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)
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.17 07:09:00 - [181] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Avon You are judging the need of a ship based on the length of a forum thread? The length of the thread being mostly made up of people wanting them...I would say yes. One small issue with trade that sofar is only speculation, is no reason to keep them out. Count up the posts, subtract all posts not from unique individuals saying "please may I have a 100,000m3 indy?", divide figure by player base and multiply by 100. I think you'll see that only a miniscule fraction of the playerbase want these ships. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Joram McRory	Posted - 2005.07.17 12:20:00 - [182] Originally by: Avon Count up the posts, subtract all posts not from unique individuals saying "please may I have a 100,000m3 indy?", divide figure by player base and multiply by 100. I think you'll see that only a miniscule fraction of the playerbase want these ships. Flawed logic ^^. For that calculation to be meaningful you are assuming 100% of the player base read this thread and posted here if they agree with the idea. As these forums seem to be inhabited by only a couple of hundred people I think you are way out. If you want to come up with a percentage it would be better to count up the individuals in this thread who agree with the big hauler proposal, and express that as a percentage of the number of people who have posted here. I think that would be a more statistically valid methodology. Above you picked out my method for determining that there is a demand for this type of ship for critique, but didn't actually answer my point. Do you have a view on the niche for the 2nd "wasted" transport ship as it currently stands?
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.07.17 23:46:00 - [183] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Avon You are judging the need of a ship based on the length of a forum thread? The length of the thread being mostly made up of people wanting them...I would say yes. One small issue with trade that sofar is only speculation, is no reason to keep them out. Count up the posts, subtract all posts not from unique individuals saying "please may I have a 100,000m3 indy?", divide figure by player base and multiply by 100. I think you'll see that only a miniscule fraction of the playerbase want these ships. And you appose it for a reason that isn't even proven to work. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 00:30:00 - [184] Originally by: Joram McRory Originally by: Avon Count up the posts, subtract all posts not from unique individuals saying "please may I have a 100,000m3 indy?", divide figure by player base and multiply by 100. I think you'll see that only a miniscule fraction of the playerbase want these ships. Flawed logic ^^. For that calculation to be meaningful you are assuming 100% of the player base read this thread and posted here if they agree with the idea. As these forums seem to be inhabited by only a couple of hundred people I think you are way out. If you want to come up with a percentage it would be better to count up the individuals in this thread who agree with the big hauler proposal, and express that as a percentage of the number of people who have posted here. I think that would be a more statistically valid methodology. Above you picked out my method for determining that there is a demand for this type of ship for critique, but didn't actually answer my point. Do you have a view on the niche for the 2nd "wasted" transport ship as it currently stands? It was a cynical ploy to show the assumption that post count=demand was false in the first place. There are no wasted transport ships, both types fill seperate niches. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 00:31:00 - [185] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi And you appose it for a reason that isn't even proven to work. I oppose it based on what I know of trading, a subject you have already confessed your ignorance of. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.07.18 00:54:00 - [186] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi And you appose it for a reason that isn't even proven to work. I oppose it based on what I know of trading, a subject you have already confessed your ignorance of. Then enlighten me instead of saying 'I know it will be bad, you dont'. The pros vastly outnumber the cons from where I sit and nothing you have said changed it. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 02:05:00 - [187] Edited by: Bhaal on 18/07/2005 02:07:25 Quote: I think you missed the point of that ship class entirely. CCP's version of a T2 Indy is quite laughable. The blockade runners are somwhat of a joke IMO. They may be required in a very small minority of circumstances. However, a T2 Indy with 2X the base cargo capacity that of it's T1 counterpart would prove to be more useful to the community. They dropped the ball on Indy's... Took almost 2 years to release a T2 Indy, very small % of the EVE community like & use them, they are too expensive & somewhat useless to the normal hauler pilot. They release Freighters, even more expensive & out of reach, and released for a nich role. Yet again not very useful for the majority of haulers. CCP knows how to release ships of all kinds for fighting, yet they don't seem to have a clue when it comes to Mining, Hauling, and general Industrial professions. Either that, or they just don't give a flying ** about those professions, and deem them as a lower form of playstyle, therefore not requiring any real attention from the DEV team. They keep dropping the ball, and are making it quite evident they are somewhat anti-industrialists themselves... Who are the DEV's who work on the Industrial aspects of the game? Or maybe a better question would be, Are there any DEV's who concentrate solely on Industry? Or do the PvP DEV's *** & moan when they are forced to work on Industry content that one day out of evrey month, the last Friday of every month, ya know, when they leave early to go get drunk at the nearest PUB... Just my opinions... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.07.18 03:35:00 - [188] Well not even that Bhaal, with Transport Ships, all CCP did was make haulers more combat capable. not a bad thing of course, but totally not inline with how other tech 2 ships go. Tech 2 is supposed to do the job better than tech 1...Transport Ships are debatable, and rarely do anything to justify their cost. The Blockade Runners are fine, they do something universally useful. But the other one is what? Stronger and slower, sure its more resilient, but speed is everything. Mastodon seems more like a step back than a step forward. So when do we get a real hauling ship that isnt going to take a year+ to justify buying? ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
MOOstradamus	Posted - 2005.07.18 04:08:00 - [189] Quote: Mastodon seems more like a step back than a step forward. You have got to be kidding Although of course we would have all loved an increased cargo capacity too ... MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.07.18 04:11:00 - [190] Originally by: MOOstradamus Quote: Mastodon seems more like a step back than a step forward. You have got to be kidding Although of course we would have all loved an increased cargo capacity too ... Industrials are haulers first, everything else second. The Mastodon is better in combat, but not hauling. We want a better hauling ship. I would settle for Light Freighters tbh, but I can see why miners want bigger indies. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 08:46:00 - [191] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Then enlighten me instead of saying 'I know it will be bad, you dont'. The pros vastly outnumber the cons from where I sit and nothing you have said changed it. I have given you my reason, but you have decided to ignore it. IMHO making 1millionISK per minute is unbalanced and game breaking. I am not in favour of nerfing the current traders so that some more advanced players can have a new toy. If the ship was released I would have one. I would use it to make oooooooooooooodles of isk. I would love it. But .. it is just plain wrong. If you have lots of stuff to haul, pay someone to do it. Or get friends to help. Or do lots of trips. The Eve economy is more important than your selfish wants. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Fortior	Posted - 2005.07.18 10:52:00 - [192] I always thought that Tech 2 didn't always mean a definite improvement over Tech 1. It seems more like a way to diversify ships in the galaxy. Logistics cruisers aren't exactly better than their Tech 1 counterparts in respect to combat, neither are the Stealth Bombers nor Covert Ops. Tech 2 just adds spicing, not a bigger steak. Speaking of which, time for lunch.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 10:59:00 - [193] Quote: Logistics cruisers aren't exactly better than their Tech 1 counterparts in respect to combat Yes, and they are about as useful as the T2 Indies as well... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Jade Nexia	Posted - 2005.07.18 11:59:00 - [194] Originally by: Avon IMHO making 1millionISK per minute is unbalanced and game breaking. Explain why? I'm doing it over two years now. Go into belt and kill some NPC BS viola! 1mil per minute but you need to wait till next spawn :) These NPC traders not doing 1mil per minute if you count all time spend to research and find route. FYI that trade route will vanish soon as they suplly demand and need to look for another one trade route. Don't count peek income you need count all time spend around.
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.07.18 11:59:00 - [195] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Avon Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi And you appose it for a reason that isn't even proven to work. I oppose it based on what I know of trading, a subject you have already confessed your ignorance of. Then enlighten me instead of saying 'I know it will be bad, you dont'. The pros vastly outnumber the cons from where I sit and nothing you have said changed it. There are plenty of 'pros' to a bigger indy, but the one massive con, that Avon mentioned, outweighs anything else as it breaks the game. Many people moaned and moaned about Lvl4 missions (pre-patch of course) as they gave 'far too much reward for too little risk.' A 100000m3 hauler would give even more reward for even less risk. --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
Jade Nexia	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:02:00 - [196] Originally by: Vilserx A 100000m3 hauler would give even more reward for even less risk. Sorry you know digly squad about hauler profesion, try move 100 000 cubic meters of stuff over 10 jumps then come back and start arguing :)
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:08:00 - [197] Quote: A 100000m3 hauler would give even more reward for even less risk. That's just trying to use scare-tactics because you disagree with the idea... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Jade Nexia	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:16:00 - [198] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Jade Nexia Originally by: Vilserx A 100000m3 hauler would give even more reward for even less risk. Sorry you know digly squad about hauler profesion, try move 100 000 cubic meters of stuff over 10 jumps then come back and start arguing :) Jade, with all due respect, you are wrong. Good trade routes don't involve 10 jumps, most of mine don't leave their respective systems. Marginal markup with minimal travel time. Some routes are still just profitable even when they buy price is at its highest, and the sell price is at its lowest. Even if you only pull in 3% profit, all you need is a big ship and a bit of capital, and you can make a constant income. The bigger the ship, the bigger the income. Where I did talk about trading? In this post is mentioned that haulers need more space between frieghter and industrials. Trading is side profesion and it is possible to adjust NPC market easilly, but game dosn't give any solution for haulers. Definetely EVE need two things better cargo or all items in game need to reduce in size. My primary concern is about haulers. NWO cold war will need haul a lot of low grade minerals and CCP doesn't give any mid solution for it. Even best MK5 can haul maximally 30 000 cubic meters, as proposed we need industrials with 100 000 cubic meters at least.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:17:00 - [199] Quote: Good trade routes don't involve 10 jumps, most of mine don't leave their respective systems. Marginal markup with minimal travel time. Yes, the old buy construction blocks in one station for 53 ISK, and sell them in the next station over for 80 ISK. Don't you think it's lame that a broken NPC trade system is your only argument against these new Indy's? What happens when T2 CE's come out, or hell T3's? You gonna demand that they nerf the attributes of all CE's in the game so that the latest tech of CE's does not allow for too much haulage? Give me a break... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:22:00 - [200] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: Good trade routes don't involve 10 jumps, most of mine don't leave their respective systems. Marginal markup with minimal travel time. Yes, the old buy construction blocks in one station for 53 ISK, and sell them in the next station over for 80 ISK. Don't you think it's lame that a broken NPC trade system is your only argument against these new Indy's? What happens when T2 CE's come out, or hell T3's? You gonna demand that they nerf the attributes of all CE's in the game so that the latest tech of CE's does not allow for too much haulage? Give me a break... I'm not demanding anything Bhaal, I am just looking at the issue. Do you nerf a valid profession to allow people who want to haul stuff to be lazy? Do you let trading remain unchanged, letting people earn 60mil ISK per hour in safe space, so that lazy people can haul their stuff? Or, do you leave things as they are now, not nerfing anyone, and make the lazy people accept the fact that hauling their stuff takes time & effort, or isk? As I keep saying Bhaal, I'm all for 100,000m3 haulers. They'd let me buy myself a tier2 BS for just 2hrs effort. It would give me far more ability to blow stuff up, and I am all for that ... ... but is it what Eve needs? ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:30:00 - [201] Quote: Do you nerf a valid profession to allow people who want to haul stuff to be lazy? If you can really make so much trading as you say you do, so easily, is it really a valid profession? Or is it a problem like Pre NWO lvl4 missions were deemed to be in the eyes of CCP DEV's? The increase in minerals required to build the NWO ships, demand a steady progression of all ships & modules required to support these efforts (mining & hauling), and future efforts for Titans & other capital ships. You can't leave IndyÆs the way they are forever and expect ppl to make 10X more 20 jump runs & be happy to pay the sub fee to keep doing that. All because an EVE profession is broke. They nerfed lvl4 missions, which many thought to be viable solo type EVE professions, I'm sure NPC trading can be looked at if it is indeed the only reason more useful Industrial ships cannot enter the EVE universe... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:39:00 - [202] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: Do you nerf a valid profession to allow people who want to haul stuff to be lazy? If you can really make so much trading as you say you do, so easily, is it really a valid profession? Or is it a problem like Pre NWO lvl4 missions were deemed to be in the eyes of CCP DEV's? The increase in minerals required to build the NWO ships, demand a steady progression of all ships & modules required to support these efforts (mining & hauling), and future efforts for Titans & other capital ships. You can't leave Indy’s the way they are forever and expect ppl to make 10X more 20 jump runs & be happy to pay the sub fee to keep doing that. All because an EVE profession is broke. They nerfed lvl4 missions, which many thought to be viable solo type EVE professions, I'm sure NPC trading can be looked at if it is indeed the only reason more useful Industrial ships cannot enter the EVE universe... Again you miss the point. Trading isn't broken. The introduction of a 100,000m3 ship would break it. Do you a/ Break it anyway, then nerf the people without a 100,000m3 ship, thus making the new content a requirement just to stay level. or b/ Leave things as they are. ? ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:43:00 - [203] Quote: Trading isn't broken. The introduction of a 100,000m3 ship would break it. Well, CCP has nerfed things in the past to introduce new content... Since when do they ever leave anything alone? Again, nothing but scare tactics... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Derisor	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:43:00 - [204] LOL avon is a rabid pirate and trades too? Must be an alt. --------- The words "Exciting" and "Safe" are mutually exclusive; pick one.
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:46:00 - [205] Originally by: Derisor LOL avon is a rabid pirate and trades too? Must be an alt. If you bothered to read the thread you would know that I have a trading alt. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Derisor	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:47:00 - [206] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Derisor LOL avon is a rabid pirate and trades too? Must be an alt. If you bothered to read the thread you would know that I have a trading alt. Not willing to commit to being a full time pirate? Not willing to take the heat and the downsides for being a pirate? How weak. --------- The words "Exciting" and "Safe" are mutually exclusive; pick one.
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:48:00 - [207] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: Trading isn't broken. The introduction of a 100,000m3 ship would break it. Well, CCP has nerfed things in the past to introduce new content... Since when do they ever leave anything alone? Again, nothing but scare tactics... Bhaal, dismissing it as scare tactics does you no credit. Refute the points, don't dismiss them. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:49:00 - [208] Quote: Not willing to commit to being a full time pirate? Not willing to take the heat and the downsides for being a pirate? How weak. C'mon dude, most ppl in this game have different characters to play different roles... There is nothing wrong with that, it allows you to try different aspects of the game, as well as able to log on and play more because of bordom issues... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:50:00 - [209] Originally by: Derisor Originally by: Avon Originally by: Derisor LOL avon is a rabid pirate and trades too? Must be an alt. If you bothered to read the thread you would know that I have a trading alt. Not willing to commit to being a full time pirate? Not willing to take the heat and the downsides for being a pirate? How weak. I have to do something whilst I am at work ... and piracy on a laptop over a modem just isn't my idea of fun. :) ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Derisor	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:50:00 - [210] Avon: BTW if piracy is so good for the game and adds so much and if living in 0.0 is as easy as you say, what do you need with a trading alt? --------- The words "Exciting" and "Safe" are mutually exclusive; pick one.

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.