EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials, Round 2

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials, Round 2

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 18 post(s)
TheSmokingHertog TALIBAN EXPRESS 103	Posted - 2013.06.27 00:19:00 - [271] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Quickly looks at the thread You got it wrong people, you're not supposed to be happy! You're supposed to riot! Set things on fire with the flame wars! Start the threadnaught! Fire ze missiles! Rage! Let the anger consume you! Now I will have no choice but to mention CCP Rise is doing to a good job. Think about it: he's drinking water in a huge jug instead of a regular glass. How twisted can one be to do that? This has to be punished. Why don't you have a signature with your CCP roles? thought he found something to complain about
Molic Blackbird Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium 76	Posted - 2013.06.27 00:28:00 - [272] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Quote: Overall excellent changes, just one thing, will the special edition Ity 4 get any bigger Ore hold? The special edition ships are kind of odd.. Right now I have them set basically as Iteron Vs that are slightly better. I think they should probably stay that way since having a specialized hold seems strange for a ship that goes out for special events to a broad set of players. Do the special edition Iteron Mark IV's get to keep the Quafe bay?
Eladaris RubberDuckies -Entropy- 334	Posted - 2013.06.27 00:53:00 - [273] - Quote Honestly really like the changes! Damn fine job on making the Industrials varied, worth training in more than one race's skill, and at least we have a few fits that won't be all CE's in the lows, all the time. Also glad the PI variant can now carry 2 CC's, without needing to sacrifice it's PI bay to do so. For the folks complaining that we don't get POS haulers, SMA haulers, refining in space haulers, or doing ME research in space haulers (that's a nifty idea), they do strike me as T2 haulers. Whether or not we see more T2 indy's introduced is very up in the air, but it'd be all sorts of grand to see new T2 variants of the new bay'ed haulers. The only thing I really see missing is a hauler capable of moving all the T1 frigates / destroyer you gain from doing the starter missions. Although it's possible at max skills the Bestower may be capable. That's always been the one design flaw I see in the T1 haulers. You give new player's a pile of T1 frig's and 1 destroyer in the starter missions, but they're a cast-iron b!tch to move to a new location for that starter player. Abus Finkel wrote: I see no reason for anyone to train anything other than Gallente industrials if this goes through. Why use any other races if Gallente can do the same plus much more. Because the generic hauler's are ALL better than the specialized bays. If you only carry the things that go into the special bays, train Gall. Indy to I and call it a day. It takes 20 minutes. If you need to carry more generalized stuff you'll have a bay Itty and a Bestower. Sofia Wolf wrote: I really like new industrials. Only reservation is that many of them don't have sufficient PWG to fit MWD and PCD to do MWD trick. This is necessity of survival in low sec, and quite helpful in 0.0, and highsec during wardecks. Minimal PWG that someone noobish with Engineering at lvl 4 can fit mwd+pcd is ~130, so consider upgrading PWG of all industrials that are below that threshold. They are T1 ships, in theory they're designed to die poorly in a low-sec fight. Sparkus Volundar wrote: This reinforces the need for people to train the Gallente Industrial skill if those bays are worth using. Sorry you're upset about losing 20 minutes of training time? Caitlyn Tufy wrote: Deirdre Anethoel wrote: serious hauling will still be done in orca/freighter/JF. The very fact that an industrial command ship is used as a hauler instead of high volume T1 or even T2 industrial ships is a big problem. I don't mind having Orca be a sort of "mobile base" that people are sometimes using it for, but it definitely shouldn't be a stepping stone between T1 industrials and freighters, especially since it has a completely separate skillset. *To make a comparison, it would be as if people would be using battleships to mine more effectively than with Retrievers* / Covetors. Wait... I see what you did there! Because people did use BS's as better miners than Retrievers :)
Vayn Baxtor Community for Justice 57	Posted - 2013.06.27 01:02:00 - [274] - Quote Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes! MUCH better! Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.
Marsan Caldari Provisions 117	Posted - 2013.06.27 01:05:00 - [275] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: The bays are interesting. I was hoping for things like fitting service, or fleet hangar, or a ship maintenance bay. But maybe thats difficult or overpowered. Oh well.... One issue with bays is people who already own the ship. Like I got a pilot with a hoarder, used to haul misc stuff. Now I got to sell it and get some other ship. Good thing I never got around to rigging it! But I can see many players saying " You just make by hauler not able to haul! What am I supposed to do with an interon II with cargo expander rigs??" This entire idea of special bays sure is a two edged sword. But I say keep going with it. Please what numbskull has a rigged mark II. Rigged Mark IV are not uncommon, but to be honest you should just strip the rigs repackage, resell, and buy a Mark V. Unrigged a Mark V will have about the cargo as the old Mark IV. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a hopeful small portion of the community.
Silence iKillYouu KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance 238	Posted - 2013.06.27 01:15:00 - [276] - Quote http://www.gamerchick.net/2013/06/on-haulers-wormholes-and-other-matters.html?m=1 Susan black for ccp EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.
Kor Kilden Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc. Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers 21	Posted - 2013.06.27 02:04:00 - [277] - Quote TheSmokingHertog wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Quickly looks at the thread You got it wrong people, you're not supposed to be happy! You're supposed to riot! Set things on fire with the flame wars! Start the threadnaught! Fire ze missiles! Rage! Let the anger consume you! Now I will have no choice but to mention CCP Rise is doing to a good job. Think about it: he's drinking water in a huge jug instead of a regular glass. How twisted can one be to do that? This has to be punished. Why don't you have a signature with your CCP roles? thought he found something to complain about Is CCP Rise causing his coworkers to rage at their customers by listening to the customers? CCP Rise for immortal demigod of the year!
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 546	Posted - 2013.06.27 02:22:00 - [278] - Quote If you let the mineral bay include refined ice and gas products (including stront) and then maybe let the Hoarder's ammo bay include POS fuel blocks, I do believe the changes will be essentially perfect. Letting the Hoarder's ammo bay be fleet-accessible would be delightful, but it's an "icing on the cake" sort of thing. Also, in the interests of future lolpvp tournaments (and certain industrial-themed roams that currently exist), I do completely support the notion of amarr getting a two-turret hauler. I nominate the Sigil for this role.
Beuf Hunter Viziam Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.06.27 04:40:00 - [279] - Quote The notion of an ammo bay greatly unbalances an already unfortunate workaround, and will only serve to disservice other ships further. Currently, the most common method of compression of ores in wormhole space is the creation of ammunition charges, which are then transported. I believe, you will find this to be the exclusive activity of this ship, and rather than remedy the pre-existing issue with compression ratios offered by the rorqal, you are only serving to further exacerbate the issue. Additionally, I would recommend the ore hauling industrial be capable of hauling at least 2 mackinaw loads worth of ore at the peak skill level, to make such a skill training worthwhile. On the topic of ores and such, it would be unsurprising to find the hauler with drone capability under exclusive service of what is commonly referred to as "afk miners" . For the industrial capable of missile usage, I would sternly suggest two launchers, as most find mixed weapon types distasteful, moreover, the idea of further weaponizing industrial ships is rather novel, half measures lead to half results. I believe if you look to the exquror's armament and defensive capabilities, remove the logistics bonuses, and slow it a bit to float on par with a proper industrial, you may find the proper balance for a combat industrial ship, which may have an ability to survive short excursions through lowsec and chew it's way through smaller gangs of bubble rats between gates. An old adage from the military, " if no one is happy, something is wrong. If everyone is happy, something is VERY wrong."
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 54	Posted - 2013.06.27 04:47:00 - [280] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Alright, here we go. At skill = 5, Wreathe and Bestower have the same max. velocity. Seriously? Align time is irrelevant for "fast-tanky" industrials - no one in their right mind would fly it to lowsec. Velocity is important for them to make autopiloting significantly faster. On contrary, "bulky" haulers are too thin to fly auto. They are to be operated manually and require faster align time to make it a bit less boring. Once again, I suggest to switch speed bonuses between classes, i.e. + velocity for Wreathe, + agility for Bestower. Not really a fan of specialized bays, but I can live with that. Hoarder is crap though, but who cares. And... NERF THAT ORCA! But overall, much better iteration.

Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 55	Posted - 2013.06.27 05:10:00 - [281] - Quote La Nariz wrote: How about one that specializes in fuel like isotopes, stront, and liquid ozone? How about no? Those Iterons are too much already. That would end up having specialized bays for everything. I can only agree with idea of having a POS fueler (bay for fuel blocks), but that should be T2 hauler, and racial blocks only. Could be a good role for Deep Space Transports, because POSes are usually installed out of hisec.
Petrified Old Men Online TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 16	Posted - 2013.06.27 05:12:00 - [282] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: And... NERF THAT ORCA! BLASPHEMY! ;) The Orca did an excellent job of drawing attention to the disparity between Industrials and Freighters. The solution is not to nerf the Orca but make the easier to train to Industrials better. This is certainly a step in the right direction and more tweaking should be sought out. Power Creep with Industrials is what we need. Not nerfing of the Orca (which was already nerfed with the replacement of corporate hangers. Just my perspective.
Luscius Uta Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation 44	Posted - 2013.06.27 05:25:00 - [283] - Quote Although I like the introduction of specialized bays for leftover Industrials, Ammo bay doesn't sound that useful to me (but it could work well on a carrier - though 2000 m^3 capacity would be rather enough), so I would replace it with a commodity bay.
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 366	Posted - 2013.06.27 05:58:00 - [284] - Quote Awesome changes for now. Time will tell if all is of this is good, but there's a lot for new players and finally a reason to crosstrain for established hauler chars. Come to think of it, most of my haulers are currently on a int/mem remap. Dammn... Remove insurance.
Doogan Algaert LETS DO GOOD BUSINESS Death.And.Destruction. Alliance 0	Posted - 2013.06.27 06:01:00 - [285] - Quote Really like the direction of these changes, and about time the indy ships got some TLC. But what about the primae?? Could you please fix it where its actually a bit more useful? Keep up the great work guys, great stuff you are doing. Looking forward to the next expansion already.
Ersahi Kir Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance 202	Posted - 2013.06.27 06:18:00 - [286] - Quote I still really like the update rise, but I think that something was overlooked. The sigil simply fails to be the tanky industrial because of slot layout. The simple reality is industrials are shield tanks because cargo low slots and cargo rigs are disharmonious with armor tanking. After playing around with the numbers a little it really looks like the the specialty of the sigil is lost under real build conditions. Specifically, I see the most general fit for the sigil being 2 LSE II's, 2 shield hardeners, and cargo expander lows and rigs. In this configuration it will have: Sigil 6030 shield HP + 2 hardeners worth of resists 1629 armor hp 629 hull hp (all skills level 0 except for astronomic rigging 5). Compare that to the other tanky aligny ships: Badger (2 meta 4 LSE's, 4 hardeners + max cargo) 5940 shield hp + 4 hardeners 643 armor HP 843 structure HP Wreath (2 LSE II's + 2 resist amps + 1 hardener + max cargo) 6390 shield HP + 2 resist amps + 1 hardener 857 armor HP 737 structure HP Iteron (2 LSE II's, + 3 hardeners + max cargo) 6210 shield HP + 3 hardeners 900 armor HP 851 structure HP The only situation where the sigil really gets to flex it's specialty of highest hp is when 2625 m3 of cargo is sufficient, which would allow you to use all the low slots for a nice armor tank. But again, the reality is that shield tanks are preferable because they allow you to use the industrial to it's maximum hauling potential. I honestly think that the sigil could exchange some of it's armor hp for some extra base shield hp. I also think that if the sigil can't match hardeners it's always going to miss it's intended role, so I think that a 2/6/4 or a 1/6/5 slot layout is required. Just some food for thought. /someone should probably check my numbers to make sure I'm not a moron, I was assuming level 0 skills except for astronomic rigging 5
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris Republic Military Tax Avoiders 177	Posted - 2013.06.27 06:51:00 - [287] - Quote Thought about new changes a bit. Why nerf Mammoth? it was perfectly balanced tanky/cargo industrial be4 your proposed change (31k ehp/7k cargo is just enough to transport mission salvage and loot, and sometimes BPC and faction items and not think about gate campers). Now you destroyed both tankiness (be removing mid slot) and cargo by decreasing base cargo. Example of fit: [Mammoth, Tanky] Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II Salvager I Salvager I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Now you gave this role to badger MKII that will have superior tank and superior cargo. Also: which part of wreathe model screams of "tank"? Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Ricc Deckard Endstati0n The Retirement Club 16	Posted - 2013.06.27 07:03:00 - [288] - Quote I know that it is probably not possible with the current mechanic but a POS hauler would be awesome (aka POS/POS mods/fuelblocks/stront - bay)
Prof Dr Haxxx Copy Hunter's Conglomerate Daisho Syndicate 0	Posted - 2013.06.27 07:05:00 - [289] - Quote Ricc Deckard wrote: I know that it is probably not possible with the current mechanic but a POS hauler would be awesome (aka POS/POS mods/fuelblocks/stront - bay) +1!
Shepard Wong Ogeko GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 508	Posted - 2013.06.27 07:09:00 - [290] - Quote This is not a tiericide. Every bonus is cargo and velocity/agility. Imagine if all the cruisers only had a damage and velocity bonus, and otherwise only varied between a small number of turrets to large number of turrets. There is no other utility here but "hauls cargo" and no real choices except "hauls less, quickly" and "hauls more, slowly". And Gallente get 3 extra-large versions, but limits on what type of stuff can go in them. So not only do we still get tiers of cargo ships, (same bonuses but better base stats) but when you look at the numbers it really comes down to "Battle Badger" or Gallente if you actually what to haul stuff. Cross training is easier, but with these ideas there is no reason to cross train. Gallente Industrial V is Best Industrial V. Give us something more than a little variation in cargohold size and align time. The restricted cargoholds can be saved for some future ORE cargo ship, or some zany Tech3 Industrial. How about shield resists for the Badger, like a quick armored car. Armor resists for the Bestower, for those wanting a big slow brick. Tractor beam bonus is an obvious one to throw on something. I used all that extra cpu to put an expanded probe launcher on my Mammoth, came in handy several times to be able to use combat probes, so a probe bonus would be nice. A fleet hanger with refitting on one or two of them would be useful, and it gives reason for people to leave these ships in space for others who want to hunt them. How about a turret bonus for the Hoarder's 2 guns, or an Iteron with a full flight of bonused light drones. Have a couple options for fighting back. Give Industrials some racial flavor and some interesting bonuses. If you want special bays, a fleet hanger would be far more useful. Make them sexier than just boring old speed vs cargo.

Milton Middleson Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 275	Posted - 2013.06.27 07:19:00 - [291] - Quote What immediately jumps out at me is that the Iteron Mk. II, even with the oversized specialist bay, is still inferior to a regular hauler loaded with the standard array of mineral compression mods. It wins in terms of accessibility, I suppose, but I'd expect that someone really interested in moving minerals around is probably going to ditch it for an Iteron V or Bestower full of compression mods as soon as possible. You might want to consider making that bay significantly larger (or, more radically, making minerals significantly smaller).
Caitlyn Tufy Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 346	Posted - 2013.06.27 07:21:00 - [292] - Quote Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: Also: which part of wreathe model screams of "tank"? Frankly, with Wreathe, I'm not planning on tanking much. With that many lows, I'd rather fit it for pure speed. 3x Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer = 10.37 AU/s, add Nanofibers, Inertia Stabilizers and an MWD and you've got one insanely fast industrial that can still survive some trouble. If I'll need more cargo, Cargohold Expanders can add the needed flexibility. Ersahi Kir wrote: But again, the reality is that shield tanks are preferable because they allow you to use the industrial to it's maximum hauling potential. Why are you using the best tanking hauler if you need maximum hauling potential? Wouldn't you consider that something with more mid slots would be a better idea then? The way I see Sigil used is for very expensive low volume cargo that needs maximum possible defense available at the cost of all the cargo volume. It can still be fit in a different way, but it will always be suboptimal at it compared to other haulers.
My Ling Swing Bells Investment Fund GmbH und Co. KG 0	Posted - 2013.06.27 07:32:00 - [293] - Quote this is going to be wonderful! :)
Kel hound Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 45	Posted - 2013.06.27 07:41:00 - [294] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Abus Finkel wrote: I see no reason for anyone to train anything other than Gallente industrials if this goes through. Why use any other races if Gallente can do the same plus much more. For hauling needs outside of the special bays you will generally get better performance from options other than Gallente. plus if I am reading this correctly we will get the full benefit from the specialised bays with only 1 level in Gal Indy? this is a good change. Ya'll done good by the indys. The one thing I might suggest for these is to allow the ammo hauler to also service refits - ala Jester's fleet tender idea (sorry I don't have the link). As a wormholer can I just say how much I love you for giving all haulers 2 high slots? <3
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris Republic Military Tax Avoiders 177	Posted - 2013.06.27 08:24:00 - [295] - Quote Minmatar have complete line of missile ships now, why didnt you add launcher hardpoint to any minmatar industrial ship. Same with drones and Amarr ships. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Jowen Datloran Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 550	Posted - 2013.06.27 08:31:00 - [296] - Quote Really good changes. Variance is the key. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 55	Posted - 2013.06.27 09:03:00 - [297] - Quote Petrified wrote: The Orca did an excellent job of drawing attention to the disparity between Industrials and Freighters. The solution is not to nerf the Orca but make the easier to train to Industrials better. Most people think that hold capacity is the only factor to choose indy ship. Also they are not completely right, but cargo is important indeed. Orca has a big one - so it performs very good as an indy ship. But it was designed as a mining support! And in fact, it excels in that role as well!!1 On top of that, it's the ship of choice for WH collapsing. Combined, it means overpowered ship that everyone wants. Some time before, it was balanced with skill prerequisites. "Thanks" to tiercide, this is no more. If it's not balanced now, then in 3 or so years CCP recognizes that and we'll get another 50-pages thread full of "REIMBURSE MY SP!!!"
Sable Moran Moran Light Industries 182	Posted - 2013.06.27 09:09:00 - [298] - Quote After reading the Sigil specs I was like 'meh, better but..' then I read the Badger specs and a smile lit my face, after reading through all the ship specs I was grinning like a mad man. Now my co-workers are looking me funny. A job well done Rise, thank you. Iteron name change was mentioned by some people, for the record; I absolutely object that idea. No name change! Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
Phoenix Jones Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 32	Posted - 2013.06.27 09:16:00 - [299] - Quote Milton Middleson wrote: What immediately jumps out at me is that the Iteron Mk. II, even with the oversized specialist bay, is still inferior to a regular hauler loaded with the standard array of mineral compression mods. It wins in terms of accessibility, I suppose, but I'd expect that someone really interested in moving minerals around is probably going to ditch it for an Iteron V or Bestower full of compression mods as soon as possible. You might want to consider making that bay significantly larger (or, more radically, making minerals significantly smaller). That is a specific issue with compression, but the point is still valid. I think we all see a issue with the Mineral Iteron. Essentially it doesn't do enough. If it could also haul isotopes, water, ozone (aka the minerals of processed ice), it would be much less of an issue.
Galphii Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE 158	Posted - 2013.06.27 09:17:00 - [300] - Quote Thanks for these changes Rise, and thanks also for putting up with us sometimes rabid community members. We can be demanding, but only because we want EvE to be the best it can be Love the drones on the itty 1! Very gallente. And I love the specialist haulers, that's the sort of diversity I was hoping to see. Well done chaps! X



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.