| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1212
   |
Posted - 2013.06.19 11:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
i for one welcome our new bestower overlords.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1212
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 11:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
ok questions/comments:
- what about production costs? will the hoarder be both cheaper and more useful than the mammoth?
- why not make iteron III and V the baseline and turn I and II into even cheaper 'throwaway' haulers?
- i do not see a particular need to streamline every industrial hull. what's wrong with having some leftover redundancies in a ship class that nobody cares about anyway?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1213
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:About the Mammoth: I just checked in with Art briefly and they confirmed that they simply don't like the way the Mammoth looks. I'll point them to this thread and see what they have to say about your feedback =)
for a second, i was tempted to tell the art department to go F themselves. but instead of risking their scorn, i would rather argue that the mammoth is currently the most popular minmatar hauler and making it obsolete would not only cause unnecessary loose ends like manufacturing costs etc, it would also annoy all players who regularly use it (if only because they now have to waste time on switching).
i am apathetic about the looks issue. although the mammoth does look somewhat cooler, it's minmatar: ugly is the new black!
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1214
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Taleden wrote:Two things about this proposal strike me as pointlessly irritating:
- The Itty5 losing its cargo crown to the Bestower is a slap in the face for everyone who trained Gal Indy 5 specifically to maximize their sub-capital hauling capacity (and for the record, that does not include me). That wold be fine if there was a solid reason for the change -- then you could give the customary "your 30 days' training granted you a benefit for a long time, but it has to change now and that's that" -- but in this case, there is no solid reason. The Bestower doesn't have to be bigger than the Itty5; they're so close that you might as well swap their numbers so that the Itty5 remains on top. The only reason to make the Itty5 worse than the new Bestower at exactly what the Itty5 was previously best at is if you're intentionally trying to be a jerk to current Itty5 pilots.
So far as I can see, the Iteron V hasn't lost a single cubic metre of cargo space.
idk if it was mentioned before, but i would like to ask the question: should we take this opportunity to nerf all t1 industrials across the board cargo wise? from an unbiased point of view, i see no reason why a t1 hauler should be able to lift almost 40k m3 when there are orcas, DSTs and freighters around. maybe i am just short-sighted but i think the question deserves to be asked.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1214
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:honestly, just remove all indies from the game and put in i set of Ore manufactured haulers. Some of us like this option a lot - unfortunately it would mean doing the same for all t2 haulers and all t1/t2 freighters, which would be A: A giant commitment in terms of art asset creation, B: A waste of assets that already exist and C: would probably be hated by a lot of players because of how much flavor and history it would remove from the game.
well, you could phase them in over a year or so. introduce the ore ships one by one, each of them slightly better than its faction counterparts. then, three years from now or so, turn all the BPOs into high run copies and remove them from NPC stores.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1231
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 11:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:To me this seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't obligate people people to cross train for very basic needs.
you mean train industrial III for all four races? come on, that would take like one day or so....
edit: also, just to make sure it gets through: beware of power creep. think about what would be better for EVE: making hauling easier or harder. then balance accordingly.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1231
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 11:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:edit: also, just to make sure it gets through: beware of power creep. think about what would be better for EVE: making hauling easier or harder. then balance accordingly. This would be fitting in a freigther or orca balance, or even more in a JF balance. But it's not that relevant for T1 industrials, since they're more oriented towards small and non-game changing operations. Even if you add 50% cargo to T1 indus, serious hauling will still be done in orca/freighter/JF. And nerfing them would only make life harder for new players. But I agree thinking like that is a good thing in general, and could come in handy for the balance of more powerful hauling ships. Remember, this is a ship rebalance, not a global hauling balance process, though! I don't think Rise has the power to choose if hauling should be easier or harder. I believe the best line of action is to split the hauling balance away from the ship rebalance, have the ships be balanced around what is possible currently (current ittyV as a max cargo for example), then maybe have a reflexion about hauling as a whole later, outside of ship rebalance.
the fact of the matter is that a significant amount of stuff is being hauled in t1 ships. i can name you any amount of common use cases where a t1 hauler is the preferred means of transport. let's for example say we limited the maximum cargo to below 30k m3, suddenly you cannot haul three packaged cruisers (+ fittings and ammo) in one trip. would this be a good or a bad thing?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
| |
|