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) |
Adunh Slavy
1051
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:13:00 -
[181] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Think about it: he's drinking water in a huge jug instead of a regular glass. How twisted can one be to do that? This has to be punished.
How did he get in there? |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
62
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:14:00 -
[182] - Quote
Anela Cistine wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Just a thought why not introduce the Badger mrk III into the game as the large transport as that is the model the Bustard is made on. This would give you the badger mrk II as the third ship for the Caldari. Then only the Amarr would be left out and it would make more sense IMO.
Fred If they made a third Amarr hauler it would obviously have a "livestock" bay. Since players have little need to haul around livestock, we can just pretend it already exists but nobody uses it.
but the bestower is already used as an slave transport......in fact, all the amar hauler except for their freighters are based in slave transports. |
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
67
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:15:00 -
[183] - Quote
Posting in thread about ships I never use. Also totally angry about whatever OP said. Shadoo > whoever was the first nyx on grid Shadoo > THANK GOD YOU ARE A SMART MAN and fitted the best tank in PL Shadoo > (ie. cyno) |
Sarmatiko
1239
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:15:00 -
[184] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: ..and we also aren't going to invest art resources in new modeling (or we would have made extra haulers for Amarr/Caldari), so they will be staying where they are.
But what about reusing already created art resources and V3 textures for some missing Caldari/Amarr industrials (with ore bay as most desired one I think). Something like Badger Mark III, Nugoeihuvi Badger II, Sukuuvestaa Badger Mark II or Kador Bestower. Guess there is really many variants, and from simple player perspective it's not that hard to make new ship instance with existing model and skin Of course this will push everyone into the Abyss of "we have too many Industrial ships, arrrrrgggghhh!!!", but still..
-¥ |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
176
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:19:00 -
[185] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:is there actually any reason to use these specialized ships when they are all horribly inefficient outside their very small defined role?
I'm not that interested in having to use seven different ships to do the work of one. its rather sad to think that big cargo boxes in space cant hold more then one type of thing. or that anyone whos ever dealt with shipping would like the idea of restricted boxes.
Im sure that they will all get used some, but in a year only the base models will still be getting produced in numbers.
utility ought to novelty
I think what the problem in what you point out here is the lack of a general vision regarding roles. Capacity of the ships and their operational range.
A while back the intended long range ACTUAL freight carrying ship was granted space jettison and pickup function. This was because of the lack of purposed ships to compete and perform these functions. The freighter and the Orca swizz army knife issue needs a huge reconsideration.
What you seem to be asking for is that Freighters become actual large capacity and long range. This would be possible by making the JF and Freighter go back to the original roles. A way to do that would be using containers in a way that give a game-mechanical function.
Container should always drop almost all content to space. They should have 25-50% bonus to capacity and be different in types like the bays. The different container types could be held in the matching industrial bays.
Materials not in a container should almost always be lost on destruction. The jettison and pickup would be removed from JF and Freighter again.
Thus denial of loot or reduction in loot drop would be at the cost of capacity, and resulting in "less" interesting soft target regarding industrials. Except ofc for the purpose of disruption and tears.
The DST and the BR should get capacity that match in between T1 industrial and Freighters, and compete with Orca on anything except for ORE/Minerals. Thus making the Orca the equivalent of a wet load freigther, but not the current multi purpose winner.
Also the unscannable feature should go on the DST and not the BR. Its a double boost that we have currently, swap them and both ships would be used. Preferably also a sort of Ship bay function on the DST..
Just a few thoughts.. for the road ahead.
|
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
62
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:20:00 -
[186] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:CCP Rise wrote: ..and we also aren't going to invest art resources in new modeling (or we would have made extra haulers for Amarr/Caldari), so they will be staying where they are.
But what about reusing already created art resources and V3 textures for some missing Caldari/Amarr industrials (with ore bay as most desired one I think). Something like Badger Mark III, Nugoeihuvi Badger II, Sukuuvestaa Badger Mark II or Kador Bestower. Guess there is really many variants, and from simple player perspective it's not that hard to make new ship instance with existing model and skin Of course this will push everything further into the Abyss of "we have too many Industrial ships, arrrrrgggghhh!!!", but still..
that kador bestower looks like something used by the EoM fanatics, in any case it would be interesting. |
marVLs
200
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:23:00 -
[187] - Quote
Approved |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
150
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:24:00 -
[188] - Quote
Diversity and choices. Wonderful rethink. Thank you. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1110
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:25:00 -
[189] - Quote
I do know this is off topic. but any chance you guys are going to get pirate ships in for 1.1?
fingers crossed on guritas loosing the missile bonus and gaining the tracking/optimal range bonus that they domi has. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Mattk50
WhiteWalkers
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:26:00 -
[190] - Quote
The non-specialized t1 changes are pretty much perfect, but i have to note that the specialized bay ships need smaller bays. Keep in mind, theres no point in fitting cargo expanders on these ships. They will be full nano/stab fit without any penalty to their capability. In addition, they get the skill bonus to the bay. Its a bit too much.
I suggest either reducing the amount of available low slots on the specialized ships to account for this, or reducing the specialized bay capacities just a hair. Just a hair. These specialized bays should be better than the vanilla ships for their purposes, but not SO much better that if you have a max cargo capacity industrial you might as well give up, because you should be using the specialized ship instead. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1110
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:27:00 -
[191] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:CCP Rise wrote: ..and we also aren't going to invest art resources in new modeling (or we would have made extra haulers for Amarr/Caldari), so they will be staying where they are.
But what about reusing already created art resources and V3 textures for some missing Caldari/Amarr industrials (with ore bay as most desired one I think). Something like Badger Mark III, Nugoeihuvi Badger II, Sukuuvestaa Badger Mark II or Kador Bestower. Even reusing T2 models with T1 skins is possible (just like Bustard uses model of non existent Badger mk III) - T2 Bestower. Guess there is really many variants, and from simple player perspective it's not that hard to make new ship instance with existing model and skin Of course this will push everything further into the Abyss of "we have too many Industrial ships, arrrrrgggghhh!!!", but still..
i want a deviant art player contest for the missing ships There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
222
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:33:00 -
[192] - Quote
Kyt Thrace wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:*Quickly looks at the thread*You got it wrong people, you're not supposed to be happy! You're supposed to riot! Set things on fire with the flame wars! Start the threadnaught! Fire ze missiles! Rage! Let the anger consume you! Now I will have no choice but to mention CCP Rise is doing to a good job. Think about it: he's drinking water in a huge jug instead of a regular glass. How twisted can one be to do that? This has to be punished. I think CCP Rise is being racist in that he wants a Caldari Citizen that is loyal to the State to have to cross train & use stupid gallente ships because there is no other choice. I thought CCP broke up the standard battlecruiser /destroyer skill into each faction battlecruiser/destroyer skill to make the Tier cycle correct. CCP you are going backwards putting the different cargo bay ships under the gallente & minmatar only. Make these specialty ships fall under the ORE Industrial Group.
I would go exactly the opposite way and redistribute ore industrials back to 4 empires. Minamtar would get Noctis because they make their ships from junk and scrap so that makes them natural home for salvager. 3 mining barges I would distribute evenly among 3 remaining races. Venture would go to Minmatar or Angel Cartel because it is fast and agile and good for making drugs. Orca and Rorqual could remain ore, mostly because I donGÇÖt know whom to give them. Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
Flux Astraeus
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:41:00 -
[193] - Quote
Some good changes here. Except taking away points from the PWG on many of them is a massive undersight! Because of one major fitting flaw as it pertains to the T1 Indi class. Fitting a cloak, and the correct SIZE MWD for this ship class should be a given by default without having to add engineering modules to accomodate this fit.
Not taking power away on an already flawed power grid scheme. In that this size vessel class should be able to fit a size 10MWD.Not a 1MWD, the physics just don't compute.
Here's why.
Because these things are sitting ducks with appalling allign times you should be able to fit out for stealth to get you off gates quickly and be able to employ the cloak / MWD trick which just see's you on grid for a few seconds as you basically warp off and don't get stuck on grid at gate, alligning for 15sec.
Lets call the Mammoth out here as example 1.We all know it hasn't been given the love it deserved here but anyway, at the moment you can fit out the Mammoth with 1 Improved cloaking device , and 10 MWD if you fit all your low slots with Micro Aux power core 1's instead of T1 cargo expanders.
Sure you sacrifice cargo capacity but you've got yourself a mini blockade runner in that you can be off grid in a second at gate with this fit and stay safe. But if you nurf the power grid more your going to take away the ability to do this without needing T2 Micro Aux PC which is screwing it over even more, that knocking a second off default align times.
It needs to be a PWG of 100 minimum to employ this.Because the MWD cloak trick won't work with a 1MWD on this ship because its too small for ship size. So you take away 450 off CPU, almost halving it , wow why so much? But power too , you are turning it into a piece of junk and limiting the fit out even more across more than just the Mammoth here, I don't see why this is a good idea at all? leave the power grids alone if anything give them more so they can fit a correct size MWD for the ship class. |
Ellariona
Bite Me inc Bitten.
125
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:41:00 -
[194] - Quote
This just in: EFT download spike because of industrial pilot influx! |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
197
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:43:00 -
[195] - Quote
Kekminator wrote:Also, maybe it's time for ore hold / PI hold extender rigs?
CCP Rise, you've done an admirable jobs so far. Really: well done! I don't mean to put stuff on your plate pointlessly, but I think Kekminator could be correct: it may be time to add rigs which enhance specialized bays.
Now I do realize that capital-sized rigs for specialized bays would cause 11-dimensional chaos with balance among carriers and supers. So don't create/seed them. Just create/seed BPOs for small and medium rigs; that would cover the Venture, the Primae, and the T1 haulers. Not having large- or capital-sized rigs postpones (perhaps forever) figuring out exactly what balance chaos would result from mucking around with Orca, Carrier, or Supercarrier specialty bays.
MDD |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1110
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:44:00 -
[196] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:I do know this is off topic. but any chance you guys are going to get pirate ships in for 1.1?
fingers crossed on guritas loosing the missile bonus and gaining the tracking/optimal range bonus that they domi has.
moreover:
worm bonus:
Special Ability: 50% bonus to drone tracking
Caldari Frigate Skill Bonus: 4% bonus to shield resistance per level
Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 10% to drone hitpoints per level
(increase base drone bay to 50m3)
gila:
special ability: 50% bonus to drone tacking/optimal range
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 4% bonus to shield resistance per level
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per level
Rattlesnake:
Special ability: 25% bonus to sentry drone damage
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 4% bonus to shield resistance per level
Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints/damage/tracking/optimal range per level
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
134
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:44:00 -
[197] - Quote
Interesting changes. I like the drones on the iteron. And the HAM badger. Kinda hoped for an SMA or Corp Hangar on one of the indy's but oh well.
Good changes overall. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
580
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:47:00 -
[198] - Quote
So, I use an Iteron III for PI. I follow a link to round 2 of the industrial changes, and... \o/ my ship will now be bonused for PI.
There are a few little things here and there (please don't gimp them so badly on PG!) but this is a solid start and a good direction for industrials. Drone-wielding Iteron FTW. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:49:00 -
[199] - Quote
@CCP Rise,
I like the changes. Just a question for ya.
With the advent of special bays, are we still going to be able to put them into Carriers/Rorquals/Orcas with those bays filled (esp. Ammo bay, but the others too, would be nice)?
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
114
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:51:00 -
[200] - Quote
The Caldari could have a third hull...just reskin the Bustard. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
|
Luke Hartelse
Red Dwarf Jupiter Mining Corporation.
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:55:00 -
[201] - Quote
Overall i like all of the changes and battle badger can finally be reborn with added launcher!
However with the Iterons i feel the mineral bay and the ore bay should be one and the same meaning. in my eyes that the Iteron II should have a bay for both ore, minerals, gas etc... and instead give Iteron 4 a frigate holding bay? This would give newer players the ability to move their precious frigates around without having to move each one individually give it say the ability to move 2/3 frigates at a time?
Luke. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:59:00 -
[202] - Quote
This is a much better version of the changes than the original proposal.
One thing i dont get is that you avoid giving a ship a ship maintenance array usable for moving rigged ships (a relocation ship) because "it have broken the boundaries of Tech 1 specialization"
Well, all ships currently equipped with ship maintenance arrays are Tech 1 mate
And to use the hoarder as a relocation ship with - say - the capability to move up to a rigged battlecruiser would be infinitly more worth it to the players than a ammo ship.
Just my 2 cents anyway. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:03:00 -
[203] - Quote
Kekminator wrote:Does Hoarder's ammo bay accept POS fuel blocks as cargo? They can be built in Ammo Assembly Array, so it should.
Also, maybe it's time for ore hold / PI hold extender rigs?
Special Bay extender rigs would definitely add more player customization/choice. Imagine, Rorquals with Ore Hold extender rigs instead of Cargo extender rigs for those that are compression specialists, et.al. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
30
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:04:00 -
[204] - Quote
The Mineral Hauler still needs to be able to haul melted/processed Ice products.
Will the Ore hauler be able to haul compressed ore? |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
603
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:07:00 -
[205] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:Well, all ships currently equipped with ship maintenance arrays are Tech 1 mate .
any SMA ship we get will not cost <1m isk for the hull.
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:13:00 -
[206] - Quote
Denidil wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Well, all ships currently equipped with ship maintenance arrays are Tech 1 mate . any SMA ship we get will not cost <1m isk for the hull.
I dont see why, as long as you keep its utility down by restricting SMA size. Also, mineral reqs can be tweaked. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
79
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:13:00 -
[207] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. i would second the request to have the iteron versions get new names... and the badger mrk II
Ferret? Weasel?
Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Renaming strikes me as messy, but I'll bring it up with our story department and see what their opinion is. If you're going to do it, maybe go with something like Iteron Mk II-m / Mk II-i / Mk II-o to designate the specific bays but also keep the faith a bit with the old names.
Or just Iteron M-type, Iteron O-type, etc.
But I prefer the Kyt Thrace's idea about making the specialized cargo haulers ORE faction haulers. Then just name the Iteron I plain old 'Iteron', and give the Iteron V a new name. Remove Iteron II-IV and turn existing ones into the new Iteron V.
|
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:14:00 -
[208] - Quote
+1 for the changes CCP Rise
Also i would switch the iteron Mk II and MK IV over to ore industrial and if your collegues in the design department have some time create 2 new ore skins for them. |
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
58
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:17:00 -
[209] - Quote
Probably too late to chime in here, but heck why not.
Is there any story reason you couldn't have transferred one or two of the iterons over to ORE? The mineral and ore ones specifically. Hell say ORE bought the rights to the hull plan from the other megacorps and then adapted the ore bay technology they had on their T1 Orca for use by T1 hulls they just acquired the rights to.
Heck this way you'd end up with Galente/Minmatar with 3 hulls and Amarr/Caldari with 2 each which would have substantially closed the hull count gap between the factions - then when you did that upcoming industry changes you guys seem to have planned you could introduce 2 new hauler to fill out the ship lists like you did with the Magnate back in the day.
just my 2 isk
|
Miss Mass
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:19:00 -
[210] - Quote
Awesome job, CCP Rise! These are much more interesting. |
|
|
|
|
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 |