open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Rig Balancing - Your Opinions and Suggestions!
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
Posted - 2009.07.09 06:37:00 - [121]

Edited by: Yon Krum on 09/07/2009 06:38:01
Some more general rig thoughts:

* CCP needs to decide what rigs are: are they an extra module, and therefore of equivalent power? Or are they a little less than a module? Should they duplicate module effects, or provide new ship bonuses? This is the foundational question for rigs and any attempt to fix them.

* Devs should sit down for a two-day, pizza-and-beer brainstorming session and ask themselves for each rig: "does this make sense", "is this too little/more powerful", and "does this more or less affect a small/medium/large ship". Pushing out standardized rig modifier numbers is easy, but you'll need to balance the numbers later, anyway, and create howls of outrage when you make changes to the small/medium rigs at that time. Better to front-load it, balance the large (current) rigs to their size, and the new ones to their sizes. If someone (probably me) rigged their destroyer and you changed the effect for a large rig, then tough nuts--buy a cheaper small rig now.

* Rigs ultimately need to be broken out from their straightjacket of "X penalty per category". For example, why does drone durability penalize CPU? Why not penalize cargo capacity or ship speed. Consider what makes sense… people buy and fit rigs individually, not based on the wider category, so their penalties should reflect that.

* Rigs should be AT MOST stacking-penalized against themselves—not against ship modules. This unbalances them due to some rigs being not stacking-penalized at all.

Originally by: galphi
I believe MalVortex's post a while back covered the problems with rigs, I highly recommend you check it out here if you have not already done so.

MalVortex’s treatise on rigs is so incredibly awesome that it spares further need to list and discuss rigs in detail. Everyone should read it—it will make you a better person inside. Devs should each print it out and use it as their base notes during all decision sessions. That said, I do take issue with a few of his recommendations:

* Trimark rigs either need to be nerfed to 12.5%/15%, or Energized Regenerative Plating needs to be buffed to at least 15%/20%. You decide, but I'd choose the buff... current regenerative plating is NEVER an optimal choice under any realistic circumstance, and it’s silly that the rig is MORE than the module AND not stacking-penalized at all! Bad balance.

* Remote Repair Augmentor does not need to increase the amount repaired. We have lots of that all ready. Reducing cap use is a fine effect. It could possibly use a further boost in effectiveness, though, to make it attractive for non-logistics ships.

* Hyperspacial Velocity Optimizer provides a miniscule bonus for its type of effect. Problem is, the ships you'd choose to make go-fast through warp are already fast enough that they run into the 30-second limit on jumping. Consider changing this rig to an effect that accelerates the ship INTO warp faster, or accelerates/decelerates in warp faster (currently this is a fixed time regardless of ship type or stats).

* Low-Friction Nozzle Joints give 11.7% bonus, while reducing your armor, which is always bad. I-stabs give 16.7% while increasing your sig, which is only sometimes bad. This needs rebalancing.

* I disagree with Mal’s evaluation of the Drone Repair Augmentor—giving repair drones a boost is fine, but it will never be used because the penalty to bonus way, way out of wack. The rig would have to give double effectiveness to repair drones before it would become viable.

* Ionic Field Projector does need to be boosted in effectiveness: +20% targeting range is very modest indeed even for the ships that would choose the rig over sensor boosters. This also applies to the Targeting System Subcontroller rig.


Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
Posted - 2009.07.09 06:40:00 - [122]


* Particle Dispersion Projector does not necessarily need to affect ALL ewar ranges, but all types of ewar DO need a range-affecting rig. Add a rig balanced to each ewar type. For example, why is target painting so limited in range?? Add the rigs so the other ewar types can reach out an appropriate distance if a pilot chooses to fit them.

* Rocket Fuel Cache Partition should not just be a “cheaper” version of a missile range rig. Increase its effect to exceed that of the Hydraulic Bay Thrusters, which get both speed and range.

* Core Defense Charge Economizer as recommended by Mal would make it functionally equivalent to the Core Defense Capacitor safeguard, in that it would give more efficient shield boost per point of cap. I don’t think an additional efficiency rig is needed for shields, which already have the shield boost amplifier modules. Consider instead changing this rig to reduce the signature penalty of shield modules by a significant amount (say, 50% per rig). Regardless, it DOES need changing.


EVE is flat-out missing some rigs it should have, as well. In addition to those in MalVortex’s document I suggest:

* Hull point rigs. They're missing. Throw hull buffer-tankers some love (at the expense of cargo capacity, perhaps)!

* Remote repair range rigs.

* Any rig to reduce base signature radius. Missing, and hard to fit into the existing categories, but probably would have armor's speed-reducing effect for balance reasons. (Think “angled hull plating” or “emission-absorbing hull coatings”—we have these today, with modern technology.)

* A drone-bay size rig. Probably percent-based, since that would restrict its use to ships that already have a drone bay. I understand CCP does not want to add a bandwidth-increasing rig for balance reasons, but giving ships more flexibility in the drones/spares they carry should be acceptable.

* Rigs to increase gun/bay/injector ammo capacity. Would have zero effect on lasers, but that’s ok—they have enough upsides as it is (plus they use injectors).

* Rigs for extending the range of warp disruptors/scramblers/webbers.

* Rigs for reducing the capacitor requirements of propulsion-jamming modules.


Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.07.09 08:07:00 - [123]

Edited by: Forge Lag on 09/07/2009 08:11:15
How many rig feedback thread are there? This is like third I see and the rest I cannot find any more. You want feedback or not? Do those forums allow thread merges or do thay suck even more than we are willing to admit? That out of the way:

Make design decision what the rigs are. Some, like CCC, act as a module, giving bonus. Some, like drone rigs, act as customization, giving small boost for noticeable drawback. You have to decide on this first and then ballance around it.

The tough part is that people invested heavily into CCCs and trimarks and purgers and extenders and won't let them go without costing you money. I guess you can thank to original rig designer, bite the bullet and remake them into "modules", boosting most rigs across board.

In doing that, remove most drawbacks, possibly changing the skills into boosting the rig positive attributes. This goes towards your aim of giving rigs to nubs - and also removes the need to have nonsense drawbacks for the sake of having drawback. Also some -9% speed is extreme drawback when look at the nerfed speed rigs we have today.

I do not like my proposal at all but I bet you won't be willing to nerf the heck out of rigs and remake them into what they should have been - gimmicky bonuses and customization to your ship.

Contrary to what most tell you, the issue lies within CCCs, trimarks and purgers not withing damage and drone rigs. But I doubt are in a position to eliminate the issue and will rather make it into feature.

Genos Occidere
Posted - 2009.07.09 08:58:00 - [124]

Edited by: Raimo on 09/07/2009 09:32:42

(Just found this thread at work, will read it later properly but here's something I posted elsewhere that really would have belonged here)

Currently some of the best rigs to use are the non-stacking armor/ shield HP rigs this will surely be an EHP buff... I don't think it's necessarily a good thing.

A *great* way to counter this would be to simultaneously remove *all* rig stacking so that rigs just stack with each other! (or not at all even)

Surely some stat tweaks should be made for balance but this would help the less effective rigs like the weapon, resist and speed rigs to be viable again...

Also at the same time some rig drawbacks and calibrations should be looked at, IMO the weapon rigs are way too hard on fitting (both calibration and the PG/CPU drawbacks), also, the armor resist rig speed drawback is too harsh, for trimarks etc it is ok IMO.

(Of course tweak drop rates as well to balance the prices of the armor/ shield resist rigs)

Mostly not my ideas btw.

Edit: And the drone rigs need love. I'd reduce calibration and the drawback on the T1+T2 sentry damage rigs for starters, and maybe even buff the effect.

Maybe change sentry damage rigs to "drone damage rigs" to affect all drones, or make those separately?

And astronautic rigs *really* should be de- nerfed a bit and even stack only to each other, the prenerf nano won't be coming back with that but the rigs would see more use and more variations in fits...

Posted - 2009.07.09 10:41:00 - [125]

Originally by: Chi Quan
almost forgot the packaged rigged ships part:
make transport contracts for rigged ships decrease their volume to a point where they can reasonably be transported. (being able to contract rigged ships is ofc necessary)

Actually transporting rigged battleships can be easily fixed by getting rid of the 120,000m3 limit on courier contracts and boosting it to 517,500m3 (the volume of the largest battleship) or boost to 450,000 and reduce the BS in size slightly (like CCP were going to a while back when carriers got nerfed).

This will easily get a rigged BS into a freighter.

Genos Occidere
Posted - 2009.07.09 16:41:00 - [126]

Edited by: Raimo on 09/07/2009 17:04:14

Originally by: To mare
make polycarbon reduce mass again there is no reason to use them on any good setup, the only reason trit bar are sold is to make cargo rigs + some small number of aux thruster and low friction crap.
make them -10% mass they will be less powerful than the old poly in nanoage but the could have a reason to be crafted.

i dont get why offensive rigs stack while defensive rigs dont, make trimark, extender rigs, etc stacking penalized or remove the stacking penality of offensive rigs with weapon upgrades.

This. Especially the part about bringing mass reducing Polycarbs back but properly nerfed, like they should have done in the first place IMO. All the other effects of the nanonerf will still stand and sillynano won't be back, fear not.

It's just that as it stands the Polycarb is nearly totally useless compared to a Nanofiber, and the same applies to Auxiliary Thrusters and Low Friction Nozzle Joints... Though they have some use in minmaxing fits, but they too need to be free of their stacking with low slot speed mods.

To be honest speed fitting is a bore these days, the only viable fit is 3-4 nanos and overdrives, and unless you invest in the (just barely effective enough to be bothered) HG Snakes your fit is still so slow that in most cases it's not worth the tradeoffs...

Some variation and options in speed fits should be brought back. Keep MWD's like they are, Snakes nerfed as they are, base speeds like now but unstack low slots and Aux Thrusters/ Nozzle Joints from each other and add the mass reducing Polycarbs into the mix... Please! Sure, pure nanofits would get a bit faster but IMO there should be *some* reward for specializing in a fit so much.

And yes, make weapon rigs not stack with modules as well. Best way to counter buffer fits without nerfing, boost damage potential! Wink

(Active tanks could of course use a bit of help as well, the best idea I've seen so far is not related to rigs but to increase the heat effects of armor and shield reps, this would not totally break 1v1's but would make active fits a bit more viable in midsize gang combat...)

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

Drone rigs look like they could be good, but they just aren't. I think the biggest culprit here is the penalty - change it to, say, agility? Noticeable, not used elsewhere, but not crippling to your fit. Also, move some of the stats up, and make Stasis apply to all EW drones.

This would kill the gank Sentry Ishtar... Yeah, the CPU drawback is nearly killing it as is, but please don't make it agility. Armor, sig radius, something else than those 2... Though boosting/ augmenting the drone rigs in general, hell yes!

Damage Unlimited Inc
Posted - 2009.07.09 18:40:00 - [127]

A common problem that seems to appear (and apparently is being addressed by multiple sized rigs) is the lesser affect of percent bonuses applied to different ship sizes, ie. a 15% armor HP increase on a BS is SIGNIFICANTLY better than a 15% bonus to armor HP on a frigate even in combat vs. a vessel of similar size.

Instead of tripling the amount of rigs in the game, why not adjust ship classes to receive bonuses to rigs effectiveness? I'm not sure how you programming people work your magic, but it seems logical to make frigate class vessels receive a bonus (33% or something like that) to HP rig effectiveness rather than creating an additional item in game. A 15% armor rig installed on a frig would provide 20% bonus to HP, which is much more attractive than 15%, while the BS with no bonus receives the base 15% increase.

Obviously this would only work on rigs that affect attributes of the ship (HP, cap regen etc.), but really that's all it needs to affect to sort out the disadvantages to smaller ships from these types of rigs.

I don't know if this is a viable solution, but it's an idea, and that's what this thread is for... right?

Ninja Jones
Posted - 2009.07.09 18:41:00 - [128]

Originally by: William Hamilton
Drawbacks should realy be decided per rig instead of per rig group. Thre should be some focus on making rigs specilization items, giving them a drawback that is definitley notable, but not evident if you are using the advantage of the rig to full effect.

Yes, do this. Rigs are really about specializing your ship so the drawbacks should be weaken the system that is strengthened, but in another area.

Some examples: a shield resistance rig could strengthen one resistance type while weakening the others; a shield extender rig could reduce shield recharge time; a shield purger rig could reduce overall shield amount.

Blanket penalties are silly.

Originally by: William Hamilton

Also, make rigs on a seperate stacking than modules.

Yes, do this also. Except, add stacking penalties for the rigs which are not stacking penalized (trimarks).

Galactic Rangers
Posted - 2009.07.09 19:12:00 - [129]

I completely disagree with rig changes, they're perfectly fine the way they are, only rich are able to rig their ships, thats the way it should be, Rigs are NOT modules, they are tool boxes, are you telling me now i'm going to get one the size of a computer, then one the size of a laptop, then one of the size of a lunch box, "Hey anyone got a 1mm long wrench?" , Plus whats going to happen, example, i spent 30 million on getting 2 CCC's, say they were fitted on a frigate, now imagine this comes along, turns it into a small, that means its only worth like 2 million, wait a second....i just lost like 28 million, and even if you unrig all of the Rigs on ships and turn them into large to be sold, just imagine...everyone with rigs will have Large rigs, they'll all try sell them, market for the future, Large rigs will crash, forcing medium rigs to lower their prices, and then small rigs are forced to lower their prices, then every newb in the game can afford rigs, screw Large/Medium/Small Rigs, they're fine the way they are, you need to fix Calibration, i agree with transporting rigged ships, slightly agree with salvage conversion, but the whole idea of L/M/S Rigs, it musn't have been thought through enough because to me it sounds like a pretty bad idea.

Kai Lae
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.07.09 19:56:00 - [130]

Edited by: Kai Lae on 09/07/2009 19:57:59
Edited by: Kai Lae on 09/07/2009 19:56:38
Originally by: Ninja Jones

Yes, do this. Rigs are really about specializing your ship so the drawbacks should be weaken the system that is strengthened, but in another area.

Some examples: a shield resistance rig could strengthen one resistance type while weakening the others; a shield extender rig could reduce shield recharge time; a shield purger rig could reduce overall shield amount.

Blanket penalties are silly.

Yes because we want all rigs to work effectively as capacitor flux coils, a nearly useless module. Since it boosts cap recharge and then nerfs cap size, it actually can worsen recharge time. Why this module doesn't give 15% recharge and boost armor rep cycles is beyond me but that's OT. Penalties on rigs need to be very carefully thought out; as I pointed out on Pg 2 one of the biggest rig issues is that penalties on some ships are negligable while on others they can be quite crippling. An armor amount penalty on a rig designed to reduce MWD use on a gallente ship will be a very low use rig indeed due to the armor penalty, while a passive shield tanked vaga could care less. Except of course that a CCC would be a better choice overall, but that's a seperate issue.

Also CCP you need to reconsider this "alchemy" plan for T2 rig parts. By doing so you're nerfing pvp activities and drone regions. Why? Because drone commanders and pvp are where these parts come from (commanders from other regions as well but not to the extent of drone commanders). Already drone regions are pretty crappy to start off with, and this would make it worse. If you are concerned that the cost of T2 rigs is too high (which is a possibly reasonable conclusion) you should reduce the amount of T2 salvage parts required per rig build. You keep up beating on drone region residents and the people out there will leave and I'll have no one to beat up on at all :)

Yonis Giosar
Posted - 2009.07.09 20:25:00 - [131]

"Tank Rigs"

Its fine to have tank rigs, but the drawbacks need to be balanced, not just on the rigs, but on the regular mods as well.

Keep in mind there are multiple ship sizes, why should armor rigs always reduce speed whether on a frigate or battleship.

How come shield rigs always increase the signature radius whether on a frigate or battleship.

Both of these have diminishing effects so that battleships slap them on without feeling the negative effects at all, whereas a frigate with armor rigs has a huge handicap... and a frigate with shield rigs is slightly easier to catch in a camp.

something somethingdark
Posted - 2009.07.09 20:35:00 - [132]

some aditional ideas on what i would like rigs to be

as it stands now there are several issues

  • most rigs are modules

  • Rigs make or break allot of setups

  • Rigs are prety much required

  • Some rigs are stacking nerfed some are not

  • Rig bonuses dont scale well

  • Some rigs are completly useless unless on big ships

the CCC is a prominent one
coulndt imagine carriers without them....
couldnt imagine a missioning/ratting setup without em....
trimarks extenders etc

The main goal is to determine wether the rigs are fitted to the ships because the ship is otherwise unflyable, to make the ship perform a function it would otherwise not be able to, make the ship perform its intended function just a bit better, make a very very good ship (note the second very) completly uber (see the whole polycarbon ordeal)

but wait thers more
then you should do the sitting arround eating pizza drinking beer throwing arround of pizzaboxes and beer cans and figure out what you realy want rigs to do

then come back and we can talk more Very Happy

Posted - 2009.07.09 20:39:00 - [133]

Maybe have the rigs not stack with any modules but be penalized with other rigs. So if you add three times the same rig, you get a penalty but when you add three different rigs, you get no stacking penalty. At least that would motivate people to fit a greater variety of rigs instead of the same batch all the time. Also, this would un-nerf weapon rigs and nerf tanking rigs.

Rig penalties could also be a bit more diverse. Instead of all armor rigs reducing speed and all weapon rigs increasing powergrid usage, have more variety. Like Trimarks increasing mass, resistance pumps increasing hardener cap use or auxiliary nano pumps reducing armor amount. This would make fiddling around with rigs more interesting and requires to make more compromises and decisions when choosing rigs.

Davik Rendar
Posted - 2009.07.10 01:40:00 - [134]

Reducing the cost of armour resistance rigs in comparison to Trimarks would be nice, a similar ratio to shield resistance -> extenders.

And as for transporting rigged ships, I remember reading an idea someone posted a while ago that was to have a "travel repackage" option that doesn't destroy rigs, but puts the ship in a repackaged state. And when a ship is "travel repackaged" it cant be put on the market.

Seiji Hannah
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2009.07.10 13:36:00 - [135]

Rigs could be very much improved with a few smaller changes : -

* remove the penalty stacking versus fitted modules and apply that penalty vs the same
type of rig only (Example: first fitted trimark rig would be 100% efficient, second 50% third 25%
- specific damage type protection stacking would be applied to exact same damage type protection - Anti-Exp vs Anti-Exp.)

* reallocate some of the missplaced rigs to their respective niches - Salvage tackle and Signal Dirsruption Amplifier - which are the most obvious missplacements.

* review some of the unused rigs, perhaps add some percentage modifier.

Arawn Caledonia
Posted - 2009.07.10 15:58:00 - [136]

I'd like to see the Rigor and Flare rigs buffed considerably. Missile users need this.

Also, targeting range rigs would be nice. Snipers such as the Rokh can technically hit beyond 250, they should be able to target that far as well.

Monks of War
Posted - 2009.07.10 17:32:00 - [137]

I think Digital Communist has a very healthy opinion regarding rigs.
If implemented correctly with good creative efforts it can be a very challenging and interesting part of ship fittings.

Posted - 2009.07.10 17:42:00 - [138]

Originally by: Leaping Tiger
It's all about the skill brother. Each skill has five levels. Please make them DO something. Skills need to apply to the effectiveness of rigs, not just to the drawbacks and not to just being able to equip something. Give me a reason to want to train all of my skills to level V, PLEASE.

Frankly I don't think there should be any attributes modified by rigs that can be had by standard modules. Otherwise there's little differenc except cost. That is uninteresting. Please be creative. There needs to be an anti-energy drain rig. How about a tractor beam range boost. You can do it on marauders, but it's otherwise impossible? As a matter of fact I think all of the role bonus stuff should be put into rigs. The Bhalgorn gets a 10% boost to NOS per level. Give us some of that. Be creative.

You guys have done a really great job of making the skills relevant - Jesus this is irritating trying to type with the box going crazy - of making the skills relevant to the ships. Maybe we can do the same for the rigs. Eve is all about the skills. And the Benjamins.

And we need some legit drone rigs too.

I like this idea. Give rigs stats that can't be given by modules. Maybe give roll stats as well, good stuff!!

Stars' Herald
Posted - 2009.07.10 20:26:00 - [139]

Mal Vortex's post which is linked at the top of this page, is 95% win.

Granted, it doesn't adress sizing concerns, but it does help iron out rigs in their current state. I too suggest a thorough reading of his work.

Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.07.10 23:47:00 - [140]

Armor resist rigs should get their material costs reduced.
That way it is offset against the Trimark's 15% armor boost by being cheaper and more expendable.

Drone damage mods need to be added, why do only Sentries get them?

Several Austronic Rigs about warp are mostly useless, others just cost too much.

T2 scanning rig is useless as you'll always fit two T1s and can't fit a T1 and a T2.

The rig that gives more cap rather than better cap recharge should be given a 5% increase, which might make it worth getting.

Damage/RoF rigs need a boost to be worth getting over a damage mod.
Some T2 rigs could use a boost when faced with their T1 variant bonus and their costs.
Getting 5% more falloff for 150mil is just not feasible.

Solid Prefekt
Haven Front
Posted - 2009.07.11 03:49:00 - [141]

The small/med/large rigs is a great idea. Beyond that I think is a waste of brain power as I don't see it improving the game (or making it worse). I rather see Sov system improved or Titan role adjusted.

Posted - 2009.07.11 04:31:00 - [142]

Originally by: Solid Prefekt
The small/med/large rigs is a great idea. Beyond that I think is a waste of brain power as I don't see it improving the game (or making it worse). I rather see Sov system improved or Titan role adjusted.

Exactly... The small med large setup is great. It really solves a serious problem in the game. No one rigs smaller cheaper ships because the rig is worth 50 times the value of a T1 frigate etc etc. There is some room for a moderate amount of rebalancing but its not an urgent need. 0.0 Sov mechanics need to be fixed asap.

Killer Koalas
Posted - 2009.07.11 11:13:00 - [143]

its obvious people want cargo rigs

drone bay, drone bw
ammo or fuel bay rigs (bigger, but restricted item types)
corp hangar rigs
maintenance bay rigs

and why cant pilots dock in carriers :( <- ignore this one

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2009.07.11 13:23:00 - [144]

Devs: DigitalCommunist and Murder One's posts on the first page are the best summation of Rigs so far in this thread.

I'm personally hoping you'll read those two posts and decide that you want to approach rigs and "do it properly" this time since you have the designated development time.

My thoughts are that rigs are customisations based on a certain hull or subsystems fitting to that hull. Since we now have hulls of more than S,M and L sizes - like destroyers and battlecruisers, and capitals - rigs should really be based in terms of cost and balanced according to customising that particular size of hull.

Pre-Rig implementation - I understood rigs as modifications you could make to the base layer of your ship (BEFORE MODULES!) that would specialize your ship, at a penalty to some other function. The reality of implementation is that rigs are like modules with some rigs (like Energy Grid Rigs) having no penalties, and others having no real benefits (like with warp speed, as you've already identified) making them not worthwhile. Quite simply you now inherit and are trying to improve what was a short-term, imbalanced original design.

You at CCP now have a glorious opportunity to do it right for the long term.

My suggestions for doing this are:

• Make rigs more "role" specific
• Make rigs properly scalable using hull size classes and balance rigs within hull sizes against eachother, then against the 'similar roles' of rigged ships from other classes. (Frigate snipers < Destroyer snipers < Cruiser snipers < Battlecruiser snipers < Battleship snipers generally in terms of DPS/extremes of range etc) - this is NOT a 3 class game of S,M, L anymore and hopefully EVE will continue to grow in the future with more ship classes...
• So... make rigs scalable for future designs.
• Add rigs that really modify a ships role and chassis - therfore rig hardpoints and base values like Signature Radius, Scan Resolution, Velocity based on the hull type rather than uniform percentage bonuses.
• Escape the "uniform" + 10% bonuses for say frigate hull optimal range rigs as say... battleship hull optimal range rigs. Obviously 10% on a 5km optimal is useless comared to 10% on 100km. Just add a set amount of optimal, maybe 10km for a railgun frigate, 20km for an artillery frigate etc, 10km for a blaster Battleship etc... These rigs push specific ships and weapon systems more towards these 'roles'.
• Make the drawback properly relevant to the rig 'role'. Allow certain 'powerful' rigs to use all the calibration point, pushing the ship towards a specific role and gimped for any other general role - Hell, for example I'd remove my ships engines and all mobility and fly a warp to a point turret if it was powerful enough (in certain situations).
• Remove the limit of a 5 drone maximum, and add drone rigs that allow extra drones to be fielded and make a powerful mining drone rig.
• Add rigs that properly compete with tanking and ganking rigs for usefulness

I'd like to point out that 'interesting gameplay' and tactics as a result of rigs has been experienced before with Nanoships. These were awefully imbalanced but only really because of a lack of effective counters - its worth remembering they were aptly very fragile once countered properly.

I'm not suggesting you "Bring back Nanos", but I do suggest you allow rigs to diversify and alter ships to allow whole new distinctive PVP tactics to be created.

I'm sorry I can't be more specific. I know at this stage you at CCP are probably looking for specifics on revamping the current rigging system, but I really think that would be a mistake in terms of the future of Eve. I'd imagine it to feel just like fixing the analogue tape player in your 2nd hand Lambourghini - it does not make sense to me when you can rip it out and put in a state of the art digital jukebox in keeping with the pioneering design.

Good luck anyway Devs. Cheers

Sic Volo
Posted - 2009.07.11 13:33:00 - [145]

1. Remove all drawbacks;
2. Scrap all rigs but one per group, ex: Drone rig t1 & 2, Hybride weapon rig t1 & 2....
3. Introduce procedure of "setting" the rig before to be fit. This to be done by distributing points between several parameters of the rig, for ex: Electronic warfare rig may have "CPU cost reduction", "Web range", Web strength" etc. etc. Those points should correspond to the rigging skill level and t1-t2.
4. Seat back and let the players do the ballance in natural way.

Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2009.07.11 17:42:00 - [146]

Okay, copypaste of ideas I think are important with [my comments]

Trimarks, unchanged. Stack nerf HP increases. (Blatant passive tank nerf) [Take this chance to increase regenerative membranes? Although I believe they might be used on some buffer fit supercaps] That, increase calibration to 150 or so?

Drone rigs are very difficult to fit effectively given the cpu drawback and comparison to regular modules on top of the fact that the only non-cap ships in the game that could consider drones a primary weapon are the domi and ishtar, but the ishtar already has cpu problems. This leaves the domi as the only ship in the game that would serious consider these rigs. They need a boost of some sort just as the damage rigs do.
[I'd say an increase of 10% to small/medium drone damage and +5% heavy drone damage for a rig would be nice? It would obviously be targeted at ships that don't use sentries so much like the curse/ishkur/vexor/myrm...]

Damage and RoF rigs all need a 5% buff across the board in order to be considered more often for setups. They're just not as good as normal damage mods, and not tempting in comparison to cap, armor, or shield rigs. Increase their material costs to offset it. The rest looks good.
[tech 2 magstab ~= 21% damage, rig ~= 10/11%. 15% would make much more sense given the significant drawback. I would also settle for removal of stacking penalties on damage rigs]

the rigs that boost the analyzer and codebreaker are useless since you're only going to be spending 30 seconds breaking into the can vs the hours of probing you'll inevitably do to find the cans. only granting 100% chance to hack sites of x difficulty (say all high/low sec sites for the T1 rig, and all sites for the T2 rig), REGARDLESS of the characters skill level (i.e. they can use this rig to hack/analyze cans they normally could not due to skill limitations) would make these even a considerable option. Even then their usage would be minimal. (mostly for rich people just wanting to try exploration, instead of the regulars who will have those skills and can wait 10 seconds for another cycle).
[I'd suggest maybe even combining them with salvage tackles? Seriously, if you have a ship specialized that much in exploration, it probably has an analyzer and a codebreaker on it.]

[I would suggest adding stacking penalties to CCCs, so say you get better results with 2 of them and a semiconductor memory cell? Although that defeats itself because then 2xCCC + 1 SMC becomes the staple... Actually I see it's already been suggested as a general point which I support.]

[Core defence field extender as someone mentioned really should decrease recharge rate.]

Rookie ships can't fit rigs because they have no calibration - can we fix that plz?

Finally: Rethink some of the penalties. For example: If you want a fast ship, you don't fit armor rigs AT ALL. same goes for small ship/shield rigs. Put some variation in there and you make certain fits more viable. Some possible new penalties: Targeting range (for active tank rigs?), agility, uh... cap use for weapons, sensor strength, signature resolution (for guns again)

Posted - 2009.07.11 22:22:00 - [147]

1. Fix rig penalties. They should be increased, but with good skills they should be reduced to zero. Right now there is no real reason to use rig skills and most penalties are too harsh or irrelevant.

2. Stacking needs to be fixed. I think weapons should be unstacked, especially for cruisers and frigs. The game is too focused on defense right now.

3. If a rig is sold less than ten times a day in Jita, get rid of it and make something that will sell at least 20 units a day.

4. Fix drone rigs. The damage rig is for sentries. Make it do damage for all drone types. This needs to be done anyway because medium and small sized ships except the Ishtar can't really use sentries.

5. Do not nerf Trimarks, they are needed to stop DD's. Do not nerf CCC they are needed for every function that requires a lot of cap. There should be one rig in every class that you "can't live without" if you are performing a specific function. There needs to be a must have DPS rig.

6. There needs to be a way to use up excess salvage. Every salvage type should be in at least one nice rig that sells in large volume, that might do the trick.

Rip Striker
Posted - 2009.07.12 09:53:00 - [148]

Why do rigs have penalties?

1. Rigs are non refundable.
2. Rigs give less bonus than regular ship modules.
3. Rigs are more expensive than regular ship modules.

My proposal is to remove rig penalties (except when stacking).

Posted - 2009.07.12 11:13:00 - [149]

Edited by: Abrazzar on 12/07/2009 11:19:48
Originally by: Rip Striker
Why do rigs have penalties?

1. Rigs are non refundable.
2. Rigs give less bonus than regular ship modules.
3. Rigs are more expensive than regular ship modules.

My proposal is to remove rig penalties (except when stacking).

Point of the rigs is that they are not normal modules. They are supposed to customize your ship, shifting performance from one area to another in a balanced manner.

Right now, though, they don't quite fill that purpose as penalties are either insignificant, non-existent or rather unrelated to what they actually modify. Like weapon rigs affect weapon stats, but instead of shifting stats of weapon performance around, they all simply add to PG usage.

IMHO, rig penalties should be more closely related to what they modify. Also, the basic penalty should be more significant, so that someone with low skills does reduce the overall performance of the ship with a rig, while a high skill gives a overall performance increase. I'd say lvl 1-2 in the skill yields a negative overall effect, lvl 3 is balanced, lvl 4 and 5 yield a overall improvement.

For example: A Energy Colission Accelerator I currently increases the damage modifier by 10% and increases PG requirements by 10%.*

Shifting the penalty to a more weapon related attribute, it increases capacitor usage per shot instead of PG requirements.

Now to make the penalty more significant, base increase is 15% instead of 10% and increasing the drawback reduction of the skill from 10% to 15% resulting in a increased advantage of high rigging skills

This results with a 10% increased damage mod with 13.5% increased capacitor use at lvl 1, 12% at lvl 2, 10.5% at lvl 3, 9% at lvl 4 and 7.5% at lvl 5.

One might even add a advantage bonus increase of 10% to the skill, to make the differences more significant. So you'd have 11% damage and 13.5% cap use at lvl 1, 12% damage and 12% cap use at lvl 2, 13% damage and 10.5% cap use at lvl 3, 14% damage and 9% cap use at lvl 4, 15% damage and 7.5% cap use at lvl 5.

If the rigs get rebalanced, the opportunity should be used to give rigs and the option to rig or not and the skills more meaning. It's all about choices and consequences. Right now some rigs are mandatory while other rigs are almost never used. This should be changed.

In short:

- More rig diversity by giving rigs stacking penalties with the same rigs (but not with modules)
- Making the penalties more diverse and more closely related to the bonus.
- Increasing the significance of the rigging skills to make training them to high levels useful.

*EDIT: Numbers following do not contain any for or shape of balancing and should be taken only as examples.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.07.12 13:37:00 - [150]

THe logical steps are. Pay attention on which rigs are used a lot and which are never used. THere is a clear trend. The rigs that are always used are the ones that do not stack nerf against the modules.

The modifiers that we can add trough modules we will add trough modules not rigs, why? because they have better bonuses, better cost and are exchangeable. Therefore all the modifiers that are stack nerfeable will be already filled (The stack) by modules. Therefore addign rigs on those modifiers is usless. Becomes obvious that the only things you can do with those slots is add rigs that modify things not stack nerfed along modules. Example, Armor and shield ammount, armor repair rate, capacitor recharge etc...

That is pretty simple and obvious.

To rigs be used they must be not stack nerfed against modules OR have better bonuses than modules (because they already carry loads of disadvantages). The locus rigs were the only weapon rigs used a lot a few months ago, but CCp broke them when they fixed the "bug". They were used for a simple reason, they were useful even when your ship already had modules fitted on them.

Move rigs stack nerf to spearate stack and or make their bonuses superior to modules. That is the only way most rigs will be seen as useful. THe other option is to make their bonuses COMPLETELY different from what modules bring up. But as long as they share a stack nerf with modules, they will be loosers.

Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

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


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only