These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Let's talk about slot classifications.

Author
Kaaeliaa
Tyrannos Sunset
#1 - 2012-05-18 09:32:59 UTC
This is what happens when I have too much caffeine and happen to be on amphetamine analogues (legally, of course).

Since EVE is now 9 years old and has too much momentum to change easily, I realize that this is either impossible, impractical, or both. Right now, I believe the slot system could use a major overhaul, and I believe that it could be changed in a way that would make ships easier to balance against each other, especially in the interests of tier-icide.

Instead of the current setup, I thought about having something like this:

_ turret
_ launcher
_ damage modification
_ damage mitigation
_ utility

Essentially, the modules themselves wouldn't change, simply the slot layouts of ships. I believe such a system could more clearly define roles and distinguish ships from each other.

Armageddon: 8 turret, 2 damage modification, 5 damage mitigation, 3 utility
Apocalypse: 8 turret, 2 damage modification, 3 damage mitigation, 5 utility
Abaddon: 8 turret, 5 damage modification, 3 damage mitigation, 2 utility

Obviously, the number of each and total number is a ballpark figure, for discussion purposes. In such a system, it becomes very clear which ship will tank better, which will do more damage, and which will be able to have an abundance of utility slots for miscellaneous purposes.

Which modules would fit under which classification is pretty straightforward.

Damage modification:
Heat Sink, Gyro, MFS, BCS, tracking modules (passive and active)
Damage mitigation:
Repair, invuln, hardeners and nano membranes, etc (passive and active)
Utility:
Prop, EWAR, RR

No, the sky is not falling and your brains won't be fried by changes. But I do feel like the system needs tweaking like this, because the current slot placement of some modules is unintuitive, arbitrary, and in some cases downright odd.

"Do not lift the veil. Do not show the door. Do not split the dream."

ACE McFACE
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#2 - 2012-05-18 10:11:16 UTC
INB4 F&I

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

Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
#3 - 2012-05-18 10:13:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Himnos Altar
aaaaand where does EW/ECM/ECCM fit into all this?

not to mention WCS, Cargo 'spanders, etc?

EDIT: aaaand I fail at reading.

But what about ships like the Falcon/Blackbird/Scorpion (?) that are pretty much ECM ONLY.

And what about my smexy shield tanking, lazor/arty Myrm of AWESOMENESS?
Lexmana
#4 - 2012-05-18 10:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Why not just make the modules fixed on all ships if you really don't want players to experiment with different fits for example by sacrificing tank for gank or ewar?

And yeah, F&I ---->
Kaaeliaa
Tyrannos Sunset
#5 - 2012-05-18 10:17:55 UTC
Himnos Altar wrote:
aaaaand where does EW/ECM/ECCM fit into all this?

not to mention WCS, Cargo 'spanders, etc?


Since they're not involved in either damage modification or damage mitigation, they're utility.

I believe that there's a problem with the current system because some ships are far too limited by their slot layouts. A system like this would let CCP balance certain aspects of a ship without messing with others. Given that they stated they'd like to eliminate tiers, it would be a great time to look at ideas to make all the ships viable.

"Do not lift the veil. Do not show the door. Do not split the dream."

Kaaeliaa
Tyrannos Sunset
#6 - 2012-05-18 10:23:03 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Why not just make the modules fixed on all ships if you really don't want players to experiment with different fits for example by sacrificing tank for gank or ewar?

And yeah, F&I ---->


There are already "right" and "wrong" fits for pretty much every ship and every aspect of the game. There are also "right" and "wrong" ships among the same ship types, with some hopelessly crippled even though they have the same skill requirements. Seeing the same ships over and over is a case of missing potential.

Also, this is in GD because it's a discussion and not a formal suggestion, since it's a 0400 idea born of caffeine.

"Do not lift the veil. Do not show the door. Do not split the dream."

Tobiaz
Spacerats
#7 - 2012-05-18 10:30:41 UTC
An idea would be to make high-slots fixed turret sizes and then give larger ships primary and secondary weapon banks for large and smaller support weapons. And then add small ships with coaxial mounts for fitting larger weapons.

Too bad this would mean redesigning EVE to such an extent, it will never happen.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Kaaeliaa
Tyrannos Sunset
#8 - 2012-05-18 10:53:31 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
An idea would be to make high-slots fixed turret sizes and then give larger ships primary and secondary weapon banks for large and smaller support weapons. And then add small ships with coaxial mounts for fitting larger weapons.

Too bad this would mean redesigning EVE to such an extent, it will never happen.


Large ships don't currently have smaller weapons to deal with smaller hulls for a reason. If a battleship could effortlessly swat frigates out of the sky, there would be no possibility of piloting frigates. It would be a pretty drastic change in balance.

I'm not advocating drastic change, or at least nothing more drastic than tier-icide itself. Essentially, I just think that module types should be streamlined. For example, Tracking Computers are medium slot items, and Tracking Enhancers fit in low slots. But one is an active module that uses cap and also takes more CPU. There's no reason these two modules need to fit in different slot types - they're already different. And it's the same story for many other modules; that's why I say that the current system doesn't make a whole lot of sense sometimes.

"Do not lift the veil. Do not show the door. Do not split the dream."