Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I love building ships and finding ways to optimize the damage and fittings, but sometimes I just get stuck with wanting one more gun or defensive slot than the ship provides me with.

I think it would be great if you could sacrifice a rig slot to modify your turret or slot layouts.
Fill up that utility high with a sixth launcher, turn your Nanofibre low into a Shield Extender mid, or Mid Tracking computer into another low Gyrostabilizer.

It could really help make PVP ships PVE viable and vice versa.

Rigs have corresponding costs for inserting it. I image, adding a new Turret port would lower powergrid, and another Missile port would lower CPU availability, thus reducing available upgrades. It might also require the removal of the opposite type of port or even the loss of a mid/low slot. I think a balance could be attained as long as appropriate costs are worked out.

As for additional lows and mids, a straight swap might work, or a general decrease in power/cpu too.

I was going to also suggest a way of increasing the number of high slots but I think that would be a complete no-go as I can't even contemplate what type of cost you would need to balance it.

As for 8-gun ships being shortchanged, already not every rig is applicable to every ship, and since the ships using the rig would have detrimental effects, they likely would not be able to balance their resources as easily.

Yes, you get better tank, but you lose a low, so have less potential damage/sensor application. Also if the cost of the rig is more than a low, you also lose CPU/Power/CAP/Sensor you may not be able to field a weapon, or shield you previously could, Or new vulnerabilities open up.

Some of my ships have "junk" lows. Filled just because. For PVE they can be that 3rd (in the case of rapids...I and others have found ROF has diminishing returns faster here and 2 is pretty good, 3 is meh...it be why you see pve rattler go DDA happy really...hell even 4 DDA stacked to hell can be better than stacked bcu BCU) or 4th damage mod that is stacked to almost uselessness.

I being big into damage application than raw damage could give up the low slot to get that a mid to be better application (I would not kick an extra RF paint out of bed in my rattlesnake....rapid heavies and drones love painted targets) or more tank.

Case of shield tankers your missing low could be DCU dropped as an example. Which if used for tank in mids probably works out better. DCU I find of more benefit to armour than shield. based on pvp in caldari ships you can only rely on DCU resists boosts to armour and hull for one thing. A few seconds more to pick a nice safer celestial to start spamming warp to.

You know...to get the ball rolling for when your shields fail completely and your are hard tackled and death is real imminent. May as well plan where you will take your pod ASAP. I'd be looking at some PVP rokhs I ran...where DCU fit since its eve law for PVP. DCU's did not wow me here tbh. Now on armour tankers...yes I saw the value of DCU much more.

Here enters another imba...you saw loss of low slot a downside. To armour tankers...well yes it is. Shield it may not be. The imba is the age old flame fest of shield vs armour and their tradeoffs on fitting. Lets have another rig that does mid to low shift....I am sure we can find an armour tank fit or 2 that can lose a mid slot and not care as well.

The daredevil, the maruaders and many other ships that this would break also have zero hardports for the type that is unbonused. If the requirement of the rig is to change one hard port to another kind then any ship that this rig breaks, you just have to ensure there are no junk hard ports of the other kind.
-Or CCP could just get rid of junk hard ports and stop mixing turrets with missiles.

This doesn't make it so you can attach more weapons, it just stops you from a need of attaching unbonused weapons to max dps.

Not supported for all the reasons point out above.

The problem with these types of ideas is that certain kinds of stats and slots are more valuable than others... especially when certain bonuses are taken into account.


Ranged, kiting ships would not hesitate to trade tanking stats (or even a slot) to add an extra weapon.
Why? Because their tank is their speed and range. To absorb damage directly means death in the first place.

Ships with high damage potential will not hesitate to trade slots or stats for an extra weapon... especially if they have a large damage bonus. Their tank IS their damage.



Ah... now we have the heart of the issue.

Have you considered that the DEVs want to leave ships open to different types of fits?
Take the Hurricane for example.

If it had nothing but turret slots in the highs, people would be compelled to fill them all with turrets.
But instead, they leave one slot open.

Now you can fit a missile launcher there for "max damage" or, if you want, you can fit something else that may be useful. After all, losing a little bit of damage potential is not a big deal considering that it will be unbonsed damage.


Those slots you dislike for whatever reason are there for flexibility reasons. That is part of how ships are balanced.
"Make something good with certain fits, but not so specialized that it can't be fit any other way."

See what I wrote above.

Some stats and slots are more valuable on some ships and than others. For some, making that kind of choice will be a trivial "no brainer."


I don't think you understand what "balance" means.

There such a thing as a ship having "too much" of one thing. This opens the door for that


That is an idea that pops up from time to time here. It is also a "no-go" for the same reasons listed in this thread.

Your issue is you get balance nightmares.

You'd have to tell us what ships you'd have in mind. As if left to our own devices, well...we will find problem children.

Rattlesnake. Cruise or rapid and even just 2 BCU's (t2 or shiny to taste) can put out some missile damage max skill. I like heavy rapid snake. And since MR/SR range anyway....I like heavy drones. I fit a DLA in utility I rarely even use as base control range exceeds my engagement range with HML most of the time. heavies at uber long range on nasty agro shifts die fast....so I don't send them all way out usually.

Your idea I can run a slot changer, get that DLA (non launcher) slot changed to launcher slot and have some fun times with +1 rapid. OP fun.

I can find the rig space. I just pull my CCC which gives me decent run times since I am one of those who likes decent cap run times for pve rides. Bit more conservative on the cap use but tank by gank gets even better....I can live with that . And as mentioned...I won't be missing DLA ranges since I rarely use that anyway.

I know, you will say well I picked a decent ship not "broken". that's the point...Being nice I will have you have good intentions for this and you just want to make a less than stellar ship (or ships) better. Which is cool, who doesn't want to fix some broken ships. Issue is your fix makes some very nice as is ships, even nicer. Nicer than they need to be really.

AKA....power creep. YOu make the sick ship healthier to take on the healthy ship. By and large...those healthier ships basically get a steroid injection from this to be even stronger when they apply the same fix.

end result....the better ship will still dominate, even more so if this in play.