|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
190
   |
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
I want to know why industrial ships have such outrageous CPU? I think the lowest base CPU is 750, and that's a pretty outrageous number considering they're not stacking highs with racks of weapons.
I mean the extra fitting is nice and all, but there comes a point where excess is just excess. I'm not even sure it's possible to use all that CPU in a fit even if you only have electronics 1. You even added CPU to ships when CPU has never been a limiting factor to any industrial fit.
Any reason for that? |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 16:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:actually, i'm not even sure i care, i own an orca which is still better than every single t1 industrial in every single way that matters.
I think the speedy/tanky industrials may find some general use for people moving small amounts of stuff, but the "cargo" haulers are indeed completely trumped by the orca. Being able to move 75k+ m3 of stuff in a ship with 200k+ ehp beats the hell out of hauling up to 38k m3 of stuff with some crappy ehp number. With MWD trick they're about the same in align time as well.
The cargo haulers are pretty sad. I may pick up an agile hauler though.
Still want to know why the CPU is so outrageously high on these ships. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lydia Schmidt wrote:Aren't you essentially screwing over the "shield tanking" races by giving them fewer low slots in exchange for mid slots? Are you giving them enough fittings to actually put something useful in those mids? The last time I tried "tanking" a mammoth, I had trouble getting anything larger than a medium shield extender (generally considered a frigate sized module) to fit. Besides, it seems that most of the EHP of the new tankier industrials will be in hull and hull tanking mods are also low slot modules.
Let's be honest, aside from an MWD for the MWD+cloak trick, midslots on an industrial is about as useful as nipples on a man.
Edit
PS: I support the motion to keep the mammoth as one of the primary minnie industrials.
I actually disagree with you on this, I think the shield ships have a pretty good advantage. Armor ships and cargo hauling don't mix because of cargo expanders being in low slots and getting rid of structure combined with astronomic rigs lowering armor. Fitting armor plates also increases mass, ruining your align time.
Using extra mids for shield tanking has no opportunity cost, and if a armor tanker uses just a single low for tank they're going to be worse off in every way compared to a shield tanker.
For an example take the bestower. Take just one low for a simple buffer armor tank and you're sub 31k m3...and your tank still stucks. May as well use those mids for shield tanking, but your building up your tank from 160 base shields (seriously 160? Half a frigate?). And you only have 4 mids total. If you pick a prop mod you get 3 slots for tank, enough for 2 extenders and a hardener.
For a badger II you're at least starting at 630 hp, and you have 6 total mid slots for tank. Shave off 1 for prop mod if you need it, 2 medium extenders, and 3 hardeners for a much better tank. And for that you're only losing 3k m3 of space.
So while there are some trade offs to be made, having extra lows isn't once of them. The fact that the badger II is within 10% max cargo even though it has 2 less lows pretty much means they gave the badger a good shake of the stick when it came to base stats. Plus the badger is going to be by far the tankiest max cargo hauler. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
I honestly like the look of the hoarder more, but if you're going to axe one of the minmatar industrials it should be the horder. The mammoth really is the iconic minmatar hauler.
I still would like to know why industrials are sporting ~1k CPU when they simply can't use it all. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 15:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Well, now that the great hoarder uprising of 2013 has been put down we should get to some important questions.
What about the stats that aren't shown? I'm particularly interested in warp speed, but max range, scan res, targets, etc could be important to some people, and it would be nice just to look at capacitor stats just so we can complain about something that doesn't really matter.
I think these ships should have a role bonus, even if it's something lame like decreasing cap use to initiate warp.
I also would like to know why the badger has 1187.5 CPU at electronics 5, and why the other industrials have equally obnoxious CPU's. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 19:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm a little disappointed now because my amarr alt finished training amarr industrial 5 a couple months ago, and now it's the new hotness.
I don't want to be a spaceship hipster who says they were flying bestowers before it was cool.
GDI CCP! |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 16:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nothing is changing.
We have tech I tanky aligny haulers, we have big cargo paper tank haulers, and assorted marginalized extra haulers. Unfortunately, they all suck and are at best stepping stones to the ships that don't suck.
Freighters, orcas, jump freighters, and cloaky haulers are what people are going for. The only reason people train industrial ships at all is because they are a stepping stone to one of these. Nothing in these proposed changes will change this, outside of maybe a few small niches such as distribution missions. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 21:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Keep in mind though that Orca's are very slow and very expensive in comparison.
An orca with a MWD warps about as fast as any large cargo hauler, can haul a lot more, and can get over 200k EHP easilly. It costs more, but it's a lot less attractive to gank if you fit a DCII on it.
So unless you're planning on losing your high sec hauler to ganks, cost really isn't much of an issue. That doesn't even include the added bonus of being able to fit gang links or haul fitted ships. The orca flat out invalidates every single tech 1 industrial ship for high sec use, and will continue to do so with the proposed changes. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
197
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 16:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: More separation between the two basic hauler types - I want to achieve this through several means including giving the faster haulers better warp time (up to 6au/tick instead of 4.5au/tick), taking a mid slot away from the cargo focused versions to highlight the tank on the others (this will partly be counter-acted by giving back the second high to the cargo versions), along with other small changes to make some of the tankier haulers stand out a bit more.
This is honestly what I want to avoid. When you do something like give an extra high slot to every ship in a class you're making things too homogenized. If you want to mix it up give some ships in the same category an extra utility high, some an extra mid, and some extra lows. Working backwards from max capacity to desired number of lows, giving everything the same number of highs, and then making up the difference in mids isn't making things unique, it's making them homogenized. Mix it up and lets see what players can make up.
If you guys are working on some neato ideas though I am excited to see what they are. |
|
|
| |
|