|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Drizit
   |
Posted - 2006.04.12 20:26:00 -
[1]
You have systems even in highsec that have loads of ore but are left unmined. Why? Simply because it takes too long for a hauler of the current size even to make a single jump and come back for the next load. The result is that the miner has to stop frequently to allow the hauler to catch up. Therefore the belt is not econmically viable to mine. Two Covetors in one of these belts would require 4 haulers to maintain a constant, uninterrupted flow where two haulers in a system with stations would keep up with the same two Covetors. Any miner would rather have 3 Covetors working a belt with 3 haulers taking it out rather than 2 Covetors and 4 haulers.
Now take it a step further with 0.0 where the same hauler may have to make 3 or even 4 jumps to the nearest station. Now you may need 3 or 4 haulers for a single Covetor. Once again, these resources are infrequently mined if at all. Mining in 0.0 also requires significant defence so using personnel to haul takes away those who could be used to fly defence. Either way it's not economically viable.
This is just one reason for having a larger freighter.
The tradeoff?
Simply that a large hauler in 0.0 would have to be guarded. A big and slow moving ship would be easy pickings. but again, a normal hauler would also have to be guarded. 0.0 has it's own dangers that are inherant no matter what ship you fly.
In Highsec, the tradeoff is going to be the solo player who decides to use a large hauler for this work means more pickings for ore thieves who would be more likely to use similar haulers to get bigger payloads. It is unlikely for this reason that macrominers would use these since one ore thief can take a considerable amount of profit from them in one fell swoop, rather than the current 15 minutes worth of ore. If they are set to lose 3 or 4 hours worth of work in one attack, it would not pay them to use the bigger hauler.
--
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 20:24:00 -
[2]
The fact that this thread is being referred to on a daily basis from other requests for this type of ship in the suggestions forum denotes that it is a very popular subject.
On the one hand you have those who seem to think a mid sized freighter would wreck the economy. Since the massive freighters have not already done that is testimony to the fact that market trading is already on the decline as a players choice of profession.
On the other hand a massive increase in ship purchases have pushed up the prices of ships and demand for them is slowly exceeding the builders ability to keep up. I have built two BS's and sold them both within a day of putting them on the market and am looking at several days of mining to get enough minerals to make more. Most of this time mining is spent moving it to the station rather than actually mining for it. I have two retrievers mining and one hauler cannot keep up even with expanders which only serve to make it slower.
A 100K m3 hauler with a 100m/s top speed would shave about 15% off the time so it's no big deal but if left as it stands, ships will be in short supply and prices for them will skyrocket.
The big question here is: How much do you want to pay for a replacement ship if you lose yours? How much do you want to put toward the insurance payout to replace it? Because pretty soon, the insurance will nowhere near cover the cost.
No highslot. 2 mids for small shield boost and a cap recharge mod but not enough pg to mount AB's or MWD no lows at all to prevent overdrives or expanders being used. Same cap as a retriever. No big deal, it's not a supercharged turbo tanker, it's just a slow moving hauler with a bit of tank against NPC rats. Needs escort in lowsec and 0.0 since the tank won't hold 2 seconds against PVP players. Shield and armour of a transporter.
--
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.04.21 21:34:00 -
[3]
Agreed. If it can't scoop, there is absolutely no use for it since we already have a freighter class. This idea was originally for an upgrade of the industrial ship which is not in the same class a freighter. Freighters are trade ships not industrial class ships, they are purely for hauling commodities from one station to another. It's like comparing a tipper lorry to a container lorry.
Personally, I wouldn't care if a bigger indy cost the same as a freighter and required similar level of skills but if it doesn't have the capability to scoop to cargo, you will still have people here asking for it.
When I first heard about the freighter, I thought it was overkill but started t oput the isk together to buy one. When I found out they can't scoop, it was immediately struck off my list of things to buy. It has absolutely no use to the mining sector who needs it most.
--
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 14:54:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Bob Niac
I dub thee : the Thread that will not die!
The reason for that is it's too popular a subject, regardless of what some here might say. When it disappears onto page two or three, there are almost daily links to it for others who have requested the same thing.
We need something for the mining community. The freighter was brought in for the market traders not miners, it was deliberately gimped so it couldn't be used for mining. The fact that it hasn't destroyed the market any more than it was already is due to the market respawns at set times (after DT) rather than the ship itself. Incidentally: Pirates can't profit from Freighters, the same mechanics that prevents them picking up cans also prevents them dropping them when destroyed.
What the mining community needs is something that's not even a quarter of the size of a Freighter. Haulers cannot keep up with barges, expanders on haulers make them a lot slower and therefore even harder to keep up. Either double the size of the hauler base capacity to bring it in line with the original speeds of mining output or introduce something else that players can upgrade to from a hauler with 100k m3 cargo cap and not gimped with regards to jet can pickups. Having slots is not even necessary if that's the arguement. This is not a capital ship, it is not a "lowsec or 0.0 only" ship, it is just a bigger hauler and nothing more.
And before anyone even thinks about the words "macro miners", why should the players who play this game properly be penalised because of them? There has already been one very good suggestion that could disrupt their operations considerably and also help detect them easier.
--
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 00:20:00 -
[5]
Since a mother ship is capital class and useful only in lowsec/0.0 it's pointless even considering that idea. This is purely a ploy for a new toy available only to the "elite" players. Also an ORE ship would be a miner not a hauler just as all ORE ships are mining ships. We are not after a mining ship that eats roids like Pacman eats power pills.
You have a retriever that has too little cargo hold space, if you have high skills that help yield and there are several skills that give yield bonuses to mining lasers, you cannot get the entire cycle of both lasers in the hold. Add to that mining laser upgrades, of which you can have two in lows on a retriever and you have an even bigger problem. So we already have a ship that's effectively broken because it needs at least 500m3 more hold space.
These problems have been caused by the addition of relatively new skills that give mining yield bonuses as well as damage bonuses to weapons. Since the mining yield has now gone up, the original indy needs to be altered to accomodate the extra output, otherwise these bonuses mean jack s**t. Add to that a Makinaw or Hulk with 2 or 3 T2 Strip miners on and you now have a real problem.
The indy must be updated to accomodate these new designs that can outmine anything previously known. Ice mining makes matters even worse since the standard indy is only capable of holding 5 to 6 units of ice on each haul. A single indy cannot keep up with two Makinaws Ice mining if the pilots have maxed skills.
--
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 01:26:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Lord Slater
Someone pls Kill this thread before my eyes bleed at all the Carebears Cutiness.
If you are a pirate, you should be just as eager to see this happen. More goodies in the hold for you when you gank one 
--
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.05.11 03:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Make the tech II freighter smaller and with interesting capabilities, tractor beam mount, scooping capability, dronebay?
Even I think that's taking things a bit too far.
A T2 indy is fine, not a blockade runner that was gimped to start with by reducing it's speed so radically. I actually bought an Impel then took a proper look at the stats and sold it again two hours later. Smaller cargo space and slower as well and no turret mount to add insult to it? Seems like we're going backwards with that design. The smaller and faster ones have turrets, (one has a launcher and Minmatar has both) but the bigger ones don't, what a waste of a ship. Get tackled and scrambled and say bye bye to your ship cos you can't even shoot the tacklers. Wow! some blockade runner that is!
--
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 15:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Cygwin Gaad
ill sign for the Light-Freighter idea. But make sure it cant pick up or jettison cans.
too easy for the macroers already, we need to bring commodity trading back as a viable job.
Why not just vote for having all asteroids and mining ship and haulers taken out of the game? There! that will completely solve the macro miner problem.
I'm getting sick of this business of gimping miners because it easier than trying to catch the macro miners.
--
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 22:08:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Drizit on 05/07/2006 22:08:23
just allow freighters to pick up and drop cans FFS. I can't see how this helps macro miners any more since a barge can still only mine the same amount whether a freighter is hauling or an indy.
--
|
Drizit
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.04.19 01:02:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Silentblue1987
Biggest industrial seen:(24km3 on Iteron5 fitted with the BEST equips in EVE)
Biggest freighter seen: (750km3 to 1000km3 stock)
Impel with full rack of ExpanderII = 27,350 add a cargo optimiser II on both rig slots and that adds up to 39,384 m3 including bonus from Amarr Industrial skill.
Nice but still not quite 50K.
Would like to see two small freighters 75K and 150K with no slots but able to pick up cans. It does need something between an Indy and a Freighter.
--
|
|
|
Drizit
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 13:19:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Antoinette Valious
well its been seen the dev put this as a commonly brought up topic.... Devs hate traders, I've decided...
/signed though.
Maybe one of the devs could create a trader/industrial character and try to play it for a while just to see how difficult it is. It makes combat PVP seem like childs play.
--
|
Drizit
Amarr
Lonely out here
Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 20:11:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Katana Seiko
Some decisions yet? Well, maybe we'll have to wait for the next patch... 
Maybe we'll have to wait for the next millenium
I would love to see something that can hold it's own in a fight, even if it was just its tanking capability.
Freighters are pretty near useless outside of highsec since Concord can't stop them being ganked so what possibility of a few player escorts? Even in highsec, they are almost useless due to suicide gankingand the fact that they are one of the prime targets for it. No capability to tank or withstand EW means they are just a slow moving gravy train for gankers.
If Freighters are the haulers of highsec, what about a T2 Freighter Transport with a few low and mid slots for tanks/WCS and such but half the capacity and 25% better agility than the freighter. A slight improvement on resists and armor amount etc to offset the capacity/agility mis-match. This would still be no match if flown solo for a well organised hit squad or gate camp but would last long enough for an escort to take out the attackers.
Scooping and deploying jetcans would also help with re-supply to fleet battles. It would also aid miners to help remove jetcan mining since CCP is unwilling to introduce larger secure cans.
Stop this garbage about catering to macro miners as a defence against freighters scooping cans, it's getting old now. Do something about the Macro miners instead of taking the easy option of gimping the legal players.
--
|
Drizit
Amarr
Lonely out here
Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 18:08:00 -
[13]
Originally by: largewhereitcounts
The class is already there, the transport. Has anyone tried rigging a transport with expanded cargohold ii?
Yup. 33K max with an Impel. Try hauling a full days worth of even trit alone from a mining gang of 3. Far all the mins, you'd need about 150K which makes a freighter overkill but a TS or indy too small.
Also, as it's been stated several times, the freighter is a big bullseye with no tank. You may as well trade the mins to the gankers and not even undock the freighter. Like I said, if Concord can't prevent it being ganked, what use is an escort?
--
|
|
|
| |
|