EVE Search - The gap between Industrials and Freighters

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The gap between Industrials and Freighters

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.12 10:46:00 - [61] Originally by: Avon Right now I can make 1mil every 4 minutes without leaving a system. Warp speed is not a major factor. So you do that in an industrial that tops out at 4.5AU/s? You really think that dropping to a top of 0.5AU/s isn't going to make a difference? Unless you're trading within the same station, you still have to warp around. You sure it's not going to affect you when that short hop of 30AU between stations takes at least 60 seconds? Originally by: Avon Quote: Crossover is less than minimal - there's a gaping chasm between them right now. As it should be. Your opinion. I disagree. Oh, here's another question. Do you consider the way you make money right now to be balanced? After all, you're using this one application of a ship to argue against that ship's existence. So is the problem the ship, or the application. When the dual-mwd cruisers were zipping around being so powerful, maybe we should have argued for the removal of cruisers instead of the dual-mwd. After all, in that application, cruisers were overpowered. NPC trades really need some serious work doing on them from the sound of it.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.12 10:47:00 - [62] Quote: Right now I can make 1mil every 4 minutes without leaving a system. Warp speed is not a major factor. For how long? A freighter will be able to dry that trade toute up in one run... So what if a new Indy allows you to make 2mill every 4 minutes until the trade route is dry for they day? ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.12 10:50:00 - [63] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: Right now I can make 1mil every 4 minutes without leaving a system. Warp speed is not a major factor. For how long? A freighter will be able to dry that trade toute up in one run... So what if a new Indy allows you to make 2mill every 4 minutes until the trade route is dry for they day? You'd be surprised. Some trade runs can last a long time. A very long time. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.07.12 10:51:00 - [64] And they re-seed at set points in time. Larger cargo-hold also mean that if a run is found, it can be depleted in one go, removing the element of competition. [Come to Daddy]
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.12 10:53:00 - [65] I honestly do not think a 100,000m3 Indy is gonna cause rampant deflation as you guiys cliam... You're just using scare tactics to try and validate your points... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.12 10:56:00 - [66] Edited by: Avon on 12/07/2005 10:57:31 Edited by: Avon on 12/07/2005 10:56:53 Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Avon Right now I can make 1mil every 4 minutes without leaving a system. Warp speed is not a major factor. So you do that in an industrial that tops out at 4.5AU/s? You really think that dropping to a top of 0.5AU/s isn't going to make a difference? Unless you're trading within the same station, you still have to warp around. You sure it's not going to affect you when that short hop of 30AU between stations takes at least 60 seconds? It takes longer to align each way than to travel, and the warp isn't even long enough to hit top speed. Quote: Originally by: Avon Quote: Crossover is less than minimal - there's a gaping chasm between them right now. As it should be. Your opinion. I disagree. Oh, here's another question. Do you consider the way you make money right now to be balanced? After all, you're using this one application of a ship to argue against that ship's existence. So is the problem the ship, or the application. When the dual-mwd cruisers were zipping around being so powerful, maybe we should have argued for the removal of cruisers instead of the dual-mwd. After all, in that application, cruisers were overpowered. NPC trades really need some serious work doing on them from the sound of it. Why? Are you saying asteroids should be nerfed because mining barges have been introduced? Better ships mean better profit. You can't adjust the npc supply to moderate that, otherwise you make the better ship a requirement - nerfing the majority who don't have access. It is all about balance, and sometimes two extremes balance better without attempting to find a middle ground. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.12 10:56:00 - [67] Originally by: Avon You'd be surprised. Some trade runs can last a long time. A very long time. Then maybe some trade runs need fixing. Originally by: Discorporation And they re-seed at set points in time. Larger cargo-hold also mean that if a run is found, it can be depleted in one go, removing the element of competition. How is this any worse than the situation we currently see inside a complex? One person comes in and raids it, killing the boss, grabbing the good loot and getting a huge payoff in little time. That too removes all competition until the respawn.
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:05:00 - [68] Originally by: Avon Why? Are you saying asteroids should be nerfed because mining barges have been introduced? Better ships mean better profit. You can't adjust the npc supply to moderate that, otherwise you make the better ship a requirement - nerfing the majority who don't have access. It is all about balance, and sometimes two extremes balance better without attempting to find a middle ground. No, I'm not saying asteroids should be nerfed because mining barges have been introduced. Better ships mean better profits? Isn't that exactly what you're describing happen as a reason not to introduce a better ship? Compare your income currently with mining - it's already out of whack without any new ships in the mix.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:07:00 - [69] Originally by: Matthew How is this any worse than the situation we currently see inside a complex? One person comes in and raids it, killing the boss, grabbing the good loot and getting a huge payoff in little time. That too removes all competition until the respawn. Complexes are meant for a single player (or group of players) to reap the rewards. Trade runs are not. [Come to Daddy]
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:10:00 - [70] Originally by: Matthew Better ships mean better profits? Isn't that exactly what you're describing happen as a reason not to introduce a better ship? Compare your income currently with mining - it's already out of whack without any new ships in the mix. Well, that is why I am arguing against a better ship - it would be great for me, but bad for the game. Is that so hard to understand? ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:10:00 - [71] Originally by: Discorporation Originally by: Matthew How is this any worse than the situation we currently see inside a complex? One person comes in and raids it, killing the boss, grabbing the good loot and getting a huge payoff in little time. That too removes all competition until the respawn. Complexes are meant for a single player (or group of players) to reap the rewards. Trade runs are not. Why not? Why should trade be any less of a competitive activity than NPC'ing?
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:14:00 - [72] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Matthew Better ships mean better profits? Isn't that exactly what you're describing happen as a reason not to introduce a better ship? Compare your income currently with mining - it's already out of whack without any new ships in the mix. Well, that is why I am arguing against a better ship - it would be great for me, but bad for the game. Is that so hard to understand? So you're saying that because the ship would push somethings that's already on the limits of credible balance over the line, that the ship would be the problem, not the bit that's already slightly out?
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:15:00 - [73] Originally by: Matthew Why not? Why should trade be any less of a competitive activity than NPC'ing? In NPC'ing, someone can steal your spawns, but there's still leftovers. Same with trade runs. But, since I'm crap at trading (apart from trading transcranials lol), I'll bow out and let competent people argue :\ [Come to Daddy]
Galk	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:35:00 - [74] Don't understand this one... Y'all talk about gap... do you people remember what it was like in 2003.. back when money making opertunity was low in the empire for most people... and the best thing they could do was strap 5 miner 1.. or varients on a thorax... with low end mineral prices being errr low..... Talk about gap... sure took effort and hardwork to get your first bs from a cruiser back then.... I see this situation being along simular lines... I want it now ect....... Hard work and effort boys and girls.. it will come, it allways does in the end Ofcourse i still think they should atleast release the cargo expander 2 now... that would bring the advancement your wanting, or should be intilted to.. as per the rest of the game thats had there t2 increases.... -------- "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." 'A Streetcar Named Desire'
Noriath	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:35:00 - [75] All the trading arguments are based on the assumption that you do nothing but trade - as always the problem is not the system itself but grindzombies who use the same way to make money so often that making it profitable for people who only want to do one or two traderuns (or missions) would hurt the game...
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:36:00 - [76] Originally by: Matthew So you're saying that because the ship would push somethings that's already on the limits of credible balance over the line, that the ship would be the problem, not the bit that's already slightly out? Yes, that's what I am saying. It is like introducing a ship which can enter a level 4 mission, kill everything instantly and insta-scoop all the loot, and then to balance it, nerfing all the missions. It makes the new ship a requirement, and nerfs everyone who used to do the missions until they get that ship. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.12 11:51:00 - [77] Quote: Y'all talk about gap... do you people remember what it was like in 2003.. Yeah I do, we pretty much still have the same hauling capacity 2+ years later... A Teir 2 or T2 base 100,000 m3 indy will not kill trade. And if you're so worried about that, then make mining & trading versions, etc... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Countess Amarisa	Posted - 2005.07.12 12:25:00 - [78] We don't need a new indy, we don't need a mini freighter! CCP just need to release a new npc hull upgrade better that the 27,44% expender. One like 35% and most poeple will be happy... BUT most of reply here are jalous one or "i can't effort a freighter and those who have one will make more money than me!" Bou hou hou! Remember this : most poeple who can effort one have hard work on it, even if they win a bpo tech 2. So they deserve it. So do the same, make more isk, and buy one. That is the answer!
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.12 12:30:00 - [79] Edited by: Bhaal on 12/07/2005 12:31:04 I'd rather see a new ship class rather than a 50% ludicrous CE... T2 Hull mod should be 25% and usable on the T2 Indy only, etc... And so on up the Tech Ladder. What the hell are T5 hull mods gonna be??? It's just insane really... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa	Posted - 2005.07.12 13:17:00 - [80] Edited by: Shan''Talasha Mea''Questa on 12/07/2005 13:23:43 Originally by: Braaage Indy -->> Transport ship -->> Freighter Freighters were designed for one purpose in mind and that's construction of platforms. No doubt they will get used as huge trade ships and huge empire to 0.0 haulers, but they aren't industrial ships meant for hauling ore from roid belts etc. Can you actually pilot a Transport Ship ? It doesn't fill any niche BETWEEN Indies and Freighters... they have their own niche, limited as it may be. Originally by: Countess Amarisa We don't need a new indy, we don't need a mini freighter! CCP just need to release a new npc hull upgrade better that the 27,44% expender. One like 35% and most poeple will be happy... BUT most of reply here are jalous one or "i can't effort a freighter and those who have one will make more money than me!" Bou hou hou! Remember this : most poeple who can effort one have hard work on it, even if they win a bpo tech 2. So they deserve it. So do the same, make more isk, and buy one. That is the answer! Actually I can afford a freighter, but I have absolutely NO use for a 750K m3 Cargo-hold... 75K to 100K however would be a nice go between and also makes lvl 4 Cargo-missions possible, since you can pick up and fly your cargo in one run instead of having to make the trip in 4 to 5 runs back and forth. No wonder all those agent runners are refusing all the hauling missions they get. It would actually make sense to make all the true freighters have around 1 mil m3 cargo space at Freighter 3 so they can bring a packaged Dreadnaught from >0.4 to 0.4 or lower so it may actually be used. For single corps the current freighter is overkill... and the IT5 is not large enough, even when you spend 300 mil worth for 5 Local Hull Cargo Expanders. Edited for the second line of discussion.
Galk	Posted - 2005.07.12 13:23:00 - [81] I think not... My point was progression, also i can't remember when they bought out the cargo bonus on haulers.. so ill have to take your word for it on 03 being the same Pretty obvious ccp have been holding back the expander 2.. i think now though for whatever reason.. it's time to see it arrive.. I honestly don't see the gap though.. i mean it took weeks for your average jock to get a bs back then given the way things were... no agents (or worth it anyway) and mineral prices being rock bottom, trit 1 isk ect... People, small or otherwise will get their frieghters, just not this week.. I want a dred.. but i know it's not happening anytime soon.... but it will... same thing -------- "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." 'A Streetcar Named Desire'
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.12 14:04:00 - [82] Originally by: Galk I want a dred.. but i know it's not happening anytime soon.... but it will... same thing No, it's not the same thing at all. Until you get that dread, you have battleships to use. There's no battleship-equivalent in the hauler tree. We have what equates to a cruiser-level and a capital-level hauling ship, with nothing in between.
Uncle George	Posted - 2005.07.12 14:09:00 - [83] I don't think expander II's are going to make a huge difference here. I would rather pay 150 million for a capable hauler, than pay 150 million for modules on an existing hauler.
hired goon	Posted - 2005.07.12 15:04:00 - [84] I can't solo a 8/10 complex in my battleship. A dreadnought is overkill... let's introduce a new midway ship so I can do it in one run. With a new 100,000m3 hauler, nobody will use the old ones. ------------ We come in peace. And tanks.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.12 15:08:00 - [85] Quote: With a new 100,000m3 hauler, nobody will use the old ones. Does anyone use Bantam's anymore for mining? ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
PiniclePanda	Posted - 2005.07.12 17:34:00 - [86] Edited by: PiniclePanda on 12/07/2005 17:35:06 Originally by: hired goon With a new 100,000m3 hauler, nobody will use the old ones. By this logic, nobody will use a cruiser, with battleships existing. There wouldn't be as many industrials, but there would still be industrials: 1) Piloted by the newbies 2) Piloted to take advantage of low volume runs 3) Collecting low volume runs in one place to form a high volume run (promoting regional markets!!) Originally by: a few people This would screw over those who have purchaced Freighter BPOs Going on this logic, not introducing a ship that fills the middle niche would screw over everyone who's ready for something beyond their Iteron V, but can't afford the billion or so it takes to enter the freighter market. The chance that the freighter will actually gasp have competition is a risk that comes with purcasing such a BPO. Personally? I'd be fine with some middle ground. I don't need a new hauler NOW NOW NOW. Give the freighter producers some time to recoup their investment, sure. Just get an alternative on the TODO list, to be implemented within a few months, and I'd be happy enough to just wait for it. I can't speak for others here of course... Originally by: a few people This would ruin trade Fix the trade system then, rather than pull hauling down to the same level.
flummox	Posted - 2005.07.12 19:18:00 - [87] Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: flummox and, yes, your comments aren't needed. i know it's harsh. it's a harsh world. but, since this is a discussion about the idea of new mid-level indys, posts that simply state 'i am content' or put-down the ideas of others are NOT WELCOME. In which case, it isn't a discussion. It's you saying "this is how things should be" and nobody being allowed to disagree with you. again, i point out i stated 'discussion about mid-level indys'. are you putting words in my mouth, also? i thought i covered that... ... bring me my cheese...
Slovekki	Posted - 2005.07.12 19:22:00 - [88] The gap between Industrials and Freighters.. .. doesn't need to be filled. it would be a long time before i'd ever get my pod in one, but, I think it's fun to have content thats outta reach of the normal man. Such as life goes. ___________ I'll think of somethin funny later..
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.07.12 19:35:00 - [89] If the main argument against Light Freighters is trade runs...then there is no argument against them. I don't give a damn about trade runs, I just need something that can relieve the utter boredom of insanely repetative cargo runs. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.12 19:41:00 - [90] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi If the main argument against Light Freighters is trade runs...then there is no argument against them. I don't give a damn about trade runs, I just need something that can relieve the utter boredom of insanely repetative cargo runs. OMG. Narrow-minded ego-centric reasoning 4tw. Don't worry about the game as a whole, just your little insignificant part in it. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.