Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1765
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:29:00 -
[811] - Quote
Don't really understand why you're sorting out industrial ships for combat roles. That definitely will never occur in a fight, nuh-uh. We will never see mining barges fighting haulers. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Spears of Destiny
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:57:00 -
[812] - Quote
Well, anything that has drones can kill anything. Nice one nonetheless.
I don't know why people are so defensive on that subject either. It is "that easy" to just use the hull and have it refitted or whatever to a more appropiate combat support. These ships should not be paper either. And there is a lot of room for creativity to make them viable for a new playstyle while letting the rest of the world to continue flying their HACs or whatever crap. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
jeproghnem
Sacred Skies
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 05:21:00 -
[813] - Quote
just read this thread and all i could think was... "where is my Amarrian hauler with a dedicated 'cattle' bay?" |
Tekumze Wolf
Thirtyplus Spaceship Samurai
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 08:10:00 -
[814] - Quote
Personally I think this hauler thing is too bloated and unnecessarily complicated.
It could be done in a much simpler way and not forcing people to buy several ships to do basically the same thing.
It's like if they made racial miners and make them good at different things just so you have to build several of them. One for mining Matari Ice, one for caldari..., one for each ore...
Would be much easier and simpler to introduce low slot "cargo holds" for different types of cargo. Then you can mix and match the setup on your hauler to get the optimal cargo hold for ya.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 10:23:00 -
[815] - Quote
Iteron 5 has too much capacity ( maxed ) to be considered "average"
It has 2nd best capacity in class according to your numbers. Given the spec holds of Itty 2-4 I think Iteron 5 should have lowest capacity in class with expanders otherwise Gal industrial skill is more useful than the other races.
|
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:59:00 -
[816] - Quote
THANK YOU, so VERY much, for making my Itty V, already stupidly easy to gank, even EASIER to kill.
What, you haven't already made gankers lives easy enough? You gave them Tier 3 BC's, you gave them 'Tags for Sec Status', now you gift them with even thinner loot pi+¦atas to shoot at?
When will you stop catering to the whiniest player base in Eve? |
GreenSeed
632
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:03:00 -
[817] - Quote
Drogdasan wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Drogdasan wrote:Lucky me, now I get to rip out 400 mil worth of rigs. I used to use two Itty V's to haul ice in fleet ops, now they fit 4 blocks less and I have to switch to a bloody bestower. Or you could be slightly less whiny and realize that you can put 63 blocks of ice into a itty 4 without a single mod or rig. Your call. Still making my Itty V worthless.
what is wrong with you?
if you have an IttV, it means you have GAll indus V, previously you had a 38433.1 hauler, now you get 37152. a 63k dedicated ore hauler and a 64.5k mineral hauler. and a monster PI hauler so you wont have any excuses not to have an efficient factory planet set up. and keep in mind all 3 of this ships can fit around 2.5x the tank the itty V can, while still filling the lows with nanos + DCUII.
and on top of it all, you get a cheap and very fast mini transport for when you have to go shipping for some cheap crap and cant be bothered to manually fly it.
if you had the bestower trained to V, you get 39,201 of cargo that should never, ever be filled because the ship simply cant offer protection to the value. and a small tanky sigil that doenst get any tankier the more levels of amarr indus you have trained.
gallente gets the best deal by far, specially because all the gallente ships will perform better per level of industrial trained for their role. having +5% speed on a minnie industrial means ****, but having +5% agility on a gall one? or +10% cargo? gimme gimme gimme |
Clara Xavier
Orion's Fist
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 18:18:00 -
[818] - Quote
Seriously, just give it up already.
Make a series of ORE haulers, 1 for each "role" you envision. Replace peoples skills and ships with something that would match up to it.
You came up with the Primae (PI) and Noctis (Salvaging), use that hull and come up with a "Hauling" ship and insert as many special variants with random bays to suit everyone (Ore, Modules, Ammo, Covert Cloak Speedy, Big Fat Cargo Hold Version, whatever). Match the skill levels to the role if you want or just require them all to have level 1 and bonus each ship based on the level.
Take anyone with **Racial** industrial blah and give them SP back and grant them the ORE industrial skill book if they don't have the skill (NPC value in ISK if they do added to wallet). I know this breaks your I trained **race** level 5 for the cloaky hauler thing, be happy. You got your SP back now you can spend it on the ORE skill or if you had more than 1 race you got some extra SP to throw into something else.
What do you do w/the Freighters? They all require the racial industrial right? Easy, don't require it, require ORE industrial to 3, or maybe just add different requirements that would complement the survival of a freighter. It's only a racial 3 pre-requisite it won't break the world if it was gone. |
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:04:00 -
[819] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:BADGER MARK II - Launcher, Most Base Cargo
Caldari Industrial Skill Bonuses: +5% Cargo Capacity +5% Max Velocity
Slot layout: 2H, 5M(-1), 4L(+1); 1 turrets , 1 launchers(+1) How does adding slots to t1 industrial ships translate over to their t2 versions? So for example, will the t2 bustard get a Launcher hardpoint as well?
|
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:30:00 -
[820] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Quick thought, how about making an extra badger model, I.e, a badger mkIII that is optimised for collecting salvage, give it 3 high slots to allow the fitting of 2 tractor beams and a salvager combo, it would be a good entry level salvager for newer characters to use that can't yet afford a noctis, whilst its obviously not as good as a noctis it is a fun idea that fits in well with the new diversity and specialization that we are all mostly supportive off.
A specialist salvage bay is not really required, but it would be a nice touch and in principle isnt any different to the ammo bay of the minmatar industrial. No. Not when the exploration frigates can do this better, faster, and cheaper. Those frigates (Magnate/Heron/Imicus/Probe) have racial frigate skill bonus per level: 5% bonus to Salvager cycle time
Acutally, what makes more sense is add a small tractor beam and/or salvaging bonus to beginner frigates (Impairor/Ibis/Velator/Reaper). |
|
Luciel Abraxas
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:12:00 -
[821] - Quote
Too many pages to be all read, so i'm gonna give my suggest anyway, not sure if already given: make the Iteron Mark II a mineral specialized transporter (but this should includes EVEN ice products), make the Iteron Mark IV an ore specialized transporter (this should includes asteroid ore, ice ore and gas). Moreover, the Iteron Mark IV should have a significant larger specialized bay than the Iteron Mark II, since the ore products are really larger than refined products. I figure the Iteron Mark IV as the main industrial ship used by miners for the belt->station travel, but the only 7.000m3 more cargo than a mackinaw are not really attractive. This ship is not even attractive for a trader who wants just move some profitable ore from a station to another. |
Stevrand
Power Absolute Absolute Damage Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:10:00 -
[822] - Quote
I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, as in the real world. It would seem to me that adding additional slots for mods that change the cargo type would be a much better idea and that would leave cargo type in the hands of the owner. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:24:00 -
[823] - Quote
Luciel Abraxas wrote:Too many pages to be all read, so i'm gonna give my suggest anyway, not sure if already given: make the Iteron Mark II a mineral specialized transporter (but this should includes EVEN ice products), make the Iteron Mark IV an ore specialized transporter (this should includes asteroid ore, ice ore and gas).
As far as I understand this is how it works. The itty 2 handles all refined materials, the itty 4 handles all raw gas, ore, and ice.
Luciel Abraxas wrote:I figure the Iteron Mark IV as the main industrial ship used by miners for the belt->station travel, but the only 7.000m3 more cargo than a mackinaw are not really attractive. This ship is not even attractive for a trader who wants just move some profitable ore from a station to another.
It's not just 7,000 m3 because of the hull bonus. At galente industrial 5 the cargo hold sizes of the specialized haulers are: itty 2: 64500 m3 itty 3: 67500 m3 itty 4: 63000 m3
They're far better than their generic hauler competitors, so much so that it's questionable if the other races compete at all. The hardest part to justify is that they're able to do this without any fittings at all, which allow them to focus every module slot on mobility or tank as desired, while the generic haulers have to focus every slot on expanding cargo which leaves them even more flimsy and gankable.
Welcome to balance. |
Luciel Abraxas
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 21:37:00 -
[824] - Quote
Stevrand wrote:I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, Are you crazy? Unistall eve online |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
321
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 22:22:00 -
[825] - Quote
Stevrand wrote:I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, as in the real world. It would seem to me that adding additional slots for mods that change the cargo type would be a much better idea and that would leave cargo type in the hands of the owner,where it belongs.
Nothing wrong with specialization man, on the road we have trucks that are configured differently to carry gas, commodities, fluids, food etc, why should eve be any different. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Spears of Destiny
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:16:00 -
[826] - Quote
Which would bring us back to the idea of controlling the holds via some abstract subsystem-style approach or whatever that is similiar. Real world or not, this is a game, so I don't think we need to be worrying about realworld vs game. Games bend rules. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
684
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:31:00 -
[827] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:Which would bring us back to the idea of controlling the holds via some abstract subsystem-style approach or whatever that is similiar. Real world or not, this is a game, so I don't think we need to be worrying about realworld vs game. Games bend rules. If flexibility is your thing they've already got you covered with 8 unspecialized haulers. Besides, bending rules is what got us the specialized haulers. Highest capacity hauling of ammo or PI goods never required anything specific before but due to non reality-based rules it does now. |
Druthlen
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:28:00 -
[828] - Quote
I think 2 ORE industrials should be created. One holds Ore and the other holds Minerals. It shouldnt go to gallente. Galentte could have trade goods hold for mission running. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
685
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:49:00 -
[829] - Quote
Druthlen wrote:I think 2 ORE industrials should be created. One holds Ore and the other holds Minerals. It shouldnt go to gallente. Galentte could have trade goods hold for mission running. This sounds a bit too selective in usefulness to warrant a dedicated hull. There is only one mission I'm aware of which would even benefit from using it over any of the other high capacity general haulers. That seems a very weak premise for a ship.
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Spears of Destiny
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:57:00 -
[830] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vayn Baxtor wrote:Which would bring us back to the idea of controlling the holds via some abstract subsystem-style approach or whatever that is similiar. Real world or not, this is a game, so I don't think we need to be worrying about realworld vs game. Games bend rules. If flexibility is your thing they've already got you covered with 8 unspecialized haulers. Besides, bending rules is what got us the specialized haulers. Highest capacity hauling of ammo or PI goods never required anything specific before but due to non reality-based rules it does now.
The game is mostly getting flooded with single ships not really worth much as they are just for the specific task - and usually just one or two being the big deal. One can easily see that with the Gallente changes. I know what tiericide is about well enough, but it's this industrial ship subject that could and should get more attention. If there were was a way to interchange bays via modules and/or a similar fashion of subsystems, it would be the players who could define their ships a bit more. And it doesn't have to be over-the-top crap. It is also not like it will hurt anybody to do such as - at least in this case - it has nothing to do with combat.
In the end, it would be better if we could see more ORE vessels ranging between BC and ORCA sizes, but that's a different subject. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
|
Indoril Siconus
Renzler Industries Northern Associates.
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 13:35:00 -
[831] - Quote
Am I the only one that doesn't like the idea of cargo specific industrials? I understand it's an easy fix but forcing any ship into one super specific role seems foolish and contradictory to the spirit of EVE, not to mention doesn't make a lot of technological sense. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3975
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:42:00 -
[832] - Quote
Indoril Siconus wrote:I understand it's an easy fix but forcing any ship into one super specific role seems foolish and contradictory to the spirit of EVE, not to mention doesn't make a lot of technological sense.
Every freighter, mining barge, exhumer, industrial capital ship and mining frigate would seem to disagree with you in terms of being "contradictory to the spirit of EVE".
And as far as technological sense: the ships that we lovingly call "Dolly Partons" are pretty specialised. Try carrying any standard cargo containers on those things. Not going to happen. You can carry a heck of a lot more gas on a Dolly Parton than a standard container ship. Then there are your typical supertankers, specifically designed to carry bulk crude oil. Then there are ships specially designed to carry bulk grain. A specialised ship can perform its task better than a generalist ship.
These modified industrials are capable of mounting some kind of offensive modules, and you have rig slots. There's nothing stopping you fitting a battle-Miasma GÇö it's got enough PG to fit a MWD, what you can do with that is up to your imagination. Of course you'll need an "all-5s" pilot to fit an MWD and keep it running longer than a minute. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Druthlen
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 17:25:00 -
[833] - Quote
Ok well how about a modular bay system?
Large Ore Storage Bay: Low power fitting(less robotic inventory control required) (1?)PWG and (40?)cpu requirements to be determined by ccp(can only be fit on industrial ships).
Bay has 10k storage but can only fit the approriate item.
General Cargo Storage Bay: Medium power fitting(More robotic inventory control required) (10?)PWG and (55?)CPU much higher then Ore Storage Bay.(Industrial ships only)
Bay has only 5k storage but can fit any kind of cargo.
Each kind of bay added adds to the cargo hold for that kind of item(general adds to general cargo.)
Change the industrial skill affects on each ship to 5% agility per level and 5% modular bay storage capacity per level. Each ship could be custom fit for what the player needs based on tank/agility or storage capacity. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3975
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 22:49:00 -
[834] - Quote
Druthlen wrote:Ok well how about a modular bay system?
T3 industrials!
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Yabba Addict
Red Shift Enterprises
65
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 23:07:00 -
[835] - Quote
Gotta say it Rise, i used to love your kil2 vids and streams and i really thought that New Eden had lost out when you went to CCP. I was wrong |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3975
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 00:40:00 -
[836] - Quote
So far I've managed to get almost two minutes of MWD out of the Miasmos. That's great for sprints into mission spaces where the belts are 40-60km from the entry point. Now to abuse the living daylights out of it until CCP decide to take all the nice ores away from mission spaces
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc. Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 19:51:00 -
[837] - Quote
Stevrand wrote:I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, as in the real world. It would seem to me that adding additional slots for mods that change the cargo type would be a much better idea and that would leave cargo type in the hands of the owner,where it belongs. You can carry the specialized ores in the unspecialized haulers, you could even use a cargo rigged black ops if so inclined. Apparently the only thing stopping you is a desire to min/max beyond utility. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 23:16:00 -
[838] - Quote
My view is that on the whole the new industrials are welcome. I say this because I have tested a few of them on sisi.
How did I do this?
I tanked them up the the *rse and flew them into a combat site.
You'd be stunned how long they last. When these ships arrive on TQ, PI runs are going to be something special - the usual PITA lone bomber or cloaky tengu will have a go and not kill you instantly - not even close.
You'll have time to call in a rescue fleet, and maybe even point the b*stard, and he'll have to either retreat or call in reinforcements.
Good fights will ensue, and we'll all have stories to tell our grandchildren.
This is a good change.
|
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:04:00 -
[839] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Stevrand wrote:I find it absurd that ccp decide which haulers carry which cargo. The decision on what to haul should belong to the owner of the hauler, as in the real world. It would seem to me that adding additional slots for mods that change the cargo type would be a much better idea and that would leave cargo type in the hands of the owner,where it belongs. Nothing wrong with specialization man, on the road we have trucks that are configured differently to carry gas, commodities, fluids, food etc, why should eve be any different. True enough. Though, the diesel truck itself does not necessarily change. The cargo portion has a container type, such as box-body van, liquid fuel, open-cargo (dump truck), toxic chemicals, inert gas, milk, etc. As those container types change, minor adjustments are needed due to regulations for safety, health, and environment. So, a dump truck appears different from a fuel truck. I think that type of specification change for haulers should possibly be left to t3 industrial variants.
1. OP idea should be in-line with barge & exhumer changes (ore holds add mining functionality)... indy variants (ammo, PI, ore, etc) need to increase functionality, customization, and EHP. Also, OP changes sound unbalanced if only certain ships have an extra bay (ex: iterons have mineral bay, hoarder have ammo bay, and iteron mark IV have ore bay).
2. Customization and functionality win in my book, so t3 industrial haulers are the better option.
The functionality suggested by OP sounds similar to t1 mining barges' ore hold and t2 exhumers' slightly larger ore hold. Since training for mining barges or exhumers gives access to all the ships in those categories (three each category), racial industrial training should give you access to one of each variation (ammo, PI, ore, etc). Hmm, that direction may make it too complicated. A simple solution is likely best, but OP seems to allow an industrial imbalance.
Maybe changes to t1 industrial ships should either follow mining barge/exhumer style of training plan or a separate t3 indy ship. I do like how flexible a t3 version of industrial ship would be, but the higher training requirements of t3 may be excessive. An idea for industrial t3 module/subsystem hold I call ship compression chamber, which focuses on carrying packaged ships.
|
Azul Winter
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 14:25:00 -
[840] - Quote
I would like to see a Iteron specialized at transporting packaged ships...
A battleship should fit in it with skills at lvl V.
Gives plenty of oppertunities to haulers & gankers ;) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |