| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
1
   |
Posted - 2012.08.17 12:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Each race to have 3 T1 industrial options
1. Entry level, base cargo of about 4000m3. Very fast and agile, low EHP.
2. Medium Cargo, 5000m3 base. High EHP (BS level), very slow and low agility (no turret/launcher options in case its abused).
3. Large cargo, 6000m3 base, medium speed and agility lower EHP (something like the current Itty V).
Gallente versions would have slightly larger base cargo values. Minmatar version would be slightly faster and more agile at expense of cargo capacity. Amarr ships would have more armour at expense of other attributes. Caldari ships more shields at expense of other attributes.
T2 haulers I think should remain largely unchanged, they do the jobs they were intended to well as is. Though you could potential have T2 variants of the T1's with higher attributes, though you would still need a blcokade runner of some description.
I'm sure I'll get flamed, but I'm game.
Go.... |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 12:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Perhaps if I hide my stupid ideas about ungankable T1 haulers in another thread nobody will notice...
No? |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery
Team Liquid
243
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 12:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Just keep making new threads, maybe one of them will eventually not be laughed at |
Elshar Khandar
The Jolly Slavers
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 12:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Why?
What's wrong with how they are now? They seem some of the best balanced and varied ships in the game at the moment. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
10058
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
No need, as options are already available in the game.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Lord Zim
1161
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Oh hey, a new thread, more or less same as the old thread |
Ukada
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
No, CCP have already provided a plethora of hauling options. Try using one of those. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Omega Industries
252
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
1) I agree
2) Way too high EHP. That's more than the Tech II variant has currently. Take it to 10k unfitted and 20k fitted and that's a bit more realistic.
3) 6000m3 seems a little low for the large cargo version. I would suggest starting that at 10,000m3 with a maxed out value of 30,000m3 (or something similar)
This would allow the T2 haulers to remain the same and still be valid ship choices yet allowing for tiericide.
Making 2) as tanky as you're suggesting would mean it could be flown AFK in high sec with upwards of 500-1000mill cargo pretty much immune from assault considering what would be required to take it down. This is certainly the territory of the tech II variant. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
1082
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 14:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
1. so, the Iteron? Itty 2 isn't so bad either
2. so, the Iteron mk.3? maybe mk. 4...
3. so, the Iteron mk.5?
If gallente isn't your particular favourite hauler:
Amarr:
1. Sigil
2. Sigil or Bestower
3. Bestower
Caldari:
1. Badger
2. Battle-Badger
3. Badger II
Minmatar
1. Wreathe
2. Mammoth/Hoarder
3. Hoarder/Mammoth
|
Elshar Khandar
The Jolly Slavers
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
I know I'm pretty new to EvE and so might be missing something but isn't everyone except the OP pretty much in agreement that nothing needs to be changed because there's no problem to resolve?
|
Antal Marius
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
21
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 09:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
Haulers, The least unbalanced ship in Eve. |
teh munK
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 09:43:00 -
[12] - Quote
Elshar Khandar wrote:I know I'm pretty new to EvE and so might be missing something but isn't everyone except the OP pretty much in agreement that nothing needs to be changed because there's no problem to resolve?
Yup pretty much. |
Alara IonStorm
2994
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 10:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
I hope T1 Industrial Ships are soonish on the balance block.
Right now their progression is right where CCP doesn't want ships to be anymore. I:E Hauler 1 > Hauler 2 > Hauler 3. Except in the case of the Itty it is like a day before you never have to use that ship again, unless you are Amarr in which case you have the Sigil which is the Augorer of Haulers.
I would like to see a role for each one of them. One mistake I think CCP made and it was the one mistake I asked them not to make when arguing for a barge buff before it was announced was the EHP stats. The Skiff and the Procurer have really IMO too much on their base stats. I would have preferred more moderate base stats for the ship with appropriate fitting for say LSE's and such to make up similar stats that the ship now has mostly natural. I think the stats on a new hauler should reflect what is fit on it with bonuses going to help the role in conjunction with the fitting. People flying a tanky designed mining barge where the only thing fit is cargo mods and 5 empty slots that could be used for tank but aren't should get exactly what they deserve.
The mix of roles for Industrial Ships would be a difficult task because of the imbalance of ship numbers race to race. It would be a difficult task pulling 5 Hauler Roles out of there ass and a daunting task releasing 2-3 ships per race. Equally it would be troubling to remove Itty models not that I care too much since it is V or bust for the most part or you might as well grab a Bestower for a one day train.
I would like to see an Industrial Rebalance that is smart, well defined and makes all ships useful for a different purpose. How CCP would pull off this Ship class tap dance on the head of a pin is beyond me though...
Just please no more we'll fit 50% of the tank for you buffs CCP. The empty mid slot brigade don't need catering, they need a manual on how to fit their ships. |
Kitt JT
League of Non-Aligned Worlds
Nulli Secunda
75
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 10:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
I wonder why there's so many threads like this by this guy...
I wonder if he got ganked or something...
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=13963287
|
Lord Zim
1161
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 10:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
I wonder how much he had in his hold when he went pop?
Total Module Loss: 23,843,581.00
Total Module Drop: 274,640,851.00
Ship Loss: 2,199,998.00
Total Loss at current prices:300,684,430.00
Hm. Odd, that looks like it's past the limit he wanted. vOv |
Loco Ramos
The Dark Space Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 13:10:00 -
[16] - Quote
Armor tanking haulers seems like an awful idea. Apart from fostering LOLfits, what would increasing armor on such ships would accomplish? I mean, there's enough fitting options and ships if you want to avoid gank, an example here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7iNUUdnoiA&feature=player_detailpage#t=412s |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |