Ship fitting idea

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

So I’ve been around EVE for a healthy wee stint now. I’ve been tinkering with an idea for a long time, but I think I need EVE to rip it to pieces before I’m going to hold myself up as a wise or learned player. A reasonably recent development called “mutaplasmids” has arrived. It set the hamster wheel in my mind turning. Into low gear admittedly, but it’s moving again, which I like =) I did some dusting and here’s what I caught it doing. I haven’t scolded it yet, but I might. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

We’re alllll familiar with the fitting window. :smiley:

We’re familiar with the Power Grid and CPU bars. :smirk:

I have an audacious and indeed controversial proposal for you… :face_with_monocle: I was wondering - what do you think about having a separate PG/CPU grid for the three different slot power ratings and using ISK and mutaplasmids to augment the Hulls base stats?

One for highs.
One for mids.
One for lows.

Limiting this idea to the T1 hulls (including Navy ships, but excluding the pirate vessels); suppose you could modify a packaged, T1 hull with mutaplasmids, and calibrate each or only one of the various slot power grids to adjust for more PG, CPU or both - up to say 15% of it’s base stats before your skills are applied. It’s a starting figure, not set in stone, but we need a bench mark to work with. If it’s that’s not to your liking perhaps X number of Calibration points to simply modify anything on the “attributes” tab on the “ship info” window. Maybe I’d like 15% more explosive resistance to my base armor stats on my Incursus? Perhaps a Merlin with a shield that had a little less of a EM hole in it’s shield? You get my point.

ISK + Mutaplasmids + fitting simulation tool + thinking = flexibility to do what farm boys have been doing to cars since the car has been invented - pimpin’ their ride ^_~

I think after this much of EVE online, maybe it’s time to let the market speak with it’s own design voice.

I think of this as an excellent way for stimulating the market, forcing the paper rock scissors dynamic out, and to some extent breathing new life into the game. EVE has been an incredibly fun game, but it’s lost a lot of it’s excitement because of the predominate nature of dogmatic thinking. I get the sensation that we’ve lost some of the creative thinking that brings excitement! Hulls get designed to fill an envisioned role, which pilots oddly enough routinely ignore. So lets try a compromise - CCP dictates slot layout, and ship role, hull bonuses and the base PG/CPU/ stats reapportioned to the individual power racks, high, mid, and low. Rigs work the same, but now you can opt to increase how many calibration points you can buy. Your wallet and creativity sprinkle on the finishing touches.

Just an idea - and I’m certain it needs a lot of refining but I believe in view of what the mutaplasmids are, and how that works, that maybe applying it to the ships themselves in a selective way is a fairly natural step to take, which I think would shake up EVE a lot. As a content monger this pleases me. I live for content i tell you. LIVE FOR IT!

So… EVE. You brilliant people you - do cross examine! :innocent: I’m delighted to hear your voice, accept criticism, and revise my theory into a legitimately compelling paradigm. I’m also willing to stand my ground =) just mind the dead hamster… I had to replace mine, haven’t set a date for the wake. Start dusting off your festival launchers… :crazy_face:

2

Why TF do you keep planting random emotes into your text?

Just type out your idea ffs.

3

Random? RANDOM!?

:crazy_face:

4

Flashrain alt or colleague detected.

5

Can I have that in plain english?

6

:arrow_right: :arrow_right: :arrow_right: https://forums.eveonline.com/c/technology-research/player-features-ideas/74

1 Like
7

I’ve reposted the thread in the appropriate location. Thanks for the heads up on that.

If there’s a mod out there who can nix this thread it’s cool with me. Sorry for the mess.

8

Threads should not be reposted. You have the ability to change the title and/or category of an existing thread. Please delete the new thread and recategorize this one.

9

This idea breaks too much.

There are fits that don’t conform to your narrow view of how fitting works that would just be completely impossible if this was implemented. Oversized props on rolling ships for example.

This idea forces homogenous fitting, is a major nerf to wormhole players, and generally removes diversity from the game.

We don’t need to make ship fits more cookie cutter.

2 Likes
10

That is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.

3 Likes
11

Which are what exactly?

12

ship balance and fitting freedom as a main part. Especially on ships where a choice of armor or shield tanking exist.

It also makes different types of turret weapons redundant - why would you ever want to fit electron blasters if high slots have separate PG and its enough for neutrons? Fitting high power weapons will have no effect on fitting tanking/buffer in mids/lows - that will be a result of proposed system.

So you either end up with ■■■■■■ up ship balance or removal of fitting choice depending on how that idea is implemented.

4 Likes
13

Why this sucks:

  • Does not address a need
  • Does not enhance the game experience (how is the game more fun or interesting?)
  • Introduces insane amount of imbalancing of ships and weapons and gameplay metas and fitting metas
  • Makes it more difficult for CCP to balance ships and modules. It’s worth pointing out that low slots and rigs were intended to be sacrificed for enhancing PG/CPU as part of design decisions.
  • Introduces unnecessary complexity players don’t want to deal with
  • Adds new dimension to mutaplasmids, which are cancerous and one of the worst features ever introduced to EVE
  • Would require a complete and total redesign of almost every module/rig in existence and the in-game fitting tool/simulator and all 3rd party fitting tools - the non-existent benefits and numerous downsides are not worth such a hassle
  • etc etc etc etc etc

I wasn’t going to give this thread the time of day, but since DMC asked a serious question I decided to oblige with a serious answer.

2 Likes
14

Since we’ve never met lets remember a few things about a healthy debate on a public forum. Firstly lets keep it above the belt. Secondly lets remember to back up the claims with some facts. Thirdly, if you’ve got an opinion, clearly state that it’s your opinion.

With this in mind, it’s nice to meet you.

Now, let me address your comments. After I read your comments I couldn’t help but do a little research.

Was the first thing I checked. I’m thinking I’ll ignore your first sentence, there is no basis for a comment of that nature as it contains absolutely no factual basis to substantiate the claim.

The homogeneous fitting claim is also false. This would not see the removal of the Arty Abbaddon. It wouldn’t deny the shield Domi, It wouldn’t at 15% allow a 10MN afterburner on any frigate unless you traded everything to do it - and that is specifically why I said one calibration bar per rack.

Let me break it down for you on an Atron:

Here’s basic rundown on the stock stats. It’s not everything, just CPU, PG, Rig, and slot layout. It’s basis is all skills 5, with the 3% power grid implant I happen to have in my clone included in these figures. All figures pulled straight from the game client.

PG: 47.6
CPU: 183.8
Rig: 400

High Power: 4
Mid Power: 3
Low Power: 3

Now I’m going to show you a fairly common scram kite fit, and it’s tight. I have 0.0 PG left, an 3.8 CPU left.

So now let me spec you the total PG and CPU consumed per rack. Verify it on your own in the client but remember it’s based on all skills 5 and a 3% PG implant in slot 6.

High power:

  • PG: 29.6
  • CPU 51

Mid Power:

  • PG: 11
  • CPU: 69

Low Power:

  • PG: 7
  • CPU: 60

Rigs:

  • Calibration: 150

Totals:

  • PG: 47.6
  • CPU: 180
  • Rigs: 150

Remainders:

  • PG: 0
  • CPU: 3.8
  • Rigs: 250

So now lets break down the total used per rack to establish how much percentage of the existing structure is attributed per Rack, since rigs have always been a separate pool of points to fit with.

High Power:

  • PG: 62.48%
  • CPU: 27.74%

Mid Power:

  • PG: 23.1%
  • CPU: 37.54%

Low Power:

  • PG: 14.7%
  • CPU: 32.64%

Now lets assess what happens to these numbers when we add 15% to each rack, and for the sake of a little more compact a format, I’ll include the the previous base numbers prior to the new number:

Hull Base Stats:

  • PG: 47.6 > 54.74
  • CPU: 183.8 > 211.37

High power:

  • PG: 29.6 > 34.04
  • CPU 51 > 58.65

Mid Power:

  • PG: 11 > 12.65
  • CPU: 69 > 79.35

Low Power:

  • PG: 7 > 8.05
  • CPU: 60 > 69

As you can see this does open up some options, but for the most part we aren’t seeing game breaking ability here.

Lets look at the High slots first:

Rail guns require more in terms of fitting requirements than blasters. Three each on the hull in question, an Atron give the following numbers assuming all skills 5:

3 x T2 125mm Rail Gun PG/CPU: 21.6mw; 36tf
3 x T2 150mm Rail Gun PG/CPU: 27mw; 60.75tf

The Nos:

1 x Small Knave Scoped Energy Nosferatu PG/CPU: 8mw, 15tf

If we have a look at how much a 15% buff gives the high slots, what do we find. Still no love. Missed by 2.04 mw of PG. On the CPU side, things are not much better at 2.1tf of CPU.

So, adding the Nos makes it impossible.

Perhaps 20% is a better number. But the goal, wasn’t to have a 100mn AB on a frigate, it was to squeeze on a better module per rack. If I took 15% of the whole existing grid, and didn’t split it across three non-cumulative grids as I propose - game breaking may indeed be possible. But we haven’t looked at this same fit with blasters.

Here, things are a lot different.

3 x Light Neutron Blaster PG/CPU: 24.3mw; 40.5tf

In my fitting window, again, all skills 5, and a 3%pg implant in slot 6, I miss by 2.7mw of PG and 0.8tf of CPU.

So now lets have a look at what a T2 Nos would cost me.

2mw of PG. Suffice it to say a 15% buff is hardly a game breaking decision, especially if it’s evenly across all the racks and rigs. All in one area - sure, stupid.

With the 15% buff, you can rock a T2 Nos, and 3 T2 Neutron blasters. That’s a phenomenal brawling Atron. The only penalty is financial, and it didn’t waltz straight into the OP zone. It’ll still have to earn it from a Hookbill or a Slicer, and it’s gonna have a hard time with a Punisher or a Merlin, and certainly with a Rifter.

In the case of the rigs on this hull, 3 T2 versions of the same rig have no fitting difficulty. But, suppose you wanted to put on burst aerators and a polycarb engine housing - there’s an argument to be made for upping the rigs with this paradigm - but I haven’t fleshed it out yet because I chose a simple example.

So, regarding cookie cutter fits, and inconveniencing wormholers… Not really. No facts to support the claim, no need for a rebuttal until you’ve got the evidence.

15

Not so. There are players, and indeed fleets, who specialize in methodic combat.

Lets look at Blasters since you mentioned them. Lets address the conversation with Lead ammo, and discuss tracking.

Light Electron Blaster 438
Light Ion Blaster 403.2
Light Neutron Blaster 379.8

Any catalyst pilot can tell you that Electron Blasters are incredible for melting both frigates and drones.

Recall my previous post about the Atron. While I didn’t get into what the Low Slots were, I think you can do a little research and discover that you’re not getting a bigger tank, just a better damage control, or a better magstab. It’s that kind of swap. It’s not a T2 400mm Steel plate with a full rack of T2 150mm Rail Guns.

Use facts when present argument. I’ll remind you every time.

16

Oh but it does. And any pilot in any walk of life in EVE can attest to the frustration of fitting a ship for a given purpose.

Being able to buy more time to get back up in system, surpising a pirate and forcing a conflict to escalate and generate more content, etc.

Not really, The different between “leaning” and “imbalanced” - we’re in a fuzzy place there.

Lets let CCP speak for themselves. You may be insulting the intelligence of many. Who knows, maybe they want more work so they don’t get laid off. It’s a big statement with no evidence. It’s also worth pointing out, that the existing modules do to some extent do what I’m talking about, but the point is to hot-rod the ship, and not play paper rock scissors in space.

True:

800×777 49.1 KB

However… This is EVE. Moving on…

Confound it all man! EVIDENCE. Back up the claim, or don’t make it. Where does this outlandish accusation come from?

Again, let people speak for themselves. Modules are constantly being tweaked anyway. This is hardly going to change that.

Seriously? Evidence man. Evidence. Re-examine your statements, support them with facts, and come back. I await your learned mind.

17

You must be fairly new here.
kindly ■■■■ off with your asanine nonsensical views for modules and PG/CPU, it is fine the way it is, don’t ■■■■ everything up for CCP to attempt to “fix” what you think is broken only for them to ■■■■ the game up even more. kthxbye.

1 Like
18

Hello Geo…

Easy does it on the enthusiasm. Manners cost nothing, learn to use them.

As you can see, I have provided rather a detail, logical and well structured argument to back up my claim. Now lets see you match me with your facts. If you have none, kindly be quiet, as you add nothing constructive to the debate.

19

ooh you linked my zkill, you think i really care??? that seems to be your go to argument when someone presents facts, you think bringing up our zkill means anything…

care to explain how long you think it would take CCP to make all your changes, plus guarantee it won’t ■■■■ the game up in the process…

20

The purpose of the debate isn’t to dismiss things that challenge your mind, Geo.

The purpose of the debate is to explore the subject and see what the impact would be - a process I had already begun with the Atron example. Perhaps re-reading the post might help you see that. I’m talking about minor modification to hulls, and not modules. So it’s not as big an issue as it might seem. Balance in EVE is on-going, and we all know that. Why have you chosen to pretend that wasn’t always the case?

The reason I link your kill board is to make sure anyone who reads this thread can see the context of the speakers arguement - their background. In a debate it’s customary to “stand and be recognized”. That’s all that’s happened.