Ship fitting idea

[Nepsy]

@Renge_Ukyo

Suffice it to say a 15% buff is hardly a game breaking decision

So right now, a 6% PG implant costs about 550m, and a 6% CPU implant costs about 530m. For reference, the 5%'s cost about 150m, 4%s are about 75m, and 3%s are 20m, 2%s 5m and 1%s about 1m.
If you want to be generous, it’s about a 3x cost increase 1%. If we assumed that the trend continued up to 15% increase in EITHER PG or CPU, we can estimate that the price of such an implant would be 3^9 * 530m at LEAST. That’s over 10 trillion isk per mutaplasmid, unless CCP wants to make PG and CPU implants completely irrelevant.
And also, since you can’t have PG and CPU implants plugged at the same time it’s safe to assume people would need to pay a premium on top of the 10T+ isk.
Obviously, the actual price would be set by supply and demand, but unless CCP wants to make implants worthless they better be rarer than AT ships.

TL;DR
So to clarify, yes 15% kinda is a game breaking decision

[Renge_Ukyo]

Again Archer, evidence.

You refuse to address the subject - all of you in fact - and only attempt to belittle the poster, and then accuse me of precisely what you yourself are doing. When presented with factual, mathematically driven lines of thought, you attacked my character and intelligence, with out once putting a single figure to the forum as to why you didn’t agree. You and your peers then jumped on my back and continued to assault my character. Slander and libel are not legitimate forms of public discourse. They are lesser social behaviors based on emotional discomfort, deception, and fear.

Now, before you impress me with Wikipedia I’d like to remind you that with out legitimate credentials in Psychology, making an arm-chair internet diagnosis in an unscientific manner is about the least credible behavior you’ve engaged in this far. Are we to presume this is how a licensed psychotherapist would behave? Any inkling of how fast an actual therapist would lose their license and job for engaging in this kind of public slander?

Adjustment to a video game is hardly cause for this kind of response. No one has been harmed, and so far none of you with incredibly strong emotional responses have responded with any actual facts of any kind to back up your claims.

In the abstract all we can conclude is that you have yet to reach a level of personal self control that most people would consider a prerequisite for engaging in debate publicly, and would be reticent to proceed in debate with out having.

Consider your words more carefully Archer. I’ve flagged that last response as inappropriate. If you don’t like Zkill pointing to a specific kind of experience, that’s fine, but it won’t go away. The public record exists so when a person behaves as you’ve done, there is a record (evidence) of the behavior of which a person is being accused.

You clearly have a perspective, but won’t defend it - you have an opinion, as it seems. All I ask of you is to directly speak to the facts presented, and not to your emotional dissatisfaction with the topic and/or the poster. If you don’t want it discussed - leave the debate. Don’t sit there and attempt to incite anger and malice. There is no need for spite, pettiness and cruelty. There is certainly no need for name calling and the assaulting of character.

In the future I look forward to healthy, topic focused, lively, evidence driven debate; with you, and anyone else. I admire passion, but only when it is being harnessed towards positive means, in a positive manner.

Good day.

[Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras]

It would still take several months if not a year or more to even comprehend something like this. Most of what you are offering is most likely tied up in spaghetti code.

Then you have the aspect of balancing all other aspects of each individual ship to rectify bonuses that rigs or skills give in regards to PG/CPU. There’s also the aspect of Multaplasmids don’t affect all modules, so there is still no verifiable reason to have them affect high slots when very few, mods are affected in high slots.

So how do you propose balancing out the percentages of the skills that affect PG/CPU. do you keep the percentages the same for each additional PG/cpu slot you are wanting, or do you diminish the percentages the skills give?

its bad enough in a sandbox we have instanced gameplay where there shouldn’t be any game play at all.

@Renge_Ukyo

I need EVE to rip it to pieces

some of us are doing exactly that, and you don’t like it.

[Renge_Ukyo]

@Nepsy

So right now, a 6% PG implant costs about 550m, and a 6% CPU implant costs about 530m. For reference, the 5%'s cost about 150m, 4%s are about 75m, and 3%s are 20m, 2%s 5m and 1%s about 1m.
If you want to be generous, it’s about a 3x cost increase 1%. If we assumed that the trend continued up to 15% increase in EITHER PG or CPU, we can estimate that the price of such an implant would be 3^9 * 530m at LEAST. That’s over 10 trillion isk per mutaplasmid, unless CCP wants to make PG and CPU implants completely irrelevant.
And also, since you can’t have PG and CPU implants plugged at the same time it’s safe to assume people would need to pay a premium on top of the 10T+ isk.
Obviously, the actual price would be set by supply and demand, but unless CCP wants to make implants worthless they better be rarer than AT ships.

TL;DR
So to clarify, yes 15% kinda is a game breaking decision

Now this is an interesting perspective. Thank you for the math too - very well done!

The source of ISK, modules and materials in the game does provide some flaws in the argument as I see it though.

I’ll explain. Implants are not player produced, they are playing propagated - LP is where they come from. Maybe the odd mission reward, or loot in a kill when someone was hauling them to list in market. As a result, the real cost of 5% or 6% is measured differently - so I can’t say that I’d buy the 10Tril figure, which of course is prohibitively expensive. No one is forced into purchase on the open market, and grinding LP and items for exchange is in an economic sense much much cheaper.

Lets look at my 3% PG implant. 20 mil on the open market, but with LP? 11250 LP and 10.8 mil and that’s with the current LP balance for the ledger I check which was FW driven. The market response to using mutaplasmids for PG/CPU changes as opposed to modules means less desire for implants, and now things shift in the implant market, but it’s only a shift, and not the end of implants. So I don’t think we’ll cause too much fuss with Jita. Who knows, but my guess is it’ll sail just fine.

The other very obvious problem with that price is that as you mentioned, supply and demand have a lot to do with it. Rats drop this stuff or it’s salvaged - I forget the exact mechanic - but that means that farmers will do what they always do. Farm! We’re safe. If there’s a market, they’ll sell to it. Ship hull bonuses per level tend to be somewhere around 25-50% to a given stat on the ship which typically alter a modules performance in some way sometimes the hull, but usually a module. So if mutaplasmids are as plentiful as say zydrite - the cost would be quite negligible; not entirely driven by the %-to-ISK ratio observed in implants. The two items are not mutually exclusive to one another, as evidenced by the difference in T1 and T2 modules. Some items are indeed substantially higher from one tier to the next but aren’t completely independent in terms of the discussions primary trait - the PG/CPU amounts. The difference in % between a 125mm Rail Gun and a 150mm Rail gun was more than 15%.

So would someone charge through the nose because you wanted to use Meta4 guns? Probably not. But a 15% might let me Meta4 the 150mm rail guns on that Atron and dumb down the Nos. Ammo switches to faction, and while I haven’t done the math just yet, I’d wager there’s a performance improvement overall. I’ll edit this post here for the math.

High power:

• PG: 29.6 > 34.04
• CPU 51 > 58.65

3 x T1 150mm Prototype Gauss Gun PG/CPU: 24.3mw; 45tf
1 x T1 Small Knave Scoped Energy Nosferatu PG/CPU: 8mw; 15tf

Total PG: 32.3 =)
Total CPU: 60 =(

I think you can see where I’m going with this. This is the kind of performance I’m trying to make possible. Missed it by 1.35tf! Yes… a 4% CPU implant would see me across the line with cpu, but these numbers factor in a 3% pg. So I’m looking for a total boost of 15-20% - But there are other rail guns out there in the 150mm range that’d probably do. The 150MM Carbide Railgun I worked out for example CPU came to 57.75tf of CPU. Those are the options I’m trying to create =)

I think you’re right about the market though - we’d have to see how it shakes out though. The existing mutaplasmid market is all over the map in terms of cost - and modification to the things in that laundry list might be fine, or it might just need minor tweaks. But, we are basically talking about being able to build your own custom ship with much less in the way of performance than a pirate or T2 hull. And we’re really only looking at being able to acheive a minor fitting adjustment to provide small amounts of performance boost.

So I don’t think we’ll be seeing a 10tril frig. I think you’ve got some pretty sound observation, but I think we’re a little fuzzy on how applicable it’d end up being. I’m not quite to game breaker yet because it really depends on the bill of materials CCP assigns to this modification.

Anyhow I really to admire the insight, and respect the facts of your argument though. Again, thank you for the math and I’ll go figure out those meta4 guns and edit this post with it.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

@Renge_Ukyo

You refuse to address the subject - all of you in fact - and only attempt to belittle the poster, and then accuse me of precisely what you yourself are doing.

I have already addressed the subject. I would have gladly gone into it in more detail - y’ know, numbers and modeling, etc - if you were in fact focused on debating moreso than putting down others.

However, there is something more important that has since come up: the fact that you are not taking this discussion seriously, and you never did. This “discussion” is simply a mechanism for you to belittle others.

@Renge_Ukyo

I’ve flagged that last response as inappropriate. If you don’t like Zkill pointing to a specific kind of experience, that’s fine, but it won’t go away. The public record exists so when a person behaves as you’ve done, there is a record (evidence) of the behavior of which a person is being accused.

Gasp.

@Renge_Ukyo

In the future I look forward to healthy, topic focused, lively, evidence driven debate

You lie. Your sole purpose here is to troll. If you truly, genuinely cared to debate, you would stop being antagonistic on purpose. You are conscientiously putting a considerable amount of time and effort in putting down others all under the guise of identifying flaws in their argumentation or premises (even when no such flaws exist - at worst they could be elaborated on via further discussion as is purpose of introducing a point of discussion), and you know exactly the kinds of responses this backhanded commentary will illicit in others (including this one, I’m well aware) because you are engineering your antagonism toward those responses. 100% trolling for triggers. You’re putting down people who are both being nice and are giving sound arguments - that’s ■■■■■■■■. You’re using any opportunity you can get to spit in someone’s face.

My evidence: all your responses to this thread starting with your response to Brun Warbear.

Do you REALLY want to focus on the debate? Do you? Stop being antagonistic on purpose - and that includes bringing up “public records of the debater” when they have zero relevance to the discussion at hand.

[Renge_Ukyo]

@Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras

some of us are doing exactly that, and you don’t like it.

I just want you to stay on topic the way Nepsy did - instead of reaming me out for being curious and proposing an idea.

@Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras

t would still take several months if not a year or more to even comprehend something like this. Most of what you are offering is most likely tied up in spaghetti code.

Then you have the aspect of balancing all other aspects of each individual ship to rectify bonuses that rigs or skills give in regards to PG/CPU. There’s also the aspect of Multaplasmids don’t affect all modules, so there is still no verifiable reason to have them affect high slots when very few, mods are affected in high slots.

So how do you propose balancing out the percentages of the skills that affect PG/CPU. do you keep the percentages the same for each additional PG/cpu slot you are wanting, or do you diminish the percentages the skills give?

its bad enough in a sandbox we have instanced game play where there shouldn’t be any game play at all.

I doubt it’d take less than a year. No idea what the code looks like, and I’m reasonably sure CCP would like to have as few people as possible see said code lol.

You’re right about the balancing the modules, and it’d take a few patches to fully implement, but I’d think the first round there’ll be enough feed back to provide the needed metadata to validate any changes that need tweaking.

I disagree about the High slots. The reality here is that it’s less about the low slots and mid slots effecting them in terms of modification like a tracking computer or a mag stab. It’s more about if you’ve got a means of fitting either higher performance modules more often. In certain circumstances an entirely T2 fit is more than possible. but there are days when you just need DPS, or your just need Range, or you just need Speed or your just need tank. This allows you to keep an advantage and smooth out a deficit, instead of paper rock scissors, now we’re at a thumb-war, which implies both skill, and power to win.

In a case where a player lacks skill, power is helpful. In a case where you’ve got skill, dealing with a powerful opponent is tricky, but doable. What this paradigm does, is force a little more skin in the game, and a little less obvious a game. Also on the PVE end, it means in a lot of cases missions are over a little faster, but not by 100% - we’re in no danger of double carebear action lol - but someone might be able to finish a mission and get to bed a little earlier.

I don’t think you need to do anything to skills! =) leave it be. lets adjust that after the first wave =) see what needs tweaking, instead of starting with more holes in the ship lol.

As for that last bit - what can I say. EVE is EVE lol.

Fly safe Geo.

PS: EDITED FOR SPELLING.

[Renge_Ukyo]

Archer.

Calm down. Look at how Nepsy responded. That is what debate is. What you’re doing is something very very different. You know that. I know that. Anyone who can read can see that. Please, stop responding unless it addresses the topic at hand.

Fly safe.

[Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras]

NOBODY currently in CCP understands the spaghetti code. thats why some parts of the game are hard to fix… None of the original members of CCP who dealt with the code are at CCP anymore. Few of them have went on to create a game of their own.

not all mods are affected by the multiplasmids.
only two hull related mods are affected by multiplasmids… thats all we need.
no weapon systems are affected by multiplasmids… rocket/missile launchers… not affected.

leave it that way.

the only things that were affected on your atron were the mids and lows, again, no need to mess with individual PG/CPU for high low and mid, when High slots are not affected in anyway.

[DeMichael_Crimson]

@Archer_en_Tilavine

Ah, it has become clear to me now that you have a clear and purposeful objective to being of those forum users…

@Brun_Warbear @Ms_Steak @DeMichael_Crimson @Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras he is purposefully trolling. He’s the kind of troll that lulls you into a “serious” conversation and then repeatedly puts you down and insults your intelligence by pointing out non-existent faults in your line of reasoning and pretends to be superior in the ways of rhetoric and argumentation as bait for further “discussion”, which is really just more opportunity for him to continue steamrolling his arrogance and jackassery,

First of all, sorry to say this but that description pretty much describes 95% of the forum users posting here on the forums, which includes me and you.

Secondly, please do not ever, I repeat, never ever group me in with those other characters again. I don’t care if we all sometimes agree on various subjects, their overall attitude is completely different from mine and I do not want to be associated with them in any way, shape or form.

Third, there is no such thing as bad ideas, the way an idea is executed is what determines if it’s bad or good. This sub-forum is not a shooting gallery, it’s suppose to be a place where players post an idea and with the help of other players, hopefully work out all the details and turn it into a proposal for CSM to review and present to CCP.

[Renge_Ukyo]

@Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras

NOBODY currently in CCP understands the spaghetti code. thats why some parts of the game are hard to fix… None of the original members of CCP who dealt with the code are at CCP anymore. Few of them have went on to create a game of their own.

not all mods are affected by the multiplasmids.
only two hull related mods are affected by multiplasmids… thats all we need.
no weapon systems are affected by multiplasmids… rocket/missile launchers… not affected.

leave it that way.

the only things that were affected on your atron were the mids and lows, again, no need to mess with individual PG/CPU for high low and mid, when High slots are not affected in anyway.

If you read the Atron post and follow the math you’ll see that the High, Mid, and Low most certainly all effect one another. The goal is to force High, Mid, and Low modules into having their own level of calibration and let the modules compete for local resources, instead of globally on the hull.

That presents certain challenges, and tweaks/changes are bound to be made.

Regarding code. Honestly I do appreciate the insight - I for one didn’t know that. I still don’t, because I’m not going to ask CCP about it, solely because i don’t think they’d answer me lol But, I just don’t buy that it can’t be fixed. I think CCP hires bright intelligent people and I think I’d rather hear from them what they feel they can and can’t handle. Please let them speak for themselves.

As for the current roster of mutaplasmids and their current effects - that is likely to be where the majority of the tweaks will be =) additions, subtractions, and modifications of existing to support the paradigm. CCP has already proven they can add and subtract assets - this will be no different. =)

Fly safe.

[Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras]

EVE is almost two decades old and waaaaaaaaaay back in the day a few people didn’t bother to properly document their ■■■■. So that means that on test builds, CCP has to very carefully re-read and recode things so that the POS code does not become skynet and kill us all.

thus that is why Poses are still in game, they are tied to Rat AI and other spaghetti strings.

2 prime examples of “ye olde code” on EVE:

1st - the nebulae you see on missions? the one that kills your framerate? programmed by a guy on the beginning of times and nobody wants to touch it nowadays. It be old.

2nd - few years back, the boot.ini issue.

[Renge_Ukyo]

Good heavens.
I know what “ye olde engineering” is like. I see whatcha mean. Seems like after 20 years though CCP would have jettisoned the old code at some point and completely re-wrote the thing by now.

[Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras]

Its also possible Lore reasons why the ships are done the way they are… sometimes things don’t match Lore, and other times it does match… i don’t keep up with Lore or any of that, so im not sure.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

Are we going to ignore the fact the numerous good fits a ship can sport do not allocate PG/CPU in the same way? The disparity between each fit is wide in relation to how they allocate PG/CPU to a given slot type. Any such fixed % allocation applied to a hull will severely narrow the ways in which a ship can be fitted - numerous metas will be excluded.

Take the Tormentor, Kestrel, Tristan, and Rifter, for example: these hulls are best fit as Second Tackles, which mean they would use an AB + scram, prioritize defense above all else, and weapons are fitted only to the extent that they don’t detract from survivability (fleetmates do the killing). In such a fit, almost the entirety of PG/CPU goes to armor mods on lows or shield mods on mids in these fits, so firepower is relatively light, as is the PG/CPU utilization on highs. However, these same hulls can be fit without tackles to be strictly combat ships, and as such they have more PG/CPU to allocate up on highs and are willing to sacrifice some defense on lows/mids toward that end.

Now if we were to apply a fixed % breakdown of CPU/PG for the three slot types, how much are we going to give to the high slots? If we give little, then we favor Second Tackle configurations because they prioritize defense (mid/lows) and minimize offense (highs), but if we give a lot then we favor Combat ships since they aren’t tanked as heavily as Second Tackles are (ie. we are restricted in the extent to which we can allocate PG/CPU to defense)

The disparity in CPU/PG allocation between high, mid, and low slots across multiple good fitting metas for any single hull is so high that no possible fixed PG/CPU % allocation for each slot type is going to capture them all. Only certain metas could be accommodated for, and that’s not a good thing. CCP should encourage/discourage metas by balancing stats and bonuses, not by imposing restrictions on PG/CPU allocation. Why are we introducing a relatively static paradigm where now resources will be overallocated in one area and underallocated in another? This is not realistic (not on Earth and most certainly not in New Eden), nor efficient/elastic (the limited PG/CPU is not allocated to where they are needed). This is a strict downgrade of what we have now.

@Renge_Ukyo

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.

None of this would have any impact on the market. This would not “breathe new life” other than have players frustrated that highly viable and creative metas that could be used before cannot be used now for entirely arbitrarily reasons. If a ship’s base states were nerfed/buffed or slot layout adjusted (this has happened before), they are simply recalibrated using existing metas; however, what you proposed does not recalibrate a meta, it restricts them per the above concrete example. (Occasionally a meta is in fact eliminated, such as those involving slot changes, the metas in question were ‘■■■■ metas’, so the game - and the players themselves - are better off not using them; however, sometimes metas are also introduced that should have existed to begin with, so it works both ways) There’s no shortage of examples - some Droneboats don’t use highslots at all (despite being bonused for weapons, or being able to make heavy use of CAPWAR or DLAs, etc) is another interesting category.

Furthermore, every single point I raised previously was valid. There is no argumentative flaw in merely introducing a point but not yet elaborating upon it. Having said that, the points were self-evident, and given that you are persuading others to change the status quo, the burden falls on you to counter those points rather than on me to prove them. I’m a nay-sayer on the side of the status quo, so prove me wrong - given that the status quo has zero obligation to change, I need not prove myself right. Feel free to call it “bad argumentation”, but CCP isn’t going to implement an idea just because forum users or CSM or devs cannot (or simply choose not) to specify the exact reasons they oppose it. “Neat to think about” is not sufficient for implementing an idea or evaluating it in any serious capacity.

[Ms_Steak]

@Renge_Ukyo

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.

It is my choice to use plates or whatever. Don’t just assume that your atron fit is the only “correct” fit there is. In a fleet with logi bros plates are better way to stay alive than reppers. If you want to argue that - you will only reinforce my point of “removing choices” from the game.

P.S. Neutrons melt frigates and drones just as good if not better than electrons. The prevailing reason players use lower powered weapons is because of overall fitting restrictions caused by their own choices in fitting mids and lows so they dont have enough left for high slots.

Again: Your idea of separating fitting restrictions breaks whole concept of “choice and consequence” for ship fitting and thus is bad for the game.

[Renge_Ukyo]

First off, thank you for finally committing to the discussion.

@Archer_en_Tilavine

Now if we were to apply a fixed % breakdown of CPU/PG for the three slot types, how much are we going to give to the high slots? If we give little, then we favor Second Tackle configurations because they prioritize defense (mid/lows) and minimize offense (highs), but if we give a lot then we favor Combat ships since they aren’t tanked as heavily as Second Tackles are (ie. we are restricted in the extent to which we can allocate PG/CPU to defense)

As to this, you’re precisely correct. That is what this conversation is meant to debate and flesh out - How much is really appropriate? I’ve already learned that on an Atron I wouldn’t be comfortable with less than 60tf of CPU, and I’d like a good 40MW of power up there. Not realistic exactly - but it’s what I’d like.

47.6 * 1.20 = 57.12mw (a 20% gain on the previous stat)

That’s a huge bonus to the WHOLE ship. For just the high’s way too much. 35mw to me feels fair though. That’d let me rock a meta 4 set of 150’s - there by inventing a new submeta in the scram-kite meta.

@Archer_en_Tilavine

The disparity in CPU/PG allocation between high, mid, and low slots across multiple good fitting metas for any single hull is so high that no possible fixed PG/CPU % allocation for each slot type is going to capture them all. Only certain metas could be accommodated for, and that’s not a good thing. CCP should encourage/discourage metas by balancing stats and bonuses, not by imposing restrictions on PG/CPU allocation. Why are we introducing a relatively static paradigm where now resources will be overallocated in one area and underallocated in another? This is not realistic (not on Earth and most certainly not in New Eden), nor efficient/elastic (the limited PG/CPU is not allocated to where they are needed). This is a strict downgrade of what we have now.

This is a chewy problem because you’re partially correct, but there’s a little fiction here. Who says elimination of existing meta is bad? And if we’re being really technical I am advocating for the removal of pesky PG/CPU limitations in the traditional sense. I’m more of a pick my poison kind of a guy =)

There are arguments all over for this one. CCP does precisely what I’m advocating for in a different way - one by assigning a power slot type, and two by assigning fitting requirements. All this paradigm does is remove a little bit of CCP’s control in that regard, and put it into the hands of the player. A Nominal amount of PG and CPU per rack certainly can be averaged across the modules and racks, and reasonable base stats reached to support existing metas to a large extent - I mean I just proved I can have a 150mm rail gun scram kite ab Atron with only a 15% boost to the High Power rack - the idea is sound. A lot of work, but sound. The down side, is that it will in fact do something I don’t want, and that is definitively modify existing meta’s towards a higher level of power in general. Stronger scram kiting for example means if you never did figure out how to deal with it - maybe you never will? On the other hand, adopting what works is inevitably what we all learn to accept about EVE. It gets boring though, and so I’m seeking an alternative form of workable game play.

@Archer_en_Tilavine

None of this would have any impact on the market. This would not “breathe new life” other than have players frustrated that highly viable and creative metas that could be used before cannot be used now for entirely arbitrarily reasons. If a ship’s base states were nerfed/buffed or slot layout adjusted (this has happened before), they are simply recalibrated using existing metas; however, what you proposed does not recalibrate a meta, it restricts them per the above concrete example. (Occasionally a meta is in fact eliminated, such as those involving slot changes, the metas in question were ‘■■■■ metas’, so the game - and the players themselves - are better off not using them; however, sometimes metas are also introduced that should have existed to begin with, so it works both ways) There’s no shortage of examples - some Droneboats don’t use highslots at all (despite being bonused for weapons, or being able to make heavy use of CAPWAR or DLAs, etc) is another interesting category.

The post to @Nepsy addressed that concern about the market pretty well. Regarding when the seasons have changed on any given meta… I such is life my friend. Everything changes. And the change I’m suggesting is in truth not arbitrary - it’s aimed squarely at adjusting game play through ship fitting. It’s deliberately aimed at T1 and Navy hulls only, and it’s meant to provide minor module deviation/substitution within existing metas. Achieving this goal is what I’m after. It may generate new and successful metas, or it may simply provide flexibility to the existing roster of metas.

@Archer_en_Tilavine

Furthermore, every single point I raised previously was valid. There is no argumentative flaw in merely introducing a point but not yet elaborating upon it. Having said that, the points were self-evident, and given that you are persuading others to change the status quo, the burden falls on you to counter those points rather than on me to prove them. I’m a nay-sayer on the side of the status quo, so prove me wrong - given that the status quo has zero obligation to change, I need not prove myself right. Feel free to call it “bad argumentation”, but CCP isn’t going to implement an idea just because forum users or CSM or devs cannot (or simply choose not) to specify the exact reasons they oppose it. “Neat to think about” is not sufficient for implementing an idea or evaluating it in any serious capacity.

So you’re saying that validity through silence is a plausible form of debate? You don’t have to substantiate your claims until you’ve been forced in to it? So far none of the self-evident truths of which you speak of have actually been correct. The burden of proof is yours - if you make a “point” it’s your responsibility (if you want to be taken seriously) to prove yourself right. The rules of debate are meant with considerations of Law in mind, and not just the technical merits of an argument. In all cases pursuant to making a point, if you can’t prove your point, no one will listen to you. So no, it’s not enough to disagree and not state why if you’re going to insist that someone is wrong. You will at that point have to accept that when you make a claim with out evidence you lose ground in the debate and favor shifts to the opponent.

Being a nay-sayer hiding behind the status quo is not the same as being correct. As you shall soon see…

Corruption in many countries and corporations is the status quo. Global pollution of fresh water is the status quo. Over population is the status quo. Are you really about to tell me that the concept of the status quo is universally acceptable? Certainly not.

Now lets examine how your siding with your precious status quo belies a deeper more uncomfortable truth.

In view of the fact that the status quo is not, at all, in any way shape or form guaranteed to be correct; If you’re so staunch a traditionalist - and EVE has continued to evolve WHY DO YOU PLAY IT? The Status Quo of EVE is THAT IT CHANGES.

It would seem as though you support my “neat” idea, rather fully in view of how the actual nature of your comment truly functions.

[Renge_Ukyo]

@Ms_Steak

It is my choice to use plates or whatever. Don’t just assume that your atron fit is the only “correct” fit there is. In a fleet with logi bros plates are better way to stay alive than reppers. If you want to argue that - you will only reinforce my point of “removing choices” from the game.

P.S. Neutrons melt frigates and drones just as good if not better than electrons. The prevailing reason players use lower powered weapons is because of overall fitting restrictions caused by their own choices in fitting mids and lows so they dont have enough left for high slots.

Again: Your idea of separating fitting restrictions breaks whole concept of “choice and consequence” for ship fitting and thus is bad for the game.

You’ve got more reading to do. This particular discussion isn’t about one little scram kiting Atron. That fit is about a functional example to show how the idea may be applied, and is not a comprehensive analysis of the Hull through this new paradigm, just a snap shot. I’m well aware of how fleet doctrines shift modules requirements. A Small gang needs much more different a fit than a solo player, and is still varied from large scale fleets of 50+. I get you, but please do me the courtesy of recognizing this is the preliminary discussion about a potential paradigm shift, and not a manifesto on how someone is flying the Atron incorrectly.

Have a look at my responses to Archer. An average across the known metas will have to be drawn up per hull and nominal base numbers assigned for the idea to work. It doesn’t remove meta’s it simply allows you to season them to taste a little bit differently - little stronger pepper on your mashed potatoes if you will.

Thank you for your response.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

@Renge_Ukyo

That’s a huge bonus to the WHOLE ship.

We don’t need a bonus for the whole ship, the bonus is only needed where it is most relevant. Having PG/CPU is worthless if it is in the wrong places.

@Renge_Ukyo

Who says elimination of existing meta is bad? And if we’re being really technical I am advocating for the removal of pesky PG/CPU limitations in the traditional sense. I’m more of a pick my poison kind of a guy =)

The problem isn’t that a meta is eliminated. The problem is HOW a meta is eliminated (arbitrary restrictions vs sensible stat/bonus rebalance or even role repurpose reasons) and WHY (ie. ■■■■■■■■ “just because it would be neat” reasons).

@Renge_Ukyo

And if we’re being really technical I am advocating for the removal of pesky PG/CPU limitations in the traditional sense.

No, you’re not, there’s nothing technical about it. Right now there is exactly one PG/CPU pool from which everything is dynamically allocated - highly efficient and elastic. You are proposing rigid structures which are both inefficient and inelastic.

@Renge_Ukyo

There are arguments all over for this one

Not really. It’s you vs everyone else

@Renge_Ukyo

All this paradigm does is remove a little bit of CCP’s control in that regard

It doesn’t remove control, it just adds complexity and makes it less efficient/elastic

@Renge_Ukyo

put it into the hands of the player.

Players like to be able to fit their way without arbitrary restrictions. They also like being able to fit modules to lows (and to a lesser extent mids) to boost their ship’s PG/CPU/Cap as a player-determined sacrifice: is the opportunity cost of surrendering this slot that could have gone to use in some other way (eg. offense or defense) worth using for a PG/CPU/Cap boosting module??? Etc

@Renge_Ukyo

I mean I just proved I can have a 150mm rail gun scram kite ab Atron with only a 15% boost to the High Power rack - the idea is sound.

There is nothing sound about it. A 150mm rail scram Atron is a bad fit, for starters. Now if players want to design and use bad fits, they are entitled to do so, but they should not be restricted in how they do it. As is usually the case, right now we’re in a situation where less is more, simpler is better, and the status quo is strictly superior to the proposal.

@Renge_Ukyo

it’s meant to provide minor module deviation/substitution within existing metas.

No such changes are needed, desired, nor gameplay enhancing.

@Renge_Ukyo

It’s deliberately aimed at T1 and Navy hulls only

This changes nothing, though hypothetically if this proposal were to go in effect and this restriction were to apply, it would make balancing modules virtually impossible since they would have to be balanced against two different standards: ships with bounded and ships with unbounded fitting capabilities.

@Renge_Ukyo

Achieving this goal is what I’m after.

There are simpler, more direct and effective ways to achieve whatever goal you had in mind. This proposal has no merit. It is fascinating, yes, but has less merit than there is lemon and lime in a bottle of Sprite.

@Renge_Ukyo

if you can’t prove your point, no one will listen to you.

Hi, you must be new here!

I’m not (nor am I new to debate)

From experience and observation (EVE players are a unique demographic) I know the kinds of things that are said - and how they are said - that will and will not earn you the ear and participation of others around here. I know what will earn their engagement and respect, and what will turn them off and earn their contempt.

@Renge_Ukyo

So far none of the self-evident truths of which you speak of have actually been correct.

It is regrettable that not only do you fail to see this, but that you fail to consider the possibility that this proposal is bonkers inside and out. Truly fascinating, but utterly bonkers.

@Renge_Ukyo

You will at that point have to accept that when you make a claim with out evidence you lose ground in the debate and favor shifts to the opponent.

Not really, because as long as CCP doesn’t adopt your proposal in any way, shape, or form (which they won’t), then I and the rest of the player base win. This is a debate where I need not conform to the semi-formal rules simply because I lose nothing if I break them. If I choose to comply partially or in full, it is as a courtesy. Now, if an idea raised by you or me or somebody else ever arises that actually has merit worthy of CCP’s consideration and we find ourselves on opposing sides, then by all means, we’ll have a proper debate.

@Renge_Ukyo

The Status Quo of EVE is THAT IT CHANGES.

Not all change is good, and change for the sake of change is usually the worst change of all.

It’s worth nothing I’m one of the most progressive, meta-breaking, zero-■■■■ s-given forum regulars on here. I regularly propose sweeping reforms to the game - I am by no means against radical change, only against radical change that fails to address a need, enhance the game, or address numerous downsides and unintended consequence that comes with its implementation.

[Renge_Ukyo]

@Archer_en_Tilavine

Not really, because as long as CCP doesn’t adopt your proposal in any way, shape, or form (which they won’t), then I and the rest of the player base win. This is a debate where I need not conform to the semi-formal rules simply because I lose nothing if I break them. If I choose to comply partially or in full, it is as a courtesy. Now, if an idea raised by you or me or somebody else ever arises that actually has merit worthy of CCP’s consideration and we find ourselves on opposing sides, then by all means, we’ll have a proper debate.

This glaring admission and the one to follow invalidate any response you could ever give anyone. You’ve just admitted to having made ignorance a profession.

@Archer_en_Tilavine

Not all change is good, and change for the sake of change is usually the worst change of all.

It’s worth nothing I’m one of the most progressive, meta-breaking, zero-■■■■ s-given forum regulars on here. I regularly propose sweeping reforms to the game - I am by no means against radical change, only against radical change that fails to address a need, enhance the game, or address numerous downsides and unintended consequence that comes with its implementation.

You’re entitled to believe what you like about yourself, you truly are. However faux-ivory social high ground speaking on behalf of the 20k or so other players with out their consent (one of which by the way responded and strictly direct you to never speak on their behalf again…) does not address the issue of choosing comfort and ignorance over accepting truth on it’s own terms. You’re allergy to doing mathematics has discredited your sophisticated opinions rather badly.

You speak to decision making? Tell me a 150mm weapon on an Atron is a foolish idea, but have a combat record which, “has less merit to it than there is lemon lime in a bottle of Sprite”. You’ve left the debate squarely with your personal attacks. It’s childish.

I’ve provided evidence for my claims and proposal. I’ve shown the idea, the numbers and provided a working model as proof of concept. Only one person put numbers to me in response. The net effect is so far the debate stands squarely on neutral ground, and the only real issue with the thread is that you still have speaking privileges.

However the net effect of your behavior has highlighted a single salient thing that I doubt anyone could or would bother to deny; You’re still wrong, and you’re still afraid of having to prove yourself right.

[Wanda_Fayne]