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)
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:52:00 - [211] "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?" "Topic, mother*****, can you stay on it?" --;;;
Avon	Posted - 2005.07.18 12:54:00 - [212] Edited by: Avon on 18/07/2005 12:54:55 Originally by: Derisor 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? Derisor. I pirate when I feel it will profit me. I move to 0.0 when I feel it will profit me. I trade when I feel it will profit me. These are all just tools in my box, and just a small selection of them. They are not my goals, they just help finance them. You keep concentrating on the small picture, leave the big game to the real players. At least I am able to comment on most aspects of eve from experience, unlike some I could mention* *Mining not included. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:00:00 - [213] Quote: *Mining not included. No wonder why you have no clue as to how beneficial a new hauling ship would be to so many players. It's not laziness; it's feelings of accomplishment/hr of EVE playtime. Looking at the 781 mill worth of minerals required to build a freighter, you better help out the miners & haulers, or you will drive the haulers & miners out there to start thinking of alternate careers, and the whole of EVE will suffer at the hands of an industrial collapse... ------------------------------------------------ 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 13:04:00 - [214] Edited by: Avon on 18/07/2005 13:05:49 Originally by: Bhaal Quote: *Mining not included. No wonder why you have no clue as to how beneficial a new hauling ship would be to so many players. It's not laziness; it's feelings of accomplishment/hr of EVE playtime. Looking at the 781 mill worth of minerals required to build a freighter, you better help out the miners & haulers, or you will drive the haulers & miners out there to start thinking of alternate careers, and the whole of EVE will suffer at the hands of an industrial collapse... Read back Bhaal. I am not unsympathetic to the needs of miners. I suggested in this thread that a refining ship would be a useful addition. Make the yield slightly less than a station, and let it refine ore as people mine. Then the haulers only have to carry minerals, not ore - greatly improving their effective capacity. (If you are claiming an increased capacity need for the construction of capital ships, NEWS-FLASH, that is what frieghters are for!) ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:14:00 - [215] Edited by: Bhaal on 18/07/2005 13:15:47 Quote: Read back Bhaal. I am not unsympathetic to the needs of miners. I suggested in this thread that a refining ship would be a useful addition. Make the yield slightly less than a station, and let it refine ore as people mine. Then the haulers only have to cary minerals, not ore - greatly improving their effective capacity. I'm not opposed to a new class of Indy that can fit a mobile refinery module, and has a mineral hold as opposed to a drone bay. Ore goes into normal Indy sized cargo hold, mins come out of mobile refinery into mineral hold... However, with skills the refine efficiency should not be less than a station with maxed out skills & NPC standing. I guess it could even be coded that you cannot load minerals directly into the mineral hold, they can only come from the mobile refinery so as to squash attempts to trade minerals using this large hold from station to station. However, the facts are, minerals will indeed need to be moved from station to station. A reason in itself to have larger haulage capacity, so Freighters can be built. Chicken or the Egg, can't have a Freighter until you can get the mins there to build one... The logistics to get the mins to a Freighter factory without initially having a Freighter is quite the conundrum. Also the price tag on the Freighter is quite prohibitive for small corps anyways... I still say at some point in time, CCP will need to bridge the gap somewhat... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:18:00 - [216] "However, with skills the refine efficiency should not be less than a station with maxed out skills & NPC standing." If just skills would be enough to match maxed out efficiency of NPC station, it would then make these ships more effective than the NPC stations -- not only you wouldn't need to waste time on getting the NPC standings high enough, but you'd also save significant amount of time normally used on multiple trips needed to move ore to NPC station for refinement...
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:21:00 - [217] Quote: If just skills would be enough to match maxed out efficiency of NPC station, it would then make these ships more effective than the NPC stations -- not only you wouldn't need to waste time on getting the NPC standings high enough, but you'd also save significant amount of time normally used on multiple trips needed to move ore to NPC station for refinement... Right, I meant significantly less... i.e. I don't want to see a station giving a guy 99% refine, and the best he can do with his new ship with maxed out skills is 75%... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:24:00 - [218] "Right, I meant significantly less... i.e. I don't want to see a station giving a guy 99% refine, and the best he can do with his new ship with maxed out skills is 75%..." Well, 75% vs ~100% is hardly a 'penalty' ^^ I mean, if you have regular mining operation with 3 miners and one hauler, being able to turn that hauler into 4th miner results in equal efficiency like NPC station offers, without the repetitive jumps back and forth... it's still work reduction in comparison to current way of doing things, even though numbers would indicate differently at first glance.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:34:00 - [219] Quote: it's still work reduction in comparison to current way of doing things, even though numbers would indicate differently at first glance. Total efficiency/man hours is the key. You can't simply fluff it up and make it feel like less work because you have less hauling to do... You have to give true incentive, true bonuses to such a new ship class. We are after increased productivity to meet the mineral demands of these new ships... ------------------------------------------------ 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 13:38:00 - [220] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: it's still work reduction in comparison to current way of doing things, even though numbers would indicate differently at first glance. Total efficiency/man hours is the key. You can't simply fluff it up and make it feel like less work because you have less hauling to do... You have to give true incentive, true bonuses to such a new ship class. We are after increased productivity to meet the mineral demands of these new ships... That would of course assume you want to make it easy to meet the mineral demands of these new ships. I'm not sure that is a desirable situation. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:39:00 - [221] "Total efficiency/man hours is the key. You can't simply fluff it up and make it feel like less work because you have less hauling to do..." Mhmm but it is less work. For one, you save all the work you'd need to do to raise your NPC standings... can spend all this time doing more mining, for example. That's quite an extra benefit. And #2, the example i gave was with 3:1 miner to hauler ratio. For less than 3 miners per one hauler, being able to get one extra miner instead of the hauler actually increases amount of minerals you can get in the same time, not just matches the best you'd get at NPC station.
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:45:00 - [222] Quote: That would of course assume you want to make it easy to meet the mineral demands of these new ships. I'm not sure that is a desirable situation. I never said easy. What I don't want to see is this new ship efficiency=hauling to station & refining, due to the fact you can only get a certain % lower than an NPC station. They can't be a wash. There has to be a clear & definite advantage for those who have the new ships & skills. It can't simply be a replacement for less hauling to station... ------------------------------------------------ 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 13:51:00 - [223] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: That would of course assume you want to make it easy to meet the mineral demands of these new ships. I'm not sure that is a desirable situation. I never said easy. What I don't want to see is this new ship efficiency=hauling to station & refining, due to the fact you can only get a certain % lower than an NPC station. They can't be a wash. There has to be a clear & definite advantage for those who have the new ships & skills. It can't simply be a replacement for less hauling to station... But you aren't thinking of the bigger picture Bhaal. Producing minerals where you mine has other advantages which could easily offset a 25% reduction in refine efficiency. Think how much more effective secure cans would be if you were storing minerals, not ore. What about mining in systems without stations? There are lots of other factors you have to consider before you dismiss a reduced output as a bad idea. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:51:00 - [224] "They can't be a wash. There has to be a clear & definite advantage for those who have the new ships & skills. It can't simply be a replacement for less hauling to station..." Well, considering how people *** and moan or plain refuse to mine when it involves more than a few jumps to the refining point... how the deep space refining platforms were introduced to game precisely because all of this **ing and moaning and due to number of roids left not mined... if removal of that apparently evil hauling is not good enough* bonus of new ships, i have no idea what to say. ;.;
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:58:00 - [225] Quote: There are lots of other factors you have to consider before you dismiss a reduced output as a bad idea. The whole point is increased output to support increased mineral demand. Would a PvP'er spend the money on a T2 frig if the damage output was the same as a T1? I'm not after just appearance of higher efficiency. Anyways, a lot in the game would have to change, as the current roid spawn system could not keep up. System roid belts & non-respawing natural resources, along with many of the other mining overhaul ideas proposed need to be seriously given some thought by CCP. The whole mineral aquisition system needs revamping IMO... For gameplay satisfaction, and game mechanics reasons... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.07.18 13:59:00 - [226] Bhall/anyone else: If CCP were to 'fix' NPC trading so to prevent mass-NPC trading with the new big indy then I'd be fine with it. However, if they do not change it, it would break trading IMO and that has to be bad. I'm not arguing against your needs for the indy - but just because you need it (for good reasons tbh) doesn't mean you can just ignore something else that will break because of it. --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 14:00:00 - [227] Quote: Bhall/anyone else: If CCP were to 'fix' NPC trading so to prevent mass-NPC trading with the new big indy then I'd be fine with it. However, if they do not change it, it would break trading IMO and that has to be bad. I'm not arguing against your needs for the indy - but just because you need it (for good reasons tbh) doesn't mean you can just ignore something else that will break because of it. C'mon guys! CCP always has to tweak existing ** when the release new **! This is nothing new! ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.07.18 14:04:00 - [228] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: Bhall/anyone else: If CCP were to 'fix' NPC trading so to prevent mass-NPC trading with the new big indy then I'd be fine with it. However, if they do not change it, it would break trading IMO and that has to be bad. I'm not arguing against your needs for the indy - but just because you need it (for good reasons tbh) doesn't mean you can just ignore something else that will break because of it. C'mon guys! CCP always has to tweak existing ** when the release new **! This is nothing new! Well, if they were to tweak trading then it's fine. I'm just saying that leaving the current NPC trading as it is and then introducing a new, larger indy, would break the system. Oh, and sorry for getting your name wrong --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 14:07:00 - [229] Quote: Oh, and sorry for getting your name wrong np, but you are already on my KOS list, sorry... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Jallianai Maya	Posted - 2005.07.18 18:59:00 - [230] yeas we need some thing between industrials and transport ships to frieghters
BoBoZoBo	Posted - 2005.07.18 19:58:00 - [231] Do we reallllly need a filler for every dam little thing? ========================= Operator 9
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 21:24:00 - [232] Quote: Do we reallllly need a filler for every dam little thing? In this case, absolutely... ------------------------------------------------ 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 21:37:00 - [233] Look Avon, propose something constructive, simply saying it's bad because of an as of yet unproven trading advantage is not going to convince anyone that better haulers aren't wanted and needed. Nobody likes wasting time in this game, especially hauling, and even moreso when ou have to make the run 10 times. It's not about laziness, it's about efficiency. Current haulers are simply not efficient enough for current mining and current markets. It's pretty bad when a niche at best freighter comes along and everyone needs one, but they are too far up to justify getting one. Light Freighters and lvl 5 indies for each race would be a good first step. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.07.18 21:52:00 - [234] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Look Avon, propose something constructive, simply saying it's bad because of an as of yet unproven trading advantage is not going to convince anyone that better haulers aren't wanted and needed. It's not an advantage, it's a breaking over a system. More than 1m ISK per minute for no risk at all is overpowered. IMO, keeping the system in balance is more important than efficiency in hauling your minerals or other items. As for unproven, feel free to prove me wrong (as I'm away for a while from tomorrow). Go on the Test Server and buy a few hundred thousand m3 of NPC trade goods and then try and sell them and see if ever becomes unprofitable. Try several routes as one is not enough. Anyway, you could haul 100000m3 (or more) of NPC trade goods then setup a sell order and let it sell over a few days - not immediate returns but you haul for a minute and get a lot of return after a period for doing nothing else. It still is overpowered. --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.07.18 22:35:00 - [235] Some of that sounds like good business to me... ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
Knukalz	Posted - 2005.07.18 22:43:00 - [236] Yeh, is what the T2 indies or transports should have been. Instead, they offer no more capacity and much slower than a T1. Being tougher than tech 1 indies makes no difference really - no harder to pop than a tech 1, just means takes a few more shots while its sat there helpless. Very few situations where it being tougher will actually make the difference.
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.07.18 22:57:00 - [237] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Some of that sounds like good business to me... The business would be too good though. 1mill per 1 minute haul. Even if it doesn't come immediately, that's still overpowered surely? Remember, there's no risk in this at all either. A normal indy can do it but a 100000m3 indy could do it ridiculously quickly and easily. Maybe a good fix would be to prevent NPC trade goods from being hauled in these things? Most of the 'pro' arguments for these ships have been for logistics (hauling assets etc) so I don't see how much problems it would cause. At any rate, the problems of NPC hauling with these things would be even worse. Not sure how you can explain this in RP terms though. --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:03:00 - [238] RP? Just have the ships require content specific cargo modules. It's not that hard, a bit of imagination is required, etc... Make T2 low slot modules that only T2 Indy's can fit. Different modules for ore, minerals, trade goods etc. CCP can regulate what can be carried in this manner, etc... If you use no modules, the base cargo is 2X the base of it's T1 counterpart, etc... ------------------------------------------------ Views expressed by this character in no way shape or form reflect the views of M. Corp as a whole.
Vilserx	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:11:00 - [239] Originally by: Bhaal RP? Just have the ships require content specific cargo modules. It's not that hard, a bit of imagination is required, etc... Make T2 low slot modules that only T2 Indy's can fit. Different modules for ore, minerals, trade goods etc. CCP can regulate what can be carried in this manner, etc... If you use no modules, the base cargo is 2X the base of it's T1 counterpart, etc... Roleplay. I like that idea of yours of cargo specific mods. --------------------------- VSX EVE Design
flummox	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:12:00 - [240] wow... are we REALLY still on this subject in the thread? i thought this thread was supposed to be about ideas to fill the gap between indys and the new freighter? yet it still just seems to be a dogpile on the (what? two?) ideas posted here. instead of just trying to say 'no', why not think of ways to take those ideas into something feasable. all of you would suck to be in a board meeting with... ... bring me my cheese...

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.