Posts Tagged ‘rigs

14
May
14

[Devpost] Hull rigs in Kronos patch

Edit: Updated on May 13th thanks to your feedback :edit:

Another small change in our Summer 2014 release that we’re ready to collect feedback on:

We’re planning on adding a series of Hull HP rigs, known as Transverse Bulkheads. These rigs will use the Armor Rigging skill, with a penalty to cargo capacity. They will be available in all sizes.

  • The T1 rigs would increase hull hitpoints by 20%, at the cost of 50 calibration.
  • The T2 rigs would increase hull hitpoints by 25%, at the cost of 75 calibration.

We don’t expect these to replace trimarks and CDFEs for most players, but having the option should be interesting in several cases.

We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.

Let us know what you think!

-Fozzie

These changes will boost the effective hit points of Orcas and Rorquals by up to 65%, depending on fit, at the expense of cargo (which may not be such a problem, given the specialised ore and fleet holds it has). Similarly for industrial ships (and presumably freighters?), although the trade-off is a more difficult choice when there’s more cargo hold to lose. It probably also has a niche in mining barge fits, aside from the Procurer hulls which will probably still bias towards shields.

The rigs will probably also see some use on Taranis and other hull-biased combat ships, since there’s no speed penalty to them, so while it’s not the most universally-applicable rig, it’s a lot less niche than e.g. hacking rigs.

Verdict: two thumbs up.

27
Apr
12

Fixing Rigs?

Vortex has a post on the eve-o forums (in response to CCP Ytterbium floating the idea of a rig change) that I think is especially interesting:

[…] In all of these situations, rig penalties don’t provide any compelling gameplay choices. There is no way armor-nano can ever be a thing with penalties (as just one of many examples), as all the relevant rigs are at cross odds. No enterprising player can make an unorthodox fit that actually works, because the game just says “nope!”. So you fit the obvious rig with the meaningless penalty, and that’s all that anyone can or will do.

SO HERE IS HOW YOU FIX RIGS:

1)Remove rig penalties. They have completely failed at their purpose (providing tangible tradeoffs in ship performance), and are nothing more than meaningless legacy game-design impacting today’s EVE.

2) Change rig skills to behave like Spaceship Command Skills. In other words, you can have “Armor rigging 4”, but what armor rigging 4 gives you depends on the rig itself.

2.A) Change rigs to scale off their related rigging skill. Trimarks, instead of a flat +15% armor bonus, would become “+3% armor HP per level of Armor Rigging”.

[…]

I think the idea has merit.

It has been a long time since rigging a ship was anything but mandatory on a combat ship. They’re cheap enough that the choice is no longer “do I rig this ship and live with the penalties, or leave it stock?” but “Do I use rig A and live with the penalties, or just use rig B that has no penalty?”

The opportunity cost of all rigs is not the cost or the penalty, but “is this better than just slapping on a trimark or CDFE?” and that doesn’t leave a lot of room for nuance.

IMO, playing with the strengths of each rig and the calibration they use is a better balancing tool than messing with penalties that are easily mitigated.