These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rigs attributes randomizer!

Author
Mdaemon
Very Industrial Corp.
#1 - 2014-09-04 11:54:44 UTC
Hi
I want to suggest to change the mechanics of rigs.

Considering the backstory behind the developing of rigs (made up by putting salvaged garbage together with some glue and duct tape), it is weird that they have been put in the mass production and that all of them have same, stable attributes. I would like to suggest that we change it.
I propose to add a variation of parameters. Let the market sell the same rigs that now. But when you install them in the ship, a randomly calculated parameter - "successful installation", - varying in the range from 1 to 11, is added. In this case, 1 - is an epic fail, 11 - epic win and 6 - no change. Epic Fail reduces rig bonuses by 20%, and increases the penalties for the same 20%. Epic Win increases bonuses by 20% and reduces the penalties for the same 20%
The probability of a parameter to do the following (normal distribution with mean 6 and standard deviation 1.5):
_____________________________________________________
Value__|__probability of drop__|___extra bonus___|__extra penalty
1 _____|_____0.1%_________|_____-20%______|____+20%
2 _____|_____0.7%_________|_____-16%______|____+16%
3 _____|_____3.6%_________|_____-12%______|____+12%
4 _____|_____11% _________|______-8%______|_____+8%
5 _____|_____21.3%________|______-4%______|_____+4%
6 _____|_____26.6%________|_______0% _____|______0%
7 _____|_____21.3%________|______+4% _____|______-4%
8 _____|_____11% _________|______+8% _____|______-8%
9 _____|_____3.6%_________|_____+12% _____|_____-12%
10 ____|_____0.7%_________|_____+16% _____|_____-16%
11 ____|_____0.1%_________|_____+20% _____|_____-20%


Depending on the skill level, the minimum possible value of the parameter will increase: from a minimum value of 2 for a skill level of 1, to a minimum value of 6 for a skill level of 5. That is, for the skill level 5, it will be no longer possible to insert a rig worse than it is in the current mechanics.
Accordingly, when the skill is 5 above table will look as follows:
Value__|__probability of drop__|___extra bonus___|__extra penalty
6 _____|_____63.3%________|_______0% _____|______0%
7 _____|_____21.3%________|______+4% _____|______-4%
8 _____|_____11% _________|______+8% _____|______-8%
9 _____|_____3.6%_________|_____+12% _____|_____-12%
10 ____|_____0.7%_________|_____+16% _____|_____-16%
11 ____|_____0.1%_________|_____+20% _____|_____-20%

Extra bonuses and extra penalties are applied multiplicatively to the current properties of rigs. For example armor trimark gives +15% armor and -10% speed. In the case of epic fail it will give 12% armor and -12% speed (15%+(15%×-20%) = 12%; -10%+(-10%×20%) = -12% ). In the case of epic win - 18% armor and -8% speed

What does this give us?

  1. Skills for rigs become de facto mandatory again.
  2. A dramatical increase in the demand for rigs, especially small ones: they are very cheap, a dozen attempts to "stick better" does not cost anything. This will increase the price of salvage, and the attractiveness of exploring
    Revive solo and small-scale PvP: rigs for PowerGrid and CPU with a successful case will allow new fits.
    Carebears and miners will also get a new game
    This will make ships more valuable for the players as they will have a more personalized meaning for them.


Cons

  1. Reapeated failed attempts to get the better bonus may cause players disappointment
  2. Possible technical troubles with the implementation of this mechanics

Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#2 - 2014-09-04 12:18:48 UTC
as I understand it the rig skills still take away downsides. Not sure how far along you are in the game but this is a big help. I got my rig (type) 4 more to offset drawback on just t1 than to run t2. And tbh once some more pressing skills knocked out some rigs will be 5'd to get that final reduction.

If a player under new scheme wants to slap in some say shield rigs and then wonder why they are still getting slapped around hard at some point they will go ohh....maybe I should be fixing my sig radius penalty just a little bit.


Your randomness......not really sounding too good. Quick look at table is, I am thinking, having them over current values in game. Dead horse but ccp has values as is for a reason. I am pretty sure they do max testing in house just to see how overboard a ship can get if maxed out, then dial it back if its overt op. You see this in rig calibration cost vs what ship can support.
Mdaemon
Very Industrial Corp.
#3 - 2014-09-04 13:39:22 UTC
Two things regarding the tech implementation of this idea which may be useful:

There should be "installation success" parameter of the rig-slot. At the rig insertion the system calculates new value for this parameter, and writes it to the designated place.

So, all you need to do is just add one numeric parameter to object "rig slot" and make a few changes in formulas that are applied to rigs.

I do understand that underlying mechanics of ship fittings may differ though.
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-09-04 13:44:45 UTC
no thaks, games with "random crafting results" are really annoying.
endresults its just that you _HAVE_ to get the best results to be competitive so you just waste a crapton of money and time in botched tries till you get it.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#5 - 2014-09-04 13:49:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
1.) RNG is bad ... try to join an ECM discussion and you will see.

2.) Rigs have drawbacks, and the skills are worth to train.

3.) Trying to corp fit 200 PvP ships with the need of max T1 ort T2 CPU or PG rigs = instant fail of the concept.

4.) Would ruin existing builts, like an Incursion Guardian.

5.) You have not understood how rigs work, what they are offering and how the drawbacks and skills work

-1 times 1000000000000000000000000000000.

Good day
Jur Tissant
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-09-04 13:51:19 UTC
Part of EVE is being able to plan out your ship fitting to the number. For example, a bad PG rig install could ruin the fit you've planned out.

Rig skills reduce drawbacks. They aren't meant to be godsends but they do help.
Mdaemon
Very Industrial Corp.
#7 - 2014-09-04 14:03:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mdaemon
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
1.) RNG is bad ... try to join an ECM discussion and you will see.

2.) Rigs have drawbacks, and the skills are worth to train.

3.) Trying to corp fit 200 PvP ships with the need of max T1 ort T2 CPU or PG rigs = instant fail of the concept.

4.) Would ruin existing builts, like an Incursion Guardian.

5.) You have not understood how rigs work, what they are offering and how the drawbacks and skills work

-1 times 1000000000000000000000000000000.

Good day

Learn rig skills at 5, and you will have no problem with fails. Learn it at 4, and you will have only 36.5% chance to get extra penalty (with minimal strength, only 4% penalty), and 36.5% to get extra bonuses.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#8 - 2014-09-04 14:19:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Mdaemon wrote:
Learn rig skills at 5, and you will have no problem with fails. Learn it at 4, and you will have only 36.5% chance to get extra penalty, and 36.5% to get extra bonuses.

Don't make excuses for a bad idea, because now you are forcing everyone to max skills first instead of getting better at flying ships while using them, you haven't even addressd of how it will affect all other people, you are basically creating an elite ship-fitting service from maxed out toons. And if maxed out means full bonus garantueed, then what is the change good for.
If everyone can get around it by usong the designated corp-fitting-master, then it is a fail right there. Ah yeah, punish the ones who are not in corps or don't have max skilled friends Shocked

And youa re aware, that many rigs cost a hundred mil and more ... good luck convinving everyone to gamble with them or forcing them to max skill for an item they have paid for and could use before max skilling.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#9 - 2014-09-04 15:26:02 UTC
pls no

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

Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2014-09-04 16:11:00 UTC
Shorter version: Increase material requirements for frigate rigs by 2777%, increase rig performance by 12%, and decrease penalty by 12%. Increase material requirements for all others by 909%, performance by 8%, and penalty by 8%.

Remove T2 rigs.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#11 - 2014-09-04 18:38:40 UTC
I'm guessing this is really about the worthless nature of most salvage. It deserves attention but I'm not sure this is the answer.

Rigs were part of the prenerf development phase much like Black Ops and haven't had anything done to them since they were deployed. They are a pig to invent because the base chance is at the same level as a T2 hull. Calibration costs are not rational, they often compete with modules in stacking penalties, penalties on roles are prejudice to shield and armor tank, hull size illogically, doesn't seem to be a factor in what they do.

For a reason of great mystery, the Minmatar got no electronics superiority rigs at all. They have stasis web based bonuses but no Web rigs. I'd love to see a Web range rig with a penalty on the strength and the bonus and penalty be based on the rig size, not a one size fits all set of stats. I'd like to be able to rig a Battleship to use small weapons and take penalty on large. The things rigs should have been designed to do. Not just be 3 more low slots or medium slots.
Shelmim0
#12 - 2014-09-04 20:29:11 UTC

Don't like.

The idea of sharpening straight from Korean MMORPGs. Which is not "locked" all the things you are "nobody", especially in pvp. The system of total loss vehicles significantly reduce the harmful influence of such ideas, but this is not enough.

Add CCP a lot of problems in keeping the balance in the game, they are not good (remember intercentors fleets and ishtar fleets)
Mdaemon
Very Industrial Corp.
#13 - 2014-09-04 20:48:16 UTC
Well, let's speak about logic.
As i already told, rigs made from crap and duct tape.
Why all of them have identical characteristics, without any variation?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#14 - 2014-09-04 21:47:03 UTC
Mdaemon wrote:
Well, let's speak about logic.
As i already told, rigs made from crap and duct tape.
Why all of them have identical characteristics, without any variation?


Fenceposts are made from scrap railroad track. They're all identical.

Rigs are manufactured from salvaged materials, but that doesn't mean they're manufactured badly from them.

Anyway, in EVE, every item is commoditized; that's why an '08 rifter with 50k hull damage repaired over its lifetime is identical to a rifter right out of the oven.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#15 - 2014-09-04 22:39:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Mdaemon wrote:
Well, let's speak about logic.
As i already told, rigs made from crap and duct tape.
Why all of them have identical characteristics, without any variation?


The onus is on you to tell everyone else why they should all be randomly generated and why this wouldnt be a massive tedious and annoying feature with time wasted 're-rolling' like in every other game that has random crafting. And you've just been given a load of reasons...

gameplay>logic, fluff and everything else.

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

Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#16 - 2014-09-05 00:07:32 UTC
Mdaemon wrote:
Well, let's speak about logic.
As i already told, rigs made from crap and duct tape.
Why all of them have identical characteristics, without any variation?



Because like I said, balance.

lets look at % ROF rig for a gun. Projectile aerator.

T1 10%
T2 15%

These numbers weren't pulled from a hat.

CCP most likely looked at what happens if....3 or 4 of max rof gyro is installed. All skills 5, Best implant ofr ROF installed, mix t1 and t2, mix t1 and t2 with damage rigs.....tl;dr theory craft like mad to see how much they can tweak to see what the magical max dps is. Then if op, variable(s) get dialed back.

Your idea goes around this. If the theoretical final max dps of ship a ccp has in mind is 856...ccp has the rigs and such setup to make that happen.


That and as mentioned...kind of hard to build a fleet comp when even 10 people have varying rig stats. FC 101....if saying be fleet fit or else the reason is this is so fc knows exactly what you baseline stats are (ranges, damage, etc). They want to call in ships at their idea of a known base level good range for example.

Also kind of a let down to planning out a training plan to get a fit then have RNG say haha...fooled you. You may dig rerolling rig fits all night long. Many like in the case of the above aerator go to jita and say I'll take my 10 or 15, buy it, and actually go play the game. Vice gambling all night long on rig stats.



Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
#17 - 2014-09-08 00:10:32 UTC
Just imagine, how many carebears lusting for this. Immense possibilities for pimping.