Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
Aimee Maken
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:11:00 -
[91] - Quote
Why does the new wreath aligns slower than the sigil or the ittty?
the matar should have the fastest align, smallest sig, with weakest tank and smallest cargo space... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10211
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:11:00 -
[92] - Quote
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.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
219
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:12:00 -
[93] - Quote
Seems CCP Rise wants to gloss over the T1 hauler changes to move on to more exciting HAC changes.
Maybe sideline the hauler changes until you or someone else wants to do them correctly. -á |
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
58
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:12:00 -
[94] - Quote
Guys just stop posting and agree. Once this is done he's doing HACs :-) |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
147
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:12:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Rise: This has got nothing to do with the Industrials but this link to a thread should be looked at and heavily considered for an upcoming expansion as it would make insanely awesome content https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=248240&p=3 Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Vhaine Vhindiscar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:18:00 -
[96] - Quote
Mammoth>Hoarder
Ignore your misguided sense of art direction....we've all seen the burst and moa.
Also, why are we 'fixing' this? Are you guys running out of important things to work on or are you just bored? Industrials are fine. They certainly don't need what basically amounts to a pointless stat redistribution. Now if you wanted to special holds for certain roles we could talk, but this just seems like change for chances sake.
Leave it alone. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
132
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:18:00 -
[97] - Quote
Dear CCP Art Team,
The Mammoth is an iconic Minmatar vessel. It should not be replaced by the Hoarder.
Thanks, A Happy Customer |
Karak Bol
Crepuscular
87
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:18:00 -
[98] - Quote
A problem I like to adress: Shield Tanking is still mandatory for all industrials as lows will be stuffed with Expanders. How about disallow cargo expander use for Industrials and giving them a higher base cargo (Like they had 4 expanders fitted for example.) and removing some low slots from all industrials. This way an Industrial could be fitted shield or armor.
The next problem is the rig disadvantage of the cargo rig. Maybe change that to an agility penalty? |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:19:00 -
[99] - 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? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
273
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:19:00 -
[100] - Quote
As much as I was looking forward to this, and as much as it pains me to say this, I'm simply not happy with the announced changes. You simultaneously marginalized already-existing ships and homogenized them WAY too much.
Firstly, there should have been three (3) categories for Industrials: the Tanky one, the Fast one, and the Large Cargo one.
The tanky ones would have been: Sigil Mark II, Badger Mark II, Hoarder and Iteron Mark III. You could have accomplished the "tanky" role by having one of the ship bonuses be:
- +4%/level resist bonuses (with increased structure hp and slot layout) for Caldari and Amarr
- +hp to armor for Gallente
- -sig radius (or increased shield HP) for Minmatar.
Each of these bonuses feel racial and fit the class well. The Sigil Mark II could have just been a Sigil with a slightly different color scheme, since that's not terribly difficult to implement and it's been done before.
The fast ones should have taken the role of the old blockade runners, in that they are extremely fast to align and warp, but the T1s would not get the BR warp bonus and certainly cannot warp while cloaked. However, they could be scanned, so low value cargo for AFK fast travel could be possible again (now that this role has been destroyed since BRs are unscannable loot pinatas). These ships would have been Sigil Mark I, Badger Mark I, Wreathe, Iteron Mark I.
Lastly, the large cargo ones would have been Bestower, Badger Mark III, Mammoth, and Iteron Mark V. The Badger Mark III would have been a reskin of the Bustard hull (since it has another cargo box) in T1 skins. Not time consuming to implement. Obviously, the bonuses would be like the proposed large-cargo ones.
The other ships, Iteron II and IV would simply be discontinued, as their hulls live on in the Viator and Occator.
* * *
For a slightly different take: that would have been a 'homogenized" version of the industrial redesign. However, CCP should consider that racial variants, especially the Industrials, don't ALWAYS have to have the same role, especially considering that it only takes Spaceship Command III now to train these hulls.
Why not have racially diverse specialization?? Why not make the Bestower the most tanky hauler, or the Iteron V able to carry the most PI goods? Why not diversify? If I want to haul lots of ore, I can train into the Minmatar Industrial line, where the Mammoth has a bonus ore hold. Or the Itty V has a bonus PI hold. Or hell, a ship can have a bonus Salvage, Ammo, etc. holds. This would add flavor and not additional training time, since I don't have to train into the racial frigate now. It makes sense that each race would offer something unique--a competitive advantage--that the other race's wouldn't.
It'd add variety to ships that we'd fly on a regular basis--instead of always seeing the Iteron V as it was before. Personally, I get that you want each race to be able to haul goods, but that doesn't mean that each must do it the same. |
|
Smyrk
Gradient Electus Matari
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:21:00 -
[101] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:950 CPU(+200) I have to ask: these ships already had more CPU than you can possibly use (literally in some cases). Is there something in the pipeline that would use it (and more) now? I've heard some cool rumors in the past... |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:21:00 -
[102] - 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.
No, but while it was previously the largest T1 hauler available, the Bestower has now been edged juuuust ahead of it. And there's no reason for it -- the Bestower will be just fine remaining a tad behind the Itty5, so why not let those folks who trained Gal Indy 5 continue to have the highest possible T1 capacity? Dangling the Bestower out in front like that just seems spiteful.
"Hey, we know you spent a month training to have the best capacity, so we're going to make you second best now just because we like the taste of your tears." |
Vherana
Valkyrie Industries Valkyrie Coalition
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:21:00 -
[103] - Quote
Why are you removing 1 utility Hi from the 'bulky' ones?
You kill their use in W-Space! Cloak and Probe Launcher are vital in this sort of environment!
And better leave the Mammoth as the big cargo one and delete the Hoarder from the game |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1213
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:23:00 -
[104] - 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 |
Shaitan Souleater
Four Past Midnight
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:27:00 -
[105] - Quote
Suggested Roles, based on the Iteron series:
Iteron 1: less cargo space, more agile, maybe faster Iteron 2: PI hauler, able to bypass the customs office (replace the defunct and nearly useless Primae) Iteron 3: Gas hauler. (make it do AOE damage when destroyed while full. Just sayin) Iteron 4: Flying fitting service/Fleet hangar. Gives ability to swap subsystems and modules as well as load drones. Iteron 5: Huge hauler.
It should not be hard to introduce these extra roles into the other races. |
Gah'Matar
Knights of the Nyan I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:27:00 -
[106] - Quote
Any chance the itty V can be tweaked to have slightly more cargo space then the bestower for old time's sake (and because my hauling alt has gall industrial 5 dammit) |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1214
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:29:00 -
[107] - 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 |
Garik Enaka
Enaka Industrial
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:30:00 -
[108] - Quote
How about using the remaining 4 Industrials for their original purpose (way back) as a mobile refinery (hence all the crazy CPU) this would reduce the need for POS refining arrays and allow a more mobile ability to refine (this also allows smaller mobile groups of users to do things that they can't do without a POS) and does add a little depth to industry as a whole...
just a thought. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
87
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:31:00 -
[109] - Quote
I for one welcome having Hoarder as the bulky hauler of minmatar and Mammoth being the "balanced one". Hoarder model definitely looks bulkier and slower than Mammoth. W-Space Realtor |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1214
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:34:00 -
[110] - 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 |
|
Dumas Athos
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:35:00 -
[111] - Quote
Am I reading this right or does the Wreath have the slowest align time? I don't know the formula, so I may be misreading it. |
Kari Juptris
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
133
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:35:00 -
[112] - Quote
Think of all the Mammoths that will be reprocessed if this change goes through. We've lost the Mammoth in our timeline here on Earth. Let's preserve it in the EVE timeline. Extinction isn't a joke
Do you really want to be responsible for the galactic genocide of the Mammoth ship race because of a whim? |
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
47
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:36:00 -
[113] - Quote
Ok, so let me get this straight.
Before, we had: Gallente had the biggest T1 hauler cargospace Amarr had the biggest T2 hauler cargospace Minmatar had the best T2 slot layout for wormholes Caldari had the biggest Freighters
Now we have: Amarr have the biggest T1 hauler cargospace Amarr have the biggest T2 hauler cargospace Minmatar have the best T2 slot layout for wormholes Caldari have the biggest Freighters Gallente have... a whole bunch of skillpoints we wish we could reallocate.
Brilliant. Thanks a ton. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1014
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:37:00 -
[114] - Quote
Fixed the Wreathe's mass to put it where it belongs in terms of align time. Gallente usually more agile, but Matar just behind. |
|
Kari Juptris
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
136
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:37:00 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Fixed the Wreathe's mass to put it where it belongs in terms of align time. Gallente usually more agile, but Matar just behind.
Confirming that the space french are excellent runners. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
87
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:43:00 -
[116] - Quote
btw shouldnt mammoth get some boost? As it is proposed, its both slower to align and with less capacity than iteron II and III... doesnt look right
(but still keep it as the middle hauler, just make it good on its own) W-Space Realtor |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
233
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:45:00 -
[117] - Quote
Kennesaw Breach wrote:Ok, so let me get this straight. Before, we had: Gallente had the biggest T1 hauler cargospace Amarr had the biggest T2 hauler cargospace Minmatar had the best T2 slot layout for wormholes Caldari had the biggest Freighters Now we have: Amarr have the biggest T1 hauler cargospace Amarr have the biggest T2 hauler cargospace Minmatar have the best T2 slot layout for wormholes Caldari have the biggest Freighters Gallente have... a whole bunch of skillpoints we wish we could reallocate. Brilliant. Thanks a ton.
There are only three useful attributes to haulers: cargo capacity, align time, and tank. You can lie to yourself and think speed is actually useful, but it isn't. Given that you have 3 attributes and 4 races, one race is going to get royally screwed. Who do you give cargo capacity to? That has to be Amarr or Caldari because of lore and flavor. Align time goes to Minmatar because of lore and flavor. Tank again goes Amarr or Caldari for lore and flavor. Now throw that forth attribute that you are lying to yourself about, and that has to go to Minmatar because of lore and flavor. You are seriously constrained by lore and flavor. But hey we don't want to **** anyone off due to lore and flavor. Let's just screw over Gallente as that won't **** anyone off. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
716
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:46:00 -
[118] - Quote
What about removing some of that extra CPU that is a relic from the past.., that was suppose to be needed for an industrial module which was never released?.. Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1283
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:47:00 -
[119] - Quote
The Hoarder is one of my favorite ships actually.
It was my first hauler as a noob, and it was hard earned and a lot of fun. I don't think it's actually that ugly.
I'm concerned as to why Art would want a preference of the Hoarder over the Mammoth. I hope you don't remove the Mammoth from the game, that would be quite
I don't think giving MIn/Gal racial specializations is an issue over Caldari/Amarr. Not everything has to be symmetric.
Give Gallente Iteron an Ore hold on one of the Iterons with greater agility. So it's better at hauling ore, but nothing else.
Give Minmatar a Slave hold so they can smuggle slaves. Or make it the hauler with some actual defenses, since Minmatar are all about the DAKKA DAKKA.
In all seriousness, these ships can be given some better roles. But, I understand you want to move on. Just remember to come back to them. I know they're not the most exciting ships for you, but I don't think that means they shouldn't have the chance to be. And I was really excited for them and was hoping you'd really do something exciting. Where I am. |
Mattk50
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 15:47:00 -
[120] - Quote
Gah'Matar wrote:Any chance the itty V can be tweaked to have slightly more cargo space then the bestower for old time's sake (and because my hauling alt has gall industrial 5 dammit) the itty has the bonus of an extra midslot and better manuverability and ehp for slightly less cargo. Its balanced. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |