These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

When an small/medium/large armor repairer is just an armor repairer...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pelorios
Absolute Order XVI
Absolute Honor
#1 - 2014-07-25 11:38:49 UTC
And so, as I was xxxxxx, I thought, whats with the small medium large and capital versions anyway? I mean.. they all do the same thing don't they?

Industry could use a simplification and ships *might* in the future need some variety.

So why have small/medium/large/capital armor repairer and not just a single armor repair unit?

One blueprint, one market.

Then depending on the size you need, you would just stick 3 units to a small ship, 9 to a medium, 27 to a large, 81 to a capital, for example.

The ratios will have to be worked out, in accordance to powergrid/cap/cpu requirements, which are already there.

Remember small, medium and large is not the same as high medium and low slots in the fitting screen

You can then do away with slots somewhat, and/or keep the type restrictions if you want to, i.e no more than X cap usage for shield related units. And/or you could have 'type' slots, so that you can stick 10 of something in a single slot, if your cap or cpu can take it. The number of slots, as before, restricts variety of modules.

Perhaps it seems silly at this point but there may come a day when there is just too much uneccesary complexity. Some people are put off by this allready, an entry barrier to the game, and there is a tradeoff between depth and complexity.

Of course for some things, size does matter, it just doesnt make sense to be shooting more of a 25 mm autocannon when you could just shoot less with a 105mm :)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2 - 2014-07-25 11:44:35 UTC
That seems like a great deal of trouble to end up with the exact same functionality that already exists.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-07-25 12:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Gaijin Lanis
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That seems like a great deal of trouble to end up with the exact same functionality that already exists.
To be fair, small/medium/large/capital sized crap wasn't the original functionality of anything. But one-size-fits all mods leads to a near complete lack of fitting variance.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
Pelorios
Absolute Order XVI
Absolute Honor
#4 - 2014-07-25 12:27:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That seems like a great deal of trouble to end up with the exact same functionality that already exists.


Industry and Science wise it would reduce some by 4 times making room for new stuff.

But of course you are not talking about Industry and Science

Its been a good few years since the T3.

How do you go forward? You cant just add bigger and bigger ships.

The goal of T3 was to add variety. How would you go about T4?

At the end of the day a ships capabilities we could agree are restricted by hull size and then cpu/grid and cap. If we just kept those 4 parameters and did away with slots alltogether it would (probably) be a mess. But if you could do this gradually, how would you go about it?

For example if you could trade 1/5 of you shields for 1/8 of your jamming strength or range (not sure of the cpu/cap equivalence but you get the idea), its not easy to do using the existing setup. No ship has 13 mid slots. But if you had 27 shield units (or cores, call them what you like) in a slot and could take out 4 to add 1 extra jammer unit in the slot where your jammers are
that could work.

Anyway its just an idea
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#5 - 2014-07-25 12:31:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
As a manufacturer, I can attest that I do not feel the least bit overwhelmed by having four sizes of armor repairer to consider. In fact, I rather prefer not having to compete with literally every other armor repairer manufacturer in the galaxy. Some do not produce smalls or mediums just as I do not produce capital-sized. The way it is now doesn't need any changes.

As an EVE player, I would respond to your T4 question with a question of my own - why would you go about T4 and what possible purpose could it serve?
Pelorios
Absolute Order XVI
Absolute Honor
#6 - 2014-07-25 12:51:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelorios
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
As a manufacturer, I can attest that I do not feel the least bit overwhelmed by having four sizes of armor repairer to consider. In fact, I rather prefer not having to compete with literally every other armor repairer manufacturer in the galaxy. Some do not produce smalls or mediums just as I do not produce capital-sized. The way it is now doesn't need any changes.

As an EVE player, I would respond to your T4 question with a question of my own - why would you go about T4 and what possible purpose could it serve?


T3 wasnt the success that was hoped otherwise the interceptors expansion which came after, wouldnt have been ready-made ships...

As for why? Come on.. the game is not going to stay the same for the next 5 years is it? Well, It could and I would be more than happy, but thats not what they do is it? They *have* to add to/change it.. make it..."better", "newer" ;)


As for the competition issue you are probably right. But the idea isn't to shrink *all* markets. Just some of them.

If pressured, to keep you in business, we could keep the sizes, for...sizes means casing, for example. So you would combine X armor repair units with a higher tier casing unit. This would keep you in the large armor repair market. The question would then be what is X? And that would be settled by the buyers as they tried different setups. Which would the lead us to a combination of the existing Market Interface and Contract Interface screens. Which nicely brings us to year 2069...

Lets agree that we are happy with the game as it is... :)

thx 4 the replies