These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Add neut range rigs
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#21 - 2014-03-10 16:30:56 UTC
Batelle wrote:
If you think 20% range for a single t1 rig is anywhere close to balanced then you're all high.

This ship modification is designed to increase the optimal range for all energy emission modules.

t1, 15% Calibration: 100
t2, 20% Calibration: 200

Drawback: Increases activation cost of modules requiring the energy emissions skill by 10%.

just kidding, how about powergrid instead? Or like all the other energy rigs, no drawback at all.

Gizz is mostly right on all counts. This would be pretty strong on neut ships. However, I'm not so worried about non-neut ships fitting this just to extend the range of a single neut. If you want to gimp yourself to be better prepared against tacklers, there's lots of ways to do that already.


To be honest, I too was thinking of an added activation cost is a drawback. I think this could be very reasonable, making ships less difficult to manage capwise when neuting.


King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#22 - 2014-03-10 16:42:55 UTC  |  Edited by: King Rothgar
Enter the curse with a single large faction neut and 2 neut range rigs.Lol

Seriously though, I see no reason not to add this in a +15% or +20% form. The above extreme example wouldn't be very practical, though great for trolling.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
Clementina
University of Caille
#23 - 2014-03-10 22:48:47 UTC
I like this idea. 50% might be too strong like most of you people said but a neut range rig with greater than 10% range but less than 33% would make people choose between neut ability and tanking. Some would choose one and some would choose the other.
Johnny Peace
Probability Directive
Rote Works
#24 - 2014-03-10 23:52:20 UTC
King Rothgar wrote:
Enter the curse with a single large faction neut and 3 neut range rigs.Lol

Seriously though, I see no reason not to add this in a +15% or +20% form. The above extreme example wouldn't be very practical, though great for trolling.


WTB a Curse with 3 rig slots.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#25 - 2014-03-11 00:55:21 UTC
I like this idea if the calibration cost is fairly high and the range increase is in line with other similar effects.

Thinking +20% range/150 cal (T1) and 25%/175 (T2).

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#26 - 2014-03-11 01:46:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


♦ The Pilgrim does not get a range bonus to its neuts. Only a neut amount.

♦ If you are using medium 12km range neuts on a arbitrator or dragoon and you wished its range to be extended to ~24 kms using 3 rigs, each rig would need to boost the range by 25%. While this might not seem like a big deal, this is a HUGE boost to the ships, and pretty difficult to balance IMO. Heavy neuts hitting 50 km's on a normal BS, with geddon neuts would hit 75 kms. To be frank, that's over the top.

♦ What type of drawbacks would be valid for this? Most "Energy Grid Rigs" don't have drawbacks (ACR's, CCCs, Egress Port Maximizers), but this rig absolutely needs drawback given its potency.

To be honest, I think a rig that increases Neut amount would be a hell of a lot easier to balance than a rig that increases neut range.




All good points I can get behind, particularly for the neut amount balance. That might be a little easier to pull off than this one. I think nos is in a pretty good setting right now, and as I stated before, there are many ships that don't put a lot of capacitor into their offense and defense.

To address your very legitimate concern about offsetting the rig, how about this: Have the penalty for drone rigs be switched over to a targeting range nerf (to compensate for processor power being diverted to drone operating efficiency without gimping the core computer to keep in line with military-minded engineering), and have electronic superiority rigs be offset by a CPU reduction.

NOTE: I did forget to mention that I would like this to be an Electronic superiority rig; I apologize for not clarifying this, and will update the OP to fix this.

CPU reduction as a balance to ewar efficacy would be a good place to start from a balance standpoint, and would lend well to balancing ewar since it helps balance the issue with shield tanking ships with ewar mods.

And to clarify, I was aware of the pilgrim's lack of a range bonus; I was speaking strictly in terms of its performance vs ships that don't get a bonus to neuts. I would also revise the original range statement to 15%, and the t2 be 20%. This would help with the balance issue since I was apparently coming up a little short of your projections regarding the dragoon.

I didn't want to have a rig that would increase neut amount, since that would make the ships that already DO get range bonuses even more powerful than they currently are; I'm recommending the range over amount due to my belief that there would be less power creep.

Did that cover your questions and points adequately?
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#27 - 2014-03-12 23:32:08 UTC
Johnny Peace wrote:
King Rothgar wrote:
Enter the curse with a single large faction neut and 3 neut range rigs.Lol

Seriously though, I see no reason not to add this in a +15% or +20% form. The above extreme example wouldn't be very practical, though great for trolling.


WTB a Curse with 3 rig slots.


Me too, typing fail. Corrected.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
Previous page12