These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

New Ship Fitting Idea

Author
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-02-12 06:09:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ploppy McPlop
This is a bit left-field, but I had an idea the other day about changing the ship fitting system, and I think this would work well.

Do away with high, medium and low slots, rig slots, and launcher and turret hardpoints. Each ship will have a fitting space, defined by cubic metres. There would be a calibration requirement to fitting modules, much like there is with rigs. The current capacitor and powergrid system would remain.

After all, a ship is a platform, shouldn't I be able to fit what I want to it, so long as I have the skill to fit it and use it, the power supply and capacity to run it, and the space to fit it.

Each module would have it's own volume, so in a ship with only a small fitting space you can fit fewer large modules. Small blasters will have a smaller volume than T2 large blasters. Rigs will have very large space requirements and calibration cost. Larger volume modules also add more to the mass of your ship, increasing signature radius and reducing velocity and AB/MWD/warp capacitor costs.

There will be 2 new skills, module fitting, for each level of fitted module, and calibration fitting, so you can fit a more calibration-hungry (ie T2) module per level. There would be a different calibration fitting skill per tech level.

The idea is maximum fitting flexibility, but still constrained by the player skill level, and the size of fitting space, powergrid and cap of the ship.

This would mean that if I wanted to fit another railgun at the expense of a couple of armour hardeners then I could, which is how I think spaceships should work.

I guess some people would try to fit ships with only defence or only offence for use in fleets, so the calibration and power requirements of offensive and defensive modules would be set up to discourage this, but to be honest i would be curious to see how PvP would change. There's no point having a ship that's 100% defence because it could be safely ignored, and ships that are 100% offense are very fragile. A ship that's 90% defence and 10% smartbomb would be a worry, but it would also be very slow.

Anyway, that's my loonie idea. What do you all think?

**EDIT** This idea is logical but seems to be getting some resistance. For CCP to implement it wound not mean scrapping the current system, they could instead introduce it as 'Tech 4' ships, and give every current module an extra variable, the calibration cost, that only comes into effect when used on a Tech 4 ship.
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-02-12 06:13:40 UTC
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-02-12 06:17:38 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™


So you lack imagination, good for you! Now go bother mommy, grown-ups are talking here.
Ifly Uwalk
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-02-12 06:22:14 UTC
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-02-12 06:24:40 UTC
Ifly Uwalk wrote:
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™


Rather than outright rejecting the idea, and failing to be witty at the same time, why don't you either
a) Join the discussion and say WHY it might be a bad idea, or
b) keep your opinion to yourself :P
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-02-12 06:37:46 UTC
Ifly Uwalk wrote:
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™


Not empty quoting

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Ploppy McPlop
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-02-12 06:54:57 UTC
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
Ifly Uwalk wrote:
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™


Not empty quoting


I get the impression that people replying to my idea without taking the trouble to critique it either
a) do not understand it, or
b) they are afraid of change.

I'm not saying it's the world's best idea but it IS worthy of discussion if it fixes a few fundamental flaws in the gameplay mechanic in one hit.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-02-12 07:06:26 UTC
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
Ifly Uwalk wrote:
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™


Not empty quoting


Of course not.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.

ACE McFACE
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#9 - 2012-02-12 07:11:25 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™

A registered trademark of the Bat Country Corporation

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.

Cindy Marco
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2012-02-12 07:22:44 UTC
Your idea must diaf.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#11 - 2012-02-12 07:25:35 UTC
I dont think we need another Tim McGraw album. but thanks anyways.

Yeah the idea a ship is a big hole, you throw things into and everything works real well. Maybe you should send it to CCP, almost sounds like space barbies.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Ploppy McPlop
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-02-12 07:35:39 UTC
rodyas wrote:
I dont think we need another Tim McGraw album. but thanks anyways.

Yeah the idea a ship is a big hole, you throw things into and everything works real well. Maybe you should send it to CCP, almost sounds like space barbies.


No, the idea is that the ship is a platform, to which you mount your fit. The ship is a framework with a battery and a bunch of cables. How well it works depends on your skill training and your ability to fit.

Is it really that difficult to understand?
Kobayashi Marru
Templar Caste
#13 - 2012-02-12 07:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kobayashi Marru
Launcher and Turret points wouldn't make sense for being able to fit another armor hardener. Think of the physical location on a ship, where you would put either. Nope.

Might make more sense to have categories of internal and external mounting.
Arrow1EXTERNAL; Guns, turrets, probe launcher. Stuff that is released from ship. this is more limited then category two, they should not be merged even tho they are similar. mostly because a cloak in a high slot pisses me off, same with the drone range mod (why, just why)
Arrow2SOMETHING: Webs, bubbles, transport for shield and energy, cloak, armor and shield repair. Requires access to the outside of your ship but doesn't require special mounting like a gun that rotates or a launcher that reloads would since, well yea
Arrow3INTERNAL: Sebo, Hardeners, Gyro, Rigs. Subsystems. Doesn't need access to the outside of your ship.

Yet we must ask, why? What would we gain, What that is currently broken by the current system will be fixed?
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-02-12 08:30:53 UTC
Kobayashi Marru wrote:
Launcher and Turret points wouldn't make sense for being able to fit another armor hardener. Think of the physical location on a ship, where you would put either. Nope.

Might make more sense to have categories of internal and external mounting.
Arrow1EXTERNAL; Guns, turrets, probe launcher. Stuff that is released from ship. this is more limited then category two, they should not be merged even tho they are similar. mostly because a cloak in a high slot pisses me off, same with the drone range mod (why, just why)
Arrow2SOMETHING: Webs, bubbles, transport for shield and energy, cloak, armor and shield repair. Requires access to the outside of your ship but doesn't require special mounting like a gun that rotates or a launcher that reloads would since, well yea
Arrow3INTERNAL: Sebo, Hardeners, Gyro, Rigs. Subsystems. Doesn't need access to the outside of your ship.

Yet we must ask, why? What would we gain, What that is currently broken by the current system will be fixed?



Thank you Kobayashi for a reasoned response. Your last point first, is that I thought no spaceship manufacturer would in-build limitations into how their client would be able to use their ships, instead they would make them as versatile as possible. As a construction platform with a power supply and power delivery infrastructure, well, this is how I would approach spaceship construction. Deliver the platform and let the client use it how they see fit.

I'm not reinventing the fitting system for the sake of it, or as an intellectual exercise. I genuinely believe that my approach has a more consistent internal logic, and more closely approaches 'realism' than the current one.
Ploppy McPlop
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-02-12 08:38:50 UTC
Any species or race capable of space-flight would seek the most efficient technology to suit their needs. Realistically, there would be no racial differentiation between ships, only skill-based differences. The races in EvE have different skill biases, which is enough to separate their play-styles from each other, so why is their also ship differentiation? All it does is limit player choice.

Why should I not be able to fit a vindicator with 8 launcher turrets instead of 8 railguns, if I have the skills to use launchers?
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#16 - 2012-02-12 08:43:12 UTC
I foresee titans and carriers being fitted with dozens of battleship sized weapons and ******* up EVERYTHING

The Drake is a Lie

Ploppy McPlop
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-02-12 08:59:23 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
I foresee titans and carriers being fitted with dozens of battleship sized weapons and ******* up EVERYTHING


That's why there's a calibration cost to each rank of module. Ultimately the gameplay should remain consistent, but it will give us more flexibility to suit our own individual play-style.
Captain Stupid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-02-12 09:04:54 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
I think you should post bad ideas somewhere else, like in the F&I forum, where Ideas Go to Die™


Not empty quoting :)
W1rlW1nd
WirlWind
#19 - 2012-02-12 09:20:18 UTC


bad idea for several reasons,

a) CCP would have an even harder time balancing modules for gameplay, if not an impossible task.
b) less ship variety, since without slot differences only a few hulls would be required to supply the 'platform' to build on, the rest would just be different looking skins.
c) large ships would have so many guns, that they would alpha anything that got near, and everyone would only use those fits further reducing variety.
d) incorrect poasting, this thread needs to be moved to the F&I forum.
e) probably more reasons, but that is enough.


ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#20 - 2012-02-12 09:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Your idea isn't BAD per se. It just runs in the opposite direction of the current system we currently have.

Right now... a Drake cannot be fitted the same way a Hurricane can be. While this does limit choices in what you can and cannot fit (because both ships have different slot configurations, hardpoints, CPU/PG, different base stats, and different bonuses), it also opens the doors towards differing tactics which use those differences to their maximum potential.

Your idea (if I understand correctly) seeks to do away with those differences and allow players to create fits however they want to... so long as they do not exceed the one restriction you place ("calibration").

From my perspective I don't see players using that "flexibility" the way you envision it. I see players either fitting ships to be hyper-specialized in one sole task (making everything unable to compete unless similarly fit) or fit in such a way that a ship does not have any inherent weaknesses and cannot be "outmaneuvered" through superior tactics.


The current ship fitting method does leave a little part of me longing... but I understand that it was done for a reason. Some inherent strengths, weakness, and/or restrictions that cannot be altered can be a good thing as it encourages people to think "how best can I use this" rather than "well, lets fit this here so I don't have to worry."
12Next page