These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Hull Hitpoint Rigs

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scout Esterhazy
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2014-05-02 20:00:54 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.



I support this product and or service

+1
Merlin Sotken
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#142 - 2014-05-02 20:01:38 UTC
Anslo wrote:
El Space Mariachi wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.


powers may be a goonNOOB but he is correct. Compromise is a cornerstone of Eve.


HTFU



spoken like a true pubby
michael chasseur
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2014-05-02 20:02:46 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.


rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?
Ogast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#144 - 2014-05-02 20:02:57 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.
Batzi Butzi
Lumberjack Industries
#145 - 2014-05-02 20:04:37 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.
Zadus Rejan
Kernel of War
Goonswarm Federation
#146 - 2014-05-02 20:04:37 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.
michael chasseur
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2014-05-02 20:06:28 UTC
Merlin Sotken wrote:
Anslo wrote:
El Space Mariachi wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.


powers may be a goonNOOB but he is correct. Compromise is a cornerstone of Eve.


HTFU



spoken like a true pubby


:cripes:
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#148 - 2014-05-02 20:06:49 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Ok, so these confirm that there will be T2 freighters, and that they will have rig slots, but possibly no mod slots.


close enough ;)
Subhelios
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#149 - 2014-05-02 20:07:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Subhelios
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.


As a fellow member of the Space Mohawk Crew (Miniluv membership notwithstanding) I am required to endorse this post and idea.
Trish Tokila
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#150 - 2014-05-02 20:07:18 UTC
michael chasseur wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.


rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?


Because currently the drawback is a CPU penalty -- which is not a drawback on a ship that needs exactly 0 CPU
Merlin Sotken
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#151 - 2014-05-02 20:09:13 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.



+1
Andy Koraka
State War Academy
Caldari State
#152 - 2014-05-02 20:13:23 UTC
michael chasseur wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.


rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?


Because a max velocity penalty on a Freighter isn't a penalty at all, since nothing they do in space is affected by it. They're still going to align and warp at the same speed with or without tanking rigs.
Serragord
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#153 - 2014-05-02 20:15:44 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.



plz this
Busje Komt Zo
Antwerpse Kerels
#154 - 2014-05-02 20:17:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Busje Komt Zo
I don't think extra penalties are necessary.

If somebody equips cargohold rigs they'll carry more... meaning more loot might drop.
And if somebody equips hull rigs they might carry more valuable stuff... meaning higher value loot.

Quite frankly for 1 bil+ ISK ships the freighters were in for a bit of a buff, they were just a tad to easy to gank. I'm sure that after the change they'll still be relatively easy to gank, it will just require a bit more effort.
Sarah Flynt
Red Cross Mercenaries
Silent Infinity
#155 - 2014-05-02 20:17:37 UTC
Trish Tokila wrote:
michael chasseur wrote:
rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?


Because currently the drawback is a CPU penalty -- which is not a drawback on a ship that needs exactly 0 CPU

CCP Fozzie wrote:
These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with the same speed decrease penalty as trimarks. They will be available in all sizes.
Emphasis is mine.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Powers Sa
#156 - 2014-05-02 20:19:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Powers Sa
michael chasseur wrote:

rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?

It's not miniluv, its just the concept in general. Freighters/Industrials/Orcas/etc already align slow and warp slow. Increasing that slowness really goes unnoticed.

I own a freighter and a jump freighter, and I move more M3 than most of the freighter pilots in this thread. I do logistics for a squad of 300 active dudes constantly moving hulls and module to various far fetched deployment zones. I know you know a lot about this game, but I understand these mechanics and the player habits really well, trust me. I usually get a buddy to follow me around with a webbing daredevil or rapier to make things go quicker, because I understand that eve is social and should be played a certain way if you'd like to go quicker.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Burneddi
Avanto
Hole Control
#157 - 2014-05-02 20:56:37 UTC
Sarah Flynt wrote:
Trish Tokila wrote:
michael chasseur wrote:
rigs already have drawbacks, why should they change them just to make MiniLuv happy?


Because currently the drawback is a CPU penalty -- which is not a drawback on a ship that needs exactly 0 CPU

CCP Fozzie wrote:
These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with the same speed decrease penalty as trimarks. They will be available in all sizes.
Emphasis is mine.


Wouldn't sub-warp speed decrease be almost completely irrelevant on freighters? Well, aside from when you autopilot.

Especially if they don't reduce freighter base cargo space, there'll be practically no reason to ever fit anything but the hull rigs on a regular freighter. Jump freighters would obviously benefit greatly from the cargo rigs, but the lack of increased hull HP wouldn't hurt them nearly as much either.
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
#158 - 2014-05-02 21:39:11 UTC
Are we actually getting closer to an Age of legitimate Hull tanking? Ofcourse Hull reppers would need a massive overhaul... But this is interesting.

P.s. Why on Earth would this Addition makes think it was replacing Tri-mark rigs???

Whomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my Autocannons 
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#159 - 2014-05-02 22:02:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.


yeah i agree with this

and remember, the penalty can still be halved by skilling astro rigging.

edit-

if ppl care, i have a freighter fleet and i protect my freighters with preparation and effort.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Powers Sa
#160 - 2014-05-02 22:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Powers Sa
Burneddi wrote:

Wouldn't sub-warp speed decrease be almost completely irrelevant on freighters? Well, aside from when you autopilot.

Especially if they don't reduce freighter base cargo space, there'll be practically no reason to ever fit anything but the hull rigs on a regular freighter. Jump freighters would obviously benefit greatly from the cargo rigs, but the lack of increased hull HP wouldn't hurt them nearly as much either.

You're already the slowest warping ship in the game. What does going a little slower really matter? It doesn't. Therefore it doesn't force any compromise.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.