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) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1026
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 16:59:00 -
[151] - Quote
Quote:Gankers throughout high sec are rejoicing, deeming you their new messiah.
I wish they would come post in the thread to raise my spirits a bit.
But yes, lowering the base hp on the Iteron V is obviously intentional. Now you actually have to make a decision between more safety versus the old version via the Iteron, or more cargo with increased vulnerability on the Iteron V (or somewhere inbetween using one of the otherss). |
|
Lydia Schmidt
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:00:00 -
[152] - Quote
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. |
Sigras
Conglomo
418
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:02:00 -
[153] - Quote
why is the iteron 1 basically straight better than the badger mk1?
it has more cargo capacity, is more agile, is faster and has more EHP . . . that doesnt seem quite right. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
20
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:05:00 -
[154] - Quote
It's all about m3. If I can haul in 1 load what it would take me three loads to do, I've saved a hour or possibly two. Alignment, warp speed, agility.... I can carry more than the other ship. I have saved hours upon hours of time.
M3 |
Sigras
Conglomo
418
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:06:00 -
[155] - 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. actually ive seen several industrials tanked with ECM, you just have to be creative.
also if you notice, the shield ships with less lows also have a higher base cargo so they lose less (percentage wise) by putting on a single DCU than a ship with a smaller cargo hold and more lows. |
Dumas Athos
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:11:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'll try to get a meeting tomorrow with Art and see if we can reach an agreement about the Mammoth. I'm kind of surprised so few of you like the Hoarder though, its pretty hilarious looking.
Look for a post with final word sometime tomorrow.
Well, the mammoth is supposed to be big, like a mammoth. :) |
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
58
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:17:00 -
[157] - Quote
Would like to see more contrast in the haulers between speedy haulers and cargo haulers tbh. Make the speedy ones more like blockade runners imo faster/less cargo/more tank |
Wyndeigo
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:24:00 -
[158] - Quote
How about some new makeover eyecandy? Personally I have always liked the mammoth but, the actual model needs some love as it looks too low poly with poor texture mapping compared to it's counterparts.
Will we see some new facelifts for our haulers? Can't wait to see what happens with my orcas.
o7 |
Lydia Schmidt
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:24:00 -
[159] - Quote
Sigras wrote:actually ive seen several industrials tanked with ECM, you just have to be creative.
The problem with ECM is:
- you're always limited to responding to an aggressive act (at least in high sec). With a high alpha ship like a tornado, you may never get to respond.
- it's chance based, you may never get a successful cycle off
- ECM bursts is a REALLY bad idea on the Jita undock
Sigras wrote:also if you notice, the shield ships with less lows also have a higher base cargo so they lose less (percentage wise) by putting on a single DCU than a ship with a smaller cargo hold and more lows. I did notice. I was merely remarking upon the relative value of low slots over mid slots on an industrial.
|
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:30:00 -
[160] - 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. |
|
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:31:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Will keep listening about the Mammoth. There isn't an enormous amount of them being used so it felt like it wouldn't be too painful of a transition if it was better for visual direction. I'm less concerned about the continuity with the T2 model, but the differences in cost, and the forced transition for people who were using the Mammoth are real issues. Keep feedback coming and I'll poke around on my side some more.
Art told you to use the Hoarder? It isnt even a T2 model for that ship, so in order to conserve art resources for more pressing tasks (POS hint hint) why not og with the ships that have a T2 model?
Also, the Mammoth actually looks like a hauler, while the Hoarder looks like....well, lets just say it needs help okay?
TDLR: Use the Mammoth Luke! |
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:33:00 -
[162] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I wish they would come post in the thread to raise my spirits a bit.
Aw, chin up -- we're only bashing the parts of this plan we don't like because you got the basics right so you don't need our feedback there. Yes, each race should have a viable option to fill each primary role, and yes, selecting any given primary role should require some compromise in other attributes. You've gotten those basics right, and even a lot of your implementation of them is fine, it's just a few particulars we're all harping on and those are easy to fix.
But I still think you're limiting your balance options too much by trying to have only two primary roles in play. Cargo capacity and agility are obvious things that people might want to optimize in various circumstances, but your options widen exponentially with every variable you can add.
A lot of folks here have been going to tankiness as that third variable, but I think there's a valid argument that T1 industrials just can't ever be tanky enough for that to really matter much. Someone else suggested differentiating between agility (which makes active piloting faster) and speed (which makes autopiloting faster), but I'm not sure that's a big enough difference for many folks to care about either. Other folks have suggested specialized bays, so there'd be a fast ship, a big general-purpose ship (~40k like now), and an even bigger special-purpose ship (maybe ~100k ore or PI only).
All of those options have some downsides but I think you've got to pick something. Two variables is just not enough to differentiate 8-12 ships. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
146
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:49:00 -
[163] - Quote
In for "save the Mammoth!" I already have two rigged Mammoths that I'd hate to have to swap out.
Nerfing the HP on the large haulers is a bad idea. They can already be taken out by a single ganker even if you have a moderate tank, but if you properly tank them you can be "safer." Dropping the HP as much as you have is just going to make tanking them a waste of time since you'll die anyway.
Why is Caldari getting screwed on the Badger II? Second slowest align time, lowest cargo hold, still has a paper tank.
Agree about the Itty 5 needing to remain the "top dog" for cargo. It's only 2%? Well, sure...except that extra 800 space pushes the Bestower over the edge to use another Giant Secure Container, adding another 900m3 advantage if you're using GSCs.
Really, I think there's too many ships for two few roles. Drop the racial industrials for ORE industrials. Maybe the T2 industrials as well, since there also aren't many roles there.
Freighters can stay the same, since they have reasonable tradeoffs between them. |
Ellariona
Bite Me inc Bitten.
123
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:56:00 -
[164] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: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. 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 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. I think he's on the right track here. With a scheme like this:
- Only 2 ships become "extra" instead of 4 -- less awkwardness.
- The Mammoth gets to remain the high-capacity Minmatar hauler that it always was, but the art dept gets to keep their precious Hoarder as a first-class ship as well.
- Only two reskins are required for Sigil and Badger variants.
- No new hulls need to be created; if you really don't like the duplication of the Sigil model you can always go back and upgrade one of them down the road, but that's not a priority.
- All races get one hauler that focuses on one of the three attributes.
- For each attribute, the ships that focus on it can still differ in their balance of the other two. For example the Minmatar and Gallente high-capacity ships can have medium agility and low tank, while the Amarr and Caldari high-capacity ships have low agility and medium tank. Likewise the Minmatar and Amarr high-tank ships can have medium agility and low tank, while the Caldari and Gallente high-tank ships have low agility and medium tank.
Something like this (not sure about the different types matching the role you propose) seems to be better imho.
And CCP, about those extra 'tiers' in industrials, have you thought about dedicated combat haulers?
- A decreased sig radius (as bonus per level or base stats)
- Slightly better speed (as bonus per level or base stats)
- CPU/PG/slots to accomodate for a bit more ehp (not considerably more, please read on)
- nerfed cargohold OR specialized bay(s) for charges&scripts only + a 2k bay to loot stuff (perhaps even stront and fuel)
- a bit more mass or less agility, to add to the fact that this shouldn't be used without a fleet and to balance out the boost to ehp (for gankers and other target practice) (preferably less agility over more mass, to let this be a viable option for wh peeps)
Since gankers use near-instalocking ships anyway, the decreased sig wouldn't matter much for them. The raw hp would remain the same, but slots/pg/cpu should allow for a decent resist-build. (or perhaps a boost to active hardeners for either shield or armor, so that the hardeners would have to be active at all times = no autopiloting)
That way, the haulers can burn from one ship to the other to supply whatever the fleet members need AND also serve as a loot ship. But I can't stress it enough, it shouldn't be used as a 'risk-free' hauler and the stats should reflect that.
What do you think, people? This way, you'd have:
- Tank hauler
- Speed hauler
- Fleet hauler
- Capacity hauler
With (ideally) speed hauler and capacity hauler having approx the same m3/h over 10jumps (or 9jumps, since the Amarr<-->Jita trip is probably the average). That way, either one can be bought for specific purposes. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
415
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 17:56:00 -
[165] - Quote
DONT TOUCH THE F*CKING Mammoth!
That is best looking industrial of them all.
Test 1, 2, 3... |
Joe Buzzard
Buzzard Bait and Salvage VLLC
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:00:00 -
[166] - Quote
Are you actually telling me that by having trained Amarr Industrial V I have already trained the right thing?!? This is a tiericide first for me and I am uncertain as to how to react except to assume you will probably change it before going live.
As for the Hoarder - it is hideous - use the Mammoth. I can't think of an uglier vessel in Eve (even edges out the Imicus). You should make it the BR model so it spends most of its time cloaked. The art dept is trolling you. Or on crack. Or both. |
marVLs
193
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:03:00 -
[167] - Quote
Save the Mammoth
And for rest industrials i really hope You have some cool plans for new classes etc like:
- ore indy (ore hold like 150k) - ships hauling - PI hauler etc |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:03:00 -
[168] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Gankers throughout high sec are rejoicing, deeming you their new messiah. I wish they would come post in the thread to raise my spirits a bit.
I love ganking. Thank you for making my job easier, and increasing my tear reservoirs.
I love Dust514. But it needs more EVE. Read my idea on how to do this at General Tso's Alliance blog: http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2013/06/dust514-uprising-needs-moar-eve.html |
Dave Stark
3191
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:04:00 -
[169] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Gankers throughout high sec are rejoicing, deeming you their new messiah. I wish they would come post in the thread to raise my spirits a bit. But yes, lowering the base hp on the Iteron V is obviously intentional. Now you actually have to make a decision between more safety versus the old version via the Iteron, or more cargo with increased vulnerability on the Iteron V (or somewhere inbetween using one of the otherss).
no you don't, you just jump in an orca with a MWD and have more ehp, cargo space, and lower align time.
would it be possible to make the t1 industrials useful for something without being laughed at by the orca in every respect? |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
416
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:13:00 -
[170] - Quote
First correct the obvious epic mistake and put the Mammoth back has the cargo specialized ship and put the Wreathe in the reserve team.
Then transform the ITERON MARK II, ITERON MARK III, ITERON MARK IV and the Wreathe in specialized cargo ships.
Pick up the ITERON MARK II, ITERON MARK III, ITERON MARK IV, change their names, put some strips on them and give them specialized cargo holds, give one 50 m3 to transport ore related products, give the other 50 m3 to transport ice related products and give another 50m3 for PI related products.
Third pick up on the Wreathe and give it a specialized cargo hold for gas.
Then go to the BPO of the iteron mark III and transfer the invention part for the BPO of the iteron mark V BPO. Test 1, 2, 3... |
|
Jattila Vrek
Push Industries Push Interstellar Network
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:15:00 -
[171] - Quote
5 lowslots should give the Badger 23700 m3 cargo space, while your list gives it 18588 as if it has 4 lowslots. I think you gave it a lowslot too much. |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
80
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:17:00 -
[172] - Quote
When might we see these on Sisi? I"m curious about the smuggling potential. |
Kastar Alland
Dustdogs
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:21:00 -
[173] - Quote
Don't do this to me Rise. That Mammoth is a sight to behold, no matter what the art team says (this same art team that has redesigned the Apoc over, say, the Moa hull) I'm not sure I can put too much confidence in anyone who says the Hoarder is better looking.
Don't get me wrong, the new Apoc is lovely, as are all of the other redone ships - but come on guys!
I support the Return Of The Mammoth! |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1648
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:28:00 -
[174] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Gankers throughout high sec are rejoicing, deeming you their new messiah. I wish they would come post in the thread to raise my spirits a bit. But yes, lowering the base hp on the Iteron V is obviously intentional. Now you actually have to make a decision between more safety versus the old version via the Iteron, or more cargo with increased vulnerability on the Iteron V (or somewhere inbetween using one of the otherss). no you don't, you just jump in an orca with a MWD and have more ehp, cargo space, and lower align time. would it be possible to make the t1 industrials useful for something without being laughed at by the orca in every respect?
You can't take an orca into a C1. I still want a mini-freighter that can fit.
Level I : iteron I Level II: iteron V Level III: 40-50k ore hold Level IV: 100-150k ship hold Level V: 80-100k cargo hold
Make the new ships, leave the odd ships out as legacy, but remove the BPs from the npc stations. Make it an actual iteration on the ships, and not this "well, we need to do something, so ..." patch we're getting.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:30:00 -
[175] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Gankers throughout high sec are rejoicing, deeming you their new messiah. I wish they would come post in the thread to raise my spirits a bit. But yes, lowering the base hp on the Iteron V is obviously intentional. Now you actually have to make a decision between more safety versus the old version via the Iteron, or more cargo with increased vulnerability on the Iteron V (or somewhere inbetween using one of the otherss).
Ok, heres some feedback from someone who kills t1 haulers that carry silly amounts of isk. First off, currently in TQ the iteron 5 can be tanked to completely ignore a tornado. 4 t2 Medium Shield Extenders and a t2 active EM Hardner. The MSEs give you a total of 4200additional shields. The hardner turns that into 8400ehp vs emp. This, combined with the iterons base shields and armor, allow you to survive a single nado shot just dipping into armor.
The proposed changes do not prevent the hauler from surviving. You will still be able to eat a t2 1400mm shot and live. Furthermore, you have given this ability to all of the 'not tanky' industrials with the exception of the bestower, which will die to the tornado.
Are you trying to allow t1 industrials that you claim are built to be not tanky still tank a single nado volley? If this is true then the Bestower needs 5 mids. If this is true then the main reason to get and use a DST (ability to tank a nado volley and still carry a large volume) has been completely removed. There is no reason to use a 100m+ DST over a cheap t1 hauler in hisec at all if this is true.
If this is not true, then I would seriously reccommend limiting the number of midslots on t1 haulers to 4 max. This way they must make sacrifices to their cargo capacity in the form of tanking rigs or a damage control unit in order to survive a tornado volley. But it still gives people a reason to buy and use DSTs.
TLDR; You are not 'more vulnerable' (or really vulnerable at all) on the cargo focused industrials. T1 haulers being able to tank a single nado removes the value of using a DST and unless you limit the number of midslots you have effectively removed the main reason for getting and using a DST in hisec. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
566
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:31:00 -
[176] - Quote
Mammoth > Hoarder all day and every day, not to mention that there's no good reason to swap roles on the two ships and ruin a lot of people's riggings.
Otherwise, I think this is a decent start. My favorite change by far is the extra PWG for the smaller indys: finally, you can make more than one or two fitting choices.
I'm less enthusiastic about the big haulers losing slots--two highs are highly desirable for WH space--but at least I can understand the logic. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
13
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:38:00 -
[177] - Quote
The fixes are fine, but what remains is the huge gap between industrials and freighters. 40k m3 versus 300k m3/ 750k m3. What the game needs is a hauler that is larger than the industrial, but faster, smaller and cheaper than the freighters and not as expensive as a jump freighter. Ideally a class in the 100k m3 to 300k m3 range with a faster align time than freighters. I hope the rebalanced T2 industrials will fill that huge gap. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
353
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:39:00 -
[178] - Quote
You could get rid of cargo expanders in general now that black ops don't really need them. Use that as a variable along with speed/tank.
You could also do things like warp strength and warp speed...there are a lot of things you could do with them if you, y'no, got a little innovative with them. Granted industrials are kinda boring but still. Why not go all hyperion on them? |
Mattk50
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:40:00 -
[179] - Quote
heh, the two high bit means gallente is still the king of capacity, as the itty IV has the most cargo while still maintaining two highslots |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
276
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:46:00 -
[180] - Quote
Theng Hofses wrote:The fixes are fine, but what remains is the huge gap between industrials and freighters. 40k m3 versus 300k m3/ 750k m3. What the game needs is a hauler that is larger than the industrial, but faster, smaller and cheaper than the freighters and not as expensive as a jump freighter. Ideally a class in the 100k m3 to 300k m3 range with a faster align time than freighters. I hope the rebalanced T2 industrials will fill that huge gap. I suspect DSTs will go the ~100k m3 route when they get a proper rebalance. It's ridiculous that a mining support ship does the job better than one that takes a pilot with specialized skills in hauling. If CCP is serious about "specialization," and it seems like all the rage now, then all haulers in the line need to perform best at hauling.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |