open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked How candidates consider, slot-to-slot adapter is good idea?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Natalya RU
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:17:00 - [1]
 

How candidates consider, addition in the ship equipment of an slot-to-slot adapter is good idea?
Example:
hight slot to mid slot
hight slot to low slot

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:22:00 - [2]
 

it is an interesting idea that comes up often, but I think the ships in Eve derive a great deal of their balance from their exact slot layout. Adding these slot to slot adapters could greatly upset the ship balance that exists in Eve.

Just a small example. With high-to-mid adapters, you could give a scorpion another 6 (!) ECM jammers.

Natalya RU
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:38:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Just a small example. With high-to-mid adapters, you could give a scorpion another 6 (!) ECM jammers.

About, it really frightens! My fault - not a correct question. I thought of one (maximum of two) the adapter on the ship.

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:49:00 - [4]
 

limiting the adapter to one or two could make it more viable, although I still think that certain ships/setups would suddenly become significantly more powerful just by switching their slot layout by only one or two slots.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:56:00 - [5]
 

While interesting in theory, I am fairly sure it would be impossible to balance, and fitting fanatics like me would come up with oodles of totally overpowered setups, thoroughly killing diversity. Thats the controversy of customization. Too many options actually lead to too few variants being used. Just play battletech with free mech customizations, all you get is a handful of different munchkin setups. (Unless the people playing have style, but that is rare and in EVE you usually play only to win anyway...)

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:59:00 - [6]
 

The idea of moving a ships slot layout would be something I wouldn't support simply for the fact I believe it will render too many other ships useless. I understand the spirit of the question and can empathize with it (I'd love to add a few low slots onto a Hulk, or a High slot onto my Assault Frigate).

Ship slots are one of the few ship characteristics that help balance a ship load-out with other ships within the same ship class. So as it stands, I'd see rearranging slots as too dramatic a change for the current selection of ships.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:08:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Natalya RU
How candidates consider, addition in the ship equipment of an slot-to-slot adapter is good idea?
Example:
hight slot to mid slot
hight slot to low slot


Its an idea that comes up often, But its not a good one.

Natalya RU
Posted - 2008.05.07 23:23:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
and fitting fanatics like me would come up with oodles of totally overpowered setups, thoroughly killing diversity.
"thoroughly killing diversity"?? It will not add a diversity (unpredictability)?

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2008.05.07 23:40:00 - [9]
 

Instead of adapter I'd like to see something akin to cap batteries that you can install in vacant slots which uses up whatever powergrid or CPU left on the ship and transforms this into more cap.

Hanell Steel
Posted - 2008.05.08 00:06:00 - [10]
 

Ive been thinking about rigs that can add slots... even if not it would be nice, seeing as im primarily a minimatar sheild tank pilot, to add items that can Tackle to low slots. this would balance out the game a little imo as I can now bring my sheild tank setups to the armor tank dominated pvp. Just a thought as seeing you almost have to be an armor tank to be able to solo pvp because all your mid slots are taken by your tackle + mwd... Either that or add a couple more mids to the matari active sheild tankers so they are more viable in solo pvp.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.08 00:07:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Natalya RU
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
and fitting fanatics like me would come up with oodles of totally overpowered setups, thoroughly killing diversity.
"thoroughly killing diversity"?? It will not add a diversity (unpredictability)?


No. Since there are clear optimal slot layouts for most types of work. >4 meds and 4 lows as well as exactly 4 meds and as many lows as possible.

If you let people move slots around you will end up with ships like so

7/4/8 Armageddon.
7/4/8 Megathron
5/5/8 Dominix
8/4/7 Hpyerion
6/5/8 Tempest
7/8/4 Raven
8/7/4 Maelstrom
8/7/4 Rokh
0/8/8 Scorpion

Invariably ships with less than useful high slots will dump them for more useful low and med slots.

Its just power creep and homogenization.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.08 07:31:00 - [12]
 

Perhaps something along these lines could be worked into however CCP decide how to implement T3 in the future...?

There would need to be a limit on how far a ship could be modified in this way however, for the sake of balance.

/Ben

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.08 07:42:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
it is an interesting idea that comes up often, but I think the ships in Eve derive a great deal of their balance from their exact slot layout. Adding these slot to slot adapters could greatly upset the ship balance that exists in Eve.

Just a small example. With high-to-mid adapters, you could give a scorpion another 6 (!) ECM jammers.


youre spot on.

i concur

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.08 08:03:00 - [14]
 

This would not improve ship customizability.

There's always an optimal configuration, and almost everyone would use the converter to change the ship into exacty that setup. Thus it'd be another compulsory piece of equipment and will not improve diversity much.

Natalya RU
Posted - 2008.05.08 18:08:00 - [15]
 

Thanks candidates for answers. As you consider, there is a way to improve a diversity (to make fitting not such predicted.). Or it is not necessary?

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.09 02:25:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Natalya RU
Thanks candidates for answers. As you consider, there is a way to improve a diversity (to make fitting not such predicted.). Or it is not necessary?

I think predictable ship fittings is a natural result of the continuing addition of new ship classes into the game over time. New reasons have to be invented for each ship class to be taken up and flown by the players, and so the ship bonuses we see today are very specific, which in turn leads to players adopting specific fits.

In addition, we also have tools readily available such as EFT for people to obsess over numbers with, and killmails now list the victim's complete ship fittings, so unique fitting ideas tend not to stay unique for long (unless they're bad, hehe).

This is quite a different situation compared to the very generic ship bonuses of 2004 or thereabouts, but ofc back then all we had were T1 BSs, cruisers and frigates.

I'm not sure what - if anything - can be done about it really, or even if it's an issue at all as opposed to simply a sign of the times.

/Ben



Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 08:42:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Natalya RU
Thanks candidates for answers. As you consider, there is a way to improve a diversity (to make fitting not such predicted.). Or it is not necessary?


The only way to improve diversity in ship fittings is to make various fittings as equally valuable. Not allow players to arrange slots to pick the most valuable arrangement.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.09 08:58:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
While interesting in theory, I am fairly sure it would be impossible to balance, and fitting fanatics like me would come up with oodles of totally overpowered setups, thoroughly killing diversity. Thats the controversy of customization. Too many options actually lead to too few variants being used. Just play battletech with free mech customizations, all you get is a handful of different munchkin setups. (Unless the people playing have style, but that is rare and in EVE you usually play only to win anyway...)


Someone that like Battletch in the original format, not those heroclik figures. Smile Ever more happy to have voted for you and convinced some corpmate to do the same.
BTW: you play/played Shadowrun in the pen and paper version? That would be a good game to use with the ambulation project.

On the argument about costumization I would be more favorable to an option to change (using rigs) some high slot from missile to guns and vice versa. Doing that should always eat some CPU or Cap and be limited to 1 slot changed for each rig. This will have a high cost (1 rig slot + the cpu/cap cost but sometive it will be interesting).

Vould love a rig to change a ship bonus to a different kind of guns (laser to hybrids, for exampel), but even using 1 rig to change 1 bonus it could be heavily umbalanced (Baster armageddo?).

Natalya RU
Posted - 2008.05.09 13:11:00 - [19]
 

One more idea. Whether solo-player should have bonuses, as opposed to a gand-bonuses?
For example quickly-quickly to escape away from a gang. Smile

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2008.05.09 14:26:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Natalya RU
One more idea. Whether solo-player should have bonuses, as opposed to a gand-bonuses?
For example quickly-quickly to escape away from a gang. Smile


They already do, when solo mistrust everyone, anyone showing up is hostile, there's no standings mix-up, ever.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only