| 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) |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice
R O G U E
53
   |
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:53:00 -
[241] - Quote
Good to see the Industrials are being adjusted.
I really wished thought that we could see these hulls in different roles other than just being damned to haulers. Logiclaly, if they had a larger size in terms of sig radius etc, one could apply each hull something unique, if not a moderate counterpart of a Battleship - depending on how far one wants to go. I guess it is too hard to imagine such.
Anyhow, this is just about adjusting the old, so we're just going to have to take it as it is.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Azahar Ortenegro
Astromechanica Maxima
Astromechanica Federatis
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:59:00 -
[242] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm kind of surprised so few of you like the Hoarder though, its pretty hilarious looking.
The Hoarder's not hilarious, it's hideous. I spent time training Minmatar Industrial on two chars for the sole purpose of being able to fly the Mammoth. It's by far the most beatiful TI industrial, and should stay the main Minmatar cargo hauler. |
Jessica San
Test Trading Company
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:02:00 -
[243] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The challenge with industrials is that unlike most other ship classes, their value rests almost exclusively in 1 or 2 attributes (capacity and low slots), so when attempting to add flavor, the reality is that we would simply be limiting actual options. I have tried to preserve as much racial flavor as possible via some slot differences, differences in speed and align time, sig and little things like caldari being the only race with launchers on their industrials.
The reason why differentiation is hard is because there is a lack of hard constraints on other important ship features.
The important ones are:
1. High slots for cloak, probe launcher, salvager, tractor. A 0 high, 1 high, 2 high and 3 high industrial will all have different uses.
2. Mid slots for prop mods. A 0mid and 1 mid ship would be radically different from a 5mid and a 4mid ship. Non-shield tanked haulers don't need to have a mid at all, which lets them be better at something but unable to do some other thing.
3. Excess of lowslots: mobility and capacity trade off doesn't work because expanded cargohold and nanofibers fit in the same slot (plus bulkheads, plates, dcu/etc): solution is obviously to reduce this flexibility
Industrials have too much flexibility that is why it is hard to differentiate them. If industrials have far less fitting options due to slot, grid and cpu constraints, then serious trade offs can exist. |
Gizan
Hounds Of War
WHY so Seri0Us
77
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:03:00 -
[244] - Quote
Why does the bestower now hold MORE than the Impel, its t2 variant? |
Thexx Littlechurch
Mostly Static
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:09:00 -
[245] - 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.
I've never posted before and am posting this at work which risks losing my internet access. Hopefully that will suggest to you right away that I'm serious about this.
PLEASE reconsider this Mammoth decision!
The Mammoth (swear to God) is my favorite ship in the game. I live in a WH and spend 80-90% of my time online in my Mammoth, ferrying materials around to silos and such. I even probe in it. Oh and I've had that one individual ship for over three years now.
The idea that your art dept. doesn't like it is your primary reason to the change is frankly insulting to me.
Yes, because when you think about it they are putting thier own opinion above, what appears to be a large section of the playerbase, and definately above my own. It doesn't even sound like there is a functional reason to this.
My main problem with it is that there seems to be no practical reason for this change. I'm going to continue to use it because to me it's what I think of when I think of Eve, but dont do this please. Ill stay in my Mammoth because I love it, but I feel like you guys are screwing me over because of some capricious art guys.
Bad! Bad, bad, bad!  |
RampoIIa
Wrath of Fenris
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:13:00 -
[246] - Quote
- 10% Bonus to tractor beam distance and velocity per level |
Malcolm Shinhwa
Suns Of Korhal
Terran Commonwealth
50
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:17:00 -
[247] - Quote
I think we've just been trolled. CCP announces t1 industrial rebalancing and knows, like the other rebalancing efforts will get heat for it. So they throw in "the art dept said they don't like the Mammoth, so its out" thing to have everyone focus on and its a trivial point that they can go back and say, "meh, ok, whatever you guys want, we listen to the players!"
Kind of like MS walking back the DRM on the XBone and saying how they've finally decided to listen to customers. Or not since the XBone is like a flagship product and the Mammoth is an internet spaceship. But dang it, the Horder is fugly! Give us the Mammoth! Give us the Mammoth!
I have 5 different chars that I play. This may be my main, or maybe not. I have no idea. |
Naomi Anthar
Loza Szydercow
Li3 Federation
69
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:18:00 -
[248] - Quote
Any good reason for Bestower to have such huge align time. Sure it hauls most - but only with max skills and full fit.
I mean ok it can have worst align among those if it can haul most but why difference is so big?? Like 18 ish seconds vs 15 ish ? Kinda Harsh. |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:36:00 -
[249] - Quote
How about giving the special 4 a special flavor, like an Ore Hold for people that wants to haul raw ore? |
Akemi Kiyoura
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:39:00 -
[250] - Quote
I still think we need something in between the Itty V and an Orca/Freighter. The difference in cost between the two hulls, not to mention the training time for the Orca/Freighter compared to an Itty V is borderline irrational.
There needs to be something that has at most 80k m3 of cargo. Why at most? To scale it with the rest of the indy freight hulls. |
|
|
qoga
Society of Conscientious Thought
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:41:00 -
[251] - Quote
I also would like specialization rather than homogenization.
For a bit a variety, I propose Q ships!
Give one of the tanky industrials 4 high slots.
Preferably one of the Iterons, or maybe the Badger.
It would be nice to be able to give stupid pirates a bit of a surprise.
|
Sucya Alldown
Koolaid and Gummy Bears
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:48:00 -
[252] - 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.
Yes but the reason some people trained gallente industrial to level 5 was because it had the LARGEST cargo capacity. If they knew the Amarr were going to have it they would have trained Amarr Industrial to 5 instead. I being one that did train gallente 5 on more than one character for that very reason I even had a character that a friend had given me that was trained to minmatar indy v and i took the time training it to gallente v for the LARGEST cargo capacity. So I do take it as a kick in the nuts when there is no valid reason for making another races hauler bigger now.
I personally would be more supportive of removing the racial haulers and going to Ore for all haulers up to and including Jump freighters. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
278
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:51:00 -
[253] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Any good reason for Bestower to have such huge align time. Sure it hauls most - but only with max skills and full fit.
I mean ok it can have worst align among those if it can haul most but why difference is so big?? Like 18 ish seconds vs 15 ish ? Kinda Harsh. Amarr have always been slow bricks. Now its just a huge slow brick. No worries here.
|
Melek D'Ivri
Wheel Tappers And Shunters
20
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 23:57:00 -
[254] - Quote
Sucya Alldown wrote:Yes but the reason some people trained gallente industrial to level 5 was because it had the LARGEST cargo capacity. If they knew the Amarr were going to have it they would have trained Amarr Industrial to 5 instead. I being one that did train gallente 5 on more than one character for that very reason I even had a character that a friend had given me that was trained to minmatar indy v and i took the time training it to gallente v for the LARGEST cargo capacity. So I do take it as a kick in the nuts when there is no valid reason for making another races hauler bigger now.
I personally would be more supportive of removing the racial haulers and going to Ore for all haulers up to and including Jump freighters.
Yes, but compared to the amount of training some missioners and pve players "lost" with changes to stuff like Heavy MIssiles was huge compared to the 2-3 weeks of crosstraining they are talking about with this. Or Orca pilots and all their extra skills.... Or previously crosstrained freighter pilots... the list has so many examples of things that are better/worse than they used to be.
I trained Amarr industrial V because I loved the providence before the reskin (especially the Ark), but also loved that the Impel was the largest hold for the DSTs. If they were making Caldari the biggest hold since the Charon is the big'un of the freighters I wouldn't complain about it.
Most Tengu pilots I know (I know a lot,) had to either go to a battleship at the time, which was rather lackluster and took for most about 40-50 days to train up to) actually switched to Machariel for missions, which I think takes about 70-80 days to really master? I understand that Iteron V pilots were the top dogs for a long time and the only ones able to fly around with those 40k m3 storylines in their holds, instead of focusing on CCP *not* changing your flavor of EVE, be glad you were a part of the hauling history of the Iteron line. |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice
R O G U E
53
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 00:04:00 -
[255] - Quote
Quote: I'm kind of surprised so few of you like the Hoarder though, its pretty hilarious looking.
Eye of beholder, as usual.
Personally, to me the hull is even viable as a "Command Ship" (just by the word, not the t2 Battlecruiser). But I won't push that subject.
Anyhow, there are far "uglier" ships, and they are shiny AND have the new shaders - but who gives a damn.
And by all means, regarding minmatar aesthetics, there should be no question about shiny ships, for the general rule of thumb was always more "looks ugly, and deals wounds equally ugly".
On the other hand, nothing wrong with demanding the swap of hulls. But many others and I had something like that before and all remained as it - nothing happened, and we had to deal with it *sunglasses comes from above and sets on my nose *
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 00:13:00 -
[256] - Quote
Sucya Alldown wrote: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. Yes but the reason some people trained gallente industrial to level 5 was because it had the LARGEST cargo capacity. If they knew the Amarr were going to have it they would have trained Amarr Industrial to 5 instead. I being one that did train gallente 5 on more than one character for that very reason I even had a character that a friend had given me that was trained to minmatar indy v and i took the time training it to gallente v for the LARGEST cargo capacity. So I do take it as a kick in the nuts when there is no valid reason for making another races hauler bigger now. I personally would be more supportive of removing the racial haulers and going to Ore for all haulers up to and including Jump freighters.
Honestly... its nitpicky. Yea the bestower could hold an extra GSC, giving it 800 to 1000 extra room... but lets be frank.. its not a big deal IF they fix up the other industrials and create that "Inbetween a T1 and a Freighter" industrial ship.
Right now everybody scraps for as much M3 as possible because these T1 ships are the best we really have. There low cost, disposable, can move allot of stuff around. If there was a inbetween the slight advantage the bestower has on the iteron would be a moot point.
Since such a ship or fix is on the table though, rage on. Fix the T1's by Fixing the Deep Space Transports. People would have viable options then and not feel "Scorned" because the ships can do what they need to do, and they don't have to worry about a 900 m3 advantage. |
Sucya Alldown
Koolaid and Gummy Bears
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 00:19:00 -
[257] - Quote
Mattk50 wrote: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.
Yeah but most (me included) didn't train gallente industrial v for better manuverability and ehp, we trained it for the largest t1 sub capital capacity. |
Galphii
Clandestine Vector
THE SPACE P0LICE
151
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 00:53:00 -
[258] - Quote
Ah, I've been waiting for this sticky for a while now!
Instead of going for 2 industrials for each race and marginalising the rest, you could split the difference and have 3 for each race if art was willing to make the badger mk3 from the bustard hull, and you add an extra amarr indy. It does appear that the decision to only make 2 industrials per race be the 'official' versions is simply because of amarr and caldari only having two, and I guess art isn't willing to crank out two more models until the next expansion (for simple industrial ships).
Anyway, the stats look good, even if I can't see myself ever flying the wafer thin and super slow cargo indys (aka gank bait) when the quick and tough version can hold roughly 20k. Sigil ftw!
X |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam
Phantom Armada
57
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:00:00 -
[259] - Quote
only two roles?, i was expecting more since the change in the mining ships. the minmatar industrial line was one of the more fitting as an example for this, and you decided to leave it the caldari/amarr way? disappointing
3 roles for industrials would have been better than what you plan, and several people have noted it. instead of leaving 4 industrials in limbo you should have put the plan to create 2 aditional industrials (one for amarr and one for caldari) as the aditional options. and then leave out the Iteron II and IV, then we have 3 industrials in each empire.
now what about those 2 extra industrials?, well, give them some sort of purpose.
|
Ripard Teg
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
683
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:05:00 -
[260] - Quote
Awesome feedback, guys! Please keep it coming! In particular, I'm loving all the posts about the Mammoth, the question of racial "balance", and the question of whether the fast hauler should also be the tanky hauler. For no particular reason whatsoever.
Jester's Trek: wherein I ramble about EVE Online, gaming, and from time to time... life. |
|
|
Dark Stryke
Terrulian Exo Arcologies
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:08:00 -
[261] - Quote
Copy/Paste:
I feel going down the current road is a mistake that just reinforces precedence of bad ship design when it comes to cargo bays. Instead, I would like to see thought given to changing the nature of ship 'cargo bays' when it comes to industrial ship lines, by utilizing a system that's already proven to work - ore bays.
Scrap the notion of industrial class ships relying on low-slot cargo expanders and create a new 'freight bay' that mimics the design of the ore bays. A set size which can only be expanded via ship skills, removes the need for 'fit all expanders' mindsets and balances the armor vs shield crowd in which armor is heavily penalized due to reliance on low slots. You can then start to diversify the ship lines in ways which matter more then just a similar slot layout, or forcing all ships to shield tank to varying degrees. Coupled with this, you could change deep-space transports to have mini-freighter size cargo holds fixing a T2 class which currently doesn't serve much purpose.
Now that you've given industrials and transports back the majority role of hauling cargo, changes can be made to the Orca and Rorqual. Lose the massive cargo bays, increase the size of the ore holds (seriously, 50k in an Orca is a joke in today's EVE) and you've just corrected another somewhat broken section of ships. Of course this would mean an end to the logistics Rorq, something I would probably be savagely beaten for even suggesting by many in the null-sec scene, but there are multiple instances of past history in regards to carrier hauling nerfs which show it was not the end of the world.
So in summary:
T1 industrials and T2 transports gain 'freight bays' with greatly reduced cargo holds (similar to barges now).
Orca and Rorquals have a greatly increased ore bays with corresponding reductions in cargo hold.
Shield vs armor tanked ships no longer have outright winners (shield) and losers (armor).
Cargo expanders still have a role, they're just not the only module that matters on an entire line of ships anymore. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
3780
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:10:00 -
[262] - Quote
For the speedy hauler, is there any chance of sacrificing the 5% cargo capacity for 10% max warp speed? Thus both bonuses would be oriented to less boring hauling flights.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:18:00 -
[263] - Quote
Indalecia wrote:EDIT: also, not making the Mammoth the bulky industrial doesn't seem very logical. Just look at the sheer size of the model! It's gigantic!
Got to agree, this seems strange.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
279
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:34:00 -
[264] - Quote
With all this talk of "specialization" haulers, maybe it's time to develop an ORE line that specializes in having different holds. One could have a PI hold, one an ore hold, one an assembled ship bay, etc. It'd take resources, sure, but it seems that there'd be some demand for it, provided of course that CCP decides to not implement some sort of specialization-holds for the races.
Those holds, btw, should be ore for Minmatar, PI for Gallente, assembled ships for Caldari and a smuggler hold for Amarr. ;) |
Rabbit P
Die Valkyrja
Pangu Coalition
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:35:00 -
[265] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:BADGER
Caldari Industrial Skill Bonuses:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Agility (was max velocity)
Slot layout: 2H(+1), 5M(+3), 5L(+3); 1 turrets , 1 launchers
Fittings: 185 PWG(+135), 950 CPU(+200)
Cargo (capacity / capacity with max expanders, t1 expander rigs and all 5 skills): 3700(-425) / 18588m3
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1440(+1166) / 810(+67) / 2060(+1200)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 127(+7) / .89(+.1) / 10450000(-2300000) / 12.9(-1.1)
Signature radius: 190(-30)
Badger has 5 low
but the 18588m3 maximum capacity come from just 4 T2 expanders
3700(base) * 1.25 (ship bonus) * 1.15^3 (3 T1 expander rigs) * 1.275^4 (4 T2 expanders) = 18588
the maximum capacity should be 23700 if use all five low with T2 expanders
Rise, please double check is it a typo? |
Zaxix
Long Jump.
112
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:36:00 -
[266] - Quote
As a lifetime hauler and pilot max skilled in every single hauling ship in EVE, I come to defend the Mammoth!!! I can't imagine why anyone would call it ugly. It's certainly not as ugly as the Hoarder, which closely resembles a mole (the animal, seriously, look at. Little front digging paws and everything). I've always enjoyed zooming in on the ship as I undock, hit stop, let my speed drop to just shy of warp initialization, then hitting warp and aligning. That ship looks great in alignment, a massive structure that turns on a dime.
In fact, get rid of all minmatar haulers but the Mammoth and give it all the bonuses. All of them!
I'm very disappointed in your art department. For shame, Art Department, for shame!
***Prodigal Frog***
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
442
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:50:00 -
[267] - Quote
I too am curious about the Art's opinion on the Mammoth. I actually like the look of all three Minmatar haulers (why I fly them instead of currently-superior Gallente spacedildos), including the Hoarder, but I don't understand how the Hoarder is better. Certainly the Mammoth could use some touching-up and updating, but that can really be said of all the minmatar haulers - especially when compared to newly-remodeled Matari ships such as the Stabber and Tempest.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
3783
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:51:00 -
[268] - Quote
Also as a Minmatar capsuleer, I take offence at the Art Department suggesting that the Mammoth is ugly. You want ugly? Check out the entire Iteron range. Who wants to load cargo into a long thin phallus? The Mammoth has what it takes to be a Minmatar industrial: capacious cargo hold, speed, maneuverability (after all, when you pay berthing fees you don't want to waste time getting into and out of the berth) and the awesome, minimalistic, engineering-driven design.
I urge the art department to reconsider their direction with Minmatar ships: we are about minimalistic, efficient, engineering-driven design. So please try using the phrase, "pragmatically engineered" rather than "ugly" to describe our ships?
I will ask my fellow capsuleers to be a little forgiving of the art department. We don't want them redesigning our ships in a fit of rage.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
442
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:54:00 -
[269] - Quote
As long as they get redesigned, I'm willing to gamble. |
Narjack
CragCO
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:55:00 -
[270] - Quote
Itty 5 needs its high slot back (for a tractor and its prototype cloak)
Maybe this:
So the Inty 5 or 4 (your choice) specialize it for low sec hauling by allowing it to fit a 10mn microwarpdrive and prototype cloak easily without a bunch of low slots or rig loss to power it up(power rigs or reactor controls).
Hell, leave me 3 high slots, 2 mid slots (ecm burst + 10mn mwd), and 5 low slots. Zero tank, fine by me.
Bottom line give me a hauler that can carry more than a tier II hauler but relies on me using the cloak + mwd trick and my own tacs to avoid SB BS's at the gate. A boat that awards pilot skill and daring over the current cranes and such. But can haul more than the ultra safe true cloaky halers. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |