These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yuri Fedorov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#241 - 2014-05-14 05:56:05 UTC
Marc Callan wrote:
Ouch. I just realized that there's one edge case that would get hurt by a cargohold penalty to bulkhead modules.

An Orca flown by a pilot with ICS IV, with two T2 cargohold rigs and a T1 ACR, can do the DC/bulkhead hull tank, fit a MWD for pulse-to-warp, and carry a battleship in its main cargohold - it's got over 50K of space that way, with a 200K+ EHP tank. With a bulkhead chewing up cargo space instead of slowing the ship down, that possibility is gone.

Which I suspect is part of the point, huh?


This is my exact problem with this change. Looks like t2 cargohold optimizations will be mandatory to even have a hope of keeping the ship the way it is right now. Goodbye 50k m3 hold + awesome tank Cry
Heavy Met4l Queen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#242 - 2014-05-14 06:44:00 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
So. What you've done is simultaneously released an item in game that everyone wanted and also made a majority of the people that would want to use no longer want to do so....

Seriously?


Yes, seriously. i for one welcome the change and believe it to be better than the previous plan. as someone with heavy experience in playing with orcas i'm looking forward to having more variety in fitting options.

Valterra Craven wrote:
None of the combat rigs have what I would call meaningful penalties. Aka increase dps at the expense of alpha, or increase range at the expense of tracking, etc...

I think you should revert this change, or make rig personalities actually meaningful on all rigs instead of continually penalizing indy types for no reason.


I'm not sure how much experience you have at fitting ships for combat, but with that comment i'm going to assume not a lot. please continue being bitter that CCP is destroying industrial ships as you know them, so that you can't have the best of both words in your highsec utopia, as i'm sure it's the only option at your disposal at this point. Pirate

In the game of conquest, who cares about the pawns if the king yet reigns?
Jasmine Assasin
The Holy Rollers
#243 - 2014-05-14 07:58:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jasmine Assasin
One case I know this hurts is packing around a Leopard in a travel fit Nightmare...

The reinforced bulkheads, along with a DCII make a good tank for the low slots and now that they eat cargo space the ability to carry the "run'a'bout" while moving between incursions is gone. Sad

The space was already tight but using crystals instead of conventional ammo made this viable on the NM.

-Edit-
With the 6th low being added to the NM, it'll probably mean it'll be armor tanked with lots of 1600mm plates so oh well.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#244 - 2014-05-14 08:04:29 UTC
Jasmine Assasin wrote:
One case I know this hurts is packing around a Leopard in a travel fit Nightmare...

The reinforced bulkheads, along with a DCII make a good tank for the low slots and now that they eat cargo space the ability to carry the "run'a'bout" while moving between incursions is gone. Sad

The space was already tight but using crystals instead of conventional ammo made this viable on the NM.

-Edit-
With the 6th low being added to the NM, it'll probably mean it'll be armor tanked with lots of 1600mm plates so oh well.



oh ****, this is probably the most important use case of rigs in the history of ever. CCP, fix plx. otherwise, i'm gonna shoot some kind of monument
Jasmine Assasin
The Holy Rollers
#245 - 2014-05-14 08:16:49 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:



oh ****, this is probably the most important use case of rigs in the history of ever. CCP, fix plx. otherwise, i'm gonna shoot some kind of monument


CCP Fozzie wrote:
:Edit: Updated on May 13th thanks to your feedback :edit:

We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.

Let us know what you think!
-Fozzie



Not sure why you are so butt hurt but w/e makes you happy.
Marc Callan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2014-05-14 11:38:03 UTC
...oh, wait, I looked at the meta-4 bulkhead, ran the numbers, and it looks like the MWD/50k cargo/200K EHP Orca can still be a thing. It'll just need my Orca pilot to train ICS V, and since that pilot's also a booster, that's a beneficial skill in any case.

The edge case lives!

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#247 - 2014-05-14 13:27:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
Last Wolf wrote:
What about Honor rigs?

Increases Honor Tank by 20/25% for Tech1/Tech2.


CCP just need to pull their thumbs out of their behinds and let us fit PLEX into our rig slots.

50 calibration per PLEX, destroyed if you try to remove it. Increases Honor, no drawbacks. Requires the new skill Honor Rigging. GTC's can be fit for 75 calibration, twice as much Honor, still no drawbacks.

I won't hold my breath for the obvious next step, Ancillary PLEX Boosters. TBH, with how little cargo space PLEX use, they'd probably be OP.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2014-05-14 13:45:02 UTC
The way things are going with these colour-coded ships, it won't be long before we can buy bling to put on our rides in the aurum store... Roll

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
#249 - 2014-05-14 14:04:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelina Duvolle
I'm ok with the change to the rigs penalties however I do have 1 issue. Fozzie is treating rigs like modules touting how much customization this adds to freighters and such.

Other pilots do not have to destroy their modules in order to make a fitting decision, or customize their ship. They can rig the ship, and then still be able to customize it with fitting, tank, speed, or damage increasing modules.

For a lot of years freighters have been the odd exception in not allowing any player driven choice in fitting, when the game is built around giving players a choice. Now you are adding in a bit of customization options in the form of rigs, (i'm guessing 3 rig slots?) and I do appreciate it, but at what will be a significant cost to exercise this customization that other ship pilots don't have to deal with. The cost of t2 capital rigs is so prohibitive it will be cheaper to have multiple rigged freighter then it is to change a set of rigs.

I don't think fozzy hates freighter pilots in general, but their seems to be an overwhelming need by ccp in general to not treat them like other pilots in the game, which I just don't understand. I would ask ccp, if you are going to rebalance them, go balls deep and pull the trigger on meaningful changes that put freighter pilots on a level playing field with other players. If that is not possible and they are going to retain their snowflake status, perhaps give them the ability to remove their rigs?
Schwa Nuts
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2014-05-14 15:32:50 UTC
Angelina Duvolle wrote:
I'm ok with the change to the rigs penalties however I do have 1 issue. Fozzie is treating rigs like modules touting how much customization this adds to freighters and such.

Other pilots do not have to destroy their modules in order to make a fitting decision, or customize their ship. They can rig the ship, and then still be able to customize it with fitting, tank, speed, or damage increasing modules.

For a lot of years freighters have been the odd exception in not allowing any player driven choice in fitting, when the game is built around giving players a choice. Now you are adding in a bit of customization options in the form of rigs, (i'm guessing 3 rig slots?) and I do appreciate it, but at what will be a significant cost to exercise this customization that other ship pilots don't have to deal with. The cost of t2 capital rigs is so prohibitive it will be cheaper to have multiple rigged freighter then it is to change a set of rigs.

I don't think fozzy hates freighter pilots in general, but their seems to be an overwhelming need by ccp in general to not treat them like other pilots in the game, which I just don't understand. I would ask ccp, if you are going to rebalance them, go balls deep and pull the trigger on meaningful changes that put freighter pilots on a level playing field with other players. If that is not possible and they are going to retain their snowflake status, perhaps give them the ability to remove their rigs?


What do you want? Are you looking for hardeners, ASBs, and cynos? Do you want drone bays and turret slots?
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#251 - 2014-05-14 15:38:32 UTC
Angelina Duvolle wrote:

I don't think fozzy hates freighter pilots in general, but their seems to be an overwhelming need by ccp in general to not treat them like other pilots in the game, which I just don't understand. I would ask ccp, if you are going to rebalance them, go balls deep and pull the trigger on meaningful changes that put freighter pilots on a level playing field with other players. If that is not possible and they are going to retain their snowflake status, perhaps give them the ability to remove their rigs?


Don't think I'm going to read a more intelligent post here today or this week come to think of it.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#252 - 2014-05-14 15:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Azami Nevinyrall
Tengu Grib wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
and who would use them?
hull tanking as a whole is something that needs work if you expect people to hull tank anything


Hull rigs on orcas, with DC and Bulkhead. Yeah, not looking forward to trying to pop those.

I can't wait to see how much EHP I can squeeze out of these new rigs!

Current Tank Fit...

2x Invul
2x LSE
1x DCU
1x Bulkhead
3x Shield Extender Rigs

= 270,000 EHP

...Then I add implants!

Hey Fozzie, can you give the Orca another lowslot for a 3x3x3 loadout? I might like a 350,000 EHP brick!

...
Dave Stark
#253 - 2014-05-14 17:27:47 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
I can't wait to see how much EHP I can squeeze out of these new rigs!!

427k.
Valterra Craven
#254 - 2014-05-14 17:53:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Heavy Met4l Queen wrote:


Yes, seriously. i for one welcome the change and believe it to be better than the previous plan. as someone with heavy experience in playing with orcas i'm looking forward to having more variety in fitting options.



You were already getting more fitting variety regardless of the drawbacks of these rigs. What a lot of people that want this penalty seem to be missing here is opportunity costs. With freighters getting rig slots now you had really three types of rigs that would be viable: tank rigs, warp speed rigs, and cargo rigs. If you fit tank you can't add more cargo, if you fit more cargo you can't warp faster. The penalty for these new rigs are just plain overkill.

Heavy Met4l Queen wrote:

I'm not sure how much experience you have at fitting ships for combat, but with that comment i'm going to assume not a lot. please continue being bitter that CCP is destroying industrial ships as you know them, so that you can't have the best of both words in your highsec utopia, as i'm sure it's the only option at your disposal at this point. Pirate


Combat? Whats so hard about fitting tank rigs to combat ships? Before the warp speed changes most combat fits had really very little in terms of variety. Especially so after t2 balance changes hit.

As far as CCP destroying anything, you can't seem to understand that adding rig slots and options doesn't destroys them. I could very well leave the rig slots empty and continue to enjoy the same ship I have now. (in terms of freighters anyway) I could also fit the orca the same way as before and lose nothing (opportunity costs here again though)

As for as your other comments, I'm not sure why goons have to always take the dickish road? I don't know you and you don't know me, so how about you guys learn to be respectful and stick to making comments about the actual changes proposed instead of acting like a snobby 12 year old. As much as people complain about forum mods, they don't appear to be doing a good enough job when it comes to your posts.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#255 - 2014-05-14 18:14:57 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
I can't wait to see how much EHP I can squeeze out of these new rigs!!

427k.

Fits T2 hull rigs to battle rorqual....

:Villainous smile:
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#256 - 2014-05-14 18:31:39 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
I can't wait to see how much EHP I can squeeze out of these new rigs!!

427k.

I might start taking battle Orcas out now...

Fozzie, what's the status of a 3rd low slot in the Orca?

Do I have to bribe you with Maple Syrup???

...
Dave Stark
#257 - 2014-05-14 19:28:04 UTC
fun fact: that 427k is without the affect of it's own shield link.
it's up at 450k with max shield boosts.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#258 - 2014-05-14 19:38:20 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
fun fact: that 427k is without the affect of it's own shield link.
it's up at 450k with max shield boosts.

What about implants?

Do math!

Also include armor boosts!

...
Dave Stark
#259 - 2014-05-14 20:16:07 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
fun fact: that 427k is without the affect of it's own shield link.
it's up at 450k with max shield boosts.

What about implants?

Do math!

Also include armor boosts!


armour links add another 6k on top of that.

i have no idea what the structure implant is... and get your own EFT :P

eft.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#260 - 2014-05-17 16:58:38 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
Angelina Duvolle wrote:

I don't think fozzy hates freighter pilots in general, but their seems to be an overwhelming need by ccp in general to not treat them like other pilots in the game, which I just don't understand. I would ask ccp, if you are going to rebalance them, go balls deep and pull the trigger on meaningful changes that put freighter pilots on a level playing field with other players. If that is not possible and they are going to retain their snowflake status, perhaps give them the ability to remove their rigs?


Don't think I'm going to read a more intelligent post here today or this week come to think of it.


nice troll

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