hand, if you are scarifying high slots for the bandwidth, you already lose some DPS possibilities and you also may have to put some low slot modules for the drone bay size.

Hopelesshobo wrote:

The other good aspect of changing the drone modifications as described in the OP to percentage based instead of a linear, is we will not see dreads and T3 battlecruisers with drones, and we will see a minimal affect on changing the balance of various ships.

The Talos already has a drone bay, why not fit other Tier3s, if you want? I also don't see a problem with dreads gaining a small drone bay (again). You won't be able to fit a large drone bay on them, because you would be scarifying a lot of tank or gun damage. It wouldn't make sense.

What you see as a good aspect (preventing ships of getting new drone bays) I see as an arbitrary limitation. If you can fit a drone bay with bandwidth and still make it a good fit, that's great for you! I intentionally want to shake some things up with these possibilities.

Jake Sake wrote:
When I saw the topic I've read it Ancillary Drone BayX

As a non-native speaker, I don't quite get the difference between Auxiliary and Ancillary. To me, the meaning seems to be similar. If Ancillary Drone Bay is better suited for the intended purpose, why not.


Thanks again for your feedback and attention!
12Next page